Showing posts with label TECHNOLOGY. Show all posts

19 January 2019

ELECTRIC SCOOTERS

Pros and cons electric scooters

Pros

1. Ease of Use – the most benefit of electric scooter is undeniably very easy to use. You just need to charge the scooter and you are done. You can use the electric scooter for numerous outdoor activities such as commute to work, shopping, and more. Even when you choose adults kick scooter, there is no difficulty to encounter. In fact, everyone can definitely ride the scooter even in the first and time and no one will actually need a tutorial for that. That being said that electric scooter is very easy to use and versatile.

2. Economical Option – electric scooter for adults are undoubtedly economical vehicle options. This is because there is no need to fill up the fuel tank. As the name suggests, electric scooter depends on electricity. You just need to charge the electric scooter for a couple of hours. Full charged electric scooter can be used more than 2 hours ride. Also, when riding on an electric scooter, you can avoid getting trapped in a traffic jam. You can also ride the electric scooter to places where cars are not allowed such as parks and other crowded areas.

3. Low Maintenance – similar to bicycles, electric scooter is also considered as a long-lasting vehicle. A good quality can last more than 7 years without serious damage under normal use. However, this does not mean that an electric scooter does not need maintenance at all. The general maintenance electric scooter needs usually is battery maintenance after a long-cycle of recharges. The operational cost of electric scooter is in general low because there is no need to buy gasoline.

4. Eco-Friendly – since electric scooter runs without fuel or gasoline, it does not produce harmful smoke or emission. This helps to reduce the amount of air pollution if more and more people use electric scooter. Plus, the electric scooter also helps to keep the environment clean with less air pollution.

5. Mobility – electric scooter may benefit adults to commute from home to work without worrying to catch up in traffic jam. But more than commuting, electric scooter is also beneficial for elderly or people with limited mobility. The electric scooter allows them to move independently without disturbing other people for every activity. This can be a great support for elderly people to keep on active and productive using electric scooter.

Cons

1. Safety Matter – the main drawback of electric scooter has limited safety feature such as sufficient lamp, brake, and such. That is why it is crucial to always stick to safety feature when riding electric scooters such as helmet, additional lights, and such to prevent accidents. Some additional safety feature may be sold separately but you have no choice other than arm yourself.
If you think you can handle the safety matter, the electric scooter can be a great option for transportation. But if you think it is too dangerous to ride it on the road, you may need to reconsider electric scooter.
For elder people, instead of using two wheels, 3-wheels or 4-wheels scooter may be the best options considering the safety and balance matter for them. But still, that kind of electric scooter also require basic safety feature.

2. Battery Problems – as aforementioned that the electric scooter runs on electricity which means you need to charge it before using it every single time. Once you forget to charge, the chance is you will get stuck in the middle of the road due to low-battery voltage. Another problem with the battery is the chance of overcharging. Sometimes we tend to forget to plug out electronic devices from charging. This also happens with electric scooter, but the risk of overcharging may cause lead-acid batteries. If happens for a long time, it can cause damage to the battery.

3. Resale Value – different from car or motorcycle, electric scooter has low after sale value. You have to be ready when it is very difficult to find buyers who actually want to buy a second-hand scooter. Plus, if the battery is damaged and need replacement, the electric scooter is really close to becoming electronic junk and has no market value.

4. Expensive Price – the after sale of electric scooter is not very good compared to the expensive buying price. An electric scooter’s general price is ranging around $500 to $2000. There are indeed cheaper electric scooters, but you are betting on the quality. Plus, electric scooter which comes with charge mileage is more expensive than the average scooter.

5. Time Consuming – if you think of electric scooter for transportation, you need to be prepared with the speed. Electric scooter can only reach 30-40mph which are quite slow if you are going to commute to work. It can be quite difficult to get into the office in time using electric scooter. In addition, the charging time of electric scooter also takes a long time. This means that you cannot just use the scooter right away every time you need.

Spain sees first case of a pedestrian killed by an electric scooter

A judge is investigating the death of an elderly woman who was hit by an electric scooter as she was out for a stroll in the Catalan town of Esplugues de Llobregat last August.

This is the first known case in Spain of a pedestrian getting killed by a personal transporter, and it has raised renewed concerns about the proliferation of alternative mobility devices in cities across Spain.

Last month, Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska said there would be reforms to the criminal code to try to address the conflict between pedestrians and users of these devices.

The minister said that users themselves were “vulnerable,” but added that “they can also cause significant harm to third parties” depending on how they use the device.

Prosecutors and the judge in charge of investigating the August incident suspect that the youth who was riding the scooter was looking down at his cellphone when he crashed into the 90-year-old woman, who was out for her daily stroll with her walker.

The youngster is facing possible charges of involuntary manslaughter, while a second youth who was with him has been summoned as a witness in the case. Sources familiar with the investigation told EL PAÍS that the rider was using the Google Maps app on his phone when he crashed into the woman.

The accident took place on a pedestrianized section of the Rambla del Carme thoroughfare. The scooter was moving at a speed of nearly 30 km/h, which is normal for this type of personal mobility device.

The woman fell and hit her head against the pavement. She was taken to Moisès Broggi Hospital in critical condition, and died a few days later. Several sources said that prior to the accident she had been in good health despite her advanced age, and that she went out for walks every day.

The victim was a familiar figure in the neighborhood, said Manoli, the manager of an upholstery store located on Rambla del Carme. “She was always going up and down with her walker. She was very well-known,” she said.

City bylaws

Several municipalities, including Madrid and Valencia, have already introduced rules banning the use of scooters on sidewalks. In August 2017 Barcelona moved to ban Segways and electrically-powered scooters and skateboards from the historic city center. And the Spanish traffic authority (DGT) is working on national guidelines.

Manoli, the store owner in Esplugues, wants these devices to be regulated in order to avoid new tragedies. “What happened to her could happen to anyone. When I see one of those scooters going by at full speed I get the shivers.”

The deputy director of mobility at Spain's traffic authority, Jorge Ordás told EL PAÍS that his department is looking to set a national speed limit for scooters at 25 km/h.

How Electric Scooters Are Reshaping Cities

One of the biggest stories in technology this year is the exploding popularity of Bird, Lime, Skip, Spin and Scoot. They’re all electric scooter-rental services, and their vehicles are suddenly buzzing along city streets and sidewalks around the world. These start-ups allow riders to locate and unlock scooters with an app. When they reach their destination, they just walk away. Some drivers and pedestrians see the scooters as dangerous contrivances that must be stopped, while some urban planners consider them, along with bikes, the future of city transport.

1. What accounts for the rise of scooters?

Cars often aren’t the quickest way to travel in dense, urban areas. Many cities looked to bicycle-sharing services and bike lanes as a better option for shorter trips and as a way to reduce carbon emissions. Electric scooters, which can cost less than $2 per ride, are an offshoot of that.

2. How prevalent are scooters?

Bird operates scooter services in about 40 U.S. cities, while Lime is in 23. Bird kicked off the trend in late 2017 with its launch in Santa Monica, California, and suddenly it seemed scooters were everywhere. Scores of unattended vehicles on city sidewalks have resulted in pushback from people complaining of urban chaos, and some cities have started to cap the number of scooters they’ll allow.

3. What about outside the U.S.?

This year, Bird expanded to France and Israel. Lime has established a presence in France, Germany and Spain. Scooters are even more prevalent in parts of China, an early pioneer of the market. No company has been able to break into the U.K., however, because of strict laws that classify the scooters as motor vehicles requiring drivers’ licenses and subject to tax and insurance. Even then, regulators won’t allow scooters because they don’t comply with “normal vehicle construction rules.” Riding on the sidewalk isn’t an option, either, thanks to a 19th century law stipulating footpaths are for the sole use of pedestrians.

4. Who makes them?

For now, most sharing services aren’t building their own vehicles. Instead, they buy scooters from Chinese manufacturers, with various levels of customization, and then brand them.

5. Is this a profitable business?

It could be a short-lived fad. Even if it isn’t, scooter companies must have the capital to absorb costs beyond acquiring fleets of vehicles, including maintaining them and charging their batteries daily. There’s little reason for riders to be loyal to one company, and if rivals compete by lowering prices, they could shave away much of their margins. There’s also the question of how city regulations will affect scooter economics.

6. Are they legal?

From the beginning, Bird and Lime said they had learned the lessons of ride-hailing companies, which had alienated many city governments by launching without explicit permission. Then both companies mimicked the “ask for forgiveness, not permission” strategy. As a result, the scooter-sharing companies have faced bans or cease-and-desist orders in a handful of cities, and city lawmakers have been quick to regulate them by requiring permits, limiting the number of vehicles, awarding exclusive franchises and allowing scooters to be parked only in designated areas.

7. Is this the next chapter in the fight over ride-hailing?

Yes and no. The scooter industry is experiencing some of the same problems as ride-hailing, with aggressive start-ups butting heads with local governments. But there are key differences. With ride-hailing, entrenched taxi industries argued that unregulated upstarts had an unfair advantage. There is no such incumbent industry opposing scooters. Urban congestion and climate change have also made alternatives to automobiles more popular with city governments. The controversies over scooters may end up being just growing pains.

8. Is this the future of city transport?

It’s too soon to tell. Bike-sharing hasn’t had a revolutionary effect in most U.S. cities. In many places, weather will make scooters a seasonal activity at best. Also holding them back is the country’s deep-seated automotive culture. Unlike in Europe, riding a bike isn’t seen as something a serious adult does to get around town, let alone taking a scooter. Transportation experts think city governments could change that attitude with protected lanes, convenient charging stations and dedicated parking spaces for scooters.

9 March 2017

I REFUSE TO LET TECHNOLOGY CONTROL ME

21 February 2016

NEW TECNOLOGIES USED TO CHEAT IN EXAMS

THE JAMES BOND-STYLE TECH USED TO CHEAT IN EXAMS

Last year Chinese authorities released pictures of James Bond-style technologies used by students during competitive exams. These included sophisticated vests that link up to a button-hole camera hidden in a pen or watch, used to beam out images of the exam paper to someone outside the hall with a receiver.

The person outside then looks up the answer to the question, and relays it back to a mobile phone hidden on the pupil in the exam hall. The speech is picked up via the mobile, and then sent on to a hidden earpiece.

Officials have launched a crackdown on those helping students to cheat during the 'gaokao'.

In the past criminal groups have been found to be selling stolen exam papers and launching cyber attacks on exam board websites.

The fears come as the technology (Apple Watch shown) allows people to easily search online for the answer to a question, unbeknownst to the invigilator. Until recently, most types of smartwatches were allowed in exam halls. However, schools are now starting to treat them in the same way as mobile phones.

Smartwatches BANNED from exam halls: Universities start to prohibit technology to stop cheaters

Several universities are banning smartwatches in a bid to stop students cheating in exams, it has been reported.

Two universities in Australia are the latest to join the ever-growing list, with one telling students they must stow their watches in a clear bag under their chair.

This means that even students that might have used a regular watch to time themselves will no longer be able to at certain institutions.

The two Australian universities are the University of New South Wales and La Trobe University in Melbourne, Mashable reported. ‘Due to advances in watch technologies the UNSW exams rules have been updated,’ the UNSW posted on their website. ‘No wrist or handheld watches are to be worn or placed on your desk during exams. ‘Watches of any kind must be placed in a clear resalable bag under your exam chair before the exam begins.’

La Trobe University is slightly more lenient, allowing students to place regular watches on the desk in front of them. Smartwatches, though, are not permitted to be taken into the exam hall by the university.

The fears come as the technology allows people to easily search online for the answer to a question, unbeknownst to the invigilator. In the past, students may have preferred to write notes on their arms or palm, but now smartwatches provide a new avenue for cheating.

Until recently, most types of smartwatches were allowed in exam halls. However, schools are now starting to treat them in the same way as mobile phones, which are already prohibited.

These are not the first institutions to ban the emerging technology from exam halls. Earlier this year, London City University was among one of several in the UK to ask students to hide their smartwatches from view - the same rules as for smartphones. And in more extreme measures to stop cheats, just a few weeks ago it was revealed that drones were being used to spy on pupils in China.

Officials in Luoyang, central China, have adopted the high-tech method to monitor students while they take the notoriously difficult tests. The silent-flying drones will hover over students during university entrance exams known as ‘gaokao’, which are taken by more than nine million teenagers every year. The devices will use 360 degree rotations to scan testing halls and locate suspicious radio signals created by hidden earpieces used to obtain the answers to exam questions. They can hover in the air for up to half an hour and monitor activity from heights of up to 1,640 feet (500 metres), according to Chinese news website People’s Daily Online.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-11/technology-making-cheating-on-exams-easier/6687618

Two universities in Australia have banned smartwatches from exams. One bans watches altogether, while the other allows them on desks. The move comes as the technology allows students to cheat in exams. Others have gone further - such as using surveillance drones.

China monitors university entrance exams with drones to catch cheating students

Nearly 10 million Chinese students sat the annual make-or-break university entrance exams, known as the gaokao, or "high test", on Monday.

Authorities have become increasingly concerned about the risk of students using devices such as smart phones — some of which have become smaller and easier to hide — as an illicit aid during tests.

The exam is the only method used to gain entry to the nation's universities, which for poorer children can mean the difference between a white-collar office job and a life as a migrant labourer.

Officials in Luoyang purchased a drone designed to search for radio signals that could indicate cheating students. It would monitor signals from 500 metres above the test site, the paper said.

Photos on the website of the government-run China Daily showed radio engineering technicians using computers and scanning devices to search for signals that could be used to transmit answers to students.

A college student posing as someone else was caught at one test centre, and gave police the names of five other substitute test takers.

Meanwhile, Beijing deployed 17,000 police officers to redirect traffic and increase security at the testing sites, and also set up service stations to treat anxious parents should any suffer heart attacks, the city government said in a statement.

Security at test centres is extremely tight and in the past some schools have banned any metal from the exam room, leading to a prohibition on metal bra clasps.

In past years cheating devices have been found to be sewn into clothes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-09/china-monitors-university-entrance-exams-with-drones/6530958

Smartphones, social media helping students cheat in exams: University of Sydney report

August 2015

The internet and smartphones have made it easier for students to cheat in exams, a new report into academic misconduct at the University of Sydney has found.

The report followed investigations into ways to prevent and detect academic dishonesty and misconduct among students at the university.

The Academic Misconduct and Plagiarism Taskforce completed a number of investigations during May and June 2015, including interviews with representatives from each of the university's 16 faculties.

The report, An Approach to Minimising Academic Misconduct and Plagiarism at the University of Sydney, states, "The problem of cheating in exams is not trivial — a study on multiple choice exams within the university revealed an average level of cheating of about 5 per cent".

The report found social media helps students share stolen exam papers and questions quickly, with several cases of this reported across the university. "Computer security breaches where exams can be stolen are also not uncommon, and any exam that is not changed constantly should be assumed to be in the public domain."

The authors of the report found exam supervision must be rigorous, devices should be confiscated and recommended a solution be found to prevent students using toilet breaks to search the internet for answers.

The report also looked at other forms of fraud and dishonesty, such as fraudulent medical certificates and other methods used to obtain special consideration.

"This can occur in relation to any assessment task, but a large area of concern for faculty is in relation to exams, particularly where students who have attended an exam subsequently claim illness and apply to re-sit the exam at a later date.

"Where the medical certificate has indeed been issued by a medical professional in good faith, there is little that can be done, even if the staff member suspects fraud. "There are also cases where such certificates are faked or even sold."

The report made a number of recommendations covering education, assessment, record keeping, coordination, support and policy changes. Among the recommendations was a suggestion to incorporate at least one tutorial or lecture session in the first year of every course for training in academic honesty matters.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-11/technology-making-cheating-on-exams-easier/6687618

9 January 2016

HOVERBOARDS

- "Self-balancing scooters" are known by various names including "hoverboards" and "rideables".

- Gyroscopes are used to counter-balance and control the speed of the wheels - with some models capable of travelling at up to 12 mph.

- They are banned from use on public pavements and roads in the UK.

- The Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance stating they "are not legal for road use".

- According to the Department for Transport, it is only legal to use them on private property with the owner's consent.

- The same applies to Segway scooters, with one Yorkshire man successfully prosecuted and fined £75 for riding one on the pavement.

- A number of airlines, including leading airline groups American, Delta and United, have banned passengers from taking so-called hoverboards onto flights, saying their batteries present an unacceptable fire hazard.

VOCABULARY

counter-balance: oppose an equal weight (contrarrestar)

banned : prohibited, forbidden

issue: publish

guidance: counselling

consent: approval (with the owner's consent: con el consentimiento del propietario)

to prosecute: to bring a criminal action against somebody for some offence. (procesar)

to fine: charge or penalize (multar)

so-called: called or designated thus ( así llamado, denominado)

hazard: danger (fire hazard: peligro de incendio)

AMAZON TELLS CUSTOMERS TO THROW AWAY UNSAFE HOVERBOARDS

Three of the UK's biggest retailers, including online giant Amazon, are advising customers to dispose of hoverboards amid safety concerns. There have been many online reports of the toy catching fire and exploding. Stores have told consumers they will get a refund if they take their hoverboard to a special recycling centre for electronic equipment. They have asked manufacturers to address these safety issues. Hoverboards are self-balancing, two-wheeled scooters that can transport users like a skateboard, but without using any physical effort. They are currently one of the most popular gifts for children this Christmas and the retailers' decision will disappoint many kids hoping for the popular device.

Electrical Safety First, a consumer protection group in the UK, said that around half-a-million people in the UK have bought a hoverboard as a Christmas gift. Another million people have put it on their shopping list in the run-up to Christmas Day. Britain's largest bricks-and-mortar retailer Tesco said: "We've suspended the sale of all hoverboards, both in stores and online, as a precautionary measure." Amazon said of the call to dispose of the hoverboards: "We regret the inconvenience this may cause you but trust you will understand that your safety and satisfaction is our highest priority." Hoverboards cannot be used on public roads in Britain because they have not been registered as vehicles.

Vocabulary
retailer: store ( minorista)
to dispose of: throw away (desechar)
amid: in the middle of
safety concerns: (preocupaciones/motivos de seguridad)
get a refund: get your money back ( conseguir un reembolso)
issue: question, problem (safety issues: cuestiones de seguridad)
currently: now, at present ( actualmente)
device: gadget, machine ( aparato)
run-up: preceeding period (víspera, período previo a)
bricks-and-mortar: existing physically, not virtual (establecimiento tradicional ( de ladrillo y argamasa, no virtual)
precautionary : calling for caution ( precautionary measure: medida de prevención)
inconvenience: something that causes discomfort or trouble (molestias)

2 March 2013

CHEATING WITH MOBILE PHONES (VOCABULARY)

17 December 2012

Technology

The governments spend a lot of money on developing or buying computer technology and now we are in crisis and we need to spend the money on other things that are more important than technology.

Firstly, nowadays technology has become an essential thing, but at the same time it isn't so necessary because without technology we'll not die, yet we can't work with computer, etc. In my opinion, to have a house for sleep, a job to have money and have a clean city is more important. Furthermore, now spain is in crisis and for that reason the government should spend money to save the country and not to buy digital whiteboards or computers for all students at school, because this thing isn't necessary to live.

To conclude, the governments have the priority to give to the people a place to have a job and a good city to live and then, if the people have this basic things, the government could spend the money on developing or buyying technology.

Miriam Romero Lladó

12 December 2012

Nowadays, there's a lot of controversy about what governments have to spend money on. In my opinion, governments should spend more money on technology.

Firstly, I think that technology is our best chance to improve our lives or even "evolve", not from a biological point of view but from a social one. Secondly, since the Industrial Revolution, technology has been our friend and without it we wouldn't be what we are now. Lastly, if countries develop new technologies, other countries will buy them, and you can get more income than what you have spent.

Some people will say that this money will be better spent on basic needs, such as food, but technology is not only Tvs and PCs, it can be also useful in our dayly life, for example technology improved our agriculture centuries ago, making our life easier and providing us with more food.

In conclusion, I think that technology is the solution to many of our problems and that money is well spent on it.

7 July 2012

CYBER SPIES: Why one tweeet could cost you a job

This is the link to the article where your last selectividad exam was taken from. As you will see, they summarised the following article. (your selectividad text in bold)

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/cyber-spies-why-one-tweet-could-cost-you-a-job-2339361.html

The internet has brought about a head-on collision between our personal and professional lives. A neatly presented online CV outlining a calm approach to high-pressure situations might stand in stark contrast to a Flickr album featuring pictures of that person screaming at a police cordon during a protest march. A reputation for high-standards of written communication might be compromised by a sequence of misspelled, expletive-filled rants on Facebook.

Wary of being brought into disrepute by the online misdemeanours of its employees, many companies implement social media policies that punish transgressors with disciplinary action; indeed, it's reported that 8 per cent of companies have dismissed people for inappropriate online behaviour. But far less is heard about those whose applications for new jobs fail because of things they've left visibly strewn around the internet.

An American firm by the name of Social Intelligence is gaining a high profile in the USA following the launch of its web-based pre-employment screening service, and the subsequent green light given by an initially suspicious Federal Trade Commission. But the evidence suggests that the practice of digging dirt on the internet has quietly become endemic among employers; you might think that you're being judged on the information you send them, but it might be the things you choose not to reveal that end up denying you the post. And you may never find out the real reason.

Social Intelligence has stated that its activities have very precise boundaries. For each applicant it investigates, a 'deep trawl' is done through the last seven years of blog comments, forum contributions and even classified ads that might have been posted, along with any visible social media content. From that data, a dossier is compiled of specific material that could be seen as dishonourable – eg, examples of racist language, mentions of drug-taking, photos of a sexually explicit nature, or references to weapon usage or other violence.

Those who've failed the Social Intelligence test include one person who made an online enquiry about a possible source of the pain reliever Oxycontin; past dossiers have also included details of membership of borderline-racist Facebook groups such as 'This is America – I shouldn't have to press 1 for English'.

We can't pretend that background checks are a startling innovation. Recruitment and headhunting services base their decisions on more than just the positive information they're initially handed; referees might be asked for personal opinions, professional insights and any other potential leads that would help to build up a better picture of a candidate. Indeed, you could say that old-school recruitment processes such as employee referral schemes and family business connections also operate pre-employment filters, based on the potential candidate's personal link to the company in question.

But employers are increasingly aware of and keen to use the huge informational resource that social media serves up on a plate; all kind of information is in the public domain, and incredibly easy to find – particularly if the applicant has an unusual name. As the chief executive of Social Intelligence has said, with something of a corporate shrug, "All we assemble is what's publicly available on the internet today". Nothing underhand going on here, they say; the company believes that the information is out there to be evaluated.

Of course, the vast majority of people haven't uploaded pictures and text to establish a corpus of data that could be used to microscopically analyse their attitudes towards everything from immigration to giving money to charity; most people have done it because they've been encouraged to do so by online companies dangling the carrot of friendship. Finding people who share your interests, rather than putting off prospective employers who don't. But both are undoubtedly happening.

"This probably started around four years ago," says Chris Purdy, director of Greenfield, a specialist recruitment business based in Luxembourg. "The appearance of networks such as LinkedIn and Xing changed the methodology of how we headhunt; if we wanted a quick reference on a name we heard about, that became the first place to go. But we know that HR departments don't stop at LinkedIn."

One might wonder what level of unacceptable behaviour would cause those departments to rule someone out of the running, but it's clear that the more senior the role, the more scrutiny applicants will be subjected to. "Your online reputation is part of your professional reputation," says Purdy. "If, say, a man is going for a private banking post that puts him in charge of €200m portfolios, pictures of him wearing a thong at a stag do aren't going to go down well."

Few users of social media would emerge from close analysis without some kind of stain on their character. Swearing, sarcasm and stupidity are rampant; we're fallible human beings, after all, and these services are designed to capture every facet of our personality. With Social Intelligence trawling back over seven years of material, growing older and wiser doesn't count for a great deal, either; past indiscretions will come back to haunt us. Mat Honan, an employee of the gadget-guide website Gizmodo, subjected himself to a Social Intelligence check which he failed, thanks to passing references to cocaine and ketamine that he'd made on his blog. But was he being judged unfairly? After all, someone following a spoof BNP Twitter account that satirises racist attitudes could mistakenly be labelled a racist themselves, and a debauched post-party photo might have someone mistakenly tagged as being in it when they aren't. This isn't an exact science; your online bill of health is down to the skill and judgement of whoever's tasked with performing the diagnosis.

According to Angie Youels, who performs HR-related services for small start-up companies, the interest in digging for a bit of colour on a candidate is down to the increasingly unhelpful information that's made available via traditional sources. "Part of the reason this is happening, in my view, is because references are so uninformative. Candidates know that they can find out what's been said about them, so rather than give a reference, they tend to just give dates of employment. In the past they'd have given fuller details."

Bearing this in mind, the airbrushed, one-dimensional and characterless profiles presented on sites like LinkedIn almost feel like an invitation for more invasive, exploratory digging. But there's a danger in digging too far. Companies will become aware of facts that they're legally not allowed to ask as part of the normal screening process. Details of age, ethnicity or political views will inevitably surface – as might, say, a female candidate's pregnancy. Once this information is known, it can't be somehow forgotten. Social Intelligence is predictably keen to highlight the fact that its service keeps such information at arm's length from the companies themselves; Mat Honan's dossier, for example, had his face blacked out throughout so as not to reveal his race, while still detailing his past encounters with drugs.

"I think it would be terribly wrong for someone to be influenced by the fact that a candidate held, say, different political views to theirs," says Youels, "but that's the danger – that people will be rejected because of their stance on this or that." The answer, according to Alexandra Arnott, a director at Octopus, an IT recruitment specialist, is honesty and diligence. "We may become aware of private information or opinions of candidates that are not relevant to the role or recruitment process we're following," she says. "So we must adhere to a strict ethical code and use our judgement and experience to ensure that there is no discrimination."

The process of choosing someone to work for you has always and will always be based upon judgements. Someone might miss out because of a covering letter written in a state of anxiety, or a job interview performance that was less than sparkling because they were feeling unwell. Gut instinct comes into play, and it can't always be quantified. If you have two CVs for a post, one listing "eating granola and doing yoga" as an interest, and the other mentioning membership of Camra, that information will register; a job that involves lots of post-work socialising might suit the beer-drinker better – but the granola fan might be angry that they lost out on that basis. Yet that's life; workplaces are full of people who don't fit in perfectly with their colleagues, and it's not unreasonable to suggest that social media searches could give employers a better idea of how that person might slot in.

As Chris Purdy says, it's human nature to be drawn to people with similar views as your own. "Someone with liberal views isn't going to want to take on someone with strong right-wing views – or vice versa," he says. "Fortunately, most of us don't put objectionable stuff out there. I don't think it's as big an issue as it's made out to be."

So are the gasps of horror in the US surrounding Social Intelligence merely paranoia? And is this just another example of us feeling adrift in the sea of confusion caused by the social media phenomenon? It's possible that, in time, companies will find that the hours spent scouring the internet for personal information isn't that productive, and that filters that gauge personal inclinations might work better. Network Rail, for example, has a 'culture quiz' which tests applicants for its graduate and advance apprenticeship positions against the culture of the business; if they score badly, they will not be encouraged to apply. Then there are tests devised by companies like SHL, that assess how a candidate fits with the requirements of the role – ie, proactivity, attitudes towards change, ability to deal with stress; these might not only provide a better assessment than a glance at a Twitter account, but they also remove some of that potential bias.

"If you've got nothing to hide," say those who are unconcerned about privacy issues, "you've got nothing to fear." This clearly isn't true; the prospect of our online presences being misjudged means that we might have nothing to hide, but something to fear. One solution: monitor your social media profile actively, suppressing anything that might compromise you. Don't indulge in cross-dressing – even for fun – or be photographed next to a load of marijuana plants. This, of course, may showcase you as being incredibly dull, but perhaps it's better to be safe than sorry. Alternatively, we could wait for Generation Y – the group most at risk from all this – to assume the hiring and firing roles currently occupied by the baby boomers. Perhaps they'll show a greater tolerance of the errant but very human behaviour that's displayed online.