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

131–140 of 323 posts

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

#131

Post by JakeStone »

drdeadringer wrote: post #116
istorical wrote: post #57

How do they handle extremely common names?

The name doesn't even need to be common. There are a dozen's dozen ways to spell my last name, and I've received emails intended for somebody else simply because the sender searched the directory and clicked the first hit they got. For extra credit, I share the same name [spelling and all] with a decently famous musician. If you search for me you'll get him unless you include//exclude an extra choice word or two.

There was nothing wrong with your name until you were about 12 years old?

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

#132

Post by greenshackle2 »

causalmodels wrote: post #44
egdod wrote: post #2

For those wondering, as I did, who’s behind this terrible report: > The background check company is Sterling Talent Solutions, and it looks like they contracted with Fama Technologies for this part of the report.

Sterling is terrible not only because they’re needlessly invasive, but also because they cannot run a background check. Before I got into software I was a model, something very obvious if you search my name. I’ve had two background checks done by Sterling and they’ve never connected the dots.

On the last background check I had with them, they marked every one of my previous employers as "unable to contact" and asked me to provide proof of employment. I have to wonder whether they just didn't bother picking up the phone.

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

#133

Post by tzs »

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…

It's pretty well known that it is flawed bullshit when applied a small number of times to a small number of people that you have limited information where you are trying to find out the truth about something very specific.

Applied repeatedly over a long time to a large group of people that you have extensive information on where you are aren't looking for information about some specific thing, by an agency with extensive experience in extracting meaningful signals from noisy sources...I would not be at all surprised if they can get something actually valid from it.

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

#134

Post by lovehashbrowns »

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.

HireRight almost failed my background check because I got the month wrong on my graduation from high school. I legitimately don't understand why a background check has to be this in-depth.

Edit: actually I think it was elementary school. Even worse.

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

#135

Post by ianai »

sneak wrote: post #104
ianai wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As long as there are other places to work, we can and should avail ourselves of them.

There are entire industries insulated enough for illegal HR practices to prevail. “Other places to work” line of reasoning is tone deaf and functionally abusive.

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

#137

Post by djhworld »

Does this include retweets?

I'm mostly a passive twitter user who mostly likes/retweets tweets that pique my interest.

I wonder if these companies evaluate what sort of things you are liking/endorsing and associating that with your character...

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

#138

Post by coldtea »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #54
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…

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.

The US had been full of racisst, homophobic, and sexist people much more in the past and it didn't hurt their "effectiveness in the workplace", to the point that the US was the #1 economy in the world. So, maybe personal opinions of that nature are not related to being a good developer or a good car mechanic or hair dresser.

Second, what's a offensive (e.g. homophobic, sexist, etc) is quite an arbitrary thing these days, with all kinds of things that would perfectly fine for a leftist Democrat to say in 1990 or 2000 or 2010 being considered as such in 2020, and things getting weirder by the minute.

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

#139

Post by allovernow »

vntok wrote: post #99
allovernow wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-commu…

This is exactly the kind of hysteria that will tear society apart.

The types of jokes a person shares and enjoys outside of the office by and large are not a reflection of character, even when they are racist, sexist, or some other -ist. In fact that's the very reason that they are funny, because they are counter to norms. There's nothing immature or childish about this if you're not oversocialized.

Believe it or not, it's possible to be a competent programmer and decent human being while occasionally indulging in an off color joke. Humor is a form of release. You've lived a sheltered life if you're unaware of how perfectly normal and nearly ubiquitous so called "locker room talk" is.

Your post is a perfect example of a dangerous overreaction. Suddenly liking the wrong post makes me an "incel" and keeps me from contributing to society. Isn't that a little crazy?

Post reply on HN