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

181–190 of 323 posts

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

#181

Post by xkcd-sucks »

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.

This has to be arm's-length plausible deniability for rejecting applicants on illegal criteria, right? Doesn't Facebook have better data and better data scientists than its partners do?

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

#182

Post by unlinked_dll »

coldtea wrote: post #161
unlinked_dll wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most bigots don't realize they're bigots. But ostracizing them from professional society exasperates the victim complex inherent to bigotry.

> Most bigots don't realize they're bigots Yes. In that regard they are exactly alike most holier than thou types!

Pretty much. Most people see themselves as the protagonist in their personal narrative. Projection of belief onto others tends to make them view you as an antagonist in their same narrative. It's also one of the many personal traits that create the archetype of an "asshole" in my narrative.

People who try and evangelize their religious beliefs for example can be bigots who think they're righteous. By the same token, atheists who evangelize their lack of beliefs can be bigots who think they're righteous. Either way, they're assholes that I don't want to work with.

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

#183

Post by wayneftw »

thaeli wrote: post #85
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?

I do work with people who don't think I should be allowed to exist. But they're required to be polite to me at work, and to use my pronouns, and as long as they do that no lines have been crossed.

If my personal issues demanded that people use special pronouns around me in order to protect my own self identity, I think that I would eventually be more self-conscious about the fact that the majority of people in my office are now most likely making fun of me behind my back and calling me whatever they want when I'm not around...

Don't people just avoid using pronouns altogether for you though if they feel so opposed to it? Seems like a pretty simple workaround.

What do you do that people are consistently talking about you in the third person anyway?

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

#184

Post by wolco »

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.

Why should you hide your real name?

Because no one would hire you because you don't seem perfect. Employers are looking for perfect and the real you isn't perfect. No one is. Some people do seem perfect but they only show you a piece. You want the world to accept all of you and the world is pretending to be something else.

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

#185

Post by chillingeffect »

lovehashbrowns wrote: post #134
aloknnikhil wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

similar here. got laid off with severance in month x. company reported employing ending month x+2, my resume says I started a new job month x+1. HR calls me in a disdained huff "Sorry Mr. Effect, but we don't handle prevarications lightly."

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

#186

Post by cheyne_nz »

guntars wrote: post #164
n4r9 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine and dandy for people in tech but if you're a single parent with a narrow set of skills who's struggling and been applying for jobs for over a month then you're going to take the offer. And then you're not going to have much time to continue job searching.

Who’s responsible for you being a single parent with limited skills? The corporation?

Responsibility is a moot point. When systems like these are rolled out to a population, different cohorts will behave differently.

The example given is just one of many who might have little choice. Many others will just accept the new practices.

Once this is normalized and widespread, it gets increasingly harder to opt out.

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

#187

Post by wolco »

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…

So you want to force this person to work for themselves and be responsible for hiring. Maybe putting your company out of business and ensuring his viewpoint continues.

I think you give the person a chance and use training if a problem exists.

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

#188

Post by SkyMarshal »

lonelappde wrote: post #126
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.

Adtech didn’t deanonymize people, just exploited them after everyone willingly did that themselves, chasing internet fame under real identities.

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

#189

Post by callmeal »

tyingq wrote: post #95
cm2187 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Lots of them: https://www.google.com/search?q=french+handwriting+analysis

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

#190

Post by itronitron »

slg wrote: post #101
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 am curious if people here think there is a different standard for high profile hires. This happens all the time in the entertainment industry. There are plenty of examples of PR disasters that occur when someone's old offensive tweets are resurfaced. Knowing about those tweets beforehand allows a company to either advise that the tweets are deleted or that the potential for future PR problems means someone else sho…

There is probably a much lower standard for high profile hires.
Post reply on HN