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

31–40 of 323 posts

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

#31

Post by deathhand »

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)

Imperfect people creating imperfect systems to judge others that change the course of life with no means of appeals is specific type of hell.

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

#32

Post by aguyfromnb »

tyingq wrote: post #18

Oy. Similarly, I'm mystified with the CIA's and NSA's fascination with mandatory recurring polygraph tests. It's pretty well known the whole area is flawed bullshit. It doesn't measure anything remotely related to "truth". Edit: I know we aren't supposed to discuss downvotes here, but the activity on this comment and my replies are very interesting. It's curious why discussion on this topic is so controversial. Why w…

Or drug-sniffing dogs.

These things all serve their purpose: providing cover for your preconceived notions.

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

#33

Post by Aloha »

brenden2 wrote: post #4

Here's the company doing this: https://fama.io/ The idea that you can assess someone's workplace performance based on automated screening of their tweets is utterly absurd. If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. This is a terrible precedent, and much too much Orwellian for my taste. EDIT: somewhat related, but a while back I made a Twi…

I'm curious about something, would most of the people who are aghast at this be as aghast at it if this had flagged someone who was racist, sexist, transphobic, or homophobic? I would be, but I wonder if I'm in the minority or not. This pilfering of your digital history is on the order of what's needed to get a security clearance - where it's at least somewhat justified. There is no case where I can see this being justified for normal employment.

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

#35

Post by tyingq »

aguyfromnb wrote: post #32
tyingq wrote: post #18

Oy. Similarly, I'm mystified with the CIA's and NSA's fascination with mandatory recurring polygraph tests. It's pretty well known the whole area is flawed bullshit. It doesn't measure anything remotely related to "truth". Edit: I know we aren't supposed to discuss downvotes here, but the activity on this comment and my replies are very interesting. It's curious why discussion on this topic is so controversial. Why w…

Or drug-sniffing dogs. These things all serve their purpose: providing cover for your preconceived notions.

Yeah. It's pretty interesting that popular culture like Dateline, 20/20, Forensic Files, etc, never digs into things like "talk to my lawyer", polygraphs or drug dogs. They tow the line of "cooperate with the cops or you're guilty". They regularly position this sort of thing as an admission of guilt.

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

#36

Post by aloknnikhil »

brenden2 wrote: post #4

Here's the company doing this: https://fama.io/ The idea that you can assess someone's workplace performance based on automated screening of their tweets is utterly absurd. If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. This is a terrible precedent, and much too much Orwellian for my taste. EDIT: somewhat related, but a while back I made a Twi…

Looks like Hire Right (https://www.hireright.com/) uses this. And a lot of the FANG tier companies use Hire Right. That'd a exclude a lot of the tech companies.

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

#37

Post by coldtea »

brenden2 wrote: post #4

Here's the company doing this: https://fama.io/ The idea that you can assess someone's workplace performance based on automated screening of their tweets is utterly absurd. If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. This is a terrible precedent, and much too much Orwellian for my taste. EDIT: somewhat related, but a while back I made a Twi…

>The idea that you can assess someone's workplace performance based on automated screening of their tweets is utterly absurd.

It's not about "workplace performance", it's more about "can PC nuts target our company for hiring this person because of something this person said/liked? Let's cover our asses like cowards and not hire them if so".

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

#38

Post by allovernow »

quotemstr wrote: post #5
brenden2 wrote: post #4

Here's the company doing this: https://fama.io/ The idea that you can assess someone's workplace performance based on automated screening of their tweets is utterly absurd. If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. This is a terrible precedent, and much too much Orwellian for my taste. EDIT: somewhat related, but a while back I made a Twi…

> 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.

I agreed with you except for

>that's no way to live.

You know it's still well within the range of possibility to live a healthy, fully actualized life without a named online presence, right?

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

#39

Post by [deleted] »

brenden2 wrote: post #4

Here's the company doing this: https://fama.io/ The idea that you can assess someone's workplace performance based on automated screening of their tweets is utterly absurd. If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. This is a terrible precedent, and much too much Orwellian for my taste. EDIT: somewhat related, but a while back I made a Twi…

[deleted]

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

#40

Post by thenewwazoo »

From their "Privacy" page[1]:

---

You have the right, and we encourage you to:

View the publicly available information that is available about you online. Contact us at privacy@fama.io to see a copy of your Fama report, if it has been created on behalf of a Customer. We’ll get back to you within 24 hours.

...

You can opt out of our service by contacting us at privacy@fama.io, as long as you have not provided written consent to one of our clients so Fama may access this information on your behalf. Further, Fama will delete all of the data that we have collected about you at your written request pending those same criteria.

---

[1] https://fama.io/privacy/

Post reply on HN