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

71–80 of 323 posts

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

#71

Post by calimac »

komali2 wrote: post #49
coldtea wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist?

Gaslight much? Take a class in logic and reasoning at your nearest community college.

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

#72

Post by tyingq »

bebop wrote: post #59
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.

Depends, I guess, on what they do with it. Indicators of stress could be a "good thing" in a lot of cases. It might show maturity and broad thinking versus deception. I'm a bit biased in thinking they probably bias towards loyalty and party line vs the real story. In any case, it probably excludes a lot of real talent that won't put up with the bullshit. They are inadvertently creating a very narrow culture that hurts their effectiveness.

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

#73

Post by javagram »

dylan604 wrote: post #63
Cofike wrote: post #23

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.

And how do you delete something that appears in the Internet Archive? Are you just hoping that people are lazy and do a cursory check?

it won't delete everything but it will make it harder to find, and it isn't clear that every tweet is available through the Internet Archive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/07...

> I’ve used the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine in my reporting to access long-deleted tweets from Roseanne Barr’s account and to examine the history of suspicious, viral accounts. However, the Wayback Machine’s archives are somewhat random and incomplete, showing only the last few tweets from each moment it crawled the account’s page.

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

#74

Post by ZhuanXia »

aloknnikhil wrote: post #36
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.

It's basically an algorithmic filter for wokism. A lot of innovative people tend to be unswayed by our strange moral fads. Seems like talent is being left on the table. Good news for startups.

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

#75

Post by cortesoft »

quotemstr wrote: post #58
allovernow wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If someone is posting publicly that women are intellectually inferior and shouldn't be allowed to work professional jobs, you think this should have no effect on their job?

You think they are going to leave those beliefs at the door when they go to work? You think women who work for this person are going to be evaluated fairly?

If someone does something in their personal life that shows they would be unable to do their job, it is entirely reasonable to have that affect their employment.

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

#76

Post by BlueTemplar »

blahbhthrow3748 wrote: post #56
coldtea wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Non sequitur?

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

#77

Post by ianai »

appleiigs wrote: post #46
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…

On a related note, I declined a job interview when a company wanted to do the interview process via HireVue. Has the Orwellian telescreen feel. The process includes candidate recording interview responses and uploading them for AI to evaluate. HR must not realize that as part of the interview, candidates are also evaluating whether the company is a good place to work at.

Oh, HR does and laughs at the thought. But we live in a political system where corporations have seemingly unalienable rights above their workers. “Want to afford things? Then succumb to the dictates of corporate America or else.” All the while, these same corporations benefit from unprecedented federal deficit spending at the cost of the individual citizens.

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

#78

Post by danso »

Aloha wrote: post #33
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 ju…

I don't think the hypothetical people you refer to would be against flagging people for bigoted behavior/speech. In fact, I personally don't see an issue with manually doing a Twitter advanced search to see if someone – especially for a public-facing role – has tweeted outright slurs; I specify "manually" to insinuate that context is important when assessing this.

I think people's main issues with this specific software/practice are:

1. It evaluates Liked tweets – if you believe tweets to have too little context to be accurate signals of how a potential employee would behave, liking a tweet contains even less context.

2. Any service that provides data via widescale scraping and auto classifying can and will eventually be reduced to an "authoritative" score.

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

#79

Post by dylan604 »

underpand wrote: post #50

How long would the report be if you have your profile privacy on lockdown? ie. all public profiles are private and you don't reuse usernames Are they able to do more nefarious things like use fingerprint/IP/device history to connect random accounts together?

Or just ask Facebook about everything they've linked together. Maybe sign up for some sort of FB service, and then create a business model that abuses the access you've been granted to gain the information you're ultimately trying to get. If questioned about it, just blame some rouge employee as a scapegoat for being a bad apple abusing the trust that FB granted.

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

#80

Post by grecy »

appleiigs wrote: post #46
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…

On a related note, I declined a job interview when a company wanted to do the interview process via HireVue. Has the Orwellian telescreen feel. The process includes candidate recording interview responses and uploading them for AI to evaluate. HR must not realize that as part of the interview, candidates are also evaluating whether the company is a good place to work at.

> HR must not realize that as part of the interview, candidates are also evaluating whether the company is a good place to work at.

In many fields outside software people with no healthcare, student debt, a mortgage and car payments are screwed. As long as the system keeps the people down, they won't have a choice but to take that job, no matter the Orwellian nature

Post reply on HN