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

91–100 of 323 posts

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

#91

Post by wp381640 »

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…

For some people the very process of having to go through a polygraph can set off other triggers

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

#92

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#93

Post by ravenstine »

Anyone who appreciates freedom shouldn't lend so much as a thought to a company that tries to do something like this. Get my credit score, call my last employer, do a criminal background check, whatever. But if you scour the internet for any possible kindergarten wrongdoing I've made, goodbye. I'd rather live in a van down by the river.

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

#94

Post by mcphage »

dudul wrote: post #81
appleiigs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've also laughed at companies trying to pull this thing, but I also realize that this is a huge privilege. There is really only in tech that the tables are somewhat flipped, and applicants can afford to give HR bullies the middle finger.

Then we should wherever appropriate.

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

#95

Post by tyingq »

cm2187 wrote: post #83
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…

In France, until not so long ago, analysing your hand writing was a commonly accepted form of background test for any large company!

That sounds interesting. Any links, sources?

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

#96

Post by BlueTemplar »

allovernow wrote: post #51
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…

The problem here is rather likely to be to not have someone with human science background... but then that person would likely just tell them their whole premise is flawed?

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

#97

Post by [deleted] »

javagram wrote: post #61
komali2 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#98

Post by tyingq »

wp381640 wrote: post #91
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…

For some people the very process of having to go through a polygraph can set off other triggers

Sure. But that selection bias creates a sort of monoculture of mindless drones.

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

#99

Post by vntok »

allovernow wrote: post #51
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…

"BIG DICK ENERGY" is arguably a childish and immature post. Someone liking that post is arguably being childish and immature in their minds at that time .

Of course, a single like of a childish or immature post or meme is a meaningless data point (one could like it to laugh at it). So are 5 likes. So are 10 likes. However, say that twitter account regulary likes memes that are only shared in a particular incels-community. Or say that account likes immature posts by the dozens, at least way more than serious ones. Now we're no longer dealing with mere data points, we're dealing with trends. And those trends give a hint of the type of character the company is dealing with.

Maybe a serious B2B company doesn't want to have childish, immature, incels-type people amongst their ranks?

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

#100

Post by heavyset_go »

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…

On the other hand, if said views effect their ability to work cohesively in a professional environment, having someone like that in your office opens you up to significant liability.

It's very easy to make a case that workplace discrimination happened, or that a hostile work environment was fostered, when there are public discriminatory tweets by the perpetrator that corroborate with the incidents. It's equally difficult to claim ignorance as an employer when they are, again, public.

Post reply on HN