Under a new HR policy that could have been borrowed from the Stasi, public servants now have to think twice before clicking "like" on a Facebook post criticising the Federal Government, writes Greg Jericho.

Social media use by public servants has always been a tricky endeavour, but on the weekend it was revealed that things have become rather more precarious - especially for those working in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

On Sunday, Samantha Maiden reported that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet had issued new social media guidelines that included a clause instructing employees that there "is an expectation" to dob in colleagues if they see them do anything on social media that might contravene the code of conduct. Such things included being "critical or highly critical of the Department, the Minister or the Prime Minister".

Before 2012, the Australian Public Service Commission's guidelines on social media use were greatly different to what exists now. They used a much lighter touch and were the reason why as a public servant I was able to blog under a pseudonym on politics and media coverage.

The rules required you to be professional and respectful, saying also that "as citizens, APS employees should also embrace the opportunity to add to the mix of opinions contributing to sound, sustainable policies and service delivery approaches".

But in 2012, the Australian Public Service Commission brought in what were colloquially referred to as the "Jericho amendments". Suddenly, commenting on anything regardless of whether or not it was within your work area was potentially off the table.

The new guidelines made it a contravention of the code if anything you did on social media "could be perceived" as "compromising the APS employee's capacity to fulfil their duties in an unbiased manner". While this was particular to comments made about "policies and programmes of the employee's agency", it could be applied to other matters.

And just to make clear the work-related-only rule no longer applied, they also included a clause specifying that you were not allowed to make comment that is, or could be perceived to be:

... so harsh or extreme in its criticism of the Government, a member of parliament from another political party, or their respective policies, that it raises questions about the APS employee's capacity to work professionally, efficiently or impartially. Such comment does not have to relate to the employee's area of work." [my italics]

While "harsh or extreme" sounds fair, I'm aware that some departments are taking a very broad view of what that constitutes. Moreover, the guidelines further state that you cannot do something which could be perceived as merely being "unreasonable criticism" of an agency's clients or other stakeholders.

If that bar isn't low enough, the final clause in the guidelines is a nice catch-all regarding anything that might "compromise public confidence in the agency or the APS".

And anything can, if a department wishes to believe it does.

In the past, public servants who were visible online always had to worry that a person who hates public servants (and there are quite a few!) might send off a letter to your department complaining about something you wrote or tweeted. Now PM&C suggests fellow employees are expected to do it as well.

Given the APS already has issues with cyber-bullying, I'm not sure how this will improve things.

Working for PM&C is different to most other departments. They deal with pretty much every portfolio. But it is hard to believe that someone from PM&C using a pseudonym with a couple hundred followers could reasonably compromise confidence in the public service or their department were he or she to tweet criticism of Tony Abbott while watching Q&A.

And yet if a fellow worker knew about such tweets, they would be expected to report them. And if they didn't? Would that now also contravene the guidelines as well?

It's always good when your HR policies feel like they came from a Stasi handbook.

Most public servants are not blogging or tweeting like I did, and even fewer have a desire to gain any prominence from their blogging. Most are just acting like everyone else - chatting on social media with their friends about topics of interest, including politics.

The reality as well is that most work done by public servants has no political implications at all. Public servants who are biased and who undermine confidence in the APS are not those who tweet things; they are the ones who act like Godwin Grech did and leak information to the opposition.

Is "liking" a post written by a friend on Facebook attacking Tony Abbott now a contravention, or retweeting a Kudelka cartoon that skewers Bill Shorten, or linking to a post on The Drum criticising Abbott's paid parental leave policy? What if you complain about child-care rebates on a parenting blog site? Is that criticising government policy?

In the past I would have said no. But departments now can build up dossiers of tweets and blog posts. One joke about Chris Pyne during Q&A won't cost your job, but 20 similar ones written over two or three years can be put in the file and used against you.

They won't care that you were replying to a friend and it was seen by at most 20 people.

Ironically, public servants are allowed to join political parties, but they could be in trouble now if they posted a tweet linking to that political party's web page.

And don't think public service departments are not monitoring social media. On the weekend, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection sent a tweet from its official account to refugee advocate Vanessa Powell informing her that an offensive remark about one of its employees had been left in a comment on her Facebook page. They told her if it was not removed they would consider further options.

And Ms Powell is not even a member of the public service!

So much for George Brandis's belief that we have the right to offend.

Over the past couple years, I have often been asked to speak at events promoting social media use within the public service. Social media enables the public service to engage with the public in a way never before possible.

A few departments and agencies were trying to use it in such a manner - and encouraging their workers to do so as well. But since the changes by the APSC in 2012, and since the 2013 election, I no longer bother encouraging such activity.

The vibe from the top is that social media is to be feared, and is now also to be used as a tool of fear. With so few jobs around, and some departments cutting a quarter of their staff, the time is ripe to force harsh restrictions on employees and silence dissent. And PM&C's guidelines will do just that.

Now, instead of encouraging social media use by public servants, I tell them to lock their accounts, use a pseudonym, stay below the radar, and pray no one decides to dob you in.

Greg Jericho writes weekly for The Drum. He tweets at @GrogsGamut. View his full profile here.