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

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

#121

Post by javagram » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #109

javagram wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> For instance, a doctor who doesn't want to perform a sex change operation or administer hormones to young children, because they think it is harmful to them, would be considered transphobic by many advocates. You are leaving out the important bit: The justification. The problem isn't a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful, the problem is a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful against establi…

> The justification. The problem isn't a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful, the problem is a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful against established science with no science to back up their own position

Well, I don't think we are going to solve this in the comments section, but my impression is that is not true. Trans-friendly doctors who have a long history of working in the field and helping suffering individuals transition have been accused of being transphobic, while advocates for aggressive medical treatment openly admit they don't have scientific evidence backing their treatments (use of puberty blockers in young children, for instance, is off-label and I'm unaware of any studies done with control groups that compare therapy vs drugs for treating this in children). E.g. https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-r...

Where this will eventually land in terms of the science isn't clear to me but what is clear is that the use of the term "transphobe" has increased dramatically. I've also seen it applied to those who state they wouldn't be interested in dating or having sex with a transitioned person, which is far from wishing them to not be human or not exist.

I think it's very reasonable to want to avoid people who are openly racist or problematic in the workplace but expanding definitions of "phobic" and "ism" is concerning and I'd wonder how such algorithmic tools would judge where the lines are.

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

#122

Post by gruez » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

Whatever happened to the 90s where the prevailing advice was that the internet was a dangerous place, and you should always used pseudonyms?

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

#123

Post by BlueTemplar » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

slvrspoon wrote: post #42

Online background checks increasingly incorporate all this social info but ALSO link it to other identity data. Next, combine it with profiles bought from data brokers which can include all basic personal info combined with political affiliation and prior salary, etc. Here's some steps to opt out of their databases: https://joindeleteme.com/help/deleteme-help-topics/opt-out-g...

So, cross-referencing databases is (usually) illegal for the government to do, but private companies can do it just fine? Am I the only one of noticing a loophole here?

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

#124

Post by lonelappde » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

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.

In the past, this was called "professionalism", and private lives were kept private.

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

#125

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

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?

Thinking that anyone disagreeing with my opinions want certain people exterminated is not healthy.

There are not genocidal maniacs behind every tweet that annoys us.

My best guess is that it's a form of Motivated Reasoning for "striking back first" at these imagined monsters.

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

#126

Post by lonelappde » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #122

Whatever happened to the 90s where the prevailing advice was that the internet was a dangerous place, and you should always used pseudonyms?

Adtech happened. Deanonymized people are more exploitable.

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

#127

Post by lonelappde » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #72

bebop wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hurt…

It's just a technique to scare you into providing evidence. And in the CIA it's a test of your resilience to interrogation.

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

#128

Post by gruez » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

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

AFAIK the standard script for polygraph tests is for the interrogator to say there's a "trigger", regardless of whether there's actually a statistically significant change in the polygraph output. The idea is convince the participant that they know they're lying and push them to incriminate themselves.

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

#129

Post by leereeves » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #75

quotemstr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 the…

First I'd want to be sure someone was actually "posting publicly that women are intellectually inferior and shouldn't be allowed to work professional jobs".

Sometimes people post something completely different and it gets twisted into something like that that's obviously offensive but isn't what they said.

In much the same way this report twists the meaning of every tweet.

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

#130

Post by lonelappde » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

Jupe wrote: post #111

Get used to it... this is the world we (the tech community) helped, even pushed, to create. I ask myself, would a FAANG company hire someone who doesn't actively tweet? Somehow, I doubt it. It is increasingly impossible to live in the modern world without using the internet. Try buying something these days; many of the brick-and-mortar stores are disappearing. Try getting a job without using online services. Try buyi…

FAANG is full of people who don't actively tweet. G+ was famous for Google execs not using it.