[HN Gopher] Google breaking European privacy law by hoarding per...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Google breaking European privacy law by hoarding personal data of
       job candidates
        
       Author : isaacfrond
       Score  : 136 points
       Date   : 2023-05-10 14:37 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (fortune.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (fortune.com)
        
       | justinclift wrote:
       | https://archive.is/jhpB1
        
       | erosenbe0 wrote:
       | In the US you have to keep certain records for EEOC purposes and
       | if an applicant comes back within the statute of limitations with
       | such claims, you need supporting documentation. Four weeks is
       | definitely not customary.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | jruohonen wrote:
       | "Maslouh was last year a 34-year old employee of Randstad, which
       | was contracted by Google to identify potential job candidates and
       | enter their publicly available information--derived from services
       | such as LinkedIn--into gHire, Google's applicant tracking
       | system."
       | 
       | At this point it is probably well-presumed that LinkedIn leaks to
       | who-knows-where. Therefore, the real punchline is:
       | 
       | "When he accessed the system with authorization, Maslouh noticed
       | the excessive age of some of the European personal data within
       | it, and also noted that many of the records for so-called passive
       | applicants--who had not actively applied to Google-- showed no
       | evidence of Google ever having reached out to them. Many of these
       | individuals were listed as working for organizations such as
       | Interpol, the CIA, the U.K. Home Office, the European Parliament,
       | and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission."
       | 
       | I've always wondered the apparent gullibility of people who
       | should probably know better, including those working at, say,
       | INTERPOL. That said, the CIA stuff is presumably fake, given the
       | huge amount of fake personas curated in LinkedIn over the decades
       | for all kinds of nefarious purposes.
        
         | Macha wrote:
         | Amazon has gotten contact addresses for me from Gravatar being
         | hacked, so it's not just a matter of "you should have known
         | linkedin will share with anyone". Recruiters, even at major
         | tech companies, are very don't ask don't tell with the vendors
         | that will get them direct contact details for an extra couple
         | of percent in response rate.
        
           | reaperducer wrote:
           | _Amazon has gotten contact addresses for me from Gravatar
           | being hacked, so it 's not just a matter of "you should have
           | known linkedin will share with anyone"._
           | 
           | My cat gets spam to his facebook-catname@example.com address.
           | 
           | I created the address to segregate his mail from mine. It was
           | only used to sign up for his Facebook account.
           | 
           | The cat is long dead, but he still gets spam from whomever
           | Facebook sold/leaked/trusted partered his information to.
        
         | randominversion wrote:
         | "Maslouh was last year a 34-year old employee of Randstad,
         | which was contracted by Google to identify potential job
         | candidates and enter their publicly available information--
         | derived from services such as LinkedIn--into gHire, Google's
         | applicant tracking system."
         | 
         | GDPR defines that it does not apply to individuals for "purely
         | personal or household activity and thus with no connection to a
         | professional or commercial activity."
         | 
         | Now if you check the LinkedIn T&Cs your LinkedIn account is
         | your _personal_ account, e.g. it is not your employers account.
         | 
         | So anyone using their (personal) LinkedIn account in the course
         | of their job (or other professional/commercial activity) is
         | then potentially subject to GDPR.
         | 
         | In the case of Maslouh, based in London, performing work for
         | his employer, Randstad, who themselves were hired to do this
         | work for Google presents a problem with respect to GDPR and
         | his/their "processing" of people's personal data from LinkedIn.
         | 
         | Basically it seems that Maslouh is acting at the very least as
         | a Data Processor (and perhaps likely as a Data Controller
         | himself in which case he must register with UK ICO and pay the
         | annual fee) by retrieving personal data from LinkedIn using his
         | own account and then transferring that personal data into
         | Google's gHire system.
         | 
         | If Maslouh had used a Randstad LinkedIn account to do so then
         | he personally wouldn't be directly affected by GDPR, though
         | Randstad would - however LinkedIn AFAIK do _not_ offer company
         | accounts at all (rather they provide mechanisms for companys to
         | pay for features that specified individuals ' accounts can
         | access).
         | 
         | So does Maslouh have a contract in place with Randstad for his
         | to act as a Data Processor for Randstad? Does Randstad have a
         | Data Processor contract in place with Google which indicates
         | that Maslouh is a sub-Data Processor?
         | 
         | I raised this fundamental GDPR-related issue of LinkedIn
         | accounts being personal accounts and the implications for
         | recruitment people (both employees of a company and also
         | "contractors" of recruitment agencies) with the UK ICO when
         | they had a "Future of Recruitment" consultation (last year?
         | 2021?). The published ICO consultation document from memory
         | made a vague passing reference to LinkedIn-related implications
         | not currently considered.
        
           | Macha wrote:
           | LinkedIn defining an account as a personal account does not
           | have any bearing on whether the activities someone performs
           | with that account are their personal activities or their
           | employer's business activities in terms of GDPR enforcement
        
             | randominversion wrote:
             | It means someone is using their own LinkedIn account, not
             | their employers - in the same way that there are
             | implications if you use your own personal laptop rather
             | than a company laptop (i.e. where personal data is stored)
             | or your own personal email account rather than a company
             | email account...
             | 
             | The individual's account is giving them access to view and
             | copy other people's personal data on LinkedIn...
        
         | jwestbury wrote:
         | > That said, the CIA stuff is presumably fake, given the huge
         | amount of fake personas curated in LinkedIn over the decades
         | for all kinds of nefarious purposes.
         | 
         | Plenty of people have open employment with the CIA. They likely
         | need to get specific approval to post that on LinkedIn, but I
         | guarantee many of them are real.
         | 
         | Source: Previously held TS/SCI clearance at an intelligence
         | contractor. (I don't recommend cleared work, though, and I've
         | been out of that world for years, thank God.)
        
           | jruohonen wrote:
           | Sure: plenty of people all around the world are quite open
           | with their work on agencies, which I think is a good thing as
           | such. I am just saying that this openness probably then
           | implies that the whole LinkedIn is at the databases of
           | GRU/SVR, MSS/MPS/UFWD, cyber criminals, and whatnot.
           | 
           | Thus:
           | 
           | On one hand, I cannot say whether that matters; CVs and such
           | are probably worthy of being public for most people. On the
           | other hand, identity theft is an ever-increasing menace.
           | 
           | As for fake personas in LinkedIn, there has been quite a lot
           | of academic research on this topic. Though, like in social
           | media, the ratio of real/fake is difficult to contemplate.
        
             | mikeyouse wrote:
             | There were some fun examples of CIA or NSA folks getting
             | approval to post their roles on LinkedIn - but then adding
             | far too much detail to their profile which exposed
             | previously-unknown intelligence programs.
             | 
             | From one talk when it became public in 2015;
             | 
             | https://youtu.be/xipI-0HU010?t=371
        
           | erosenbe0 wrote:
           | If you have open employment at the CIA it is a semi-public
           | record. All of the usual things apply like employment
           | verification and creditors or family courts tracking down
           | paychecks for garnishments. I have no idea what the social
           | media policy is though.
        
         | 666satanhimself wrote:
         | [dead]
        
       | H8crilA wrote:
       | Devil's advocate: someone wants more attempts at Google's
       | interviews?
        
       | treis wrote:
       | This seems a little bit hysterical for trawling LinkedIn for
       | recruitment targets. Seeing that's, y'know, basically the entire
       | point of LinkedIn.
        
       | oatmeal1 wrote:
       | https://archive.ph/jhpB1
        
       | lesuorac wrote:
       | > "If they cannot have a deletion process in place that is good
       | enough, then why did they collect the data in the first place, if
       | they knew it?" Kissler asked.
       | 
       | It always shocks me how prevalent leaping before looking is.
        
       | rsynnott wrote:
       | Huh, a couple of years back, I got an email from [enormous tech
       | company, not Google] saying that I was no longer under
       | consideration for a role. This confused me at the time, as I had
       | never applied to them (they did pester me on email and LinkedIn a
       | bit, and continued to do so on LinkedIn even after this email)
       | but I wonder in retrospect did someone realise "hey, this data
       | might be a bit GDPR-y" when looking at scraped data and choose
       | the wrong option when removing it...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-05-10 23:01 UTC)