Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Glassdoor not so anonymous

webworm.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 507 posts

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#301

Post by analognoise »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #279
heavyset_go wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard some pretty simultaneously funny and Orwellian stories about this, mostly about people being fired for looking at porn using work laptops and the specific porn they were looking at. Don't use work computers to look at porn, your employers already know about it.

Quoted post unavailable.

We've decided to structure society such that some people starve, and we consider that acceptable. There are even children who are "food insecure".

Apparently nobody cares about anyone else's most basic needs like food (even our most vulnerable), I can't see how they'd care about someone else's need to jerk off.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#302

Post by philliphaydon »

Mandatum wrote: post #22
walrus01 wrote: post #18

Does Glassdoor actually have any business operations or webservers in NZ that would be subject to this order if it was issued from a court in NZ? Since when does a NZ order apply to a non NZ company. For example, American media regularly publishes the names of persons charged with crimes in Canada where the name may be banned from publication by a Canadian court. It's a first amendment thing. If US companies start ob…

Zuru's entity spans multiple regions, a Californian court can compel a US-based entity to hand over records for data held in another region. It's the reason why some organisations refuse to work with any organisations that can be compelled under the PATRIOT Act (about 98% of tech companies). Also see: Kim DotCom. Broke no laws in New Zealand, will eventually be extradited for a civil matter. He's delayed it a long ti…

Meh they was extradite him asap now that he supports Russia, is anti vax, and spreads China propaganda.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#303

Post by patrec »

exodust wrote: post #288
heavyset_go wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try to register an email address using a host that won't have you flagged as a malicious user should you use an account with that host to sign up for major company's services like Glassdoor. It's virtually impossible to use Tor to register an email address without activating JavaScript, and the email hosts that allow it are very sketchy, and my personal suspicions are that many of them are blatant honeypots.

Sorry what? It's trivial to get an email address from legit email provider, create alias addresses, then sign up to something like Glassdoor using VPN. The only thing Glassdoor will know about you is your email address, which is not easily traced back to your real ID if you don't want it to be. Particularly for low level "crime" like negative reviews.

How certain are you that in all jurisdictions where an (ex-)employer can get an injunction to force glassdoor to reveal the email address they wouldn't be able to get the legit email provider to reveal your true identity?

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#304

Post by krageon »

walrus01 wrote: post #18

Does Glassdoor actually have any business operations or webservers in NZ that would be subject to this order if it was issued from a court in NZ? Since when does a NZ order apply to a non NZ company. For example, American media regularly publishes the names of persons charged with crimes in Canada where the name may be banned from publication by a Canadian court. It's a first amendment thing. If US companies start ob…

Please stop with these inane "but can we get away with ignoring the law elsewhere????" comments - it pops up every single time a US corporation is held to account for laws in a country where it violated them and it never stops being tedious.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#305

Post by krageon »

braingenious wrote: post #250
metadat wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't sound great but was this person actually doing anything to interfere with you other than existing in your presence? Just curious, and I agree it's unprofessional. I can be quite judgemental, though.

Yes. A guy railing a line of Concerta right next to me while I was on a call loudly enough for the possible donor to hear and ask about it was a problem for me.

Why would a possible donor ask about a noise that sounds extremely similar to someone blowing their nose? This comes off as moralising for the sake of moralising, nothing actually harmful has happened.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#306

Post by tpxl »

lostcolony wrote: post #32
kelnos wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because doing so is hard. You not only have to verify that a review is coming from an actual current or former employee, but then you have to ensure that the same employee cannot write multiple reviews. If you discard all links between a reviewer account and a review, how do you do that? I imagine there's some sort of zero-knowledge magic cryptographic thing you can do (or maybe something simpler, like a...…

"The same employee cannot write multiple reviews" - they can create new accounts. But even if you want one account to not write multiple reviews, you can flag that an account wrote a review for a company without tying it to -what- review. You can even disassociate that; hash usernames with the company and store that to track who has written a review. Then, you can only confirm that a given user account has written a…

> without attempting to hash every username against it

Given even a few million users, this is trivial. Other than that, I agree with you.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#307

Post by krageon »

causality0 wrote: post #112

Maybe this is a foolish statement coming from my never having used Glassdoor, but why the fuck would an anonymous review website even keep PII in the first place?

It has never been anonymous. You have to provide your information to them, which means you are identifiable.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#308

Post by Jaruzel »

pyuser583 wrote: post #224

If you want to fix your Glassdoor review, it’s really simple. As soon as you onboard employees, pressure then to leave Glassdoor reviews. Since they just started, they obviously approve, albeit ignorantly.

In a previous employment, when I logged into the internal HR portal on my first day, there was a 'performance target' already set on my profile, which said:

Create account on Glassdoor, and leave a review.

On. My. First. Day.

It did not bode well for the rest of my employment there.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#309

Post by crummy »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #73
crummy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do I pay Glassdoor to take down a review? Is that on their website somewhere?

The rumor has long been that they contact you about it. Presumably they figure it based on page views and review volume to determine your hiring rate and churn etc and sentiment analysis of your worst reviews so they aren't just shotgunning these offers at every company that has reviews on their site. Just passing along rumors I have no particularly informed insight here or verifiable reason to believe this is true,…

I'm surprised no-one has posted the email from Glassdoor suggesting this. You'd think one would get a lot of attention. Maybe they don't contact many companies about it.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#310

Post by braingenious »

krageon wrote: post #305
braingenious wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. A guy railing a line of Concerta right next to me while I was on a call loudly enough for the possible donor to hear and ask about it was a problem for me.

Why would a possible donor ask about a noise that sounds extremely similar to someone blowing their nose? This comes off as moralising for the sake of moralising, nothing actually harmful has happened.

Buddy I don’t know what to tell you here other than the noise a person makes after snorting a pill that was explicitly designed and engineered to be unpleasant to snort is not a normal noise.

Edit: This is the funniest exchange I’ve had on this website, thank you. “Preferring people don’t do lines of apparently excruciating substances right next to me, at work, in an office, while I’m literally on the phone” being “moralizing” is hilarious.

Post reply on HN