return to table of content

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

kypro
84 replies
1d19h

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.

ericpauley
15 replies
1d19h

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-eff...

yieldcrv
14 replies
1d19h

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
10 replies
1d18h

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
9 replies
1d17h

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.

yieldcrv
2 replies
1d16h

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

tczMUFlmoNk
1 replies
1d13h

"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
0 replies
17h13m

Therein lies the risk of adopting a fictional identity based on a nonsensical and unrealistic belief system.

JCharante
2 replies
1d16h

Yeah I find it very obscene that they ask so so many obtrusive questions for "statistics"

conductr
1 replies
1d16h

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
0 replies
1d1h

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.

minkiebun
0 replies
1d15h

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.

d0gsg0w00f
0 replies
1d16h

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.

bombcar
0 replies
1d17h

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.

HideousKojima
1 replies
1d16h

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

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
0 replies
1d16h

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
0 replies
1d2h

“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!"

sneak
12 replies
1d17h

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.

kkielhofner
3 replies
1d17h

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
2 replies
1d16h

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.

grinfield22
0 replies
1d11h

choice of religion is not a built in trait, but a choice made as an adult

The strongest predictor of religios belief, worldwide, is the religion of the parents. If you've believed one thing for the first 18 years of your life, literally all your life up to this point, then it's hard to suddenly snap out of this at 18 and most people don't.

Do you think that all Christians in the US, including almost all of its members of congress, are Christian because it has such a convincing story?

Arch485
0 replies
1d15h

Your examples of "choices made as an adult" (religion and joining the military) are quite commonly not choices, nor made as an adult.

Most kids are introduced to being religious because their parents are, and in those scenarios the child doesn't get to make an informed decision about whether or not the religion is something they want to be a part of (I don't think I need to explain why this is).

Similarily, you can join the military at 16 in North America, before you're legally an adult. People are also involuntarily conscripted into the military in some countries (like South Korea and Switzerland).

If you want to argue that it "doesn't count" when you're a kid or something similar, then you'll have to also explain way a child can change to become less violent or "less religious" and why an adult, for some reason, cannot.

So yes, your opinion is naive. It's missing all of the complexities of human society.

RickJWagner
3 replies
1d17h

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.

watwut
0 replies
1d7h

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.

halostatue
0 replies
1d16h

[citation required]

"Police violence calls for measures beyond de-escalation training": 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

"More Than Half of Police Killings Are Mislabeled, New Study Says": 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... — 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).

bionsystem
0 replies
1d16h

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.

grinfield22
0 replies
1d11h

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
0 replies
17h43m

There are many forms of violence against your fellow human beings. Not all of them are physical.

User23
0 replies
1d17h

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
0 replies
1d17h

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.

vidoc
7 replies
1d15h

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
6 replies
1d15h

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
5 replies
1d8h

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
4 replies
1d4h

But you don't get it. you think the government is required to play God in every aspect of the economy, clearly.

BriggyDwiggs42
3 replies
1d3h

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
2 replies
1d2h

that's right! Time to auction off Yosemite and put a roller coaster over Old Faithful

vidoc
0 replies
19h38m

s/Yosemite/Yellowstone

BriggyDwiggs42
0 replies
1d2h

Hell yeah we gotta get that bitch workin for us! The hell did nature ever do for america?

300bps
7 replies
1d17h

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?

phpisthebest
2 replies
1d16h

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.

grinfield22
0 replies
1d11h

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.
300bps
0 replies
1d13h

Legal definition of both assault as well as battery is state dependent.

NegativeLatency
2 replies
1d17h

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
1 replies
1d16h

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
0 replies
1d11h

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
0 replies
1d16h

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.

prosqlinjector
6 replies
1d18h

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
4 replies
1d17h

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.'

bsdpufferfish
3 replies
1d15h

You have a lot of faith in public opinion. What would your family and friends think if they found out a teacher at your child’s high school had done 20 years?

Biganon
1 replies
1d15h

Who cares what they think; would a judge consider me liable because I hired the ex felon? If so, aren't they admitting that the criminal system shouldn't be trusted?

bsdpufferfish
0 replies
1d11h

You’re talking about the criminal system, I’m talking about civil suits.

scrapcode
0 replies
1d2h

I get the sentiment, and there is due diligence such as background checks required for many public trust positions for that reason, but is there really legal liability created immediately at the time of hiring someone because of their record- or does it just satisfy the models more when you hire someone that got convicted versus someone that has not?

Mordisquitos
0 replies
1d17h

And the hypothetical employer's answer to that question, in the model proposed by GP commenter, would be "I did all that was permitted by law, which of course did not include my right to access information on fully served criminal sentences", and thus the employer be rightfully exempt from liability.

If, as I understand is the case in the USA, employers are allowed to retrieve the potential criminal record of prospective employees after they have served their sentence, that's where one could argue the employer could be criminally liable for future wrongdoing by their employee.

akira2501
6 replies
1d17h

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.

minkiebun
3 replies
1d15h

Many companies handle background checks in exactly this manner; it’s common for seven years to be a cutoff where they stop caring.

akira2501
2 replies
1d15h

Which is excellent, and should make it easy to codify that into law.

jdksmdbtbdnmsm
0 replies
55m

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.

felon1234567890
0 replies
1d10h

Soft on criminals is not usually a vote winner.

throwaway2037
0 replies
1d1h

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.

PaulHoule
0 replies
1d16h

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.

technick
5 replies
1d17h

I'm mostly on board with your proposal as I've seen a felony speeding conviction stop a friend from getting tech jobs over 5 years after it happened. His situation would have been totally different if he was caught 2 weeks before, it wouldn't have been a felony but the state arbitrarily changed the law. He didn't wreck, cause a wreck, or wasn't participating in street racing.

bombcar
1 replies
1d17h

In a case like that it may be worth the cost of the legal fight to get it expunged.

jdksmdbtbdnmsm
0 replies
1d16h

In a case like that it may be worth the cost of the legal fight to get it expunged.

That is presuming they could afford that cost. The effective purposes of the system are to keep the lucrative private prison industry flush and to maintain what Karl Marx called an "army of surplus labor" to keep wages low.

smsm42
0 replies
1d16h

Wow, a felony? I know in a number of states you can get a misdemeanor for bad speeding, but a felony without harm, or endangering or dui or anything likd that sohnds extremely heavy. Which state is that?

minkiebun
0 replies
1d15h

was it speeding plus reckless or evading an officer? If not, what state will press felony charges for straight up speeding?

hyperbovine
0 replies
1d17h

Was he endangering the lives of others? Was it his first time?

rdiddly
2 replies
1d18h

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.

xwolfi
1 replies
1d15h

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-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
0 replies
22h12m

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.

andy99
2 replies
1d18h

Why would government work automatically allow for a background check? If anything, government should be more neutral than private employers who should be allowed to use their own discretion when spending their money. Government procurement is so focused on appearances. I'd definitely support government not discriminating based on crimes for which someone had paid their debt to society.

tapland
1 replies
1d18h

I agree with the previous persons point, which you just flat out disagree with but for some reason veil in some private vs public wording.

Many government functions handle data that the private sector probably shouldn't, and you can't easily choose other govenment providers.

sneak
0 replies
1d17h

Many private sector companies handle data that the general public probably shouldn’t. Extending special protections to the state that are not allowed to private employers is ridiculous and unsafe.

Companies like credit bureaus or banks or the telcos or airlines or hospitals are effectively arms of the state at this point. You don’t get to opt out of the oligarchy with consumer choice.

yunesj
1 replies
1d15h

It should be up to the employer. If one company thinks that a past conviction is irrelevant while other companies think a past conviction is disqualifying, then the former may get the employee at a better rate, the company will thrive depending on whether they were right, they'll have more resources to hire ex-cons, and other companies will follow suit.

A blanket law that forces all companies to hire employees without considering information they think is important is really inefficient. Just recently, governments and people were complaining that rideshare companies weren't being exclusive enough! If you think new laws will find the optimal policy for all companies, you are incorrect!

It's also overreaching. Freedom of association is important. The owner of a Jewish deli shouldn't be compelled to hire a formerly convicted neo-Nazi.

candreasen
0 replies
1d14h

The owner of a Jewish deli shouldn't be compelled to hire a formerly convicted neo-Nazi.

Who cares if they were convicted? That detail is shoehorned in here to make it sound like a good example when it isn't. Neo-nazis are not a protected class, and so the deli owner would be entirely within their rights to not hire someone on that basis, with or without a conviction on their criminal record.

And honestly how often do they get convicted of say, a hate crime, that might show up on a background check compared to the number of neo-nazis in the country with clean records, or who get acquitted, etc.?

phpisthebest
1 replies
1d16h

That would create a complex regulations where everyone if fighting over what is "required for the role"

The better, faster and easier solution is a path to quick expungement, this also has the added bonus of offering people an incentive to no re-offend.

IMO once you have completed all active punishment (ie you are no longer on parole or probation) your record should be sealed.

>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

That would actually be illegal under most state laws as most State's have Anti-Black List laws to prohibit such lists from being created.

grinfield22
0 replies
1d11h

offering people an incentive to no re-offend.

Um, that "incentive" is called not going to jail. Or more generally, behaving like a moral citizen. Just like for everybody else, ex-convict or not.

Just because you've been convicted before doesn't mean morals don't apply to you and you need extra candy to behave well. These kinds of arguments are making the case weaker to hire fellons, not stronger.

jm4
1 replies
1d16h

While I agree that people deserve an opportunity to move on from their past, I still want to know who I’m employing. It’s not just about crimes that may be relevant to the role. Who decides what’s relevant?

A crime completely unrelated to my business may be very relevant to someone I already employ. I have a small business where people are working in relatively close quarters. I don’t want to put a rapist, stalker or some other kind of predator in there with the young woman I just hired. If there was ever a problem that would be on my conscience.

There are all sorts of others I don’t want to deal with either. This is a place where the people I bring in will be around my family, my employees and my customers. I have a responsibility to look out for each of them.

All that said, I wouldn’t hesitate to hire someone with a criminal background if the crime is irrelevant or I assess the risk is low. I don’t care if someone got busted with weed or that they got a DUI 10 years ago. I don’t care if it’s a one time crime related to a very specific set of circumstances that’s unlikely to ever repeat. Or a bar fight, drag racing or dozens of other dumb lapses in judgment that can result in serious charges. But I do care that I’m able to make an informed decision.

sesteel
0 replies
1d15h

The problem exist for corporations as well. A teenage girl, who was a former classmate and friend of my daughter, was murdered at work because she turned down a man's advances. She made formal complaints, but the bureaucratic corporate processes made it difficult to protect her or sufficiently separate her from the harasser/murderer. Even if the state is an at-will state, corporate policies and mismanagement often handcuff those involved to rectify situations before they get out of hand.

alberth
1 replies
1d16h

” I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role”

You’d be surprised at how many jobs felons can’t have.

Most jobs that need licensing (e.g.,electrician, plumber, even bartender, and many more).

As well as security, jobs which relate to firearms and many more.

EDIT: for clarity, legally - there are many jobs felons are prohibited from being employed as. So employers have the burden to ensure they only hire legally eligible employees (not hire a felon when not allowed). As such, background checks are how they ensure this.

jdksmdbtbdnmsm
0 replies
1d16h

You’d be surprised at how many jobs felons canr have.

How is that relevant?

yterdy
0 replies
1d19h

Unfortunately, in America, a history of race and class discrimination in employment has created a culture that requires there be some way to summarily dismiss undesirables. Background checks are part of the toolset for routing around anti-discrimination laws. Without them, the system of nepotism and intra-group favor-trading that recruitment is characterized by breaks down; you'd have to actually hire people based on their qualifications. Qué horror.

itomato
0 replies
1d16h

We hired a guy who later billed for critical services through a shadow company. He used someone else’s name, resume and identity.

He was out of prison for a similar thing.

Guess what? There was no background check for the hire nor any vetting of the company.

Guess who found him out?

hn_throwaway_99
0 replies
1d18h

I mostly agree with that, but I think it should be more along the lines of standardization WRT job responsibilities. I.e. any job would be categorized similarly to how you put it, with categories like "handles money" or "access to children" or whatever.

Then, to do a background check, you just input those job categories and an applicants ID info and get back a "no adverse events" result, or otherwise get back info on only crimes relevant to the categories specified. My understanding is that is basically how some EU countries do it.

I think companies would welcome this sort of standardization (including how many years it would take for different adverse events to fall off your record) as it would help insulate them from claims of bias.

csharpminor
0 replies
1d15h

Out of curiosity, have you ever been responsible for hiring and managing a team?

I say this because my experience of hiring and employing people really shifted my opinion in favor of maximum diligence unfortunately.

Glawen
0 replies
1d9h

it is not controversial, that's how it works in France at least: only you or authorized employers can access your criminal records. I guess it must be common in other european countries.

nope00
50 replies
1d22h

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.

gwbas1c
23 replies
1d19h

[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
13 replies
1d19h

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.

smsm42
8 replies
1d14h

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".

throwup238
6 replies
1d13h

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.

phpisthebest
4 replies
1d8h

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

CodeSgt
1 replies
1d6h

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
0 replies
1d4h

>>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

throwup238
0 replies
1d8h

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
0 replies
1d7h

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.

SturgeonsLaw
0 replies
1d8h

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

kridsdale1
0 replies
1d13h

It could be “allowed a very hardy and aggressive weed to grow in an area of his property”.

sofixa
1 replies
1d8h

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
0 replies
23h5m

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.

btilly
0 replies
1d12h

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, 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 is a great video to start with.

WatchDog
0 replies
1d17h

Not the parent commenter, but I would imagine something involving narcotics.

hluska
8 replies
1d18h

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.

unclad5968
0 replies
1d18h

Seems normal to me

ryanackley
0 replies
1d17h

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.

operatingthetan
0 replies
1d18h

This my friends is the danger of making judgements without context.

gwbas1c
0 replies
20h39m

(I don't get why the post was dead, so I vouched for it.)

He was talking about making good money in IT, so I asked why he didn't continue working in IT. (At least that's how I remember a conversation from over 20 years ago.)

He was originally talking about playing computer games on early computers, so I thought I'd get a story about why he left tech. (IE, laid off and had to change careers, couldn't keep up with changes, didn't like the stress.) I was quite surprised that he was a felon.

He really didn't tell me much about what he did, either. I don't want to repeat much here, other than to say he got greedy.

At a high level I don't think there's anything wrong with what he did. There's plenty of legal activities that are "grey" morally: Oil companies, tobacco companies, investments (stock, 401ks,) where ordinary people don't realize the nasty things the companies they own do...

dgfitz
0 replies
1d18h

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.

davidwritesbugs
0 replies
1d10h

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.

bombcar
0 replies
1d17h

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?

aghastnj
0 replies
1d7h

In the context of "a house full of frat boys", your use of the term "rude" appears naive at best.

Simon_ORourke
9 replies
1d10h

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
7 replies
1d5h

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
5 replies
1d4h

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.

trogdor
2 replies
1d3h

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
1 replies
10h58m

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
0 replies
5h56m

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?

tommychillfiger
0 replies
1d4h

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.

946789987649
0 replies
1d2h

This seems incredibly broad, and could just as easily have gone amazingly for you as it did go badly.

Phileosopher
0 replies
12h5m

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
0 replies
16h22m

This is the rational thing to do but it's extremely depressing. I want to make friends, get to know people.

tonetegeatinst
8 replies
1d20h

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

justsomeoldguy
5 replies
1d19h

sounds reasonable, but I can't tell you how combative it is if you're applying for a job in a state that forbids them from asking if you have any felonies, and there it is on the job application, staring you in the face.

so what are you going to do, tell them no? you won't get the job. tell the truth? you won't get the job. sue them? good luck. you'll need it and that does not get you the job and the settlement, if you were to win is years away, so there is no remedy. you start out combative, it's over.

there is frequently just no way to win since the ones paying are the ones not following the rules.

voxic11
1 replies
1d3h

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.pa...

throwaway2037
0 replies
1d2h

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.

dharmab
1 replies
1d18h

No need to sue. You can notify the state Department of Labor and move on.

justsomeoldguy
0 replies
1d12h

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.

Phileosopher
0 replies
12h8m

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.

mr_o47
0 replies
16h18m

Best Advice, Honestly,

Don't tell when its not asked

bfuller
0 replies
1d19h

tell the truth, but don't always be telling it

NoZebra120vClip
2 replies
1d15h

26 years ago, I was charged with a felony in CA. I pled nolo contendre to a misdemeanor and received court probation; no other penalties.

I recently underwent an extensive background check with my longtime employer and the case still showed up. Of course I had allocuted to it in advance and it was not a problem.

mattclarkdotnet
1 replies
1d9h

I was hiring for a role in Australia, and had to sign off an exception because the preferred candidate had an unpaid speeding ticket in California.

On the other hand we definitely hired people without speeding tickets who were likely deep agents for foreign states.

theGnuMe
0 replies
1d4h

makes ya think doesn't it..

HenryBemis
2 replies
1d9h

I do NOT recommend being upfront

I re-binged "Last Week Tonight" a month ago. There is an episode on the prison system in the USA and the obstacles people face upon release. I remember one case where the person wrote on his job application as employed by the "State of <insert state>" while he was in prison. (it must be this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pz3syET3DY).

I haven't been convicted of any crimes, so I don't have own experience. From people I know, they continued working in tech as contractors/freelancers, but for small fry (as big banks will be very thorough on your background (criminal/credit scoring) checks).

Doing small gigs for small companies where you don't handle personal/sensitive data can give you enough time to (as the parent suggests) have this 'forgotten'.

Would you consider moving to another country?

lazyasciiart
0 replies
1d9h

A felony will block migration through most channels.

aghastnj
0 replies
1d6h

When you say "big banks" you're actually crossing several regulatory domains. But as an example, here's the FINRA page on what they won't allow: https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/guidance/eligibility-re...

FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) is the public face of the USA's "Securities and Exchange Commission". They write the rulebook on who gets to work in the industry (stockbrokers, investment bankers, and the like).

austin-cheney
0 replies
1d7h

I have spent a good portion of my career with security clearances. If there is a background check that involves sending actual humans out to perform interviews then be absolutely up front about everything because they are going to discover it anyways. In this context being upfront saves lots of time whereas the opposite could result in additional investigations you don’t want.

If it’s just some mom and pop shop then I fully agree. Just tell them enough to fully and honestly answer their questions without opening additional causes for concern.

publicprivacy
34 replies
1d23h

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

x0x0
24 replies
1d22h

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
23 replies
1d22h

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.

x0x0
19 replies
1d22h

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
18 replies
1d21h

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
17 replies
1d21h

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
16 replies
1d21h

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
9 replies
1d20h

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
8 replies
1d17h

> 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
7 replies
1d16h

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
6 replies
1d16h

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
5 replies
1d15h

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
4 replies
1d15h

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
3 replies
1d14h

I meant silly to use exploits find while performing a pentest for malicious purposes.

You get well paid and it's legal.

randomdata
2 replies
1d14h

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.

x0x0
1 replies
1d

My claim is that people tend not to do crime if there's a very well-paid alternative, and I think I have pretty good empirical backing on that one. Also, our data is probably not worth that much. We do pen testing so we don't get popped and leak our customers data, likely losing some of our customer base (even if it isn't worth much, not having it leaked is); because soc2 essentially demands it; and because smart customers care more about pentests done by good firms than soc2.

randomdata
0 replies
1d

Exactly. So what do you need pen testers for[1]? Just pay the 'bad guys' to go away.

[1] Okay, regulation, but the need for such regulation is still in question.

digital_sawzall
3 replies
1d18h

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
2 replies
1d17h

> I'd warrant nearly all of them, though it may take a while.

Why guess when the other commenter has the actual data...?

lazyasciiart
1 replies
1d9h

What commenter had data?

randomdata
0 replies
1d3h

The one we were originally talking to before others started randomly interjecting with gobbledygook.

His eventual response was 0, by the way.

x0x0
1 replies
1d17h

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
0 replies
1d16h

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.

debo_
1 replies
1d21h

It's relatively common to have pen testers attack a cloned environment w/ sanitized data. This is especially true in cases where your policies (or those you've agreed to from customers) require you to present evidence that you are having a pen test done every X years.

red-iron-pine
0 replies
1d3h

access to live data for testing is also a compliance question -- as in, don't do it, and why are you doing it?

why are you not using cloned or dummy data?

mkii
0 replies
1d22h

It could have been for a service that was not in production yet, and in an isolated environment.

gnfargbl
4 replies
1d21h

The challenge here is your choice of specialism. Security is fundamentally a trust-based business and the industry is pretty wary of anyone with a perceived black mark against them. The reasons for this are mainly liability ("if this guy does something wrong and he already has a record, how will we look?") and reputation ("what will our government customers think about us if we hire this person?").

Could/would you consider a sideways step to something less directly security based? For instance there might be data engineering roles that might suit.

pyuser583
1 replies
1d14h

The point of security is to remove trust as a requirement.

Poster could say, “you don’t need to trust me, that’s the point of {insert product or service}”.

gnfargbl
0 replies
1d8h

OP is doing "SecOps" which is incident response and security automation. The service includes him as a moving part.

jstarfish
1 replies
1d19h

My experience is different. I'm not a felon but I come across them in the workplace fairly often as an internal investigator. We have infosec personnel working for us with nonviolent sex offender convictions who also maintain security clearances (defense contractor). Life does not end with a conviction; don't wear a sandwich board broadcasting it but honesty goes a long way. It's the lies that I'll eventually hang you with.

Go west if you can. If you're on the east coast it's hell. The "liability" concerns are (IME) a pervasive east-coast racist myth from the 60s, but it's a real threat. The same justification was used to expand routine drug screening from forklift operators and truck drivers to keyboard jockeys. Equifax did drug testing of white-collar employees and did not hire criminals; so much for their liability and reputation following the worst data breach in history. It's all bullshit; both justifications are veiled cause to not hire blacks.

Mind your co-workers inclined to cyberstalk everyone around them and using your skeletons to raise PR hell to advance their own career. We've unfortunately thrown employees under the bus due to public outcry. Social "justice" in action! (What was the prison sentence for, if not justice...?)

gnfargbl
0 replies
1d8h

There's some decent but counterintuitive advice in here, OP: have you tried applying to a job with a clearance requirement? That way your past gets (should get) evaluated within a defined decision making framework, instead of by a spooked recruiter using their lizard brain.

runjake
2 replies
1d22h

You said in your post it was not drug-related, but here you say it was a bad psychedelic trip. Which is true?

publicprivacy
0 replies
1d22h

I meant drug sales, thank you I updated

alumnumn
0 replies
1d4h

“Gotcha! No hire!”

foooobaba
0 replies
1d2h

You should try to petition your state governor office to get the felony removed. It is a long time consuming process and will likely need help from a lawyer, but I have friends that have successfully gotten their felony removed after several years of diligently trying again, and of course good behavior in the mean time. It may never happen, but might as well give it a shot, it can’t hurt.

justsomeoldguy
23 replies
1d22h

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?

pennaMan
7 replies
1d22h

Move to another country. Open a LLC and work as a contractor via your firm. Bootstrap a B2B startup, you seem to have valuable skills you can bring to market. There are many solutions but they do require you to make a hard trade off.

hn_throwaway_99
4 replies
1d22h

Move to another country.

Your plan sounded perfect except for the complete infeasibility of it. Countries don't let felons from other countries immigrate.

deadbabe
2 replies
1d21h

People underestimate how easily they can travel and how it’s really just a privilege.

You end up on a no fly list or become a convicted felon and that’s it, your life of travel is snuffed out.

I really feel for the OP.

felon1234567890
1 replies
1d11h

This is not necessarily true. Speaking from experience as a DUI felon (no other charges) I have traveled to multiple countries in the EU, UK, Thailand, Costa Rica, Mexico and Dominican Republic. The only country that has denied me entry is Canada.

This likely depends on the felony of course. A DUI in which no harm/damage occurred is probably the lesser of the felonies.

deadbabe
0 replies
13h23m

In some of those countries isn’t DUI basically culturally acceptable?

justsomeoldguy
0 replies
1d22h

thank you for that, it can be really frustrating to get suggestions when people don't even know what they're suggesting.

Lets say a felon immigrates to germany. their policy is they won't ask. but if they find out you were a felon in the US, at any point in your life, they will immediately deport you. and your life in germany however much you built, is forfeit. yay! at any point in time.

that is not an acceptable risk

withinboredom
0 replies
1d22h

When I moved to the Netherlands to start a company, they only looked back 10 years for a background check to get the visa. I highly recommend leaving the country and starting completely fresh if the algorithms got you fucked.

justsomeoldguy
0 replies
1d22h

moving to another country isn't an option. the only ones I'd be willing to go to won't let felons in. I can't even drive to canada 10 miles from where I live, here at the border, to see friends. no felons are allowed in canada for life. they will arrest you immediately for trying, signs for it everywhere.

I have an LLC. I'm a published author, but sales are nothing I could live off of.

I'm not sure I have what it takes to bootstrap a b2b. It's why I like working with others. I literally enjoy helping other people solve problems. I was an SRE two positions ago and I took on the IT role for an extra 5k/year. and I happily answered calls to change peoples passwords, because it was a small company. and everyone really respected each other. everyone was grateful. I had cards all over my wall that people sent me, thank you cards. covering half of it by the end. this is what I need in life, all I need. I'm old enough now to know the difference between wants and needs.

altdataseller
4 replies
1d22h

Can you change your name? (dumb Q perhaps)

justsomeoldguy
3 replies
1d22h

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
2 replies
1d21h

'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
1 replies
1d21h

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
0 replies
1d19h

Yeah, and there are laws about not discriminating against people with disabilities and they aren't being followed.

ChrisMarshallNY
4 replies
1d22h

I think being upfront is important. There's a lot of stuff that doesn't need to be said (I've been clean 43 years, and no one ever knew, in my jobs -I just wasn't much fun at the office party), but felonies will always come up; even obscure ones.

HR depts hire these companies that break out the digital proctoscope, and they do things like find your social media accounts. Also, if you piss someone off, they can rat you, and you can be fired with cause.

sjfjsjdjwvwvc
3 replies
1d21h

Being upfront won’t do you any favours.

ChrisMarshallNY
1 replies
1d21h

That depends. Different companies have different policies. I've seen folks marched out the door, a couple of weeks after being hired, because they pretended otherwise.

As I've said, I've personally seen a lot of felons do fine.

"Being upfront" doesn't mean immediately stating it up front, but it also means not lying or pretending it won't come up. Also, there are time limits on this kind of thing.

I know a chap that graduated from Brown, in finance, and got busted in college, with misdemeanor pot, and that haunted him for decades.

I also know a chap that did four bids Upstate, retrained, and got a job as an IT admin for BNL. He did great, but burgers killed him.

sjfjsjdjwvwvc
0 replies
1d19h

Being upfront means stating it without being asked during the interview.

Of course lying is a very bad strategy. But so is coming out without being asked IMO.

I have no personal experience just from acquaintances.

I don’t know about time limits I guess that depends on the country. For example in Germany this kind of information is usually not public so you will have a much easier time - also with the penal systems goal to rehabilitate not to punish. Of course it’s still very difficult.

justsomeoldguy
0 replies
1d19h

there is no universal technique. you should try to be up front. you don't want things to be discovered later that will walk you out. but if being up front makes them pass on you, just what is the option?

13415
3 replies
1d22h

Move abroad. Unless you apply for a security-related position or in childcare/education, it is not common outside the US to demand a background check. In any case, in most countries they need to ask the candidate and do not have the power or right to demand the data for themselves.

20after4
2 replies
1d22h

You can't move abroad with a felony record and no money.

withinboredom
0 replies
1d22h

Depends on the country.

justsomeoldguy
0 replies
1d22h

thank you. moving abroad takes major bank, and I have a partner here where I'm living now. We've got dogs. I'm not leaving everyone behind and we're not moving to another country it's just not in the cards.

giantg2
0 replies
1d21h

Sounds a lot like having a disability. They aren't allowed to discriminate, but they find ways around it.

runjake
19 replies
1d22h

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
12 replies
1d22h

Felony charges are a lot different from felony convictions. Was he convicted?

runjake
7 replies
1d20h

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
6 replies
1d19h

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.

autoexec
5 replies
1d19h

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.

Situations like yours are what people who get off on "tough on crime" policies and push for harsher punishments for "bad guys" never stop to think about. We need judges to be able to consider an individual's unique circumstances in order to get justice, and the same is true for HR departments. Blanket polices that simply send every resume to the bin when the applicant has been arrested and/or convicted with no regard to the situation are just stupid.

You never should have been behind bars, but having served your time, you should have left with a clean record and the opportunity to rebuild your life.

phpisthebest
3 replies
1d8h

100% agree but you have to remember that the mandatory minimums are a reaction to other types of judges that go very soft on violent offenders that end up reoffending and causing more violence and more victims and there are clear evidence that this person was going to reoffend again oftentimes having already offended multiple times and committed multiple crimes against multiple victims and are given fourth fifth sixth seventh eighth 10th chances.... so the reaction to by the politicians is to create laws to hamstring the judges

In reality just like with policing we need better judges we need better officers we need better judges in the system the problem is how to get that nobody has solved that problem and it's easier to just write rules to make things worse for everybody instead of trying to fix the system with better people

justsomeoldguy
2 replies
1d2h

it all boils down to this: does more time make people offend less? does simply adding more time reduce recidivism rates? no, it does not.

https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/society/2022/re...

"In 2015, for example, an analysis by Swiss researchers looked at 14 studies that compared what happened when criminals were put behind bars to what happened when they were given some other sentence, such as probation or electronic monitoring, that allowed them to stay out of jail or prison. The researchers found that crime rates were just as high for people who’d spent time behind bars as for those who hadn’t."

phpisthebest
1 replies
1d2h

>it all boils down to this:does more time make people offend less? does simply adding more time reduce recidivism rates? no, it does not.

No that is not what is boils down to, i dont even agree that prison should be viewed as a punishment at all

Prison should be for separating a person that is a danger to others until such time they are no longer a danger to others. Judges often have a bad record at picking who will be a danger and who will not thus by default for public safety the public demands people convicted of crimes be sent away for a long time to maximize the possible safety of the public at the expense of the individuals that get caught up in the system

autoexec
0 replies
1d

I'd agree that prison should be reserved for people who have proven themselves to be dangerous and a risk to others, but I think a few days/weeks in a jail cell as a "time out" can still be a valid form of punishment and that it may be needed to keep people behind bars in other instances as well (flight risks for example).

We know that past a certain point harsher punishments in general are not a deterrent to people committing crimes so we need the public to grow a spine and reject the idea of excessive sentences since while it makes them feel safe, it's just putting them at further risk. Some facts are a hard sell to people though, especially when they're afraid.

We have a huge problem with mass incarceration in the US and the treatment of people we lock up and the conditions of those facilities need major reform, but I don't think we should abandon the idea of locking people up as a punishment entirely.

justsomeoldguy
0 replies
1d19h

You're not wrong.

What a lot of people don't consider is just how much time it is. We've become kind of used to seeing such long sentences, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years. It's a lot of time, but there's something in herently bad about giving so much time-- people who are in the middle of committing violent crimes, if they think they're going to prison forever, they tend to escalate and go out in a hail of bullets.

that is not a good situation for anyone involved. not bystanders, not cops, not the criminal. it comes from pushing them to the point of no return. super harsh penalties will do that.

to be clear though, I accept full responsibility of what I did. I know what decisions lead up to the drugs. I know a dozen times that I could have chosen waaaaaay better, and I knew. I absolutely knew, even if I didn't, that I was fucking up. I knew, and it's why it won't happen again. I won't be that stupid next time.

giantg2
1 replies
1d21h

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
0 replies
1d19h

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.

98codes
1 replies
1d19h

The gap in the Linkedin history says yes, and how cagey OP is being with what they did (there was definitely physical violence involved, just not battery), I suspect they would absolutely mention it if they weren't convicted.

jstarfish
0 replies
1d18h

Speculating, but it sounds about right for someone who might have threatened to kill a cop and resisted arrest while publicly intoxicated. Spitting on government employees and attempted bribery are frequent additions to these types of charges.

Public intoxication can dig yourself into a really deep hole, really quickly. Don't do it.

lostlogin
2 replies
1d19h

I had a colleague who had a bad night, acquired some felony charges for a firearm-related assault

That’s one hell of a bad night.

smsm42
0 replies
1d13h

Some places are more willing than others to charge anybody using or brandishing a firearm, regardless of the circumstances, and sometimes those exactly are the states which charge very aggressively for it. Heck, I've heard of people just being charged for driving into a wrong state with a loaded magazine laying somewhere in their trunk. Not all laws everywhere make sense.

rpmisms
0 replies
1d17h

I mean, I carry a gun regularly, and if I ever have to use it, it's 50/50 whether only not I'll be charged.

Actually much less likely in my locale, but if I'm out of town...

justsomeoldguy
2 replies
1d22h

I've had four great tech jobs since I paroled ... I'm old. You want windows 3.11 for workgroups, or you want server 2019. you want *nix, you want macos, I'm into it all. kubernetes, virtualization, hell I used to run vmware GSX for companies before ESX existed. My resume is very strong, and my skills are good. and.... it isn't enough. not so far. it's going to take someone who knows from the start, somehow.

I've made companies a lot of money in my lifetime. I worked at places like exodus communications, netapp, netcom, @home. Some old names people prolly recognize. I specialize in storage, you want ceph? Ceph and I get along great. My last cluster was over 2 PB and it started out just 150TB.

It's simple in the end, I work for companies, solve their problems, make us all money. Should be simple right?

jfray2k22
1 replies
1d20h

hello fellow excommie!

justsomeoldguy
0 replies
1d12h

haha. nc1895 here. I was hella late to the game. but you may even remember me, I ran abuse@netcom.com and ix.netcom.com. I am keman-the-klueless, anti-spammers once called me. I went to abuse@home.net after ICG bought us out. Then after @home went under, I went on to abuse@exodus.net. Back in the spam fighting days before adaptive intelligent filters, it was all hard work of reading email headers, tracing things back, finding the user, and closing out their account.

felon_in_texas
17 replies
1d22h

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.

thaumasiotes
13 replies
1d20h

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.

woodruffw
5 replies
1d20h

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
4 replies
1d20h

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?

woodruffw
0 replies
1d18h

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
0 replies
1d17h

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.

dnissley
0 replies
1d19h

How then? No need to be cagey

arp242
0 replies
1d19h

You can easily demonstrate to yourself that they do.

How?

dnissley
3 replies
1d20h

Is there proof of this?

tomduncalf
2 replies
1d20h

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?

mixmastamyk
0 replies
1d14h

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.

bigbillheck
0 replies
1d20h

Ban evasion?

jcrites
0 replies
1d19h

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
0 replies
1d17h

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
0 replies
1d8h

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.

justsomeoldguy
1 replies
1d22h

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.

felon_in_texas
0 replies
1d22h

I know it's a possibility, so all I can do is mitigate the risk. I've intentionally focused on very small companies (<5 employees typically) where I almost always report to the top. I put myself in positions where I'm not just rank and file, but am essentially a hard dependency. Also in contracting roles you're usually not around that long. It's tedious finding work, but so is looking over your shoulder.

justsomeoldguy
0 replies
1d18h

I do not have any employment at this point to risk with my identity, and given that I have lost it over and over again from people who did not know about my past finding out about it and objecting to it enough to cost me my job, it's easy for me to be open at this point. what have I got to lose?

I'm an ancient linkedin account, because I made it way back when linkedin first came out. it's an easy one to remember, lol.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/werewolf/

VirusNewbie
16 replies
1d23h

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
6 replies
1d23h

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
3 replies
1d23h

This basically doesn't happen, mostly an urban legend.

edgyquant
1 replies
1d22h

I know someone it happened to, so it does definitely happen

local_crmdgeon
0 replies
1d22h

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/

jasonpeacock
0 replies
1d23h

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.

local_crmdgeon
1 replies
1d22h

This doesn't actually happen, it's only possible when there's a sexual component.

You hear the concept a lot, because it's a cover - "I'm on the sex offenders list, but I was just peeing. Didn't realize it was a playground, whoops!" is different from the true "I raped a girl, and despite the incredibly high burden of proof in that charge I was convicted, and now I have to tell you about it because I moved next door."

thaumasiotes
0 replies
1d20h

I raped a girl, and despite the incredibly high burden of proof in that charge I was convicted

What burden of proof?

This is a crime where you can be accused of having committed it several years in the past, with no supporting evidence of any kind, and convicted for no other reason than that you give someone a "rapist" vibe.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedeta...

ceejayoz
4 replies
1d23h

Assault charges but not physical violence?

Physical violence is battery.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault_and_battery

"Assault refers to the wrong act of causing someone to reasonably fear imminent harm. This means that the fear must be something a reasonable person would foresee as threatening to them. Battery refers to the actual wrong act of physically harming someone."

nsxwolf
2 replies
1d22h

Regardless, it's pretty brutal to have such poor legal representation that an act with no real physical attack couldn't be pled down to a misdemeanor.

whiddershins
1 replies
1d20h

Misdemeanor is still a criminal record.

nsxwolf
0 replies
1d18h

The impact is absolutely nothing like a felony conviction.

mgarfias
0 replies
1d23h

Not always. For example: oregon doesn't have battery, it is all assault. Just varies in degree (4th->1st).

fr0sty
1 replies
1d23h

Assault charges but not physical violence? What in the world?

"The legal definition of assault is an intentional act that gives another person reasonable fear that they'll be physically harmed or offensively touched. No physical contact or injury has to actually occur, but the accused person must have intentionally acted in a way to cause that fear."

https://vindicatelaw.com/assault-vs-battery-are-they-the-sam...

rpmisms
0 replies
1d16h

It's one of the most ridiculous charges. It's also remarkably easy to avoid: simply replace the "I'm gonna" part of a threat with "I hope someone".

Example: "I'm gonna shoot you" is legally assault in my jurisdiction. "Someone should shoot you": not assault.

hiddencost
0 replies
1d23h

Keep in mind that battery is the charge that encompasses physical violence; assault specifically does not.

birdman3131
0 replies
1d20h

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38858468 They mention here some more info.

tauntz
12 replies
1d22h

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)

icepat
8 replies
1d21h

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
5 replies
1d20h

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
4 replies
1d19h

could you explain this further? what benefit would there be?

retrac
3 replies
1d19h

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
2 replies
1d18h

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. :)

mixmastamyk
0 replies
1d14h

Neither of you has given much hard information. No dog in the hunt here, but it sounds interesting.

0xDEADFED5
0 replies
1d13h

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/

tauntz
1 replies
8h28m

Aha, thanks, I didn't know that!

icepat
0 replies
22m

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!

elchief
2 replies
1d22h

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
0 replies
1d22h

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.

felon1234567890
0 replies
1d21h

EU let's you in. Canada will not though. I know from experience.

throwawaymypot
9 replies
1d20h

(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.

bigbillheck
6 replies
1d20h

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.

WarOnPrivacy
2 replies
1d19h

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.

throwawaymypot
1 replies
1d9h

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
0 replies
1d4h

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.

throwawaymypot
1 replies
1d9h

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
0 replies
23h57m

A single P2P file ticks all three boxes.

How many did you have?

jstarfish
0 replies
1d17h

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.

tinktank
1 replies
1d20h

Sorry to hear all of this. Did you end up in Europe or did you have to go further?

throwawaymypot
0 replies
1d9h

South Africa first then back to Europe after 5yrs.

eli
7 replies
1d21h

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
4 replies
1d20h

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
3 replies
1d20h

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
2 replies
1d19h

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.

tacticalturtle
0 replies
1d5h

At minimum you could sue them in small claims court.

In Massachusetts that would be a nice four figure payday.

eli
0 replies
1d18h

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=file...

0xDEADFED5
1 replies
1d13h

the law is meaningless. it just means they rescind the offer after doing background check.

eli
0 replies
1d3h

It doesn't just mean that, actually.

jph
5 replies
1d19h

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
3 replies
1d18h

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
2 replies
1d17h

And there are even some customers that’ll happily pay a bit more when they learn you’ve been roughed and tumbled.

keepamovin
1 replies
1d13h

What does that mean?

wyclif
0 replies
1d12h

It means that having that kind of background isn't necessarily a negative.

wyclif
0 replies
1d12h

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.

giantg2
4 replies
1d21h

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
3 replies
1d21h

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
1 replies
1d21h

Start going by your middle name professionally.

justsomeoldguy
0 replies
1d20h

yeah. but my last name is very unique and there are only five of us in the country. none my age.

giantg2
0 replies
1d19h

Worked for my wife less than 10 years ago. Just saying.

giantg2
4 replies
1d21h

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
3 replies
1d21h

It may depend on jurisdiction, but often assault is a threat, assault and battery is violence.

silisili
0 replies
1d19h

Definitely jurisdiction dependent. I know at least some states combine them both under 'assault.'

mkl
0 replies
1d21h
giantg2
0 replies
1d19h

I get that. However, to reach felony status it usually has to involve a weapon, or protected class of person even if battery is considered separate. That's why I was curious.

dang
4 replies
1d22h

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 - 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 - June 2022 (353 comments)

jph
2 replies
1d18h

Thanks @dang. 70 Million Jobs CEO Richard Bronson wrote a moving update for HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31598978

dang
1 replies
1d15h

Ah I'd forgotten. Thanks! I've added it above.

rdl
0 replies
1d14h

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
0 replies
1d8h

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.

schizo89
3 replies
1d21h

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
2 replies
1d20h

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
1 replies
1d20h

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
0 replies
1d2h

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.

felon1234567890
3 replies
1d21h

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
2 replies
1d19h

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
1 replies
1d18h

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
0 replies
1d17h

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!

system2
2 replies
1d21h

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
1 replies
1d20h

Yeah, this is a fairly sensible answer

start a private LLC and subcontract the work to yourself

WarOnPrivacy
0 replies
1d19h

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.

lauralifts
2 replies
1d22h

Have you contacted 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.

pwarner
0 replies
1d18h

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.

publicprivacy
0 replies
1d22h

Thank you, checking them out now!

hermitcrab
2 replies
1d22h

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
1 replies
1d22h

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
0 replies
1d22h

I agree, start "working in public"

That is one approach. I kept all my code proprietary. Depends on your goals and personality.

ecmascript
2 replies
1d22h

Maybe move to another state or country? If nothing else helps I guess that could be your best option.

isbvhodnvemrwvn
1 replies
1d21h

What country would allow a documented felon to live there?

ecmascript
0 replies
1d9h

Many countries in Europe have had immigration without any control what so ever for years so I guess all of them?

SillyUsername
2 replies
1d22h

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.

bigbillheck
1 replies
1d20h

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
0 replies
17h9m

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.

realmike33
1 replies
1d22h

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://www.centerforworkforceinclusion.org/our-work/formerl...

---

Not sure if you have linkedin or anything but I'd like to stay connected

publicprivacy
0 replies
1d22h
rdl
1 replies
1d14h

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
0 replies
1d13h

You know the ones that managed to get through. You don't know all the ones that tried and were denied because of it.

netaustin
1 replies
1d15h

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

[2] https://checkr.com/

[3] https://medium.com/@k0ryk/everyones-getting-ghosted-dbf0fbaf...

[4] https://fortunesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/final-...

pyuser583
0 replies
1d14h

Federal prisons were offering coding courses as early as the 1970s.

milkshakes
1 replies
1d23h

checkr

milkshakes
0 replies
1d21h

for the haters downvoting: https://checkr.com/company/mission

droptablemain
1 replies
1d18h

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
0 replies
1d17h

Speaking of Indeed, the first employee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Lamprecht) was a felon and a great engineer

NoZebra120vClip
1 replies
1d22h

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
0 replies
1d22h

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.

xyst
0 replies
1d17h

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.

whalesalad
0 replies
1d19h

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.

topkai22
0 replies
1d19h

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.)

tomashm
0 replies
1d9h

Norway's most famous criminal became a software developer.

https://www-kode24-no.translate.goog/artikkel/david-toska-ko...

severalFelonies
0 replies
1d11h

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.

schizo89
0 replies
1d21h

Well I think best move would be staring a trade union in discord, to aid eath other. We strong in unity.

rthkljlkrj
0 replies
1d22h

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.

publicprivacy
0 replies
1d22h

My linkedin if anyone has career opportunities or wants to talk:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/saunderscaleb/

plondon514
0 replies
1d10h

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

ozzydave
0 replies
1d8h

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/

nytesky
0 replies
1d16h

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/

nwroot
0 replies
1d12h

California has ban the box, apply there

mynameisnoone
0 replies
1d21h

(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.

logicchains
0 replies
1d10h

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).

joshuakogut
0 replies
1d18h

I did. It took a couple years though. I think my biggest problem was getting out during covid and not the felony.

icedchai
0 replies
1d15h

Try a smaller company. They typically don't run actual background checks. They may, however, run a google search and something could come up.

fell_on_knee
0 replies
1d20h

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.

dudul
0 replies
1d15h

Maybe a dumb suggestion but could you go the contracting route? Do employers run background checks for contractors?

codegeek
0 replies
1d23h

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.

burner420042
0 replies
1d11h

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.

bobmaxup
0 replies
1d16h

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.

blackbox1
0 replies
1d17h

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.

alt2319
0 replies
1d12h

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.

WarOnPrivacy
0 replies
1d22h

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.

ShakataGaNai
0 replies
1d14h

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.

SeattleAltruist
0 replies
1d19h

There's a great program for currently and recently released incarcerated: https://www.prisonscholars.org/what-we-do/our-work-impact/

RajT88
0 replies
1d21h

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.

NanoYohaneTSU
0 replies
1d19h

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.

Cyberis
0 replies
1d14h

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.

ChrisMarshallNY
0 replies
1d23h

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.