to refuse to have my photo on the intranet at work?

[wowfudge]

I've received an email today which says the company I work for is setting up an intranet page for HQ (where I work) which will have everyone's name, job role and contact details on it and we are to provide a suitable photo to go on there. The purpose is so that those people in the wider company who have dealings with us can put a face to a name. We've been given a deadline to comply with this.

I am really not comfortable with this as I don't really know why anyone I only deal with over the phone or by email gives a monkeys what I look like or what difference it makes. When employees from around the company visit here, they tend to seek out the people they deal with and introduce themselves. I also have concerns that someone could use my photo for some other purpose without my knowledge. Plus I am not confident about my looks at the moment and don't want my fat face on there for all to see.

What do you think MNetters? Does anyone in HR know what my rights are on this? I feel pressurised to do something I don't want to do and would like to know how to deal with it.

It certainly makes my job easier to have access to photos of staff - if I'm going into a big open-plan office area looking for 'John Smith' it is far more efficient if I can check out the photo on the directory before I go there, then just scan round the room to find him. Otherwise I have to pick someone at random and ask which one he is, which doesn't give the 'helpful and effective' vibe that people want from their support staff.

Equally, I'm hopeless at associating names and faces, so I may have met John Smith several times, and chatted to him in meetings, while thinking he was actually Joe Bloggs. That quick check of the photo and an 'Oh it's him' moment saves a lot of embarrassment - so I don't end up asking the supposed Joe Bloggs which one of his colleagues is John Smith

We use people's ID photo by default, but let them change it if they prefer, so long as it is recognisable.

Have any of your colleagues expressed a similar opinion as you ?

I don't know PiperRose - I haven't asked. Why does that matter?

Much as I reserve the right not to partake in photo posting on the intranet, cavassing opinion could be seen as trouble making. I prefer to be more discreet when dealing with my concerns.

I don't subscribe to the view that if I choose not to do what the majority comply with I am to be reprimanded or that a note should be made on my (HR?) file, other than to record that I do not wish to submit my photo.

wowfudgew - in your position I would ask if a risk assessment in terms of spear phishing has been carried out.

Please explain Quinteszilla

More poignantly, if you don't trust your company with your data, then they employed the wrong person, and should rectify that, either with education or a P45

Ha Ha Ha. I work in IT and I know that level trust in your company is dangerous. Polices and procedures cannot protect against idiots. I've seen more breaches of the Data protection Act than you can shake a stick at, usually by well meaning, but ill informed people or people who should know better but just don't think things through.

I've also been the victim of stalking behaviour. This is why my face is not on social media with my name attached. I am a Facebook refusinik and any of my friends who upload a picture with my face in it know not to tag it with my name. I do participate in social media but I am very careful to keep things as anonymous as possible.

I'm not being "precious", "narcissistic" or "self obsessed". I'm being realistic based on past experience.

I don't particularly like having my photo taken but get over it. Surely there are bigger battles to worry about.

It is a long shot, but an argument against having personnel information up an intranet. More information here about :
spear phishing

I'd never heard of that Quinteszilla. Interesting.

AMum provides some very good examples of how photos are useful, and there are others throughout this thread. Not being able to appreciate this shows quite a lack of imagination. Wowfudge in your original post you said that people visiting from other offices 'seek out people the deal with and introduce themselves'. How much easier would that be if you already knew what they looked like? Rather than have conversations like:

-"do you know where wowfudge sits?"
-"umm I don't think I know who wowfudge is, I've not worked here very long, can you ask someone else?"
-"I think it's that lady over there, but actually maybe I'm confusing her with someone else?"

Instead they might just pass you in the corridor and say "hello - wowfudge isn't it? - I recognised your face from the intranet, nice to meet you in person at last! I was just thinking about this amazing project we've got coming up, perhaps you'd be interested...?"

Not so complicated is it?

As for the information being abused, yes it's possible. I presume you have your name, phone number and email address on the intranet already. In which case how often have you been:

-subject to rude limericks using your name?
-the victim of prank calls using your phone number?
-signed up to dodgy spam emails using your email address?

Probably not much? I expect it'll be the same with your photo. It's not a high risk and it would of course be a disciplinary measure if anyone abused it.

Which just leaves just not liking your appearance/not being comfortable with your photo, which is just a bit petty I'm sorry. I hate they way my voice sounds recorded, I still have a recorded message on my voicemail. My handwriting is embarrassing but I still write notes for colleagues. We just have to get over ourselves to get on with work.

The FBI link does not really emphasize the threat to the organisation, they mostly focus on the risk to the person working at the company. Spear phishers rarely go to that effort just to get a persons private information, they want access to the company, their people, data and confidential information.

If you got an email that seemed to be from senior management, asking you to log into the intranet to check something or other, and they kindly provided the link, you would think nothing of it, and do as you are asked. You may not even have realized that you logged into a copy cat site and gave your log in details in the process.

Leaps back in....

Our Intranet does carry my picture. I had no choice, they loaded an awful one, I replaced it with a vaguely human one. It shows on our VLE, Virtual Learning Environment, so all students can access it 24/7.

Now, not mine but that of a colleague, was taken and used on a variety of social sites, congratulating the new father on the birth of his baby girl. Not funny as he and his wife have suffered with miscarriage after miscarriage. Turns out a student had thought it would be funny to make sir look like he was putting it about a bit - he knew nothing of the family issues.

So it can and does cause problems for a minority.

We are teachers, students are cruel by nature. This is just something else with which to beat us, occasionally.

Personally, as I said before, having it there directly contradicts Union advice. That is my main problem with it. That and I hate my photograph being taken .

Well Plateof, as you have roundly dimissed my concerns as BU, even with my photo on the intranet, I wouldn't necessarily know who the hell that person who says to me, 'It's wowfudge, isn't it?' on the corridor is because the company is only telling HQ staff to provide their photos, not everyone in the organisation. So how helpful is that?

The irony is, you don't want to have a photo on there because you don't want people judging you on your appearance or drawing attention to yourself (and for the other reasons you stated).

But when you refuse, you will be forever known as the woman in the office who kicked up a fuss about an intranet photo. I would think you were a bit daft after that, and would probably affect the way I worked with you? (i.e. I might not take your opinion as seriously as now I know you can get precious about something as silly as a company photo?)

Be honest, of all yoru reasons, is not liking the way you look in photos the biggest of your issues with this? If so, there's a lot to be said for the fact the company is letting you provide the photo (have they specified how recent it needs to be? I've got some cracking ones of me from my early 20s, far better than anything in my mid-30s), not doing as a lot of companies do when deciding to go with this, of going round with a digital camera and just taking one of everyone, giving you all of 5 minutes notice. (There was a stampede towards the ladies for make up refresh when our facilities manager came round to take photos for our new ID cards).

Also are you allowed to change the photo? so if you do lose the weight, can you add a new, slimmer photo?

In our office, of the non-client facing staff, it's about 50/50 of those who have photos on the intranet, of those who don't in our team, it's all the people who have issues with their appearance.

Hmm - I wouldn't judge anyone who didn't want their photo on the intranet. It's their business after all. I don't believe it is precious to not want my photo on there. If my privacy is protected if/when I refuse, how would I be known as the woman who kicked up a fuss? Only if the person(s) I have dealt with on this cannot respect my privacy. Others can wonder all they like, if it bothers them, why my photo isn't on there.

It's also - to come at things in a completely different angle - a highly visible way of seeing how a company does wrt to inclusion. I will never forget seeing a group picture of my old company's top 200 managers at an event. Ten women, if that. Now granted, that's a group photo but I think it's good to see how many women are at what levels of an organisation.

Mary - I have said before, it's the combination of concerns which makes me reluctant. Maybe my fat face comment was a red herring.

There's no harm in wanting these things to be discussed, thought through and for employers to provide good reasons for what they want to do, rather than nodding through what can become more and more use of personal data.

If only the HQ staff are being asked to provide photos, then surely that's a bit off.

Should be all or none, IMO.

Sorry read the posts since I last posted and still not seeing any sensible reasons but plenty narcissism and paranoia.

As for it being an older person's issue I'm in my mid 50s and don't do any social networking.

As a former employee and now employer in a sector where this has been standard since pcs started to be used in offices I think the objections being raised are in the realm of fantasy. Even on a business public website it's a mugshot and your office address and number which is shown.

Also please bear in mind your ultimate choice of not doing what your employer asks is the receipt of your P45. Unless you had a spectacularly good reason such as being in witness protection refusing this request because you just don't want to isn't good enough.

Times change. When I was a trainee fax machines were a new fangled novelty. Saying we didn't use to have to do that cuts no ice.

My photo is on my company intranet too. My sole reason for wanting its removal is pure narcissism as it's an utterly shit photo and ages me about 10 years. I thought I'd removed it but realised it was only not showing in my Outlook and everyone else got a delightful view of my mug with every email I sent

'Daft', 'precious', 'over-sensitive', 'narcissistic', 'paranoid', 'weird', 'not sensible' and in need of the sack. All for not wanting my photo on the intranet. Call me sanctimonious , but I would rather have respect for people than judge others like that.

Well Plateof, as you have roundly dimissed my concerns as BU, even with my photo on the intranet, I wouldn't necessarily know who the hell that person who says to me, 'It's wowfudge, isn't it?' on the corridor is because the company is only telling HQ staff to provide their photos, not everyone in the organisation. So how helpful is that?

So now you're changing your argument from "it's not helpful" to "it's not helpful enough because it doesn't involve everyone"?

I have no idea why they're only asking HQ staff to do this. Maybe it's easier to start with HQ and roll it out. Maybe there's a perception amongst the organisation that HQ staff are distant and impersonal, and they think putting a face to a name would help people get over this.

But consistency wasn't what you were arguing for to start with. Would you be happy to have your photo up if everyone across the organisation was being asked to do so? From what you've said so far it doesn't sound like it.

It's a very windey road the OP is taking to justify her reluctance.

She states a reason. It gets torn down. She provides another.

I just know the ta-dah moment is going to come with the revelation that Colin down the post room is an ex convict with serial killer fingers and a penchant for doing unspeakable things to himself while looking at Sheila in the print room's polaroids.