Resume Database Nightmare: Introduction

Report home | Next section

Pam Dixon, during the course of researching a separate study of resume databases, has discovered serious consumer privacy issues in resume databases that rise to the level of deserving immediate consumer notice. This report, below, highlights her findings.

The report itself is comprised of a consumer notice, which is based primarily on public documents. The report also contains policy recommendations and job seeker tips.

The complete study findings along with an extensive consumer guide will be published later this year.

The author has joined forces with the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a non-profit consumer advocacy organization, to disseminate the consumer information in this report.

Information about the Author

Pam Dixon is an author and researcher conducting a year-long study of privacy issues impacting job seekers. The study is funded by the Rose Foundation Consumer Privacy Rights Fund.

Ms. Dixon is the author of seven books related to technology, with two books specifically about online job searching. She is the author of the Privacy Foundation’s 2001 report on the privacy practices of Monster.com, and she is the principal investigator for the Online Job Search Privacy Study.

Summary of Report Findings

The information in this alert was obtained from public documents that have already been published unless otherwise noted [1].

HotResumes.com sold 4, 941 resumes and/or email addresses [2]. (See Appendix A for a copy of the published invoice of what is described as a “resume sale.”)

Legal documents indicate that a Mr. Jason Monastra, while he was the owner of Biotechcareers.com, a job site focused on biotechnology-related jobs, gained paid access to health and biotech-related resumes [3]. He downloaded thousands of resumes for his use [4]. Mr. Monastra was using the resumes to create an internal resume database [5]. Medzilla, Inc, a prominent health, pharmaceutical, and biotech job site, sued Mr. Monastra over this matter [6].

Four large biotechnology and health related job sites exist: Medzilla, HireHealth, BioSpace, and BioView. Thousands of job seekers’ resumes were taken from Medzilla, a prominent health, pharmaceutical, and biotech job site [7]. According to telephone interviews with each of the other companies , [8] company representatives told researchers that Mr. Monastra did access resumes at HireHealth in fall, 2002. BioView told researchers Mr. Monastra accessed its resume database in August 2002, and was stopped immediately. BioSpace told researchers its resume database was not accessed by Mr. Monastra.

Legal documents indicate that Medzilla notified the jobseekers whose resumes had been downloaded by Mr. Monastra of its lawsuit and related issues. [9]. (A copy of the Medzilla notice to jobseekers is in Appendix B. )

__________________________________

Endnotes

Documents used in preparing this consumer notice include:

[1] Medzilla, Inc. v Optimum Intelligence LLC, et al Case No. CO2-2122R, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. The entire Medzilla v Optimum Intelligence case file, including the exhibits, was used in preparation of this consumer notice.

Also:

HotResumes.com privacy policy, located at http://www.hotresumes.com/index.cfm?tid=privacy.cfm .

Also: HotResumes.com Frequently Asked Questions page. http://www.hotresumes.com/index.cfm?tid=faq.cfm .

Biotechcareers.com http://biotechcareers.com/

http://www.archive.org .

Case filings nationwide through electronic court filing databases.

FTC site, including http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/index.html ,http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/stat1.htm and documents available at the FTC site.

[2] M edzilla, Inc. v Optimum Intelligence LLC, et al Case No. CO2-2122R . Case file. Also: Declaration of Jason Monastra in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel , Exhibit 3, Invoice of HotResumes.com “resume sale” to Biotechcareers.com. Invoice is #628, dated November 30, 2002, described as “Resume Sale,” and marked as paid.

[3] Medzilla, Inc. v Optimum Intelligence LLC, et al Case No. CO2-2122R . Case file. Also: Declaration of Jason Monastra in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Paragraph 7. “On July 12, 2002, I opened an account with Medzilla and paid Medzilla $550 for the right to enable Optimum to access Medzilla’s resume database.”

[4] Medzilla, Inc. v Optimum Intelligence LLC, et al Case No. CO2-2122R. Case file. Also: Verified Complaint for Breach of Contract, Fraud and Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition. Section III; : Declaration of Jason Monastra in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel , paragraph 8 “Over the course of several weeks, Optimum Intelligence obtained approximately 2,400 resumes from its Website.”

[5] Medzilla, Inc. v Optimum Intelligence LLC, et al Case No. CO2-2122R . Case file. Also: Declaration of Jason Monastra in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Paragraph 8. “Acquiring the resumes was to create an internal resume database…”

[6] Medzilla, Inc. v Optimum Intelligence LLC, et al Case No. CO2-2122R Case file. Also: Verified Complaint for Breach of Contract, Fraud and Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition.

[7] Medzilla, Inc. v Optimum Intelligence LLC, et al Case No. CO2-2122R. Case file. Also: Verified Complaint for Breach of Contract, Fraud and Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition. Section III; : Declaration of Jason Monastra in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel , paragraph 8 “Over the course of several weeks, Optimum Intelligence obtained approximately 2,400 resumes from its Website.”

[8] Telephone interviews with Pam Bailey of BioView February 12 and 14, 2003. Telephone interviews with BioSpace executives February 11 and 12, 2003. Telephone interviews with Chris Amato of HireHealth, February 11, 2003.

[9] Medzilla, Inc. v Optimum Intelligence LLC, et al Case No. CO2-2122R . Case file. Also: Declaration of Jason Monastra in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Paragraph 14 contains the text of the email notice.

Roadmap: Resume Database Nightmare – Job Seeker Privacy at Risk: I. Introduction

Report home | Next section

Posted February 22, 2003 in Job Search Privacy, Online Privacy, Report: Resume Database Nightmare - Job Seeker Privacy at Risk, Uncategorized

New Report: Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools

We are pleased to announce the publication of a new WPF report, “Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools.” This report sets out a definition of AI governance tools, documents why and how these tools are critically important for trustworthy AI, and where these tools are around the world. The report also documents problems in some AI governance tools themselves, and suggests pathways to improve AI governance tools and create an evaluative environment to measure their effectiveness. AI systems should not be deployed without simultaneously evaluating the potential adverse impacts of such systems and mitigating their risks, and most of the world agrees about the need to take precautions against the threats posed. The specific tools and techniques that exist to evaluate and measure AI systems for their inclusiveness, fairness, explainability, privacy, safety and other trustworthiness issues — called in the report collectively AI governance tools – can improve such issues. While some AI governance tools provide reassurance to the public and to regulators, the tools too often lack meaningful oversight and quality assessments. Incomplete or ineffective AI governance tools can create a false sense of confidence, cause unintended problems, and generally undermine the promise of AI systems. The report contains rich background details, use cases, potential solutions to the problems discussed in the report, and a global index of AI Governance Tools.
National IDs Around the World — Interactive map

About this Data Visualization: This interactive map displays the presence...
Report: From the Filing Cabinet to the Cloud: Updating the Privacy Act of 1974

This comprehensive report and proposed bill text is focused on the Privacy Act of 1974, an important and early Federal privacy law that applies to the government sector and some contractors. The Privacy Act was written for the 1970s information era -- an era that was characterized by the use of mainframe computers and filing cabinets. Today's digital information era looks much different than the '70s: smart phones are smarter than the old mainframes, and documents are now routinely digitized and stored and perhaps even analyzed in the cloud, among many other changes. The report focuses on why the Privacy Act needs an update that will bring it into this century, and how that could look and work. This work was written by Robert Gellman, and informed by a two-year multi-stakeholder process.