Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 323 posts

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#21

Post by clSTophEjUdRanu »

rakoo wrote: post #6
CommieBobDole wrote: post #3

I'm torn between "My god, this is a dystopian nightmare" and "Well, you did all that in public, in print, with your real name attached, what did you expect?". Maybe both things are right. Edit: Since, looking at the downvotes, this seems to be controversial, let me clarify that I'm not blaming the victim, I'm questioning whether it's a good general policy to give everyone, including various bad actors, a vast databas…

Is it normal to live your private life in accordance to what a future hypothetical employer might think ? EDIT: private should be replaced with personal, as opposed to work

In what universe are public tweets your private life?

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#23

Post by Cofike »

I used a script to delete all my tweets on my twitter however many years ago. I'm not the one to say anything inflammatory/offensive but I just couldn't risk some errant like or retweet causing me grief in the future. It seems like that wasn't a bad move.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#24

Post by marcinzm »

retrac98 wrote: post #9

Name and shame these companies until this stops.

I mean, as I see it the reason companies are requesting these checks is because of all the naming and shaming of companies whose employees were found to have posted inappropriate things (or done other actions). So naming and shaming them seems sort of ironic to me.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#25

Post by chroem- »

ardy42 wrote: post #10
quotemstr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. You might not even know --- and it could extend beyond hiring. Didn't get promoted? Maybe it's because someond keyword matched you for "toxic". The only real way to safeguard yourself is to keep your identity as small and bland as possible, and that's no way to live.

IIRC, aren't employers required to provide some notice of background checks, especially in the case where they're used to justify adverse actions?

It's usually a generic checkbox on the same order as the "We care about your privacy!" tracking notifications.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#26

Post by rakoo »

quotemstr wrote: post #15
rakoo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it normal to live your private life in accordance to what a future hypothetical employer might think ? EDIT: private should be replaced with personal, as opposed to work

Isn't the OP's point that people shouldn't live their private lives in public?

I used the wrong word: I meant "personal life" as opposition to "work life". I don't think personal life should be done in private.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#28

Post by quotemstr »

wutbrodo wrote: post #13
CommieBobDole wrote: post #3

I'm torn between "My god, this is a dystopian nightmare" and "Well, you did all that in public, in print, with your real name attached, what did you expect?". Maybe both things are right. Edit: Since, looking at the downvotes, this seems to be controversial, let me clarify that I'm not blaming the victim, I'm questioning whether it's a good general policy to give everyone, including various bad actors, a vast databas…

Beyond the question of aggregating someone's likes is the fact that the actual tweets flagged are ludicrous: the system has a third-grader's notion of "bad language" and a temperance activist's view of even _references_ to alcohol (not drinking excessively, or drinking at all, but literally seeing a bottle of vodka somewhere)

Even if the language understanding were better, you would still have the issue of the "toxicity" classifier reflecting the personal opinions of the people who built the model and not the range of acceptable behavior for the public at large. These labels aren't objectively measurable statistics: they're personal judgements. The tyranny of algorithmically reified personal moral judgement is far scarier to me than bad keyword matching.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#30

Post by caconym_ »

I don't even know what to say about this. I'm speechless.

This is so, so, so, so, stupid, yet it's presumably being used to curtail some people's job opportunities in a society where you basically need to be employed by a corporation to be a first-class citizen.

There need to be laws against arbitrary background checks. If only our government had a real interest in protecting its citizens.

Post reply on HN