Group items tagged

Global employers still have trouble finding the right people for open positions, even as candidate resumes pile up amid recession. A global talent crunch has eased slightly, but is set to worsen in coming years because of demographic trends, according to an annual survey by global employment services company Manpower Inc. Worldwide, 30 percent of employers reported trouble filling positions because of the lack of suitable talent, down slightly from 31 percent who said so a year ago, according to Manpower, which polled 39,000 employers in 33 countries. While many more people are looking for work, they often lack the skills, or experience, that employers need.

More likely, a lack of competent recruiting talent.

When it comes to online privacy, we all appreciate the risk of publicizing juicy factoids such as incriminating photos or credit card numbers. But few of us realize a subtler threat: In abundance, innocuous, everyday data can divulge sensitive information as well. Some questions shouldn't be asked. Employers, for instance, generally are not allowed to discriminate based on marital status, sexual orientation and so on. But our growing digital footprint is threatening our ability to dodge inappropriate inquiries. Through data mining, employers, insurers, advertisers and others can infer the answers to private questions without even asking. They need two things: a heap of personal data, and the techniques to crunch it. Both are readily available. People generate and share more information than ever before. Besides consciously generated Web content such as blogs, Facebook profiles and YouTube videos, a steady stream of data is exchanged in the background. Companies track our searches, browsing and shopping behavior. Personal electronic devices can silently disclose our location while we post status updates and photos to the Web. All this seems innocent enough - and the more others do it, the safer we all feel. After all, what's one more Twitter update among millions?

It was the annual crunch time between Thanksgiving and the new year, and Nuala O'Connor Kelly had just sent to the printer the first-ever report to Congress by a chief privacy officer. This was it, the historic reporta 40-page description of what O'Connor Kelly had been doing during her first year as the first CPO of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Like addressing concerns about DHS's policies with privacy officers from other countries. Examining the department's growing use of biometrics. And reading irate e-mails from the public about controversial initiatives like the Transportation Security Administration's passenger screening program. If O'Connor Kelly was nervous about the grilling she was likely to get once members of Congress got their mitts on her report, she wasn't letting on. "It's actually a great moment for the [privacy] office to sit back and take stock of where we are now and where we're going for the next two, three, four, five years," says O'Connor Kelly, dashing from one meeting to the next with one of her staff members. At the time, O'Connor Kelly was the only federal government CPO whose position was mandated by law and who was required to file an annual report to Congress. But this seemed on the brink of change. Congress's consolidated 2005 appropriations bill, signed by President Bush in December, contains a provision thatdepending on how the White House's Office of Management and Budget interprets itwould create a handful or more of CPOs at federal agencies.