Case Study: Inappropriate Tweets

With the right tools in place, you should be able to block, monitor, and report on social media usage. A complete process for managing social media tools should be in place for both the user of social media, such as the Marketing department, and those designated to secure social media usage, such as the IT department. Each group uses different tools. The lack of the right tools and, more importantly, the right processes can cause a lot of damage.

A good example of the lack of both tools and processes is an inappropriate tweet sent by a government employee. In March 2011, an employee of the Singapore government accidently sent a tweet using a curse word on the government’s official Twitter account rather than the employee’s own personal account.¹ The message said “F*** you lah, you same level as me can dont talk to me like tt?” Aside from the bad grammar and “lah” being part of the vocabulary, there seem to be numerous breakdowns in how the Singapore government handles social media.

¹ Jamie Yap, “Social Media Use Puts Business Reputation at Risk,” ZDNet (March 2, 2011), http://www.zdnetasia.com/social-media-use-puts-business-reputation-at-risk-62207284.htm.

What could technology have actually done in this case? In theory, a DLP solution could have blocked the foul language message from being sent out of the network. But if the employee accessed Twitter from a phone or at home, this technology resource would not have helped.

Next, reporting tools should have been put in place to monitor all activity related to government tweets for a faster response. How soon did the government respond? Did the government not know about the tweet until someone notified them?

From a process perspective, what restrictions were in place regarding who could access the Twitter account? Was an approval process used to determine who has access to the official account and were all tweets being sent out subject to a review process?

The process failed in several areas: there was no strict approval process for sending out data that represents the government; employees were not properly trained in appropriate etiquette; and the right tools were not in place to monitor and report on activity.