It’s Probably Not Okay to Send Naked Pictures on LinkedIn | Hacker News Reader

It’s Probably Not Okay to Send Naked Pictures on LinkedIn

bloomberg.com

56 pointsp17b55 comments

Open articleView on HN

I completely agree that it was not right for the sexual misconduct to happen in the first place. Not debating that at all. That is wrong on all levels. But...

>LinkedIn is an extension of the workplace, similar to going into the office or attending a corporate networking event, the theory of the case goes.

I don't get how that could ever be legally enforced? Wouldn't a lawsuit like this would forever change LinkedIn if they won? Not even related to this sexual misconduct that started this, I could easily see so many people bailing from LinkedIn if it was somehow considered an extension of your workplace directly. This will be really interesting to see what happens next with this.

I too am curious about how they will define LinkedIn.

From a mannerism/general code of conduct - I agree that it should be treated like an office or work-related event.

Legally - it's a weird stance. If it's a direct extension of your workplace what will that mean for NDAs and corporate policies? Do they "own" the rights to all information you post while working there? What happens when you move on?

The owners of an office building or event venue don't get any of those privileges either, and yet the office and work-related events are unambiguously governed by workplace rules. The fact that LinkedIn is not your employer doesn't seem like a big problem.

Sort of - LinkedIn may combine things from different employers or seeking of a new employer, which your current employer may not at all approve of. So you can't really apply workplace rules to it directly.

You could say the same thing about hallways in an office building with multiple tenants, but I don't think it's legally ambiguous whether propositioning your coworkers outside the restroom is more appropriate than doing it in the office.

Definitely - heck, you could argue any interaction between coworkers like that could impact the job.

Just that many other such interactions that occur on linkedin might not, so job rules really don't apply just because it's work related but more because you're dealing with a coworker.

I disagree strongly. LinkedIn's primary purpose is connecting talent with people who want to hire that talent. Spending my work time looking for a new job would be bad. Recruiting people for a new venture I'm starting while at a work event would also be bad. Doing either of these on linkedin is more than acceptable, it's the whole point.

If you are using a company account under which you represent the company, you presumably are doing things the company wants -- such as recruiting others to come work for that company. You also are subject to the company's policies, just as if you were interacting with someone in the office.

None of this should be surprising to anyone.

It probably won't affect LinkedIn much, even if the courts were to rule strongly in favor of the plaintiff. Reason being is that this guy was using his work account, meaning he directly represented the company. If it was his personal account that he uses for himself only, I doubt there would be a case at all. But this fool was using the company's account and directly representing the company, just as would be the case if they were talking on the phone or face to face. If he's conducting company business, the general rule is that the company is responsible for their employee. That's pretty much always been the case. The fact that this happened on the internet or, specifically, LinkedIn, is largely meaningless. That's why I don't think it will affect LinkedIn at all. Employers already know the risks about choosing who represents them.

> Reason being is that this guy was using his work account, meaning he directly represented the company. If it was his personal account that he uses for himself only, I doubt there would be a case at all.

Ohhhhhh. Wow, yeah, if that's the case that definitely changes it more. I didn't realize that very distinct difference, I missed that part in the article. I didn't know LinkedIn had "work accounts." I just assumed all the accounts were "personal." I just thought it meant like they were messaging from their normal "personal" profiles and because he had "x" company set in his LinkedIn that meant he was "representing x company" in this context. This makes a lot more sense now knowing that detail. Good catch! :)

It's very unclear from the article. LinkedIn does have various services for companies but, in the context of this article, it's not at all obvious that this is something equivalent to a company's twitter handle.

While I certainly think of LinkedIn as largely a professional thing (and would never send these sorts of messages regardless), some of the discussion further down in the story seems off-base. At some level, I'm associated with my company in all non-anonymous or pseudonymous social media but beyond that level I'm not sure why LinkedIn would have some special status because LinkedIn likes to position itself for professional networking.

The article didn't make it clear if it was a personal or a company account, but the interaction began with him trying to recruit her. So clearly in this instance he's representing the company, regardless of what account he's using.

Oh agreed. Even if we were talking about a personal email account (which would admittedly be odd), the same would apply. I was more referring to some of the comments further down in the article that seem to argue for LinkedIn having some special status as a network only for purely professional interactions.

The information about account is in the sentence "received sexual messages from a banker—using his corporate account—who had been trying to recruit her."

Yes. I read that. I also know that LinkedIn has paid services such as company pages as well as for sharing content. And LinkedIn may have special paid accounts for recruiters that I'm not aware of. However, other comments further down in the article from the company suggest this was just a regular old LinkedIn account. Hence "unclear."

This is mostly about shaming the guy. Whether or not the allegations are true (I didn't see the evidence), his name is forever besmirched. I did laugh a little when I googled the guy's name.

It also can't possibly be true. You don't have to be employed to be on linkedin, ergo it cannot be the extension of a workplace under all circumstances.

The guy was using a company account.

That doesn't make the statement "LinkedIn is an extension of the workplace" true.

Acting in a disreputable way while wearing clothing that represents my company could get me fired, but that doesn't make the local supermarket an extension of my workplace just because I walk in there with a company shirt.

If you walk into a supermarket wearing clothing that represents your company, and you say "I am a representative of the company, acting here in my official capacity as that representative, and what I say and do here reflects the policies and positions of the company", then you better believe you'd get busted the same way this guy did.

Which is, metaphorically, what happened here: when using the company account you're not a private citizen in a t-shirt with a logo; you are the company.

See also: apparent authority, the agency law doctrine that deals with the situation you described.

>then you better believe you'd get busted the same way this guy did.

Yep, I /totally/ agree with you. Still doesn't make LinkedIn an extension of the workplace.

Please think about what that means for at least one second. For most software engineers, if LinkedIn is an extension of the workplace, then by the wording of their employment contract (which invariably includes IP ownership clauses for everything done in their capacity as an employee), their employer owns all their content on LinkedIn, and could request it any time.

That potentially makes it very hard for software engineers to use LinkedIn on a private account to look for a new job without their boss knowing.

Again, you gloss over the single most important phrase: when using a company account.

Absolutely no-one has expressed a desire to lay claim to your personal LinkedIn account. If you continue to argue that this is about personal rather than company accounts, I will interpret as a sign of explicit bad faith on your part.

This doesn't follow at all. You could just as well say, "You don't have to be employed to be in a business office, ergo a workplace cannot be a workplace under all conditions."

This is semantic gymnastics around the word "workplace," not a reasoned evaluation of the circumstances or whether it's reasonable to expect workplace-appropriate standards of behavior on LinkedIn.

>You could just as well say, "You don't have to be employed to be in a business office, ergo a workplace cannot be a workplace under all conditions."

False equivalency, the vast majority of people in a business office on a day to day basis are employees of that business office.

LinkedIn is a /recruiting website/. Unemployed people are a key part of it's core demographic.

> I could easily see so many people bailing from LinkedIn if it was somehow considered an extension of your workplace directly.

I think it's important that in this case, the LinkedIn account being used was that employee's work account, used to represent the company for company business (recruiting), normally during work hours. It wasn't the employee's personal account.

I'd liken it to a uniform. A uniform is in the possession of the employee, it even has their name on it and is their size. It also has the company's name on it and it's clear that someone wearing it is representing the company.

This is like if someone wearing a uniform came up and started harassing you.

I don't think your uniform example follows. Is someone in that uniform who doesn't actually work for the company still representing them?

If they're employed by the company and off the clock, yes. If they're impersonating someone from the company, yes, but fraudulently.

I'm talking about another case, they are not employed by the company, and not pretending to be an employee, but are currently wearing the uniform.

This isn't possible. The act of wearing the uniform constitutes pretending to be an employee.

Most important part of the article is that the offender is a recruiter:

> Jane Doe alleged that a recruitment conversation on LinkedIn took a turn for the inappropriate when she received sexual messages from a banker—using his corporate account—who had been trying to recruit her. One of the messages included a photograph of his genitals.

So "It’s Probably Not Okay to Send Naked Pictures if you're a recruiter representing the company" would be a more accurate title, but it wouldn't be as interesting of an headline.

Similarly that if you're a recruiter calling someone or having a dinner with, you shouldn't attempt to seduce* the maybe-future-employee since that's clearly an abuse of power. Lawsuit or not, that recruiter should be fired.

I don't think the medium (phone company, restaurant you're at, or Linkedin) should be held responsible and Nowhere on this article it says the plaintiff is suing Linkedin, she's suing the company that recruiter works for.

* For some people apparently, sending a photograph of their genitals seem to be a "seduction" technique, but even if this was more tactful flirting, this is already not ok.

This is tangential but somewhat related. I'd like to see a day when if someone publishes something on their personal account (not official work account) whether it be social media, private conversation, etc. that those actions not affect their "life for hire" (work) life.

That's the way it has been for ages (what one would say in one's private time was detached and unrelated to public time).

I hope we can get there because humans are not perfect and we will always say regretful things. Things which if held to account as if representatives of a company would carry different weight. People should be able to voice their own opinion separately divorced from their "professional persona".

In other words, someone from UAL when in "uniform" should conduct themselves professionally --but once they go home and don their personal attire and their personal opinion (even if negative) should not affect their professional standing. For example, flight attendant has to deal with egotistical high profile passenger --as a professional they should be able to handle things gracefully, but once they get home as a private citizen they should be able to say "I had to deal with a nasty traveler today" without the company coming down and saying "don't demean our paying customers even if they mistreat you, that is unbecoming, you are fired".

Unlike email accounts (firstname.lastname@company.com) or accounts at various services and vendors tied to those emails (such as Photoshop, Jira, etc), many, if not most Linkedin accounts stay with people across jobs. In case of Sales Teams or Recruiters, companies might pay or reimburse for the premium services that Linkedin monetizes, and the employees might use Linkedin in the day-to-day work, but they're also likely to look for other jobs, build non-work related professional connections, etc.

TIL: There's a niche opportunity for a LinkedIn for the adult entertainment industry.

That's called Twitter for professionals and Tumblr for amateurs.

I guess PornHub works pretty well as an IMDB analogue.

Or an opportunity for Jian Yang at LinkedIn.

When anybody pretends to be authorized by a company, and employee is in conversation with authorized person, than both the company and individual shall be held liable for sexual harassment

Linkedin is failing big time to control spam and impersonation. Keeping these social media clean is next big challenge for the tech world.

The article also states, a few other anecdotes.

A recruiter who uses LinkedIn to send unsolicited messages on the platform for professional gain was upset she received unsolicited social messages. She was unable to recognize the irony.

Another businesswoman was actually a reality TV star from Trump's the apprentice. She left the platform because the lines blurred from social/entertainment/career and she was getting harassed.

IDK, I feel for this woman but I am not convinced seeing dick pick entitles her to millions from a company she isn't affiliated with. Coming from the Susan Fowler thread, I really feel for her. This seems like a money grab

What is the connection between this and Fowler? Seems like two completely separate issues involving entirely different people and industries?

While I don't condone that banker's behavior in any way, I want to mention that I pretty much refuse to speak to any women where I work unless I absolutely have to. It's really the only way to remain safe in such politically correct environments.

I think something important is being lost in our day to day interactions with colleagues and not only that, but much has been taken away from our personal lives when we deal with overbearing rules. Again, not condoning the 'dick pics' that was way out of line, but merely observing that life in the US is just not any fun in or out of the workplace.

I can't even imagine trying to date in a an environment where your professional life is threatened merely by opening your mouth at all.

Also, there's a double-standard--women harassing men is overlooked by men, but when it goes the other way it is never overlooked. So unless a man's overtures of friendship are immediately warmly welcomed (and subject to later rejection, natch) that person's job is at risk.

Meanwhile, the C-Suite and higher echelon folks are all in bed with each other, which is the other double standard.

Every place where people can communicate is a place where they can proposition. If you're thinking of changing this, give up now while you have your sanity.

LinkedIn is a social network which prominently displays professional credentials. I have dated women I've met on LinkedIn and it's gone just fine (granted, nobody I was doing business with, that is unwise even if not illegal).

The question of the case, in my estimation, is Is it unlawful to send a picture of your genitals to a person who works with your company over a channel you might also use for business communications. This gets into all sorts of complicated matters; for example, is it unlawful to MMS a picture of your genitals to somebody who does business with your company?

Is there a precedent for a similar case but with a different medium? If the precedent did not penalize the defendant, is there something about LinkedIn or another detail of the case which distinguishes it?

Did you start out the conversation with genital photos? Because I keep hearing about guys who do that, and it's just never made sense to me...

I don't think that's effective, I don't do it. Ogi Ogas & Sai Gaddam did some analysis which would suggest that dick pics are not effective, given that imagery of penises (and visual stimulus in general) is not a major factor in female arousal. From a personal "moral" perspective I don't see myself doing that.

Excellent question nonetheless. Nobody really seems to think much when they do things like this.

I think the reason men* send dick pics is because they (the men) are naturally aroused by imagery of penises, and think that women will be similarly aroused by it. It's probably a lot like a women giving complimenting a man on social stature, confidence, or competence, and maybe not understanding that he probably won't understand what she's getting at.

* Edit: referring to straight men in this case

Are you saying that gay men are trying to find female dates by sending them dick pics? I have to say, those gay men sound quite confused ...

Maybe I wasn't precise enough, but I'm not sure exactly how you're reading that. Gay and straight men would, following this research, be more aroused by imagery of penises than women. The dick pic sending instinct would probably be, if not absolutely successful, relatively more successful than it is for straight men. All men (gay and straight) appear to look to chests, penises, and butts for visual cues to sexual arousal.

Straight men are aroused by penises? And sending dick pic by linked is instinct?

I think you could have avoided the downvotes (edit: and be more correct IMO) if you just said that the men who send dick pics to women are the type that would welcome women sending intimate pictures of themselves.

Edit: I am not wondering about the motives of straight women sending nude pictures to men; I am just giving a more plausible reason than what I think you gave as to why some men might think the idea could be effective. (i.e. looking at how they might react to it). Besides, isn't the point that a person sends photos of themselves?

> I think you could have avoided the downvotes if you just said that the men who send dick pics to women are the type that would welcome women sending intimate pictures of themselves.

But that would be nebulous, inaccurate, and entirely beside the point. I have no evidence of the statement you just suggested, and I would not suggest it. The fact is that no man, straight or gay, is currently litigating for the privilege not to see other sex nudity on LinkedIn InMail; thus it makes no sense to wonder about the motives of straight women who send nude pictures to men on LinkedIn for attention.

Aside: I don't care about avoiding downvotes, I'm not an agreeable πerson (in the psychometric sense). I don't think life is worth living if you strive to only say things that people won't disagree with. For example, watwut on the other subthread is shocked, probably shocked enough to downvote and move on, that I would say that straight men are sexually aroused by imagery of penises. I don't care. If I look at my statements for the last month or so, there's a mix of positive and negative feedback, the balance happens to be roughly +100 karma, but I don't so much care as long as I have enough karma to upvote.

I suspect, after dealing with many men of this type, that they are simply juvenile frat boy types who believe they are alpha status males. Some get away with it because they're rich. These are men used to getting everything they want and who are used to basically purchasing their women.

Seriously, are there documented cases of a man sending a picture of his genitals to a woman he is not in a relationship with and the woman indicating she is now interested in him? I can't figure out if guys are just clueless, if they are bad at statistics, or if it really does turn into sex often enough to make it worth the attempt.

It's one thing to ask about dinner plans after asking if it's alright to make personal conversation. It's another to go from recruiting a prospective employee straight to propositioning someone for casual sex and sending graphic images.

There's no way to misread the situation that badly. He just assumed it was okay to send a photo of his genitals to someone with whom he'd been having a supposedly professional interchange. That's not okay.

What kind of not okay, though? Is it a faux pas or an offence?

If it's a faux pas, the professional outcome is distrust and failure. If it's an offence, the outcome is legal penalties.

I'm not defending the actions of this man. In terms of his moral, ethical, or social outcomes, I'm sure it's not a good action. That said, I have a hard time agreeing with the legal argument: that the use of LinkedIn turns your personal communications into business communications. This has potential for broad legal implications which have nothing to do with workplace harassment. The use of LinkedIn does not, in my view, turn your personal communications into workplace communications.

I think the expectation is set that it's professional by being on LinkedIn. I think the bigger issue Doe's case addresses, though, is that he was using it to conduct business with her and shifted that contact to unwelcome sexual advances. It being on LinkedIn makes her argument that she expected it to be professional contact stronger I think, but is not in itself the issue. The issue with harassment is, as always, that it's unwelcome and inappropriate to the situation. LinkedIn is just part of the situation in this case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com