19 ms·

Ask HN: Any felons successfully found IT work post-release?

355 points by publicprivacy 3y ago

Hello HN, Does anyone have experience getting back into tech/startups post-felony? I have been looking for work since I was released for an assault charge in November 2022. Previously I worked in Information Security as a SecOps Eng, most recently at Tinder. Between lack of recent job experience, and my record, I have been through a series of offer reneges, recruiters ghosting me, or going into HR resume black holes. I am eager to get back into tech and feel like my old self adding value to a great team/org. Anyone have leads on companies that are open to taking chances on good candidates with less than sparkling backgrounds? NOTE: My offense was not computer/finance/fraud/selling drugs/physical violence/based at all. Here is my linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/saunderscaleb/

ldehaan 3y ago
[dead]
justsomeoldguy 3y ago
it's been 14 years since my felony, and every IT job I've had started out good but they looked me up. I got a unique name I can't change right now. so they always find me, I've been hired by billion dollar companies for technical member of staff positions paying 165k, only to be fired the day before I was supposed to start. I can't do it anymore. I can't try anymore. I've tried for years and years and I can't handle this rejection. I can't handle knowing at the drop of a hat I'm gonna lose my job again the moment they find out. I just can't do this anymore. I really can't. I can't be this good, this friendly to people, this competent, and still judged so badly from something that happened while I was on drugs 14 years ago. I've been clean for as many years. It doesn't matter. I've tried explaining, doesn't matter. I've treid playing dumb and hoping the background check won't find it. I've relied on the right-to-be-forgotten laws and the fair credit reporting act-- billion dollar companies still refuse to follow the procedure. they didn't get me any chance to dispute what they found, even when they said they would. And no, suing them doesn't work. No one will take the case and I aint got money for it so no. there are no solutions. I'm paid to find solutions to any problem... and I have none. I can find none. :( People judge harsh these days. Good luck, you need it. Even if you get a job, it's a hell of a thing to have a coworker you've worked with for 18 months walk up to you with a printout of your case, saying, is this you? and then he pretends it didn't bother him. oh it bothered him. they walked me out not long after that for something seemingly unrelated. that job lasted exactly 2 years. My next, I got walked out at just 4 months for "defacing company property" yeah I wrote my name on my custom chair they ordered for me. I was financially responsible for that chair, I know because I built the inventory system to keep track of the serial numbers. Do you think this mattered? Hell no. Do you think people cared to reason? nope. they kept a straight face even, said that I was lucky they weren't calling the cops. well joke was sort of on them. my unemployment claim went before a magistrate and he took one look and said to them, did you get him a chance to wipe it off? and I'm like "I had multiple sovants on hand that would have worked. they never even gave me a chance." and they were like "...." and that was it. ruled in my favor. but how it left me. it just devestated me. I brought my a game to that job. I grew that company from 29 employees to 165. I had microsoft hybrid local/cloud running and the dell laptops would auto provision all the user had to do was login with their username and password. it all unfolded, installed everything they needed. a perfect image. it was done in 20 minutes. it was amazing, microsoft really has some powerful tools to help IT get new employees working fast. it just sucks. it sucks more than anything. it's unfair, sure. the world is unfair. but it is beyond unfair. and it has cost me everything ... this latest one just... sent me into a spiral. and I just gave up. I lost all my possessions, a lifetime of them. I just walked. how can I care anymore?
- altdataseller 3y ago
  Can you change your name? (dumb Q perhaps)
  - justsomeoldguy 3y ago
    not presently. but soon. I'm between addresses right now, basically. The last state I lived in wouldn't let me do it I'll still have a social security number that won't change, and I'll have an alias and anyone who really wants to find my info will find it even with a name change. What a name change does is get me off a simple google search. which isn't legal, fair credit reporting act defines very clearly what you are and are not allowed to do to investigate potential employees. and yet, do you really think I can start any business relationship by telling someone they can't do things like look me up? It's effectively what that is, and it's unreasonable. The industry is still stuck in a "no one knows what to do about this problem" can't stop people from googling you. but I can change my name ... but it's not going to stop the ones who look futher. and so far, all of them have.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      'The industry is still stuck in a "no one knows what to do about this problem"' It's not that nobody knows - nobody cares. The lawyers will always advocate for not hiring anyone "risky". Be that criminal convictions, dismissed charges, or people with disabilities.
      - justsomeoldguy 3y ago
        Sure but there are laws designed to prevent how far back they are able to look to find thaat information. And the laws aren't even being followed-- the lawyers should be telling them to follow them ... and yet.
        giantg2 3y ago
        Yeah, and there are laws about not discriminating against people with disabilities and they aren't being followed.
codegeek 3y ago
Find startup/smaller companies, be totally honest about what happened and make your case. Large companies will filter you out during application/HR process itself.
VirusNewbie 3y ago
Assault charges but not physical violence? What in the world? I'm so sorry you got that on your record. I would look at smaller startups that might make it easy to just escalate to the CEO if you have a good explanation, rather than having an HR department stop you right away. EDIT: I thought assault meant physical violence, but not harm while battery meant harm. I was wrong I guess?
- jasonpeacock 3y ago
  Given that urinating in public can result in sex offender charges in some locales, I'm not surprised that you can have non-violent assault charges.
  - badrequest 3y ago
    This basically doesn't happen, mostly an urban legend.
    - jasonpeacock 3y ago
      Some quick googling says that while highly unlikely, it is technically possible...so we're both right? Apparently public urination can overlap with indecent exposure, depending on the situation, and the latter can result in a sex offender registry.
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      I know someone it happened to, so it does definitely happen
      - local_crmdgeon 3y ago
        Would recommend verifying their charges yourself, people tell you this so you don't go peeking around. It's often a cover for a significantly more serious act. Look on the registry yourself - you won't see anyone on there for peeing in public: https://www.nsopw.gov/ https://www.nsopw.gov/
  - 3y ago
ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
There are a couple of folks here that run organizations specifically geared towards helping felons in tech. I can't think of them, right offhand, but I'll bet they pipe in. I'd suggest making the title a wee bit "pithier," to make sure they understand it. For example: "I Have a Felony, and it is Making it Difficult to Find Work." I have known many folks with felony records that have found work, but it tends to be challenging. Stubbornness and not reacting to the dicks is an asset. I sincerely wish you luck.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
milkshakes 3y ago
checkr
- milkshakes 3y ago
  for the haters downvoting: https://checkr.com/company/mission https://checkr.com/company/mission
publicprivacy 3y ago
Thank you all for your perspective, and suggestions. I was on a bad psychedelic trip, accompanied with some other issues at the time and ending up making threatening statements to a very high level official, but no battery occurred whatsoever. Thank goodness, or I would probably not be writing this message
- runjake 3y ago
  You said in your post it was not drug-related, but here you say it was a bad psychedelic trip. Which is true?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - publicprivacy 3y ago
    I meant drug sales, thank you I updated
  - alumnumn 3y ago
    “Gotcha! No hire!”
- x0x0 3y ago
  You could also consider working as a consultant or external pen tester. When we hired our pen testers, we did not run background checks on them, not least because they have no access to customer data so it's much less of a concern.
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    If the people you're paying to find weaknesses in the security system are assuredly never going to find a way to access internal data then how did you conclude you needed a pen tester in the first place? I mean, it's probably the right conclusion but only precisely because they'd find a way to access things they shouldn't be able to.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Have you worked with social service agencies which specialize in such employment? In my metropolitan area there is a significant network of employment agencies. Many are faith-based and many work with the homeless and disadvantaged, and it is not unusual for some to cater to ex-cons and felons. They will not advertise this stuff publicly, so you will need to get referrals and inside information on how to find them, but once you hook up with such an agency, your chances should improve drastically. Many of them will counsel you on how to approach applications and interviews, they will broker connections with employers who can overlook such a record, and they really know the communities they work in. Do not discount the power of your State agencies to help you as well, such as through Vocational Rehab programs. One drawback I've found to working with these folks is that they're geared to low-income jobs, manual labor, call centers and food service type stuff. They're not well-equipped to handle professionals in industries like IT, but you can certainly help them adapt, and recognize that we're worthy of assistance too. The more professional ex-felons who approach them, the better equipped they will be to serve people like us. 26 years ago, they parked me in a homeless shelter with a newspaper and a public phone to apply for jobs. Not even a typewriter to create a résumé. It was a joke. When I was finally motivated and qualified, I found the right agencies and the right assistance, and it made all the difference in the world.
- justsomeoldguy 3y ago
  the last state agency I worked with was at utah. and they told me I had a 6% chance of finding a job in the tech industry without someone on the inside. they were very blunt about it, and apologetic. The statistics don't lie and they were like, you are not going to get a tech job before you win the lottery. Only way I could collect unemployment was if I was working every week to find a new job and putting out applications, and they were helping me. but no one wants to touch me, through those channels. not so far.
runjake 3y ago
I don't have much helpful to add, but I had a colleague who had a bad night, acquired some felony charges for a firearm-related assault and they got fired/blacklisted for a few years. Subsequently, they did IT contract work behind the scenes with small contractors, kept in touch with his professional network, was super helpful to the rest of us, and after serious concerns and much debate, got back into his prior career with a new employer. I don't even know how, because normally a felony would be a no-hire, but he pulled it off, likely because he was so helpful and giving to his professional network throughout this mess.
- helsinki 3y ago
  Felony charges are a lot different from felony convictions. Was he convicted?
  - giantg2 3y ago
    It's insane that charges that get dismissed are used against people. Maybe for some position of power or sensitive work like police or classified work dependingon the actual details, but there's no reason innocent people should be discriminated against.
    - justsomeoldguy 3y ago
      you sound reasonable. the problem is, not everyone is all the time. people make emotional decisions that aren't even supported by laws or ethics. Some people are just mean, some people just want to see the world burn.
  - runjake 3y ago
    He was charged and convicted on multiple felonies. Thanks for asking, that's an important distinction. There's a good chance he's on HN and may pop into this thread.
    - justsomeoldguy 3y ago
      I was charged and convicted with assault with a deadly weapon. I shot someone. he accepted my apology, I was high af and didn't even know what was going on. and I have no history of violence, nor after. but. welp. it was considered domestic violence cuz that someone was my husband. and california wouldn't let him drop the charges. they don't give you that, they just run with it. its a messed up story. he was devastated. and so angry he drove to the cop station after I was sentenced and flew over the counter and attacked the very first PD officer he saw. She, and a few other officers, beat the living dogshit out of him. made him look like a racoon. broke her wrist in the process-- and so that's felony assault on a police officer WITH GBI. They stuck him one floor above mine. I felt bad, now worse. Dude was a nerd, had no criminal history. he did that for me? I didn't deserve it. in any event, we divorced while I was in prison. he got permission to see me there towards the end. took a lot of paperwork, but he did it. so we could have closure in person. got the warden to sign off. had to say a million times over that no, he was not brainwashed. no, I didn't shoot him because I love him. it was nothing like that. only reason I got off parole was I had no restitution. and the only reason there was no restitution was because my husband remained adament that I wasn't all there. an advanced medical directive was in effect, he was actually my legal caretaker at that point. it was a lot of paperwork, notarized even. annnd it counted for nothing. there were no medical bills to pay-- his insurance covered it, there was nothing but the court costs. He had a clean entry and exit, thank god. else it would have been murder huh. went through his chest, he spent a week in the hospital. made a full recovery. officials reached out to him one last time and asked, and he said something like "you fucks took my husband. eat shit and die." He said similar when it came to getting a statement from him. Unfortunately someone was shot, and I did shoot him, so ... there was no question on if I had committed the crime or not, even without a statement. the powder was on my hands. I completed a 9 year sentence, all 85% of it. today it would never happen. the judge had no ability not to send me to prison, or even run the charges concurrent. he straight up said he did not want to do it, but his hands were tied. there were three, assault with a firearm, great bodily injury, and domestic violence. because a gun had been involved. minimum mandatory sentencing. no concurrent, must be consecutive. They gave me the low, a 3/3/3, so 9 years. They wanted to send me to a drug program, but it wasn't in the cards. Not guilty by reason of insanity is a horrible idea in california, it is basically a life sentence that you will spend at least a decade, or two, proving you're sane. and maybe never able to do it. think Terminator, Sarah Conner, in the psych ward. I was advised not to go down that route. and california had already gotten rid of the diminished capacity law-- you know the dude who used the twinkie defense? yeah he really messed it up for everyone doing that. I did my time, I didn't let my time do me. I wrote and published a sci fi trilogy, which is really hard to do in prison, but all you have is time. I like who I am now, and what I've turned into. I worked well at various companies, but ... I wish that was still the case. I'm proud to be 14 years clean now. I'll never go back on that stuff.
rthkljlkrj 3y ago
> Previously I worked in Information Security as a SecOps Eng, most recently at Tinder. Between lack of recent job experience, and my record, I have been through a series of offer reneges, recruiters ghosting me, or going into HR resume black holes. I "look good on paper" and recruiters ghost me too.
ecmascript 3y ago
Maybe move to another state or country? If nothing else helps I guess that could be your best option.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 3y ago
  What country would allow a documented felon to live there?
  - ecmascript 3y ago
    Many countries in Europe have had immigration without any control what so ever for years so I guess all of them?
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
I became self-employed in early 90s after moving to a very different job market (difficult to get work without connections). I stayed self-employed after my wife's disabilities started impacting my schedule. By the time my wife moved on, I had reached the ageism stage of my career. I'm still self-employed. Being uninsured sucks but the schedule is pretty okay.
hermitcrab 3y ago
If you have got the time and energy, why not start creating an application related to the area you want to work in? It will be a positive at any interviews. Maybe it will bring you some new contacts or consultancy work. And if it gains traction you could start your own business. (I've run my own 1-man software business since 2005. But I realize it isn't for everyone.)
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  >If you have got the time and energy, why not start creating an application related to the area you want to work in? I agree, start "working in public" and networking a bit on places like Twitter. Those things aren't really my cup-of-tea, but what I love is that the idea of pseudonymity is becoming more accepted. In the IT world, a lot of people don't care much about you except your ability to produce work.
  - hermitcrab 3y ago
    >I agree, start "working in public" That is one approach. I kept all my code proprietary. Depends on your goals and personality.
lauralifts 3y ago
Have you contacted https://www.nextchapterproject.org/ https://www.nextchapterproject.org/? They do training and placements aimed at getting formerly incarcerated people into tech roles. I don't know if they work with folks like you with experience already but I'd say it's worth a try. I used to work at Slack, which founded this program.
- publicprivacy 3y ago
  Thank you, checking them out now!
- pwarner 3y ago
  Slack had a great talk about this project at their conference back in 2019 I believe. They really seemed committed to being a change agent in this area which struck me as awesome.
tauntz 3y ago
Move to a different country. I'm in an EU country and it's really rare to see a company do any background checks at all. Be honest, if/when you're asked about it of course - but just from personal anecdotal experience, it's rare that somebody even bothers to ask. (this might vary of course from country to country)
- elchief 3y ago
  the company might not do a criminal background check, but the immigration officer sure will... another country is very unlikely to let someone immigrate (or even visit) with a criminal record
  - filoleg 3y ago
    Yeah, that’s a big one. Hell, you will most likely get grilled (and likely denied entry) by Canadian Border Patrol driving in for a short tourist trip as a US citizen just for having a misdemeanor. Not even talking about immigrating to Canada or getting a permission to work there, or more serious offenses. I have a squeaky clean record, was driving an 8 year old toyota camry at the time, and by all accounts appeared as the most boring non-offensive person out there trying to cross the Vancouver border with my mom and sister (who were both US citizens by then too, so it isn’t like I was transporting non-citizens across the border) for a daytrip during a weekend. And CBP went on a 10-15 mins long line of questioning about what exactly I do for work (was in a somewhat niche area of MSFT at the time, so it isn’t like they would be suspicious of the employer being shady or anything like that, but also it was really difficult to explain exactly what i do for work to someone who sounded like they just discovered the existence of software engineering and have zero idea what any of it is). Only after that got cleared up and answering a few more strangely personal questions (from me, as well from my mom and sister), they let me in. For context, they were visiting me from GA, and I was the driver. The entire process took close to 20 mins. And something similar happened at least every other time I tried to cross the WA-Vancouver border. In contrast, crossing the border back into the US was as smooth and efficient as I could have possibly imagined every single time. Despite my passengers occasionally creating non-happy-path situations for crossing the border. On that same trip I mentioned above, my mom decided to buy some really nice looking grapes and bring them back home (which was not known to me at the time). The US officer, as we were crossing the border back into the US, asked if we were bringing anything back. My mom honestly said “oh, nothing, except these grapes.” Unknown to us, those grapes were considered invasive/harmful species that weren’t allowed to be brought into the US. All that did was adding less than an extra minute to our trip, because the border officer just calmly explained to us the situation, profusely apologized, and said that our options were to either eat the grapes or watch as he throws them away into a trash can in front of us. The whole experience from start to finish took less than 2 minutes. P.S. Major apologies for going on a massive side-tangent. All I wanted to say was that, yeah, with any sort of a criminal record (even as minor as a misdemeanor), a lot of international options are almost instantly axed at the visa stage. Way before even getting to the “will the employer be ok with my criminal record” stage.
felon_in_texas 3y ago
This is a "throwaway" account for obvious reasons. I did some terrible things when I was 19 that I won't go into details, but after working as a developer for a few years, served a six-year sentence from 2003-2009. Upon release, I leveraged some old contacts to get a bit of contracting work. In time I found more contracting work, mostly working for smaller companies on a 1099 basis. (direct, not through a firm) In time a local contract turned into a job, and I've been with the company since. I'm the lead developer and own the entire stack, from the cloud to the front-end. I've made myself very valuable to them, and earn an income that's well over market (early on they offered me a percentage of profits as compensation) I still continue to do contracting on a small basis (small companies tend to not bind you with onerous terms keeping you from doing so). Some of them I've even found on HN. Anything involving a background check is a no-go. Most traditional employment situations, especially with "big" companies is a no-go. Sometimes you have to hustle a bit more, but honestly, I feel like owning your career with an entrepreneurial mindset is something everyone can benefit from. Most of my clients have no idea about my past. A few have learned, but it didn't disqualify me. I was transparent when asked.
- justsomeoldguy 3y ago
  My job two jobs ago did start out with their eyes open. I was up front about it and it was a question on the application. I wasn't going to lie. They told me it wouldn't be a problem .... and it wasn't. Until someone else found out and wasn't so non-judgemental. that's kind of how this goes-- whoever I first start working with, whoever is doing the hiring, whatever. I get the green light. I get hired even. It's ... what happens next. You got new coworkers? A lot of people start digging. I don't survive that digging. Part of the problem is I went to prison for eight years. And I am just a computer nerd with no criminal background, I've never even had a parking ticket. I act like every other nerd in a dev environment. I love hardware, I'm very passionate about operating systems, making them run juust right. Where it's a problem is when people look me up and are like, holy cow this is a hardened criminal! but I act... so... normal. and you wouldn't guess. it actually flips people out. it feels like I'm lying about a whole lot of things suddenly. I must be. I have to be. and it goes downhill from there. Whatever trust I earned gets taken away because people are judgmental and often not reasonable about that judgement.
nope00 3y ago
Nov’22 is very recent, and won’t be your experience forever. It’s been a little over 20 years for me. Now, I get background checked every year. It doesn’t show. Initially I worked in food service and on phpfreelancer. I spun that into consistent consulting work until a client offered a full time position (less than 15 people, no background checks). As the years rolled by, I kept moving around. Eventually I tried at a large company(around 8 years ago) and nothing showed on the background check. I do NOT recommend being upfront, unless there are no formal procedures in place and being honest actually helps. We are talking about your ability to feed and shelter yourself, so give up on the “honesty” thing. I have -never- been able to provide for myself after having been “honest”. [edit: after reading felonintexas let me update this. If someone point blank asks, tell them. Don’t volunteer this information. There is nothing to be gained] Also, you are now an edge case. That means most advice doesn’t apply. This is both exciting and horribly anxiety driving at the same time. You will have to become comfortable blazing your own path and doing things others say is not possible. Seriously, good luck. It is possible. It is amazing what you can do that everyone else thinks can’t be done.
- tonetegeatinst 3y ago
  Not a felon but grew up with everyone telling us that colleges would search our social media etc. A friend told me that the 2 important rules to surviving corporate environments is the following in no specific order. 1. Never lie to someone, and own what you did. Wordsmithing is a gray area but never lie, the reputation of not being truthful can follow you for decades. 2. Never volunteer information that isn't specifically asked for. This isn't a free pass to not provide critical info when your working on stuff like a project, but keep in mind that HR always can dig up info when they want to fire you or not offer you a job. Be honest and to the point, but don't volunteer info that can put you in a bad spot. TLDR: if they don't ask, don't tell. But if they ask, be honest
  - bfuller 3y ago
    tell the truth, but don't always be telling it
  - justsomeoldguy 3y ago
realmike33 3y ago
I do a lot of non profit work with the formerly incarcerated. Here are some resources I hope helps you out: https://jailstojobs.org/second-chance-employers-network/ https://jailstojobs.org/second-chance-employers-network/ https://www.centerforworkforceinclusion.org/our-work/formerly-incarcerated/ https://www.centerforworkforceinclusion.org/our-work/formerl... --- Not sure if you have linkedin or anything but I'd like to stay connected
- publicprivacy 3y ago
  https://www.linkedin.com/in/saunderscaleb/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/saunderscaleb/
publicprivacy 3y ago
My linkedin if anyone has career opportunities or wants to talk: https://www.linkedin.com/in/saunderscaleb/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/saunderscaleb/
dudul 3y ago
Maybe a dumb suggestion but could you go the contracting route? Do employers run background checks for contractors?
SillyUsername 3y ago
Tldr; I made a possible career ending move (see p.p.s below main comment), here's what I did to fix it and end up in successful employment again. Not the same but I was sacked during a probation period because I refused to give my proof of ID details a 5th time to the HR, the same 3 pieces requested multiple times or lost. I told them to reuse those I uploaded a day or two earlier. HR dismissed me after a single warning to give them by my line manager, and in dismissal point blank refused to say why (in probation in the UK they have no legal requirement to tell you). Obviously I cannot say HR at xyz company were incompetent and I was the scape goat. What I did say in my next interview was what I learnt during my probation there, they needed somebody with more SQL/database skills. I had them as a senior developer, but I deliberately pushed back as it wasn't what I was hired for. In the interview I simply said I was "let go because I believe they wanted somebody more database oriented and that was not what I wanted to do" with the emphasis I was being hired at the new place as a developer not as a database specialist. That was therefore not my error and it's justifiable to want to do work you were hired for, they didn't give me an actual dismissal reason, and based on what I was told day to day could have been true. It also helped that I completed a 2 month project (for the sacked from place) without any flaws in 3 weeks (yes they were average developers there at best). The point being, distract and do not linger, use the disadvantage and stuff that is positive to your advantage, make no excuses because that validates their (any) misconception. I would: - Prep and learn as many responses for awkward questions that you can think of. - Find relatable ways to justify the offence, but make sure you show it's been apologised for (it broke the law but anybody could fall into that trap). This may not be 100% coverable because perhaps it's unrelatable, but people wouldn't invite you to interview unless they thought you had or can redeem yourself. So for example, you mentioned drugs, I've not done them but I have done stupid things when drunk, so I can at least understand your position/state of mind. - Find ways to (importantly, indirectly, don't dodge because being evasive will work against you) bring the topic back to accomplishments at the previous role (the one you were let go from). E.g 'I apologised to the official and the staff I worked with before I left, although shocked they thanked me for my hard work on xyz (a project that I believe went live with great success a month later)". In the last point you leave that open because it's a distraction point, it's not you saying "despite what happened, I did loads of good work like xyz" (which is misconception validation, direct topic changing -evasive- and now requires further detail on your part which blocks them talking -they may feel they're not getting answers). I did this approach on my follow up interview and got the position. At the end of the day it's about owning the mistake, learning and no longer apologising (because perhaps you have already done that). It ultimately also gives you real life street cred as a secops guy, i.e. you've can relate to a criminal element, although I'm uncertain if you could turn that into a positive - if you found out new stuff behind bars well that's a win - that could at least be an anecdote based on how relaxed/personable the interviewers are (e.g. if one tries to put you at ease by saying they did time). Final point, don't rely on recruiters, use LinkedIn directly. Recruiters have a pool of people you join who they often field one at a time, you will be in a queue possibly at the back because the recruiter wants the best chance at getting a win with the least hassle when fighting against candidates from other recruiters. Unless you have a stand out skill they may secretly bias against you and there's no way of knowing. P.s. also refer to yourself as ex-felon, it's reinforcing that you're over it. P.p.s somebody down voted me, don't know why since if anybody has ever been sacked for refusing to give ID you should know you're basically shooting yourself in the head if the word gets between HR departments that you won't identify yourself during reference checking, potentially career killing.
dang 3y ago
There used to be a YC startup dedicated to this, which unfortunately no longer exists. I don't know the backstory on that, but I do remember that there was quite a large Launch HN thread: Launch HN: 70MillionJobs (YC S17) – Job board for people with criminal records - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14911467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14911467 - Aug 2017 (506 comments) I link it here in case there might still be useful information or tips in those comments. If there are other related threads, we can list them here too. Edit: also this (via jph's comment below): Tell HN: I'm Afraid We're Shutting Down - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31598978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31598978 - June 2022 (353 comments)
- jph 3y ago
  Thanks @dang. 70 Million Jobs CEO Richard Bronson wrote a moving update for HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31598978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31598978
  - dang 3y ago
    Ah I'd forgotten. Thanks! I've added it above.
    - rdl 3y ago
      Screwed up thing is the hiring conditions today are almost the opposite of 2020, so it would work great now (lots of entry to mid level jobs open, more comfort with remote than in <2020, etc.)
- Pikamander2 3y ago
  > I don't know the backstory on that After skimming through the threads, it looks like: 1. Bronson's business started out strong right before the pandemic and showed a lot of promise. 2. The pandemic nearly bankrupted it. 3. His business partially recovered after the pandemic, but he was unable to secure high enough wages during a period of high inflation and wage growth and so his employees kept leaving to find higher paid work elsewhere, which he sourly blamed on "The Great Resignation" and shut the whole thing down. It was a bit of a sad story and arguably a loss of a great resource, but the positive flip side is that it suggests the economy was good enough for his workers to find better work independently rather than relying on a for-profit middleman who I would assume takes some kind of commission/fee out of the deal.
RajT88 3y ago
Contract work is a good option for when you have any kind of black mark that recruiters are going to skip over you for. I see a lot of people who got laid off / fired who ended up with the dreaded "Resume Gap", and it's very common to spin up your own consulting/contracting firm. That way - you can claim you were self-employed, and there's no obvious resume gap. I'm sure it doesn't fool all the recruiters, but it's got to fool a lot of them who are lazy and suck at recruiting.
giantg2 3y ago
Just curious how felony assault is not a physical violence offense. I understand there could be differences in state laws, but most felony assault charges require use of force wither resulting in an injury or involving a weapon.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  It may depend on jurisdiction, but often assault is a threat, assault and battery is violence.
- itsjoeco 3y ago
  [dead]
felon1234567890 3y ago
I have a felony dui from 2010. No deaths, injuries or crashes or anything like that just found myself over the limit a few times in the days before lyft/uber. I had to focus on jobs with small companies that did no checks. There were so many times I declined jobs when I saw the background check just to avoid the shame. It's a waiting game until it falls off the threshold of places caring. Eventually I got a job as a federal contractor working with semi sensitive metadata. I didn't need a clearance but had to get a public trust. Was still grilled by DIA trying to determine if i could be compromised. I am so glad I don't have to check the box anymore and have stayed out of trouble. 2 months of jail, 3 years of probation and another 10 years of shame. Good riddance. Today I make 170k as one of the main senior engineers. Good luck! Ps some states have laws against asking if you're a felon. Cali and Colo might be 2. Look into remote jobs in those states after researching that.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  > Ps some states have laws against asking if you're a felon. Cali and Colo might be If you've been convicted of anything in the last 10-15 years, every script-kiddie docket scraper will attribute the conviction to you. This is only useful to people willing/able to compartmentalize their past under a deadname. Then applicants can mislead the employer into running background checks on a synthetic identity that comes back clean.
  - Exoristos 3y ago
    When I changed my name, the court required extensive proof I had no convictions, no major debts, etc. etc. This was quite a while ago. Are you saying requirements have been loosened?
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      Great question. No changes to requirements that I'm aware of when legally changing your name, but that's not the step I'm talking about...the exploitable mechanic here is in socially-engineering the hiring manager. Two approaches: The more confusing you make the results of your background check, the less apparent relevance the criminal conviction for Jimmy Deere will have for Jane Doe. The hiring manager isn't the county clerk or a private investigator. He doesn't have time to unfuck your fuckary. So when changing your name, pick one from the local obituaries or the name of a former resident of your home. Even better is if you share a name with another known criminal. Your background check will "erroneously" include information about a random dude named Jimmy with a criminal conviction, suggest you are currently incarcerated for manslaughter and DUI, and that you died last year at age 89, but you also died a decade ago at 72. With any luck, he'll distrust the results enough to hire you. The other course I've seen is the squeaky-clean route. Adopt the name of an overseas CEO who works in the same industry you do. Then act like an expert in that field without ever explicitly claiming to be that person. It sounds insane. It fucking works. Any negative data will be glossed over by all the positive sentiment associated with your "victim." (Just don't attend the same trade shows!) The yarn-graphing I had to do to disambiguate one individual's skinwalked identities had my colleagues calling me Pepe Silvia for months. The guy was using disparate sets of foreign-and-domestically-issued papers to establish toy companies all over the place and at one point "adopted" the identity and address of his onetime AirBNB host, who himself was a retired industry executive. It was the wildest case I've ever worked. Synthetic identity fraud: fun for everyone!
giantg2 3y ago
Start an LLC if allowed in your state. Work under the LLC or work as a 1099. Less chance of employers looking you up if not a W2 employee. Select small companies to work for, or even work for yourself. My wife had a misdemeanor that was eventually expunged and this seems to work.
- justsomeoldguy 3y ago
  I think you're missing just how nosy people are these days. If you have a name and it traces back to your case (like mine) then that kind of obfuscation is just not going to work. It hasn't yet.
  - linuxftw 3y ago
    Start going by your middle name professionally.
    - justsomeoldguy 3y ago
      yeah. but my last name is very unique and there are only five of us in the country. none my age.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    Worked for my wife less than 10 years ago. Just saying.
mynameisnoone 3y ago
(Throwaway) Defending yourself against a group of 5 assailants who assault you and appear intent on causing you great bodily harm, even if battery to you is stopped, no one was injured, and you use no force in excess of defense, in the current political environment, it will result in a maliciously prosecuted assault charge if they happen to be PoC and you happen to be a white man leading to: - Stress and uncertainty for months to years - Legal costs between $15k and $50k - Loss of rental housing - Moving costs, say $6k - An inability to be hired by a major corporation because of background checks until after the charge is expunged (another $5k in legal costs and many more months of uncertainty) --- I hold the Scandinavian view, that after 20 years, a person can be very different, especially if they had a rough childhood. The US is organized around punitive prosecution and maximizing carceral suffering, has a net average problem with over-prosecuting PoC, a very high incarceration rate, over-prosecuting some crimes that aren't there, and not prosecuting thieves and vandals enough. There also isn't enough community engagement, de-escalation intervention, counseling, and diversion from the school-to-prison pipeline to care about people on a troubled path.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
schizo89 3y ago
I've been released 2 years ago and no I've been unable to find a gig. No one would reply lol. I m doing open source projects, ai and indie games. I've got more stress Cred than before. I think getting back to Normie workforce in police state such as us is impossible. Peace man
- justsomeoldguy 3y ago
  it really sucks. If I had known I'd lose my jobs the way I did each time, I would never have applied to begin with. it was really traumatic each time, and very sudden. it PTSD'd me, not that I have any shortage of that. But just the way everyone gets when you go from "everyone knows you and respects you and likes you" and suddenly it's ... uhh ohh. everyone being quiet. is this... again? yes. yes it was. and I just can't do that anymore. that isn't living, it's dying.
  - schizo89 3y ago
    Lol what are you talking about? If you have something to eat and a working pc and stable internet connection you can make the way. That's a hard lessons learnt in startup years. It's the same
    - justsomeoldguy 3y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by "make the way" and your working pc and stable internet connection seem to trivialize the pressures and very real limitations someone has while on parole and then subsequently after getting off parole.
schizo89 3y ago
Well I think best move would be staring a trade union in discord, to aid eath other. We strong in unity.
eli 3y ago
Sounds like you're in California. I'd start by making sure you know your rights under their "Ban the Box" laws. In general I don't think an employer can ask about or consider a prior conviction until after they've made a conditional offer.
- justsomeoldguy 3y ago
  they do not honor those, sorry. they ask anyways. and if you wanna put up a fight with HR about why they're asking when they can't, you are already fired before you've been hired.
  - eli 3y ago
    Fight with HR? No, they are breaking the law. You should talk to an employment lawyer. You could potentially get a cash settlement, force them to consider your application, or an injunction that would force them to treat future applicants better. Could also file a complaint with the state and they will investigate on your behalf. Good lawyer can advise you of options though.
    - justsomeoldguy 3y ago
      I tried. they wanted money up front I couldn't afford. The job was a relocation to boston, mass. and they had the check the box laws and all that. It didn't matter. They did it in writing, too. every step of the way. from the job offer, to the acceptance, to the background check after, to notifying me of adverse information being found, they gave me a chance to explain, and I'm like, you said you wouldn't look back further than 7 years, the law says you can't, in both california and boston. They didn't care, and they in writing terminated me because of information that was 9 years old, my felony. I have had a LOT of things happen over the years, many of which should have been suable. I'm afraid it isn't like in the movies or the media. the 2 year statute of limitations ran out in 2021, so. here we are only talking about it.
      - eli 3y ago
        Maybe you need a better lawyer. Good lawyer should talk to you for free to explain the process and see if you have a case worth pursuing. Also this is definitely free and they can decide to bring a lawsuit on your behalf https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/complaintprocess/?content=fileComplaint#fileComplaintBody https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/complaintprocess/?content=file...
system2 3y ago
In the United States if you start your own IT company and sell your services to your clients there won't be any questioning who you are or where you even studied. As long as you solve the business problems they will pay you greatly. If it is a matter of survival, I'd pick this route. You can easily make 6 figures or even 7 figures within a few years. You do not need to find a full-time job at a fancy company. Long story short, nobody needs to know your past as long as you know how to fix computers and handle network systems.
- Ckirby 3y ago
  Yeah, this is a fairly sensible answer start a private LLC and subcontract the work to yourself
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    It works. I knew someone with a record who took this approach. Just being self-employed is usually enough. I've been SE for decades (no record) and my only background checks were by private agencies for developmentally disabled adults. These were existing clients who later put me on the payroll - and that's when they checked me out. But not when I was 1099.
- ldehaan 3y ago
  [dead]
throwawaymypot 3y ago
(Throw away account for obvious reasons) I experienced this. Due to various undiagnosed mental health issues I ended up with a serious record in the UK - a total of 15 charges, all computer related. Due to the clear lack of malicious intent I didn't serve any time, but did get shackled with: 12 months suspended for 12 months; 10 years on the sex offenders register; 7 years sexual harm prevention order; and 5 years of something else I can't remember. Every computer I touch - whilst in the UK - should have "monitoring" software installed, which pretty much ruled out any office job, let alone tech. So after 2 failed suicide attempts and a stay in hospital I decided to completely reinvent myself and start from scratch. Time to hit the big reset button. Legally I have to reveal my convictions ahead of signing a contract in the UK. I got frog-marched out of several buildings by security after the interviews were terminated immediately when I revealed my convictions. I was basically unemployable in the UK and decided to leave and never return. Even after the 10 years is up I am still required to declare "spent convictions" for 5/6 years. This would take me close to my 50th birthday until I no longer have to say anything - 15 years from conviction date. It took 1 year to "create" a new identity, including complete change of name, severing any connection with friends, and faking an employment history. I moved abroad with my new identity and hoped for the best... and so far have had an incredibly successful career (post-conviction), and the one thing which has driven me is being good enough that IF my employer learns of my past, they will weigh up what I offer them vs. what I have done in my past. I remain forever optimistic because _I have to_ . There is no other option.
- tinktank 3y ago
  Sorry to hear all of this. Did you end up in Europe or did you have to go further?
  - throwawaymypot 3y ago
    South Africa first then back to Europe after 5yrs.
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  > Due to the clear lack of malicious intent I didn't serve any time, but did get shackled with: 12 months suspended for 12 months; 10 years on the sex offenders register; 7 years sexual harm prevention order; and 5 years of something else I can't remember. What did you actually do, and what did they get you for? > 5 years of something else I can't remember. Just speaking for myself, I feel like I'd remember something significant like that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
fell_on_knee 3y ago
Clicked on this expecting the guy who repeatedly flashed his dick at teenage girls, got caught, prosecuted and jailed, twice, several years apart, and now posts on HN begging for employment help every few months, while trying to hide what he did. I was relieved to see your charges are basically nothing compared to his. You'll be fine but be up front with recruiters about your felony. For the right candidate, they'll work around it.
SeattleAltruist 3y ago
There's a great program for currently and recently released incarcerated: https://www.prisonscholars.org/what-we-do/our-work-impact/ https://www.prisonscholars.org/what-we-do/our-work-impact/
whalesalad 3y ago
FWIW I would not hesitate to hire a felon if they were talented. Smaller companies and startups won't really have a problem here. Larger companies doing background checks might - but then again they might not. TBH I would use this opportunity to help find an even better match. If a company is going to blindly say no to you, they are probably not worth working at. Unless of course they have some kind of legal issues where they are barred from having a felon on their team.
kypro 3y ago
I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role. If you were arrested for robbery when you were younger perhaps because you had a drug addiction then that person should have a right to serve their time and change their ways later in life without the state holding and distributing that to any potential employer, practically ensuring that individual is unemployable for a mistake they made in their youth. The reason I think this is not a good assumption to assume that someone will be a bad employee simply because they did something criminal in their past. There are terrible employees out there who don't break the law. If we're so concerned about employers hiring bad employees then state should instead build a centralised database of bad employees and their reason for termination at previous places of work. I'd argue this would be more effective if we're concerned an employer might hire a bad employee. Secondly, making it difficult for those who have committed crimes to get back into the workforce increases their risk of reoffending. Having a good job and a nice life to lose is a great reason to not commit crimes while having nothing to live for is a great excuse to do whatever feels right in the moment. Best of luck op. If I was an employer I'd consider you if you had the skills and seemed like you could do the job. I have no idea why your past would be relevant to your ability to work outside of select roles.
- prosqlinjector 3y ago
  The elephant in the room is legal liability. If something happens with a criminal employee then the question is raised "what precautions did you take from letting this dangerous person into your workplace".
  - scrapcode 3y ago
    Does that really cause legal liability, though? The state/federal entity that released them from prison is essentially saying 'okay, we think this person has paid their dues and has a good chance at being a productive member of society.'
sysread 3y ago
[dead]
jph 3y ago
I worked at 70 Million Jobs (YC) to help people with records get jobs. Here's my advice FWIW. Your experience in security operations is in demand, so that's a big plus for you. Seek work that you can do via external environments, meaning you don't need to be on-site, and don't need to have internal access. Ideally you can create an LLC so you can work for yourself. A few examples... 1. Doing compliance-oriented security reviews via cloned systems (e.g. your customer provides you with a non-live copy). 2. Advising on process commitments (e.g. security SLAs, or UML/Visio/EA diagrams, or declarative configurations). 3. Effecting security-related project management task plans (e.g. pilots, proof of concepts, research adjuncts, resource estimations).
- jcims 3y ago
  Was going to suggest looking into an LLC. I ran a security consulting company for about ten years and the only customers that asked for background checks were banks and some federal agencies.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    And there are even some customers that’ll happily pay a bit more when they learn you’ve been roughed and tumbled.
    - keepamovin 3y ago
      What does that mean?
      - wyclif 3y ago
        It means that having that kind of background isn't necessarily a negative.
- wyclif 3y ago
  Not a felon, but this is a valuable reply. I'm finding it tough breaking into security operations and DevSecOps even though I have a clean record, but because of the fact that I'm a US citizen living offshore now. Seems like a lot of roles they want on-site in the US. (I'm currently in an APAC time zone). I'm wondering if that's true or if it's just a possibly wrong impression I have about the industry.
NanoYohaneTSU 3y ago
Yes, but my answer isn't the one you want. My long time acquaintance got out after a number of years, in his late 20s after committing a crime at 19, was intelligent and knew computer science extremely well after teaching himself in prison and after he picked up projects on github and grinded leetcode. He did gig work, but that wasn't sustainable so in the end he bought someone's identity and lies on resumes and background checks. He can obviously hold no job that does serious background checks. He has a high school education. Hope you find employment without having to resort to this, but that's a harsh reality.
topkai22 3y ago
I do not have personal experience on the job seeker side, but I do know some (2) people who have managed to get government jobs with a record. I suspect the nature of your offense would make it harder or impossible, but the public sector is a weird place- they often have very specific scoring criteria that they must follow for hiring decisions and if criminal record is not part of it they really will not consider it (at least that is my interpretation of what one of my friends said.)
droptablemain 3y ago
When you are searching Indeed, you can check the "Fair Chance" option where the employer has indicated a willingness to work with this kind of stuff. This is not something I'm experienced in though. Best of luck.
- jeffffff 3y ago
  Speaking of Indeed, the first employee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lamprecht https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lamprecht) was a felon and a great engineer
joshuakogut 3y ago
I did. It took a couple years though. I think my biggest problem was getting out during covid and not the felony.
blackbox1 3y ago
I'm sure you've started figuring out the tricks to finding positions that are friendly to people with criminal backgrounds, but if you're checking for positions on places like LinkedIn, they have a flag for people posting jobs that shows they are open to candidates with criminal backgrounds. You'll see the postings show "People with a criminal record are encouraged to apply" which I think is placed on the job description if an employer selects the "Fair chance" flag. So you could narrow your searches down using "Fair chance" Others like Glassdoor just use "People with a criminal record are encouraged to apply" Now, whether those employers really mean it, or if it's a legal requirement they check that box, I'm not sure.
xyst 3y ago
I vaguely recall an episode of “Dark Diaries” which was supposedly the guy behind “d3f4ult” as part of some activist hacking group. Dude was convicted of computer hacking crimes and sent to a federal penitentiary. I believe he ended up being a security consultant or something. So it’s possible. I think you might find work with smaller companies. HR at most big company will often deny, ignore or ghost you once they pull the background check. Maybe they will look the other way? But likely need to know a few hiring managers that would take the risk of hiring a convicted felon. Personally, I do know having a felony on record will exclude you from any financial related firms. But honestly, you are not missing out.
bobmaxup 3y ago
I am a felon working in IT. My pay is much less than others working in the industry, but I am grateful for the opportunity to work for an employer rather than scrounging for work behind a LLC or something. There are a lot of small companies out there that don't do background checks, and some slightly larger companies who will overlook your past.
nytesky 3y ago
There is hope that things will change for folks like you who have “paid your debt”, this was on NPR today. It sounds like your best bet is to be incarcerated adjacent jobs, maybe the Innocence project has tech work? Something like that to build recent relevant experience. https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace/ https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace/
icedchai 3y ago
Try a smaller company. They typically don't run actual background checks. They may, however, run a google search and something could come up.
netaustin 3y ago
As far as I'm aware, the state of play in tech is far more welcoming to formerly incarcerated people than this thread would imply. Justice Through Code at Columbia University is designed to place formerly incarcerated and criminal legal system-involved individuals in tech roles, and has had a lot of success placing its alumni at big tech companies [1]. And this is largely for entry-level tech workers. Checkr is a commonly used background-check tool, especially in tech, that allows for those with criminal histories to provide context for what's on their record [2], I'm curious if you've encountered it specifically. To your post about being ghosted, that seems unfortunately to be a common theme in this period of staff contraction that may not be limited to those with criminal records [3], but reneged offers is a bummer, I'm sorry that's happened to you. There's a theme of "owning the narrative" among some formerly incarcerated people that may be worth considering. Last, a useful resource on humanizing language for those of us without criminal justice histories [5]. [1] https://centerforjustice.columbia.edu/justicethroughcode https://centerforjustice.columbia.edu/justicethroughcode [2] https://checkr.com/ https://checkr.com/ [3] https://medium.com/@k0ryk/everyones-getting-ghosted-dbf0fbaf161 https://medium.com/@k0ryk/everyones-getting-ghosted-dbf0fbaf... [4] https://fortunesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/final-humanizing-language.pdf https://fortunesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/final-...
- pyuser583 3y ago
  Federal prisons were offering coding courses as early as the 1970s.
ShakataGaNai 3y ago
One of the people on the other side of the table here. There are programs out there for the "rehabilitation" of those formerly convicted. Some of what I've seen is probably not helpful for you, but part of their work is job placement with companies whom are cooperative. It's hit or miss who is willing to go through the extra work of hiring those with a record, which is silly because it's not that much extra work. Depending on the role, it does add extra hoops which some managers will just shrug and find someone with less baggage. Consulting is an excellent other option as well. Plenty of work in the security field if you get your name out there. Independent experts on small limited projects. Especially if you're doing things like external pen tests.
rdl 3y ago
I know a fair number of people who have had no problem after (old) drug or DUI or violence convictions, but I usually hear about them in the context of "15 years ago I...". I don't know more current who isn't just a corp to corp contractor. I know people who have pled and haven't been sentenced, or who have had relatively recent convictions, who are working as single member LLCs for clients who know details. If it's old or minor, I don't think I'd care as a hiring manager. It's annoying in some regulated industries since felony complicates checkbox compliance, but in "normal" industries enh.
- talldatethrow 3y ago
  You know the ones that managed to get through. You don't know all the ones that tried and were denied because of it.
Cyberis 3y ago
My advice: Start your own cybersecurity company. No one will hire you for any IT position. So you need to create your own. A niche that isn't being addressed is cybersecurity offerings targeted to small nonprofits. You'd make a killing.
Ubergeek99 3y ago
[flagged]
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  > In today's America if you're a man and never been arrested, you're not manly enough. Lol. Um, what the fuck?
- throwaway17_17 3y ago
  Assault is a pretty broad thing, given all the enhancements that can be stacked onto it. There are at a minimum felony assault statutes for threats involving a weapon, threats involving specifically a firearm, threats involving protected characteristics, then there are the laundry list of ‘threats’ (often vaguely defined) against police, emergency personnel, government officials, etc all of which are typically felony charges in a majority of US states and federal jurisdictions. In my experience dealing with convicted felons, depending on location, there is a real problem in securing interview with real people who have hiring authority who you can actually offer up the details which present your conviction in the best light and offer explanations and clarifications of said conviction. OP may have just been broad in the description of the conviction to imply a conviction for something that did not actually involve violence, while keeping the extraneous details to a minimum. I think your admonishment to ‘not exaggerate’ was a bit unwarranted and certainly came across as condescending when written in text. Also, the above is not legal advice.
alt2319 3y ago
Yes. I have a federal felony conviction for fraud involving a computer, against a former employer. Good times. I've worked for 2-4 companies since then, depending on how you count acquisitions. I've even been trusted to write code that has touched a lot of financial transactions for customers. I doubt I would have been able to stay employed if I didn't have some dedicated advocates, mostly at the CTO level. At my last (very small) company, my background never even came up. No check at all. I've also spent a few years scraping by as an indie mobile developer with up to 15 apps in the different stores. With just a bit of a corporate shield, nobody even needs to know who you are. In the software/IT field, I've met and even worked with plenty of people with criminal records. Multiple DUIs. Two that were convicted of vehicular manslaughter or something similar. Plenty of drug offenses. You may want to check out Underdog Devs. You're likely too experienced for their mentee program but at one time they had a good list of tech companies willing to hire people with criminal records.
nwroot 3y ago
California has ban the box, apply there
severalFelonies 3y ago
Multiple felony convicted drug offender. Several arrests, several stints in jail. Sysadmin/Linux with a little Dev and a little ops I tell the truth; tell them I’m in recovery and it’s a big part of my life (which is true). Nowadays everyone has a friend/brother/sister/uncle/parent where they’ve seen the horrors of addiction (and pop culture is educating people as well) and most people see it (recovery) as a positive thing. Leadership/managers either already know or learn quickly that I’m not going to drink too much at a work event and embarrass them nor will I ever not be able to work due to a hangover. I’ve been turned away from several jobs with my honesty but welcomed at others, from startups to national corporations. With my record, I have to look at it as a “meant to be” sorta thing. If they turn me away after I share my past and what it looks like now, it just wasn’t the right place for me and I have to keep looking.
burner420042 3y ago
I have first hand experience in this issue. A felony record, in the context of passing a tech background check, is the following: Does the word 'felony' appear on your record? It's all just string matching. Felony misdemeanor? I'm a felon. Felony misdemeanor as a juvenile? I'm a felon. Felony for Adult Bad Things? Not me, but maybe someone else. Either way, you're done for 7 years. I still wait to tell friends and family until after the background check passes... 15 years later. Most background checks (basically all) though are local to the states you list, so if you say you've only ever lived in Texas, but your conviction was in Oregon, I think you'd still pass as long as it wasn't a federal level conviction. I know this because I've scrutinized every single background check I've ever had. The experience will jade you and will leave a permanent bad taste in your mouth. Don't forget they need software developers in Latin America and Europe.
logicchains 3y ago
Have you considered working overseas? Not a felon but I've worked for companies in Dubai and Singapore which didn't require background checks (although it's possible the government did a background check without explicitly mentioning it as part of the visa application process).
plondon514 3y ago
This might be a good place to mention the Columbia Center for Justice which offers Justice Through Code, a bootcamp for the previously incarcerated. Someone I mentored there last year has successfully found work. I’d be happy to share more details through email. https://centerforjustice.columbia.edu/justicethroughcode https://centerforjustice.columbia.edu/justicethroughcode
tomashm 3y ago
Norway's most famous criminal became a software developer. https://www-kode24-no.translate.goog/artikkel/david-toska-koding-erstatter-kriminalitet/80601691?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://www-kode24-no.translate.goog/artikkel/david-toska-ko...
ozzydave 3y ago
Have you looked at Next Chapter at all? I know several folks who have come through and have amazing careers at tech firms: https://www.nextchapterproject.org/ https://www.nextchapterproject.org/
black_13 3y ago
[dead]
silexia 3y ago
I am happy to hire people with criminal histories to work remotely, I have 270 full time employees and plenty of safeguards to prevent future malfeasance. If you want a chance at a job - apply at CoalitionTechnologies.com

x0x0 3y ago

We spin up a clone of prod and point them at that. Certainly if a weakness is found in the clone it's also present in prod, but that's what contracts are for. And we also review logs to make sure. edit: a clone of prod w/ only test data in it, not prod data.

randomdata 3y ago
How do you know what you are looking for in the logs? If you have the foresight to be able to recognize a malicious action from the logs, why not have the software block those actions from the start?
- x0x0 3y ago
  We log all accesses and flows. So eg if our pentesters found a vulnerability in an endpoint, we can retrieve every post against that endpoint and (1) verify the pentesters didn't exploit it against prod, and (2) verify that it hasn't been exploited by anyone else.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Of course, that only works if the vulnerability is reported. There is no reason for the malicious actor to report the vulnerability they have chosen to exploit. What percentage of the vulnerabilities discovered are independently discovered by multiple pen testers?
    - unethical_ban 3y ago
      It sounds like you're suggesting that pen testers by default will not reveal discovered vulnerabilities with clients. Then you talk about "discovered and revealed vulnerabilities". But, your first sentence talks about "discovered vulnerabilities not revealed". What you may be wanting is a honeypot, where a pentest client intentionally puts some vulnerabilities of various exploit difficulty into the clone environment to ensure pentesters are doing their job.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        > It sounds like you're suggesting that pen testers by default will not reveal discovered vulnerabilities with clients. How so? Presumably most pen testers are working in good faith. But, if there is a malicious actor in their midst, that individual would not disclose any vulnerabilities they intend to exploit, no. What would be the point? That's just a really good way to get caught. > Then you talk about "discovered and revealed vulnerabilities". Yes, that's right. While it is theoretically possible for all your pen testers to be working together maliciously, if you are careful in your employment practices you can make this highly unlikely. As such, if your data shows that 100% of all known vulnerabilities were independently discovered by multiple testers, then there is reasonable confidence that any malicious actor's failure to disclose a vulnerability will still be reported by someone else. But if that figure is less than 100%, and especially if it is considerably less than 100%, then there is much more doubt cast on another pen tester in your organization's ability to find the same vulnerability. Here you have a problem.
        x0x0 3y ago
        The app and api are on the internet anyway, so you don't need to be a pentester to test it w/ no intention of reporting.
        randomdata 3y ago
        You don't need to be, but there are some big advantages: 1. You get to test the flaws in an environment where nobody will raise an eyebrow. If you go straight for the production system, it is likely your early attempts will visibly show up in the logs. 2. You get paid to carry out malicious deeds. That's a double win. It would be kind of silly not to.
        x0x0 3y ago
        I think it would be silly to do so. You're pulling down $20k+ contracts for a week's work. It's a pretty good gig and completely legal.
        randomdata 3y ago
        Why do you think it would be silly to take the job? The second two sentences read like excellent reasons why you should take the job (even if they are just a repeat what I already said in different words). I must have missed something.
        x0x0 3y ago
        I meant silly to use exploits find while performing a pentest for malicious purposes. You get well paid and it's legal.
        randomdata 3y ago
        Then what do you need pen testers for? With an offer like that, any threats to your system will come work for you instead. The reality is that you don't get paid well if the data is worthless. You only get paid well when the data is worth orders of magnitude more than what you're being offered. If you are inclined to break that law, that's a pretty nice carrot dangling there. If you are so inclined, why wouldn't you take the job and report the not so crafty exploits to bring in the sweet, sweet paycheque and use the really juicy exploit to also go after the even sweeter data? It's a total win-win situation... ...unless you get caught, but if you are so inclined that's not exactly on your radar.
    - digital_sawzall 3y ago
      >What percentage of the vulnerabilities discovered are independently discovered by multiple pen testers? I'd warrant nearly all of them, though it may take a while. If you have ever submitted or worked with a bug bounty program you will run into dozens of duplicates. I've personally performed and overseen assessments in which the company had already done a complete blackbox pentest and wanted a second whitebox review to make sure the first company knew their stuff and validate they found the same bugs. Also did a few of the honeypot assessments in which companies put purposely vulnerable code in to make sure 'we are doing our job', I hate those most. Depending on the testers speciality of course, the reports often found the same or similar issues. Source: 15 years as a pentester, offensive security engineer, and now security architect.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        > I'd warrant nearly all of them, though it may take a while. Why guess when the other commenter has the actual data...?
        lazyasciiart 3y ago
        What commenter had data?
        randomdata 3y ago
        The one we were originally talking to before others started randomly interjecting with gobbledygook. His eventual response was 0, by the way.
    - x0x0 3y ago
      > What percentage of the vulnerabilities discovered are independently discovered by multiple pen testers? Zero because we patch them as soon as we are notified. Generally at the end of the test / before the retest, but if they found something serious they would notify immediately,
      - randomdata 3y ago
        Patch production, sure, but naturally you would leave them in the pen testing environment for some time in order to collect data. No data and you’re just guessing. That’s fine for amateur hour, but not business.

icepat 3y ago

You need a clean background to move to another country if you're not a European. I specifically had to submit a Canadian RCMP fingerprint based background check when I moved to Iceland. EU nationals have it much easier, since the relocation process in the EU does not require that level of scrutiny.

infamouscow 3y ago
If you're in the US, cross the border into Mexico and re-enter as an asylum seeker. Until the idiots in charge change this (by enforcing the existing laws), you should take maximum advantage of its opportunities.
- justsomeoldguy 3y ago
  could you explain this further? what benefit would there be?
  - retrac 3y ago
    I assume they're suggesting create a false identity, and pose as a foreign national illegally living in the United States. It's a rather ...unconventional suggestion, that clearly was not thought out. There is a high risk someone doing that ends up stateless, i.e., with no documentation or paperwork establishing citizenship in any country. The US may arrest such a person at the border - and then imprison them - and then try to deport them back to their country of origin. But what is your country of origin? It may mean a stay in immigration detention indefinitely. There's no guarantee authorities would believe a claim of US citizenship at that point. Citizens who've gotten in that position (usually cases of mistaken identity and/or misbehaviour by US customs) have been deported, and they don't always make it home. It is a potentially Kafkaesque nightmare and I would not advise intentionally putting yourself in that situation.
    - infamouscow 3y ago
      U.S. Customs and Border Protection will happily reply to emails explaining exactly what I said is what in fact happens. You don't have to travel to Arizona or Texas to see it first-hand. Rather than constructing an imaginary straw man detached from reality, please try to reply to the comment and the facts with external links to refute the information. I'm more than happy to provide further counter-factual information to whatever hifalutin nonsense is offered, as if this isn't a statement of fact. What I'm describing is what actually happens today for the overwhelming majority of border crossings. :)
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - mixmastamyk 3y ago
        Neither of you has given much hard information. No dog in the hunt here, but it sounds interesting.
      - 0xDEADFED5 3y ago
        according to [0] the government collects fingerprints from asylum seekers. huge surprise, i know. this probably renders your "idea" moot. [0] https://help.asylumadvocacy.org/faqs-biometrics/ https://help.asylumadvocacy.org/faqs-biometrics/
tauntz 3y ago
Aha, thanks, I didn't know that!
- icepat 3y ago
  After I replied to you I asked a European national who I know if they had to submit anything. They did not, and only found out that it's part of the process by talking to American expats. So apparently this is not common knowledge in the EU!

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> This is a "throwaway" account for obvious reasons. You should know that if you also have a non-throwaway account, HN will unify your accounts in their backend records.

dnissley 3y ago
Is there proof of this?
- tomduncalf 3y ago
  Proof definitely needed. Honestly this doesn’t sound like something HN would have any interest in doing, they don’t serve ads or anything like that so why would they care?
  - bigbillheck 3y ago
    Ban evasion?
  - mixmastamyk 3y ago
    They do definitely limit upvoting/downvoting from similar accounts, so this isn't out of the realm of possibility. They care to avoid false votes, voting rings, etc.
    - tomduncalf 3y ago
      Oh yeah that’s a fair point! But I’d hope the data isn’t used outside of that use
woodruffw 3y ago
No, they don't do this. It's not even clear how they would; the closest thing would be merging based on IP or fingerprinting, but both are extremely noisy.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  You can easily demonstrate to yourself that they do. And the situation here is that felon_in_texas visits HN in his usual manner, views a topic he wants to comment on, creates an account on the spot, and leaves his comment. How noisy do you think the IP identification can be?
  - dnissley 3y ago
    How then? No need to be cagey
  - arp242 3y ago
    > You can easily demonstrate to yourself that they do. How?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    Extremely, if they’re on CGNAT. Or live in a house with more than one person. Please be precise about how I can demonstrate this to myself.
  - felon_in_texas 3y ago
    Very noisy, because I'm not concerned about HN. Not the first time I've used an alt, whether as a throwaway or logging in via my employer's account. I have comfort in HN's integrity when I'm not abusing the privilege.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jcrites 3y ago
It’s fine to have multiple accounts on HN as long as you use them with good judgment. I do. I have spoken with DanG about this before and he seemed fine with it. Yes, you should assume that the moderators will know, and you should be fine with them knowing, because you’re not using the multiple accounts to escape moderation, but rather for greater anonymity in the comment thread. The rules that I follow, which I think are implicit in “use good judgment”: 1. Don’t vote on the same thing from multiple accounts. 2. Don’t participate in the same comment thread with multiple accounts (or if you do, only separate parts of the thread). Don’t create a fake impression of consensus or have your accounts interact with each other. Those are probably the two big ones I would imagine. Whether the accounts are actually tied together on the backend, I don’t know. I would suspect that they are not automatically linked, but could probably be linked if the moderators are investigating you for bad behavior (like voting on the same thing with multiple accounts).
felon_in_texas 3y ago
Generally speaking, not really worried about it. I don't see HN as a risk vector. If I was worried about it, I would have run it through a standalone browser on a fresh machine (or VM) behind a VPN, and not spoken in my "voice" (I would have used ChatGPT to rewrite) Not the first time I've used a throwaway, and they've never merged my comments into my main account (only use throwaways for these types of discussions - I assume abusing it, such as ban evasion, would be a different story)
cangeroo 3y ago
GDPR would prohibit this, and since they never ask about consent, I would assume that they have no legal basis to collect personally identifiable information on anyone. If you have evidence of the contrary, I would love to know.

dharmab 3y ago
No need to sue. You can notify the state Department of Labor and move on.
- justsomeoldguy 3y ago
  Didn't know that. Also was too emotionally distraught to really deal with it in a logical manner. I had a lot of stuff going on, I was about to get off parole 3 years early. I absolutely needed a job. Anyways, I found a good one after. And it was good for 2 years.
voxic11 3y ago
You don't need to sue, you should file a complaint with your states department of labor or whomever is charged with enforcing your states labor laws, they will sue for you if they think you have a case. Also in every state I have seen with a similar law the law specifically says you are allowed to lie if you are asked that question anyways and the employer is not allowed to run a background check on you before they offer you the job so your lie cannot be discovered before the job offer is made (and after its made your lie cannot be used against you and the offer cannot be rescinded without a written evaluation that explains why the specifics in your background check make you incompatible with the specific job you were offered). So I would just lie about it and if you don't get the job or the offer gets unfairly rescinded then report it to your department of labor. Guidance for New York City which is a locality with such a law: > Job applications cannot have questions about criminal records and cannot ask you to authorize a background check. Employers cannot ask you questions about your criminal record. If you are asked about your record, your answer cannot be used against you. Employers cannot run a background check on you until after a conditional offer of employment. > Once an employer offers you a job, they can ask about and consider your criminal record ...an employer can decide to not hire you for one of two reasons: 1. because a direct relationship exists between your conviction and the job you want; or 2. because your conviction history creates an unreasonable risk to people or property. The employer must send you its reasoning in writing, along with the background check it used. https://www.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/fair-chance-employees.page https://www.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/fair-chance-employees.pa...
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  > If you are asked about your record, your answer cannot be used against you. Let's be real: This is basically impossible to enforce. This is exactly the same a gender and national heritiage (ethnicity) discrimination. It happens all the time -- there are so many mentions of it on this board. And very, very rarely is anything done about it. There are so many "weak sauce" excuses that companies can give to explain why they will not hire a candidate. That said: I like your advice: Lie, then report when you are unfairly rejected. This is the way.
Phileosopher 3y ago
NOTE: I'm in the USA, so it may only apply here. It all depends on the framing of the situation. For myself, I frame it as a few of the following, context-depending on how it's asked: * (on a webform) "not applicable" in writing * (do you have a felony?) I do, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my role (because it really doesn't). * (will the background check yield anything we should know?) you'll see something, but it has nothing to do with the job. If they keep pressing, and seem simply hesitant, I refer them to a webpage that articulates the story for them. It's behind me, I've grown from it to where it doesn't define me, and I'm proud that it's behind me. If they get weird for the rest of the interview, I simply say "thank you for your time, but I don't believe this will be a good fit, please let me know if you change your mind", and I walk out of there to avoid wasting another minute with their bigotry. Once I hit the 7-year mark, that background check won't yank any database association to my legal fiction unless they wish to dig. At that point, I can simply say "nothing will show on my background check" and it's completely honest. The reason this continues to be a problem in the USA is because people aren't confident in what they've come through. The stigma exists because employees fold over and continue letting employers feel they have the right to discriminate over what happened, irrespective of how that person changed from their experience. I see my opposing any condescension as an effort to resist a social structure that creates a second-class citizen.

gwbas1c 3y ago

> [edit: after reading felonintexas let me update this. If someone point blank asks, tell them. Don’t volunteer this information. There is nothing to be gained] My Fraternity's cook, when I was in college, was a former fellon. He worked for us for a few years before he told me about his background. I don't remember the details, but we had a conversation where he mentioned he had experience in IT. Eventually he very briefly mentioned some high level details about his criminal record when the conversation drifted around "so if you were making big bucks, why are you now cooking for us?" I personally appreciate that he warned me about the consequences of the super-illegal (but "grey morality") thing he did. But, I must agree, it's best to keep things like a record quiet as long as possible. I don't know if other fraternity brothers knew about his background. It seems like the kind of thing that would be kept quiet until someone started veering into the super-illegal (but "grey morality") area that got our cook in trouble.

busyant 3y ago
> the super-illegal (but "grey morality") thing he did I'm curious to know what he did given your description. I can think of examples of the reverse: quasi-illegal, but quite immoral.
- WatchDog 3y ago
  Not the parent commenter, but I would imagine something involving narcotics.
- smsm42 3y ago
  Drugs? Contraband? Tax evasion? Insider trading? Industrial espionage? Any process crime like "lying to a fed"? If you think about it, we have tons of laws that don't fit into the mold of "hurting specific people" - which would definitely be "black morality" to me - but are more of either "preserving the system as it is" or even "we said it's illegal and so it is". I'm not saying none of those should exist, but I definitely would be willing to look onto some of it as a morally "gray area".
  - kridsdale1 3y ago
    It could be “allowed a very hardy and aggressive weed to grow in an area of his property”.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    I agree, I just wouldn’t trust a felon to make an unbiased determination about the morality of their actions. The only item on your list that I would say is mostly gray area is insider trading - the rest are very much case dependent. A weed dealer might be gray area but someone who peddles crack cocaine is not. Most people like to think they are good, even when presented with hard evidence that they’re not.
    - SturgeonsLaw 3y ago
      > I just wouldn’t trust a felon to make an unbiased determination about the morality of their actions. I wouldn't trust a single human to be objective about the morality of their actions
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      Why is a weed dealer a gray area but cocaine not a gray area both are things people are consuming voluntarily into their own body why is one prohibited from consuming cocaine of their own volition but not marijuana I'm of the position it all drugs even medical drugs should be free to consume by anybody I should be able to walk in to CVS and get heart medication if I want or cocaine if I want if CVS is willing to sell it to me it's not for the government to decide nor government licensed agents AKA doctors to decide what I consume into my own body My body my choice
      - throwup238 3y ago
        I didn’t just say cocaine, I said crack cocaine. Crack is cooked by the dealers to be a cheaper and more addictive form of cocaine. I saw first hand what it did to LA in the back half of the last century, so yeah “your body your choice” or whatever you want to tell yourself, but the people dealing it knew what they were doing and it was blatantly immoral. There was no “gray area” about it. They invented a more profitable formula and destroyed their communities to make a little more cash.
      - aghastnj 3y ago
        I agree with you on the "my choice" part. But I also believe that things which remove your choice from the equation are worth extra trouble. Addictive substances are well established as a hazard not just to the individual, but to society. So I think government has an interest in avoiding/preventing/restricting addiction.
- btilly 3y ago
  I indirectly know someone who fits this description. (Friend of a friend, wouldn't be able to track down.) Was part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology, got caught, went to jail. Yeah, super-illegal. But was it immoral? If you don't know anything about the shady stuff that Scientology did, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QsCrFANMzc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QsCrFANMzc is a great video to start with.
- sofixa 3y ago
  I can think of stuff like hacking/leaking data about bad things, like a Snowden/Manning/Assange scenario. Or working on/around piracy (cracking software to bypass license checks, hosting a torrent website, etc.).
  - busyant 3y ago
    > I can think of stuff like hacking/leaking data about bad things, l I wasn't thinking in that direction, but that totally makes sense. Thanks.
hluska 3y ago
Why did you let the conversation drift around to “if you were making big bucks why are you cooking for us now”? That’s a remarkably rude thing to ask for absolutely no reason other than ego.
- dgfitz 3y ago
  You’ve never chatted up a bartender where they end up telling you personal things after years? Maybe after they’ve served you food and beverage for a long time, you bond over X (sports, politics, whatever) and end up feeling like friends? I hafta say, it seems like you’re the one with the ego. Edit: if I had to guess, the cook probably said something like “I made a lot more money before I worked here.” And was then asked why.
- unclad5968 3y ago
  Seems normal to me
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  This my friends is the danger of making judgements without context.
- ryaniscool 3y ago
  It's not rude at all. First, the commenter could have been paraphrasing a longer conversation that led to that question. Second, the "I used to be somebody" conversation is more common than you think. Asking "If you were somebody, what happened?" is usually the question that is being invited to be asked if someone brings up this topic.
- bombcar 3y ago
  If you were talking with a friend, and you learned he used to make millions on Wall Street, you’d not even think of considering asking why he gave it up?
- davidwritesbugs 3y ago
  Not rude at all. I used to make several million a year. Then I got arrested and bank accounts frozen. I had to work stacking shelves in a supermarket. All my colleagues thought I was a BS artist when I said what I used to earn, and asked that question. Why wouldn't they? it's incongruous.

Simon_ORourke 3y ago

> I do NOT recommend being upfront, unless there are no formal procedures in place and being honest actually helps. We are talking about your ability to feed and shelter yourself, so give up on the “honesty” thing. I have -never- been able to provide for myself after having been “honest”. [edit: after reading felonintexas let me update this. If someone point blank asks, tell them. Don’t volunteer this information. There is nothing to be gained] No better advice has ever been given on HN, from minor things to major stuff. Never volunteer any information about yourself to anyone in the office beyond what is required to complete your job. Never say too much about previous roles and keep it very general.

tommychillfiger 3y ago
I'm generally someone who sees honesty as a virtue and have always been fairly open, at work and in my private life. I'm curious if you can expand on this a bit - i.e., why is it a disadvantage and what sort of pitfalls can it lead to? I've been in analytics for a few years now, and it seems like it has mostly been an advantage for me, but it's certainly possible I just don't know what I don't know.
- Simon_ORourke 3y ago
  Example - about 2005 I was a junior dev thinking I was about to make the cut to senior within the year, in a medium sized IT company. Let it slip accidentally to my boss that I used to install servers in racks in a previous role. Ended up being shoved into a "lateral move" into the systems engineering team because they couldn't hire quickly enough. Fast forward another six months and I get laid off after a migration to the cloud makes my team redundant. Expensive lesson, but lesson learned.
  - tommychillfiger 3y ago
    Okay, this is a useful example as it's salient for me. Especially as a relatively recent pivoter into tech, I've been willing to jump on whatever is needed and generally am able to figure things out and make it work. In my current position, at a small SaaS with layoffs and churn, this has led to me basically owning 3-4 roles' worth of tasks. Mostly completely unrelated to one another and very stressful due to the constant context switching. I appreciate your perspective here, this is something concrete I can work on.
  - trogdor 3y ago
    I’m not sure that your experience should be generalized to a broad rule against volunteering “any information about yourself to anyone in the office beyond what is required to complete your job.” I used to work in finance. Volunteering personal information about myself led to a close friendship with the CFO of the bank I worked for. I did good work, but so did many other people. The CFO and I got along so well only because we connected as people — mostly based on our personal lives and shared interests. My relationship with that person rocketed my career forward. I don’t mean to take away from your experience. It sucks. But volunteering personal information can be beneficial. Your risk tolerance should factor into the decision. The story above happened very early on in my career, shortly out of college. Taking those risks, to me, at the time, was totally worth it.
    - jakderrida 3y ago
      > I’m not sure that your experience should be generalized to a broad rule against volunteering “any information about yourself to anyone in the office beyond what is required to complete your job.” While I don't have IT experience, I can tell you as someone that both worked as an electrician and a FiOs technician that I also assumed that honesty reflects well on people and would be careful not to discourage it. I started at Verizon at like age 20 with that attitude and had no record and seldom anything to hide. I learned fast that the policy of managers in both companies was, "Encourage narratives that honesty will always result in a better outcome to all employees... And for those stupid enough to believe it, punish them severely because only when they're honest do we know with certainty they're guilty." First time I was questioned by management at Verizon, I made sure I was ambiguous in a way that made them think I was guilty. They said I was fired immediately and I said, "I'm fired? For what? I wasn't even in the truck. I told you what happened and I told you I was up a pole. The bucket truck was 2 blocks away when I saw it all." Their faces turned white as they realized that I can tell everyone it's a lie and they can't just dismiss me as disgruntled for getting fired.
      - trogdor 3y ago
        >First time I was questioned by management at Verizon, I made sure I was ambiguous in a way that made them think I was guilty. Why did you do that?
  - 946789987649 3y ago
    This seems incredibly broad, and could just as easily have gone amazingly for you as it did go badly.
- Phileosopher 3y ago
  A huge part about whether honesty hurts or helps is the framing that revolves around it. In this case, it's a matter of social expectations driven by the timing of that honesty: * If someone is a completely unfiltered person and says the information audaciously and openly, the interviewer may simply see they have nothing to hide. * On the other hand, if the person looks anxious (which could literally be nothing more than PTSD), then awkwardly blurts out the information, they may be interpreted as having more to hide, making that honesty appear worse than it is. Ironically, that was probably the optics that got my felony in the first place.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
This is the rational thing to do but it's extremely depressing. I want to make friends, get to know people.

bigbillheck 3y ago
> Not the same but I was sacked during a probation period because I refused to give my proof of ID details a 5th time to the HR, the same 3 pieces requested multiple times or lost. I told them to reuse those I uploaded a day or two earlier. That's no way to survive a career (as you found out). That's the kind of thing you use to build team camaraderie, after the 3rd time or so start posting about it in the team chat, if you're in an office put up a little sign saying "it has been ## days since I was asked for my ID", play along with any jokes about it, that sort of thing. And also politely ask your manager what's going on, and if that's normal, and send a polite email to the HR manager. I get that it's a nuisance, but surely it couldn't have been more than a few minutes out of your day every time (and getting faster with repetition, right?). > (yes they were average developers there at best) Sour grapes?
- SillyUsername 3y ago
  Yeah the ID was kind of personal at the time, identity fraud was at the forefront of my mind because HR had no idea where the uploads that they had confirmed, and I'd seen emails for, had gone. One partial loss initially I could accept, two was a bit much, three started taking the piss, fourth was the last and final, and I stated I was now uncomfortable giving - which they fluffed again. Honestly that level of incompetence sounds like a downright lie, but people like that actually manage to keep a job, probably by firing the likes of me that point out their errors. Not really sour grapes btw, without going into depth that would giveaway the employer, the 3 devsnthat I worked with had been unable to implement functionality that had been invented within the last 5-10 years because they never did their own research or keep up with trends. As an analogy think akin to them only ever using traditional SQL DBs, then being shown a massive serverless distributed db that didn't use SQL, that required software redesign for eventual consistency, couldn't do ACID transactions, all needed for a small high value, short deadline project, and you get some idea of the scope of change and steep learning curve they struggled to address. I'll restate this is not the actual problem, but the scope and impact is of the same size. If that's sour grapes by your definition then ok :), but for me for BE devs around my own age, it seems a little underwhelming.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
I'm okay not knowing the details. I'm not reacting to you or the parent here. I'm just weary of society being compulsively hostile toward redemption. Let the past be there.
- networkchad 3y ago
  [dead]
- throwawaymypot 3y ago
  The point about being hostile by default is precisely what pushed me towards suicide attempts. Without any context it's very easy to jump to conclusions. Few people consider it might be a zebra not a horse when they hear the sound of hooves. Some people cannot live with actions they have done; others feel they cannot live with the limited options available in the future. I was the latter.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    >The point about being hostile by default is precisely what pushed me towards suicide attempts. This thread is stale enough I'm going to risk injecting some religion into it. I've spent most of my life belonging to (some variant of) a faith with redemption at it's core. And yet, our adherents tend to dominate the part of society that 1) dedicates massive resources to thwart redemption and 2) broadly support the eradication of redemption. My analysis has slowly been shifting from our actions are indistinguishable from evil to - according to our own plain and reasonable definition, we're evil. > Some people cannot live with actions they have done; others feel they cannot live with the limited options available in the future. I was the latter. I have glimpsed the former and can say it is no metaphor. As to the latter, I'll say I was born at the end of a more reasonable time. The actions of my youth didn't risk individuals or society in any meaningful way - yet would have imprisoned me for life today. This is entirely because we have become an unreasonable people who have lost our way. We no longer assess risk well because we have given up our sense of proportion. I don't know how to make any of this better. Just learning how to fathom and elucidate the issue is taking time. Perhaps I'll come across people who can do something with that.
jstarfish 3y ago
The non-sentence in relation to the number of charges, harm prevention orders and decades of "sex offender" tarring... That much drama for a sentence the state doesn't consider worth serving stinks of CSAM.
throwawaymypot 3y ago
During a manic phase of bipolar I thought I had a great idea to support my application to join the police as a forensic investigator. Quite ironic really. Due to the unusual nature of my case the judge excluded from all the usual mandatory courses during probation. Convictions included "making of, "possession of", "distribution of" (a few others I can't remember) CSAM. A single P2P file ticks all three boxes. People always assume the above includes "looking at" however that was not the case. I was interested in metadata and had absolutely no desire to see things which cannot be unseen. The purpose for acquiring the data was not sexual in nature. But with no context people always think the worst.
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  > A single P2P file ticks all three boxes. How many did you have?

ericpauley 3y ago

The issue with this is that, if you ban employers from getting signal about employees, they will attempt to infer the same information by other means. This inference can often be unfairly biased. See related issues with racial discrimination caused by Ban the Box initiatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/upshot/ban-the-box-an-effort-to-stop-discrimination-may-actually-increase-it.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/upshot/ban-the-box-an-eff...

yieldcrv 3y ago
> Before the regulations took effect, candidates with criminal histories were far less likely to be called back, irrespective of race. > After the regulations, lacking the ability to discern criminal history, employers became much less likely to call back any apparently black applicant. They seemed to treat all black applicants now as if they might have a criminal past. “show us your linkedin”
- al_borland 3y ago
  When I was involved in hiring I was told we couldn’t do any online research on potential candidates, like LinkedIn or Facebook, as it might give us information on them being part of a protected class. It’s easier to justify not picking someone based on merit when there is no knowledge of those things.
  - chihuahua 3y ago
    When I was looking for a job a few months ago, every single application required answering multiple questions about whether I'm Hispanic, and if not, which race I am. Additionally, some employers demand to know my sexual identity AND orientation, which I consider ludicrous and obscene. "Before we can consider your application, we must know who you like to have sex with!" Ostensibly this is for some kind of reporting and statistics, but I feel bad while answering it every time (about 100+ times last year) and wonder if checking the box that says "prefer not to say" automatically disqualifies me.
    - JCharante 3y ago
      Yeah I find it very obscene that they ask so so many obtrusive questions for "statistics"
      - conductr 3y ago
        I believe it’s compulsory or at minimum a way to protect themselves. I always choose the “rather not answer” option to every question that specifies it. The hiring managers rarely get to see the answers. Oddly enough, I’m a white male and the most protected class “abuses” I’ve ever witnessed is when I’ve been told I wasn’t allowed to hire white males. I’ve actually been told I could not hire any one except a women before. My team was shorthanded for a year. I work in a niche that is probably 90%+ male and probably 70% white. What’s also weird is, I usually hire through recruiters so when I tell them “only send me female resumes” the search just goes radio silent and I don’t even see what kind of talent I’m missing out on.
        throwaway2037 3y ago
        My response will be controversial: I am unsympathetic. Find the 9%+ of women. If they don't exist, they hire brilliant new grads and train them.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      I feel a concentrated program to always check “do not say” would be powerfully useful. There’s no way it doesn’t get seen/noticed. Proof: next time check a box that obviously doesn’t apply and watch if they notice.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      I've seen so much vitriol from the pronoun army - the ones that don't need them but want to make it inclusive for the people that do need them - that I really wonder if its optional in the organizations/applications that ask like "oh he didn't write a pronoun at all! he's not a culture fit!" we've decided to move forward with other candidates that more closely align with our qualifications
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - tczMUFlmoNk 3y ago
        > "oh he didn't write a pronoun at all! he's not a culture fit!" I find this particularly sad because of how harmful it is to trans people, especially trans people who are not "out". Forcing such people to specify a pronoun is forcing them to choose between "out yourself to everyone" and "disavow your own identity", and feels just awful. Not to mention people in earlier stages of understanding their own gender, who may feel a pointed distaste for the pronouns that they've always used without quite understanding why. (To clarify tone, I'm not criticizing your comment.)
        diijo 3y ago
        Therein lies the risk of adopting a fictional identity based on a nonsensical and unrealistic belief system.
    - d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
      I wonder if anyone has gamed this system yet. Accidentally click "gay latino" to get through the HR filters. AFAIK HR won't send that metric down to the interviewers. So if you crush the interview loop then HR's hands may be tied.
    - minkiebun 3y ago
      I go with “prefer not to say” and had no problem getting offers as a straight white cis male. I’ve been a fairly high level hiring manager at multiple firms and those answers never mattered or were even visible to me; even at the VP level.
- HideousKojima 3y ago
  Black people commit and are convicted of commiting significantly crime more than white people per capita. Whether this is due to racism, economics, or whatever is irrelevant, but when you can't check specifically for criminal records race becomes an excellent proxy. ~4% of white men will go to jail at some point in their life vs about 28% of black men. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/Llgsfp.pdf https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/Llgsfp.pdf That said, sex is also an excellent proxy since men commit far more crime than women. I wonder if women are more likely to get hired when criminal background checks are forbidden?
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    the article I quoted looked at high school dropouts and the number was 70% for black men. everyone understands that there are supporting statistics, and are simply trying to get the population to be more productive. there was buyin from the public sector in many cities by the voters, but then the private sector who is worried about who they are working with did not buy in. we are still looking for solution about how to get people productive, not whether it is accurate to assume someone has a conviction and be correct.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  > “show us your linkedin” Easy. Do they spot a blank in your employment record? Tell them that you took time off to take care of a sick relative (mother is the best really). I have used it so many times. The Rosey and Richard Noseys shut right the fuck up every single time. If you really want to play with their emotions, tell them something awful about the end of life process. "Don't ask questions where you don't want to know the answers!"

rdiddly 3y ago

The funny part about your third paragraph, is that if someone took you up on this "bad employee database," it would look a lot like China's Social Credit System. Which is probably not desirable. (And maybe the other funny part would be just how many of the public employees who would otherwise be in charge of administering this database, would end up being in it!) Nonetheless I agree with the point you seem to be making rhetorically, which is that the reason this is a failure is because one thing (criminal record) is being used as a proxy to measure another (job qualification). And perhaps a larger point, given that things are the way they are, would be that our society cares only about punishment, not rehabilitation of individuals and not even (surprisingly) helping business.

stanleykm 3y ago
[flagged]
xwolfi 3y ago
Even funnier is that there is no Social Credit System in China, not the way you think there is. There is no record of small offences by the billion and a half Chinese, we're barely even able to maintain proper records in general, let alone useless fluff like a score for each citizen. I invite you to read this: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/15/china-social-credit-system-authoritarian/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/15/china-social-credit-sys... I quote: "Contrary to common belief, the cities mainly target companies, not individuals. Nonetheless, legal representatives of a violating company are also included in the blacklists to prevent reoffending elsewhere or under a different company. Nationally, about 75 percent of entities targeted by the system end up on blacklists because of court orders they have ignored—the so-called judgment defaulters. The remaining companies are typically collared for severe marketplace violations—for instance, for food safety infringements, environmental damage, or wage arrears. But much of these cities’ day-to-day use of the SCS is banal thanks to the system’s fragmentation and inflation of results." The gist of it is that it was a grading system for businesses, to distinguish the bad payers, often bankrupts people restarting business over and over. This is ofc not great because we would need a "start over" mindset like in the US, but stop reading buzzfeed-like news about this thing, it's a bit cringe. We are oppressed maybe, but not THAT good at it. Most of the censorship in China is self inflicted and networked, from the bottom, think "shhh don't say that you'll be in trouble" or "I prefer not to answer that question, wink wink". No need for complicated expensive systems diverting taxpayer money away from the pockets of our dear leaders, when a simple 2-hour interview of one person at the police station can silence an entire social graph of hundreds of people for months :)
- rdiddly 3y ago
  My understanding was that financial info was the primary thrust of it these days, i.e. what we call plain old credit scores, without the "social." But I remember 15 or 20 years ago when they announced their ambitions for it, and I just realized, that announcement, and every panicky headline back then, right down to even the soberest Wikipedia article now, all tend to speak of the system in terms of its ambitions. So that's a good perspective, thanks.

300bps 3y ago

An assault charge is likely relevant for most positions. If I hire a convicted felon with a track record of assault and they end up assaulting another employee or customer, I’d feel responsible. The victim would probably hold me legally responsible. I’d feel more comfortable hiring someone with a 100% track record of never having been convicted of assault. If you disagree, is there any number of assault convictions that would change your mind? Or do you mentally wipe the slate clean no matter what?

NegativeLatency 3y ago
I think it really depends. Someone who had an a assault conviction at say 18 and is now 40, is a different situation from someone who very recently assaulted someone (but also how could you expect someone to change if they're never given a chance). There's also the negative case of someone who has assaulted someone but was never caught, you can't safely eliminate that because there's no record of it.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Assault is also not always what you might imagine. It doesn't require physical harm or even contact. Just putting someone in fear of harm can be assault. E.g. a disagreement getting heated and someone saying "I'm going to kick your ass" is technically assault. As is brandishing a weapon or making other threatening gestures even without physical contact or harm.
  - grinfield22 3y ago
    Technically, sure. But you're not going to sit in prison for years such "technical" cases. So, somebody who did sit must supposedly have done more than that. Second, I rather not have colleagues who are making threatening gestures or threaten to kick someones ass. I'm slightly appalled by the normalization of this kind of behavior.
bsder 3y ago
Criminals who don't reoffend (even for things like assault) within 5 years are almost always statistically a better risk than the public at large. I won't say that it's almost tautological, but it's pretty close. If you can surpass conviction and probation, you are remarkably self-disciplined. Probation conditions are much more problematic than an actual job, and the penalty for failure is going back to jail. A person who can pass that kind of environment is absolutely the kind of person you want working for you.
phpisthebest 3y ago
Based on your response you most likely are not using Assault in the legal sense but in the Common Sense, but given the topic is legal in nature we should be using legal definitions. Assault act of causing someone to reasonably fear imminent harm, what most people think of Assault they actually mean what the law calls battery which is actually causing physical harm. Further I am not sure why we are focusing on Assault or battery, the OP said that was not the charge they were convicted of, and a Felony by definition is any crime punishable by more than 1 year of imprisonment which given the "Tough on crime" provision starting in the 90 makes a HUGE number if non-violent offenses felonies, as something a simple a playing your music too loud could be in some circumstances classified as a felony (often charged as " Nuisances" which is many states is a low level felony) Most people have "felon" associated with violent crime, or serious crime, but unfortunately in our over criminalized society most people commit as many as 3 felonies a day not even knowing it.
- 300bps 3y ago
  Legal definition of both assault as well as battery is state dependent.
- grinfield22 3y ago
  > Further I am not sure why we are focusing on Assault or battery, the OP said that was not the charge they were convicted of The OP is inconsistent with their information as they write that they were literally released on assault charges: > I have been looking for work since I was released for an assault charge in November 2022.

sneak 3y ago

I think crimes of violence are relevant to any/all roles. I don’t want to hire or work with anyone who has ever at any point in their life used violence to attempt to solve problems. I am fine with a percentage of human beings being blacklisted permanently from access to much of society. Violence has no place in our world. I won’t even hire former cops. It is, unfortunately, illegal in the US to explicitly avoid hiring ex-military. I don’t really care about whether or not they have “changed their ways” or “grown as a person” - there are lots of people out there to choose from who have never been violent.

User23 3y ago
Those people who lawfully risk violence to serve the public are why you get to have your fantasy that a world without violence is possible.
NegativeLatency 3y ago
Specifically about violence: people make mistakes, and people change, not everything is black and white. White collar crime/theft and the indirect killing of people through occupational risks (ex black lung from mining), class traitorism (ex being a cop) is a much greater kind of bad than someone who got in a fight or something.
RickJWagner 3y ago
That's crazy. Cops prevent violence. Remember when a few cities tried having 'police free zones'? I think it was Portland that had murders within a week. Better re-think that one.
- bionsystem 3y ago
  That's not what he means, or maybe he does but I didn't see it that way. A cop or a former field military lives in violence day in and day out. Sometimes they even try to cope with substance abuse. Imagine getting in an argument with somebody like that ; I've been there, thankfully he was family and I don't think could hurt me but still, I've been thinking about that for weeks and lost a decent amount of sleep. It's unfortunately the case with tough district/city people with criminal record. Once you live in violence for more than a couple weeks, and have to assume physical threat and retaliate, I'm pretty sure it changes you somewhat fundamentally, and unfortunately those people rarely have the proper support to adjust to civil duties.
- halostatue 3y ago
  [citation required] "Police violence calls for measures beyond de-escalation training": https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/police-violence-calls-for-measures-beyond-de-escalation-training1/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/police-violence-c... — "The police department in Camden, N.J., for example, was disbanded and rebuilt with a new vision in 2013." "What the data say about police brutality and racial bias — and which reforms might work": https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01846-z "More Than Half of Police Killings Are Mislabeled, New Study Says": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/us/police-killings-undercounted-study.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/us/police-killings-underc... — Researchers comparing information from death certificates with data from organizations that track police killings in the United States identified a startling discrepancy "17,000 Killings by Police Have Gone Uncounted Since 1980": https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-many-people-killed-by-police-us-1235121/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-many... — There have been twice as many deaths at the hands of cops than the federal government has reported, top medical journal finds Search-fu is failing me, but ISTR there are studies with data indicating that when police are called for non-violent situations, there is a high chance (> 50%) of the aggressiveness of the cops making the situation violent, especially if disadvantaged populations (ethnic or gender minorities) are involved. This is especially true for property crimes (there was a rather visible case of someone murdered by a now former police officer — on camera no less — because he was accused of using a counterfeit $20 bill for a pack of cigarettes, perhaps you remember it?) Remember, the police do not exist to prevent violence. Most of the time, they’re not even intended to fully and properly investigate violence perpetrated against others. No, they are there mostly to (poorly) investigate property crimes against the ownership class. That they occasionally manage to perform good investigations doesn't really help with the times that they make things worse, don't do anything, or make cases up from whole cloth (perhaps you’ve heard of the police misconduct in the Central Park 5 case, or do you just believe the cops all the time).
- watwut 3y ago
  Cop are violent on average tho. For example, they have much higher domestic violence rates then general population. It is party result of them being above the law. And partly result of training that does not teach the de-escalation at all, but focuses on taking control, being dominant at all cost.
kkielhofner 3y ago
This is an extremely privileged position. In many environments violence is a part of life and necessary for survival. One hypothetical scenario of millions: You live and grow up in a high-crime area. Someone attacks you, a family member, etc. You defend yourself to protect your own life or that of a loved one. A cellphone video records the end of the encounter where you appear to be the aggressor. You get an assault charge. You work your ass off, beat a variety of odds, and make something of yourself. Many years later you’re passed over for a position simply because you came from an environment the person doing the hiring can’t possibly fathom. A person who has clearly never been in the position of “it’s me/my wife/my child or them”. Same for ex-military. Are you aware that the United States military is often considered to be the “only way out” for a substantial portion of the enlisted? That something like 90% of military roles are non-combat related? I’m not a violent person either but this is an extremely naive, judgmental, and downright discriminatory position.
- sneak 3y ago
  It is definitionally judgemental and discriminatory. Hiring is the practice of discriminating against undesirable hires by using one’s judgement. We can discuss whether or not it’s naive, but it’s served me quite well for decades thus far. The rest of your comment seems like a simple emotional appeal. All hiring is discriminatory; there are more applicants than there are positions. Discrimination is not a bad thing, it’s just discrimination based on built-in traits (race, sex, national origin, etc) that is bad. Discriminating in hiring based on the adult decisions of a human being is not only in-bounds, it is literally the whole of hiring. Some people studied software, some didn’t. Some dropped out of high school to start companies, some went to university. This is one of the reasons I think religious discrimination shouldn’t be prohibited in hiring (choice of religion is not a built in trait, but a choice made as an adult). Same with work history - going to work for the armed forces is an unforced choice. This sort of categorization and discrimination is a great and useful thing and we should do more of it. People are not interchangeable. You could make the exact same argument against hiring from the ivys versus community colleges, yet I don’t see anyone arguing for blinding of university names on CVs, or hiding the fact of whether or not someone studied at university. When hiring our job is to find the best possible candidate. It’s not wrong or bad to use all available data to do that. All else being equal, I’d much rather hire someone without a history of violence or history of work in violent industries. Freedom of association is one of our most powerful tools for shaping the society in which we wish to live.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
grinfield22 3y ago
> ever at any point in their life Ever? A 50-year old who punched a bully when he was cornered at 20 years old, 30 years ago? Not saying that's great behavior, but perhaps understandable after having been cornered. Or at 15? 10? 5? Somebody who at 3 years old kicked their older brother of 6 with a bunch of legos? Not going to hire that maniac? Do you yourself have a job?
elzbardico 3y ago
There are many forms of violence against your fellow human beings. Not all of them are physical.

akira2501 3y ago

It should be like a credit report. If it's been at least 7 years since your last public criminal record, they should then just fall off your "report," and no longer be visible except to the courts. It used to be that you could pay your debt, and unless your crime was infamous, the "memory" of it would fade from society rather quickly. The internet and private databases have definitely hampered this facility and perhaps it should just be regulated with the same forthrightness we apply to credit decisions.

PaulHoule 3y ago
Depends what the crime is. I have a relative who spent time in prison because she tried to kill her mother with an insulin injection who got out and got a job as a nurse working at a nursing home. She lied on her job application about felony convictions but only got found out when her mentally retarded sister showed up at the emergency room with an insulin overdose. It said in the paper she was stealing meds from the controlled substance locker and I believe it because she was stealing her grandson’s ADHD meds too. I believe we should give felons a chance but the above case is one where not doing a background check looks like malpractice.
minkiebun 3y ago
Many companies handle background checks in exactly this manner; it’s common for seven years to be a cutoff where they stop caring.
- akira2501 3y ago
  Which is excellent, and should make it easy to codify that into law.
  - felon1234567890 3y ago
    Soft on criminals is not usually a vote winner.
  - jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago
    Think again. Historically, codifying workers' rights into law requires either a material benefit to powerful employers or decades of brutal sacrifice from working people who risk their lives in mass strikes.
throwaway2037 3y ago
FYI: As I understand, Japan is five years. After which, you can safely answer that you have no criminal record. Also, except for public media, it is basically impossible to run a criminal background check in Japan. There are few exceptions for things like C-suite level jobs and certain gov't jobs.

vidoc 3y ago

> I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role. This shouldn't be controversial at all and I think your take is 100% correct wrt exceptions (gov work, access to children etc). The very "Once a felon always a felon" thing going on in the united states is a secret life long sentence that completely defeats the idea of redemption.

calvinmorrison 3y ago
It's not controversial, because we've twisted freedom of association, in places people aren't allowed to even have a "Ladies Night" at the bar, chose who the rent to, etc etc etc. Barry Goldwater absolutely and unequivocally warned us of this. Now because that freedom of association, freedom to chose who you do business with does not exist, we think this is reasonable. However, it is not. I own a business. I should not be required to hire anyone I do not want to. Full stop! And it doesn't have to be a race card thing, Say I hate the Iraq war. Say I would like to never hire any veteran who contributed to the deaths of over 1 million Iraqi Citizens. Or say I worked with Iraq war veterans in the past and I hate their military attitude. I am not allowed to do so. If I bought a company, I would want to fire all veterans. No, you are not allowed to do so.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
  I get that, but in this specific case it kinda sucks for you. We shouldn’t be making a system that penalizes offenders for life without explicit sentencing for such. Whether that information is useful to your business is relatively irrelevant to me because denying people proper employment does a lot more harm to them than the harm done to the people in businesses like yours by not penalizing them.
  - calvinmorrison 3y ago
    But you don't get it. you think the government is required to play God in every aspect of the economy, clearly.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
      So true, that really is exactly what I’m saying by saying you shouldn’t be allowed to dig up whether someone has been convicted of a crime in the past when hiring them. If that‘s playing god, then slap a robe on me and call me father buddy. I mean the state is the one providing you with all that juicy hiring information in the first place. Perhaps this gives you an unfair advantage in the free market, and I’m just a concerned libertarian.
      - calvinmorrison 3y ago
        that's right! Time to auction off Yosemite and put a roller coaster over Old Faithful
        BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
        Hell yeah we gotta get that bitch workin for us! The hell did nature ever do for america?
        vidoc 3y ago
        s/Yosemite/Yellowstone

CodeSgt 3y ago

Highly addictive drugs destroy lives and families. The little girl who’s father has a heroin addiction sure didn’t get any say in his choice, but she’s affected by it. The citizens of communities ravaged by addiction all suffer, whether they individually consume the drug or not. The idea that drug use is a victimless crime is patently false and all it takes is a few moments of thought to realize it. No, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with adults smoking a joint after work or on the weekends if that’s what they choose to do, but it quickly devolves from there.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>>Highly addictive drugs destroy lives and families. The little girl who’s father has a heroin addiction sure didn’t get any say in his choice, but she’s affected by it. Sorry no... This is 3rd party Liability and that can not be the basis for a free society, as at that point everything becomes regulated Want to go back to Alcohol Prohibition as well? Further The Father is also free to choose a job where he makes less money that would impact the "little girl" in negative ways, or may choose to tell off his boss and get fired, will you now regulate speech "for the children" >>The idea that drug use is a victimless crime is patently false and all it takes is a few moments of thought to realize it. Victimless crime is defined for First Party victimization, to most people 3rd party liability is not a thing, Ford is not responsible if someone kills someones else in a F150, A Gun Manufacturer is not responsible when someone kills someone with a gun... The victims of those crimes are victim of the PERSON that victimized them, the driver or murder Drug abuse can lead to other crimes, such as theft, and the victims of those crimes are victims of the drug user. However you can not have a free society if you start shifting the liability upstream, at that point you get in a Pre Crime laws (which is what Drug laws are) and you end up with a whole negative effect and tyranny
smsm42 3y ago
> The idea that drug use is a victimless crime is patently false What about alcohol use then? Smoking? Buying high risk stocks, options and NFTs? Investing in high-risk startups? Working for a high-risk startups? Spending 100 hours per week on work and neglecting one's family? Any of these could potentially lead to very sad consequences for not only the individual involved but for the people close to them. But once you step on this road, it can lead you to a very weird places if you're not careful. Or you may throw the consistency out of the window and just say "but this is different!" - but then I'd welcome you to explain how exactly it's different. > but it quickly devolves from there. This is a so called "gateway" theory, and there are many indications it is false. For example: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6010.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6010.html I suspect that with further legalization and de-stigmatization of marijuana use, the link would become even weaker, because most users won't devolve anywhere - as most people who drink a can of beer on a weekend do not become raging alcoholics - and the cases where a person is driven to drug use by some problems not produced (though also not solved but frequently worsened) by drugs would be recognized as such instead of blaming the evil weed for everything. (NB: not a user myself, never did, never planning to)
gwbas1c 3y ago
> a joint after work or on the weekends ... but it quickly devolves from there. That's generally disproven, and demonstrates ignorance on your part. It doesn't matter what the addiction is: Cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, video games, TV, sex, work, money, religion: No government regulation can force a person to live a "good" life, and these kinds of addictions, legal or not, can have nasty negative consequences. It just so happens that certain substances are illegal due to politics, bias, and ignorance. There's good reasons that these substances should be controlled, but how we (assuming you are in the US or country with similar laws) control them isn't working. (Banning them just creates dangerous black markets.) When it comes to dangerous narcotics like opioids, cocaine, ect, the biggest obstacle to reform is misinformation like "a joint after work or on the weekends ... but it quickly devolves from there". That's not how addiction works; and continuing to believe and repeat misinformation like that perpetuates the problem. (IE, the misinformation makes it politically difficult in the US to to offer forms of treatment that are proven to work.)