I'm not sure im ok with this. Social worker/Facebook

[notacooldad]

I was talking to some social workers before our zoom training meeting started.
We were talking about caseloads and one says that she always has a quick look to see if the child has Facebook. She'll look through to see who their friends are and says a lot of kids don't lock their profile down so she can get an insight to the child.
Some thought it was an invasion of privacy, someone else said it was in a public space. I just think I feel like banging my head against a wall because young people aren't listening when I'm doing internet safety sessions and keeping safe!!
What do people think? Should the SW snope? I can see both sides tbh but wouldn't want to do it.

I use it all the time in my line of work. Not related to children or SW but if people don't set their profiles to private it's out there to be seen

Nope. You might think that. Read what I have said. It’s a matter of professional standards.

People seem to be missing the point. It might be public but it does not mean that as a professional you can simply access it. There has to be a justifiable reason.

Would a vulnerable child whose behaviour/ circumstances has brought them to the attention of social services in the first place not constitute justifiable reason?

I'd have assumed it was all part of building the bigger picture for safeguarding purposes.

@Frenchdressing

You can quote as many professional standards as you wish.

Nobody will ever admit to doing it, but they are.

So those of you saying it's against professional standards...

Why was my friends complaint against CMHT staff rejected then when they accessed her FB and blog and then discussed that information in private AND group therapy? It was rejected by both healthboard and the individual professional bodies (nurses, Drs and social workers) as being an issue?

The reason given was her FB and blog were public information. There was no way they could claim to have not read it. Her blog was deeply private - she used it as a diary (yes I know very unwise) and they quoted from it. She never discussed things she put on there with them so they couldn't possibly have known.

She deleted all of her online presence over that as she became very paranoid over who was reading what she put up. Yes Id had discussions with her but she'd been on social media since before she was a teen and was determined no one would read it.

She deleted all of her online presence over that as she became very paranoid over who was reading what she put up.

The whole flaming point is that it's accessible to anybody who cares to search for it / stumbles across it, if you haven't the nous to protect it.

I think it's fine for SW to do that, may give insight they would not otherwise have.
Also, when I was recruiting I would search to see if applicants had a FB page and if it was public I'd look at their postings.

@Butwasitherdriveway

No. Not cool.

Why not?

@GreyhoundG1rl of course. I suspect part of her being extremely vulnerable and mentally ill she simply didn't get that people would read it. Her logic being she was a no body. No one ever commented. She had no followers on her FB. So she assumed it was "safe". Of course it wasn't. I had the conversation with her repeatedly. Unsurprisingly her mental health nurse, social worker and psychiatrist did not. Because they were reading it.

That aside I'd still like a reply from those saying its against professional standards when professional bodies said it was not. It's public information.

That aside I'd still like a reply from those saying its against professional standards when professional bodies said it was not. It's public information.

I'd like to hear this too

@GreyhoundG1rl

Would a vulnerable child whose behaviour/ circumstances has brought them to the attention of social services in the first place not constitute justifiable reason? I'd have assumed it was all part of building the bigger picture for safeguarding purposes.

Yes but the decision to access SM would need to agreed and documented and the reasons clear.

If you look, there is guidance for many professions about accessing public SM. Recruiters can leave themselves at risk of complaints about bias.
For example ACAS say.....
Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) employers must give job applicants certain information about how their personal data is collected and used. Commonly this is done via a privacy notice.

If social media screening forms part of the recruitment process, the privacy notice should make this clear (in the section outlining where personal information comes from); and set out the legal basis for processing the data. In this context the legal basis might be because it is necessary to enter into a contract; comply with a legal obligation; or for the employer's legitimate interests (e.g. to select suitable employees, workers or contractors).

If any of the data amounts to sensitive personal data (e.g. details of sexual orientation) then one of the additional processing conditions needs to be set out too, for example to exercise or perform employment law rights or obligations.

Screening candidates on social media can provide a host of information, for example regarding the candidate's age, ethnicity, religion, health, sexual orientation and family life. This is problematic for employers - the Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate against potential job candidates on the basis of these protected characteristics.

Acas warns that screening social media profiles can facilitate unconscious bias. For example, if an employer views a candidate's profile and becomes aware of, or has a perception of, their age or ethnicity for example, they might unknowingly form a judgement. If that person is not interviewed and they bring a discrimination claim, defending the claim becomes more difficult when their social media profile has been viewed. As the employer was aware of the candidate's protected characteristic it could be argued that this influenced the recruitment decision, even if it didn't.

@GreyhoundG1rl

She deleted all of her online presence over that as she became very paranoid over who was reading what she put up. The whole flaming point is that it's accessible to anybody who cares to search for it / stumbles across it, if you haven't the nous to protect it.

It is but it doesn’t mean others SHOULD access it without provisos. Otherwise we start moving into the world of surveillance. This then begins to compromise the HRA. Potentially the Equality Act and GDPR.

I have no idea about the person mentioned above. The vulnerability of someone is usually a defensible reason to access SM so I guess the health trust followed their own protocols wrt this.

I don’t think social work is comparable to working in other fields such as recruitment. As a previous poster said we are registered and sign up to a code of ethics that we should uphold.

I don’t think accessing social media of a service user is necessarily against our professional standard, but I think it depends on the context. Looking up someone on a work device, for a clear and documented safeguarding reason and using the information in an appropriate manner is obviously very different to someone routinely looking up people they work without a specific need to do so.

I have used social media in the context of finding evidence of a parent allowing someone to be around a child who shouldn’t be allowed around the child, also for trying to find a young person. I have never just randomly looked up someone I work with without a specific reason.

I remember hearing of a local authority who used a private investigated to follow a parent during care proceedings. They were highly criticised by the court as it was deemed a breach of privacy and bad practice, although it wasn’t technically illegal and the evidence gleaned was allowed to be used.

No, the response said its public information, anyone can access it. No standards were breached. As a "borderline" she wasn't considered to be ill nor was she considered to be vulnerable (again in her notes). To be clear this is how the diagnosis is viewed where I live not everywhere.

I don’t think standards are breached necessarily by accessing info if they follow a protocol I suppose. Would need to know their guidelines.

It sounds fishy to me though. To take a patients online writing, discuss it and use it, without her consent. At the very least it’s poor practice.

It an ethics question really isn’t it. It’ll never be black and white.

Who did your friend complain to, the specific mental health team or the social work regulatory body (whoever it was at that time).

It isn't snooping if the profile is public. If anything she is doing them a service by making them realise that anyone can see what they post.

@EineReiseDurchDieZeit

I think its bloody good way of seeing how vulnerable a child is actually.

Agreed.

It's not 'snooping' on a child.

it's giving a damn about their circumstances.

This is commonplace practice. The focus is child protection. If they didn’t check a public profile it would be negligent.

It is not commonplace. Only if required and authorised with legitimate and defensible reasons.

I look at it this way. The street outside your front door is open to the public – just like your social media account on no privacy settings. Anyone can stand in that street. If they stand there, they can see your front door, and if you don’t close your curtains, can see into your house. But if it is a member of the state does that then they either need your permission or an authorisation to conduct surveillance without your permission.

It’s the same here – just because you’ve left your curtains open doesn’t mean that the social worker can stand outside your house in a public road and look through your window whenever they want.

@LadyMacbethWasMisunderstood

This is commonplace practice. The focus is child protection. If they didn’t check a public profile it would be negligent.

Do you work for a local authority social care team or agency?

Yes

I am also working with someone who is doing research into digital surveillance in social work. I’m no expert obviously but it’s a complex area. I think public sector organisations are still trying to find a way through all of this.