Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah! He doesn't eat meat! Suspicious, suspiciuos. Perhaps a communist, or a homosexual?
He very well maybe， the point is whatever you do there will be trade off.
My point is there shouldn't.
I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf
281–290 of 323 posts
Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 no…
> 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. If most of your social media posts are you liking racist, sexist or some other ist content, I will avoid you. Who wouldn't?
I wouldn't, because I don't use social media, and it wouldn't make sense to avoid someone based on something I don't know about.
Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There were plenty of claimed religious justifications for businesses who wanted to discriminate against mixed race couples, but in the end, that didn't really matter. There is no functional difference between bigotry with "nuance" and bigotry itself. Sure, there's "no functional difference between bigotry with "nuance" and bigotry itself". But here the word bigotry is used twice in a weaselly way, making it a circu…
Clarifying a little what I meant by my last paragraph, as it was hastily written - and also had a few typos: My point is that there's a functional difference between bigotry and a nuanced position that touches on sex/race/etc relations - and that the latter does exist, and is often called out unfairly. Now, one might believe that such a nuanced position is impossible to exist (without being bigotry). That is, one mig…
I thought this line "Even if there are members of said sex, race, etc agree with the person -- and the "enlightened minority" is often a self-appointed hodgepodge of noise-making people." was rather brilliant.
Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf
#284Earlier 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…
Pilfering digital-social-media history is not on the order of what's needed for a security clearance.
Interviews with your neighbors, friends and family are however. This is just a low cost means of doing it, while very nearly as invasive.
Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf
#285Earlier 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!
Similarly..unverified but word of mouth, they use face analysis in Korea for hiring.
In western Europe, job postings specifically ask not to include a picture in your application to combat implicit bias.
In Korea, the application form includes fields for height, weight and marital status.
Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf
#286Get 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…
> would a FAANG company hire someone who doesn't actively tweet?
I have friends who work at Google who have never tweeted in their life.
Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf
#287The master plan of the entire real names thing juuuuust landed.
You're ... a little late to that realisation, though I only learnt of this a little over a year ago myself as Google+ was shutting down.
The project was called NSTIC: National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace. Alex Howard of O'Reilly's Radar had one of the most comprehensive explorations I've seen "A Manhattan Project for online identity: A look at the White House's National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace."
http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/05/nstic-analysis-identity-pri...
The relationship with Google+ itself was spelled out by Kristine Schachinger at Searchengine Journal: "In Memoriam: The Rise, Fall & Death of Google Plus"
Google was only going to be one of many identity service providers for a program run by the Federal Government called the NSTIC, or National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace.
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-plus-history-deat...
There were some HN submissions on the topic, but virtually no discussion:
Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, fair enough, but try and extend the pattern. What if the technical candidates don't have a Facebook account, a twitter account, a github account, or any other active online presence? Do you think such resume's will jump to the top of the decision pile? I highly doubt it.
As someone who doesn't have Facebook, barely uses Twitter (zero tweets, I just use tweetdeck to follow some people), doesn't share his GitHub account with employers (just don't really care to) - my resume still jumps to the top of the pile based solely on the big names I've worked for in the past. So - yes. Sure, you're going to add more qualifiers now, but I'm giving a counterpoint to your original claim.
I don't use any of these web sites either, and it has not, to my knowledge, affected my career. Have worked in FAANG and non-FAANG companies, and my non-use of social media has never once been brought up.
Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Background reports like these, along with drug testing for office jobs that don't deal with heavy machinery, are indicative of companies that have unhealthy views of the employer-employee relationship, especially in a countr…
Often the drug-testing things are related to contracts with either the (US Federal) government or contracts with companies that have contracts with the (US Federal)government, such as O&G, Healthcare and Banking. That is to say: Sometimes companies don't have much choice in some of this. EDIT: I just remembered that I was talking to my corporate attorney's office recently (medium-size-law), and they say that if any a…
i agree with the intent, but i don't agree with the solution.
for the same reason that i object to the public ostracising companies because one of their employees dared to have a personal opinion that is different from theirs.
as long as an employee is not using the company as a vehicle for their personal agenda, its not fair to demand that the company distance themselves from that employee.
in the same vein i expect that companies do not screen candidates for their private opinions.
this kind of screening only leads to a defacto restriction on the freedom of speech.
when sharing my opinion restricts my ability to get a job then i have no freedom of speech.
Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
wait, since when was it not allowed to have two jobs at once? at worst this should have raised a question on what you did at the old company during that last month.