You would be acting in the role of the State and would have to be mindful of basic data protection and human rights considerations. As well as considering what the 'terms and conditions' of any social media website are. I think it likely that a social worker and their employer would be sued if they assume prospective or existing foster carers should as a matter of routine give open access to non public social network data. Or that the Subjects under investigation did not give informed consent to such, even if the data accessed is in the 'Public' domain or shared to friends and friends of friends via social networks. Do you ask for copies of all their correspondence, personal letters etc? http://www.facebook.com/privacy/explanation.phpData Protection Act 1998http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998A Bill of Privacy Rights for Social Network Usershttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/bill-privacy-rights-social-network-users- - - - - -Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".“Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights- - - - - -Why not just get the written agreement of prospective foster carers before taking steps that are likely to be illegal or unethical if the above considerations are not adhered to. Though any agree still cannot be used to bypass the above considerations and rights.How far do you 'investigate' any individuals' social network?Maybe the video below represents Joint Visits by Social Workers?
JoSoPhine: Why not just get the written agreement of prospective foster carers before taking steps that are likely to be illegal or unethical if the above considerations are not adhered to. Though any agree still cannot be used to bypass the above considerations and rights.
Why not just get the written agreement of prospective foster carers before taking steps that are likely to be illegal or unethical if the above considerations are not adhered to. Though any agree still cannot be used to bypass the above considerations and rights.
I think this is the best idea to be honest. I am sure most of the potential foster carers would assume you google them anyway (as a foster carer myself, I tend to assume that any information I don't 'lock down' is in the public domain and accessible to the supervising social worker and the local authority) - but it makes things much clearer. I wouldn't assume a supervising social worker looks at my facebook profile (although a) there is actually nothing they'd find particularly interesting there and b) I have locked down all the privacy settings)
We all have the opportunity to lock down facebook profiles etc and by explicitly stating this, it gives the opportunity for privacy to be preserved.
Andy West: It strikes me that in the case of Baby Peter it woud have been very relevent for the mother's facebook site to be accessed as it would have given significant information about her relationship with her partner that had not been pursued in any investigation.
Orwell comes to mind and everyone has Subject Access rights to request copies of any information used in an investigation.
Failures by many, institutional and individual does not justify a Police state.
Outcomes like 'Baby P doctor removed from medical register by GMC' (11-02-11), need reflecting upon rather than seeking guidance on ethical and unethical ways of doing investigations.
JoSoPhine: Andy West: It strikes me that in the case of Baby Peter it woud have been very relevent for the mother's facebook site to be accessed as it would have given significant information about her relationship with her partner that had not been pursued in any investigation. Orwell comes to mind and everyone has Subject Access rights to request copies of any information used in an investigation. Failures by many, institutional and individual does not justify a Police state. Outcomes like 'Baby P doctor removed from medical register by GMC' (11-02-11), need reflecting upon rather than seeking guidance on ethical and unethical ways of doing investigations.
While I completely agree that it does indeed smack of Big Bro I was reading an issue of BASW where recommendations (as common practice) giving advice on home visits such as people to ask to go to the toilet and sneaking into bedrooms, asking to make cups of teas in order to rifle thru coupboards and holding babies to check for broken bones and correct weight.
What is this if not subterfuge and deciet? Surely immoral bearing in mind the protestations of partership and honesty that the profession supposedly hold at its core??
I completely understand that finding the truth takes extraordinary measures sometimes but if a social worker did that in my home then it would be the last time they ever came in!
For the original poster theres another thread on fb somewhere on the childrens services board that has some info i think
You can't bypass privacy settings. Not sure where you got that information from?
If someone has a facebook site they have complete control over who can see what, be it photos, friends, relationships, posts etc. So if you (as a non friend) did look them up you would only be seeing what they had given permission to be in the public domain.
If someone can't set their privacy settings, they probably shouldn't be using it...