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

51–60 of 323 posts

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

#51

Post by allovernow »

throwaway8291 wrote: post #34

They claim machine learning, but I'd guess their workhorse is a "grep -f badwords tweets.json | makepdf | send boss@employer" kind of thingy.

They're definitely using some form of sentiment analysis, but IMO these are exactly the kind of results you'd get after setting a programmer, with little to no actual data science background, loose to train his nets on data with a limited or absent intuitive understanding of bias from training data. And what's worse is that in their business false flags probably aren't even considered. It's an extra wide supercharged net.

E.G the "BIG DICK ENERGY" post being flagged as bigotry and sexism, no doubt they trained on limited data of hand curated "questionable posts" and I wouldn't be surprised if they used a source like 4chan and just automatically assigned negative labels to the vast majority of posts.

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

#52

Post by 0xff00ffee »

I stopped using my real name on social media in 2016. I wonder if Fama can still associate my posts with my fake names. Because if so, holy shit I'm fucked for dozens of reasons.

I guess they could ask Reddit and Hacker News for IP logs of user ip addresses, especially since HN doesn't delete accounts.

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

#53

Post by calcifer »

coldtea wrote: post #37
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".

That's an interesting way of spelling "could we accidentally hire a decent person who would blow the whistle on our shitty politics and toxic culture? 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

#54

Post by darkwizard42 »

coldtea wrote: post #41
Aloha wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ju…

No, it's OK if it happens to "bad" people. People who have bad opinions should not of course have jobs. They should die on the streets, as untouchables... Of course this holds as long as "the good side" has the power to make companies fire people for their tweets. If and when conservatives get this power (like e.g. they did in the Hoover or McCarthy era), this practice would be wrong again, and it should all be about…

I don't think holding racist, homophobic, or sexist views would be considered "bad opinions". They are likely going to limit your effectiveness in the workplace, so yeah seems fine to screen for that.

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

#55

Post by 0xff00ffee »

throwaway8291 wrote: post #34

They claim machine learning, but I'd guess their workhorse is a "grep -f badwords tweets.json | makepdf | send boss@employer" kind of thingy.

ML? No. But regular expressions are a type of artificial intelligence the same way an A* search is.

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

#56

Post by blahbhthrow3748 »

coldtea wrote: post #41
Aloha wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ju…

No, it's OK if it happens to "bad" people. People who have bad opinions should not of course have jobs. They should die on the streets, as untouchables... Of course this holds as long as "the good side" has the power to make companies fire people for their tweets. If and when conservatives get this power (like e.g. they did in the Hoover or McCarthy era), this practice would be wrong again, and it should all be about…

Right, there's no objective morality, any action anyone takes is their right because freedom. It's equally bad when anyone says anything bad because... reasons.

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

#58

Post by quotemstr »

allovernow wrote: post #38
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.

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?

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

It's possible, sure. But why should anyone have to hide like that? It's the principle of the thing: an ordinary person shouldn't fear for his livelihood just because he exercises his right to speak in public.

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

#59

Post by bebop »

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…

I think the polygraph is really just an additional tool to aid the main goal, which is to interrogate the participant. To this end the polygraph is a useful tool as it provides added discomfort, which can help the interrogator get answers from the participant.

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

#60

Post by dylan604 »

throwaway8291 wrote: post #34

They claim machine learning, but I'd guess their workhorse is a "grep -f badwords tweets.json | makepdf | send boss@employer" kind of thingy.

That's some pretty high level stuff. I imagined their machine learning is a large cubicle filled room of humanoid machines manually sifting through people's profiles.
Post reply on HN