Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Elliot Zuckerberg defines the site as a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them.

He doesn't call it a glass house for employers to spy on job applicants.

But that's exactly what many employers are using it for.

A survey from Toronto, Canada found 12 percent of employers always or usually use online job search engines and social networking sites to research job candidates. Only 32 percent report they do so on occasion. The information on the survey came from 281 hiring managers and human resource professionals, and 511 workers.

The survey also reported approximately 19 percent of employers say they are likely to start using or increase their use of these resources to research job candidates in 2008. Nineteen percent doesn't seem like a big deal, but look what happens when the number of employers surveyed increases.

Vault.com's Social Networking Web Site Survey of 700 employers showed 44 percent are using social networking sites as an informal part of the referencing process. This percentage is a big deal.           

According to the Federal Trade Commission, government agencies in the United States, Canada and Europe have been studying, over the past quarter century, how entities collect and use personal information. Their research resulted in some guidelines representing widely-accepted principles of fair information practice - guidelines employers using Facebook for background checks should take note of.

Consent is the second principle of such practice. Customers must have a chance to learn how entities use personal information collected from them.

Some entities let consumers opt-in or opt-out. In online environments, privacy settings are a more common form of consent.

Zuckerberg gives users multiple privacy settings to choose from. These settings allow users to control who can see what on their Facebook profiles. But users need to be aware that these privacy settings aren't foolproof - and employers have already found ways around them. Most users rely on the "Network" privacy setting, but this is an easy setting to bypass. 

A more shielding option for users is the "Friends" privacy setting. When selected, this setting prohibits individuals from viewing a user's profile unless they are confirmed to be a "Friend" of that user.

Employers may figure out a way to bypass this setting as well, but they should be aware, that by doing so, they are participating in an unfair business practice and are showing a complete disregard of that user's right to consent.  

Lance Choy, director of the Career Development Center at Stanford University, told The Stanford Daily that employers use Facebook to check up on job candidates for several reasons:

• Employers might be able to confirm background information.
• Students write about their interests; employers might want to check on whether this supports their job application.
• Employers might try to learn something about the student's personality and whether it would be appropriate for the job.

However, information on Facebook not relevant to the job may be used inappropriately by employers to assess a candidate.

It doesn't matter what their motivations are. These "online background checks" are unfair and invasive. Employers argue that if applicants post information about themselves on a public domain, they have forfeited their right to privacy.

If a pregnant woman goes to a restaurant where wine is being served, and she drinks it simply because it's available, do we justify her doing so?

Employers can easily access information on applicants by viewing their Facebook profiles, but the fact that the information exists doesn't justify their accessing it. Besides, most students aren't using Facebook to expose themselves to the world - they're using the site to keep in touch with friends.

Students shouldn't be penalized for using advanced technology to help them do something that's hard to do with their busy schedules. 

Employers taking advantage of this are acting like peeping Toms and should be ashamed.