13 ms·

The following information will be collected during the duration of the exam: Your microphone Your webcam Your physical location Your head movements Your e

The following information will be collected during the duration of the exam: Your microphone Your webcam Your physical location Your head movements Your eye movements Your mouth movements Creepy as all get-out. By all means, lets have more leaks like this.

rl3 10y ago
Not to mention: Any website you visit What a fantastic way of driving away virtually every candidate that's even remotely high-caliber.
- andrewguenther 10y ago
  Keep in mind, this is during the test. What are you going to do, take a break and load up some porn? These conditions only apply for the 24 minutes in which you take the test. How is this different than if a person were watching you during an interview?
  - will_hughes 10y ago
    Keep in mind that if you have extensions installed, many of those extensions will make callbacks to other services. This will track the use of those, too.
  - rl3 10y ago
    It's the principle of it. Needlessly invasive. It's my hardware, and my network traffic—not theirs. Using such a system in the first place also signals their ineptitude at hiring, or at least an ignorance of quality hiring practices. >What are you going to do, take a break and load up some porn? Well, yes: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/669103856106668033/UF3cgUk4.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/669103856106668033/UF3c... [NSFW]
    - prodigal_erik 10y ago
      What's the non-inept way to stop cheating on the test? They can't ask the applicant to walk into their neighborhood Faraday cage.
      - rl3 10y ago
        Not administer it in the first place. Paid homework projects are far superior. Plagiarism checks can be run on the provided solutions, and a follow-up conversation concerning the project at the interview should easily suss out anyone who had a third party to do it for them. That approach also has the advantage of actually being a relevant to the position—unlike some generalized intelligence test. Frankly if people are putting up with the test they have now, Amazon could probably get away with issuing unpaid homework projects, however classless that would be.
        prodigal_erik 10y ago
        > conversation [...] should easily suss out anyone who had a third party to do it for them This will lead to hiring people who can be coached until they sort of understand a solution, although they still couldn't create it.
        EdHominem 10y ago
        > This will lead to hiring people who [...] Every non-perfect solution is worthless? I've found that the answer to all this is to give a 30-60m remote test (no proctoring), where they get to write the thing as they want, and a 15m discussion where you analyze their solution and assign one new feature then let them walk you through the changes. No code, no whiteboard, just discussion. A lot of people can't whiteboard code from scratch but can take a piece of code they've just written and discuss next steps. And it's also an actual work skill that many good coders are bad at, so it gives you a good insight into high and low-level people.
  - artmageddon 10y ago
    > What are you going to do, take a break and load up some porn? If they're collecting this much data already, how much of a stretch do you think it is to obtain your browser history?
    - pensatoio 10y ago
      THIS! This is the real issue. Such unfettered access presents the risk that they won't just collect data on what happens during the 20-something minute window. The risk is that they gather files, collect your browser history, and read your communications.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
    >> How is this different than if a person were watching you during an interview? It's different because they're recording you, not to mention they're doing it by installing spyware on your computer. That's not what a person does when they watch you, unless they're watching you through a camera.
adnzzzzZ 10y ago
I don't see how this is creepy at all. If you're building a product (especially in the entertainment field) and you want to get feedback from users a really good way of doing it is by having access to their facial expressions as they go through your product. This should be done with their consent (such as in this case), so I don't see the issue.
- rickycook 10y ago
  they weren't building a product. it was a job interview, he was at home, and this was software they required to be installed on his own computer (at home)
  - adnzzzzZ 10y ago
    The same idea applies. The company wants to ensure people aren't cheating and also wants to get some insight into how people respond to their interview process. This only improves the process for future interviewees.
    - slmyers 10y ago
      Yes, sure is one hell of an "improvement"!
    - rickycook 10y ago
      if you're interviewing someone and your interviews questions can be answered by a quick google, maybe you should think that during the course of a work day, the same applies and you should think about a test that actually tests skills involved in the work the candidate will be doing i have no problem with a candidate doing something totally by themself in part 2 of 5 before in in person interview; theres still another 3 different interviews (many of which will be in person) to catch cheating and such it's just a filter; it's not the interview
dgritsko 10y ago
It's worth noting that these are Proctorio's (https://proctorio.com/ https://proctorio.com/) restrictions; they're just a third-party company that Amazon is using to administer the test. I've used a couple of similar systems (e.g. ProctorU - https://www.proctoru.com/ https://www.proctoru.com/, where a human will actually watch you via webcam(!), or ProctorTrack - http://www.proctortrack.com/ http://www.proctortrack.com/), and "monitoring" of this sort is pretty much par for the course (no pun intended). These companies are typically used in settings where some level of rigor is expected (e.g. administering an exam for an accredited university). In that context, I think these restrictions make sense in order to ensure some degree of validity in the test results (especially since you're only expected to run the software for the duration of the test).
- electic 10y ago
  It just sends the wrong message. As a company, you are advocating tech that spies on people or in this case the test taker. Overall, it leaves a nasty taste in your mouth that a company would use technology such as this. What else would they be okay with doing once you start working there? Why not do an onsite if you want to make sure of the validity?
  - relics443 10y ago
    Is it spying if they let you know what they will be doing?
    - fattire 10y ago
      Depending on which definition of "spying" you want to apply, it is spying. Moreover, it is invasive and unsettling. Perhaps most critically, it is a more subtle test for the prospective employee-- are you the kind of person who would comply with a ridiculous request that violates your privacy in the hopes that it will land you a job? I dunno. If I were an employer and an applicant actually installed this without question, it would make me seriously reluctant to hire them-- this is the sort of unquestioning, docile employee who could be more vulnerable to social engineering,who would not be likely to consider consequences of their actions, who does not take security, privacy, and safety as a priority for even themselves (and is therefore less likely to do so for customers and clients). These may not be qualities that some companies value, but from my perspective, I think the "nope" letter to Amazon shows strength in independent thinking, creativity, and moral character. It's like those companies that required you to hand over your social media passwords so HR could dig through your history. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/job-seekers-getting-asked-facebook-passwords-071251682.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/job-seekers-getting-asked-fac... That is horrifying. If Amazon doesn't hire you because of this, it says quite a bit about their company, fuck 'em. Their loss. There are companies out there that actually respect their employees. Congratulations. You passed the test.
superuser2 10y ago
All of this information is available to an interviewer in person.
- chillingeffect 10y ago
  No, an in-person interviewer will not know the tabs on my browser or the programs running on my computer. Also at an in-person interview, the interviewee has a symmetrical power relationship to the interviewer in that they can both observe on another. This practice slides the power relationship heavily toward the interviewer. Furthermore, at an in-person interview, the information is not analyzed in an unspecified manner which further skews the power balance toward the large corporation. Finally, at an in-person interview, the information is not digitally stored at an unspecified location for an unspecified time and transmitted to unspecified parties. Nor is it subject to unauthorized access by unspecified parties in unspecified countries due to unspecified security arrangements.
  - superuser2 10y ago
    The interviewer is most certainly looking at your computer screen if you are using it during the interview. I will probably never be in a situation that comes close to the staggering power asymmetry of someone deciding whether or not I will have a job. Even if I'm charged with a crime the court has less power over me than an interviewer, in that its decisions are subject to juries and appeals and I get to watch the proceedings. The information is analyzed unscientifically according to the personal biases and tastes of the interviewer to form an emotional impression he may not even be conscious of. "Not enough eye contact, I don't like this guy." I'd much rather it be judged by an algorithm trained on actual job performance years in. Ever heard of Greenhouse? Your interview performance (as reported by the interviewer) is absolutely stored indefinitely in some 3rd party's database subject to unspecified controls. Amazon has piloted a program to make offers solely on the basis of the test, not just to put a gate in front of the onsite. They should be making it at least as resilient to fraud as an onsite, which is why I think these measures are appropriate.
bwblabs 10y ago
And lots of contradicting privacy claims: "Secure Exam Proctor Exam Environment: You can generally utilize the Secure Exam Proctor for taking a proctored examination without revealing any Personally Identifiable Information about yourself. The types of information collected depend on the exam settings and can include video, audio, desktop recording, and websites visited. The aforementioned data is encrypted and will not be used by Proctorio in anyway. This information may be used by "Authorized School Officials" to review the actions of Students during exam administration. Proctorio may collect additional information set forth below in the "Aggregate Information" and anonymous information. Aggregate and anonymous information will be used to improve the quality of the Secure Exam Service. Note: Proctorio utilizes zero-knowledge encryption to keep your information safe."
zakki 10y ago
If it is using proctorio.com as mentioned in other comment, I think it is normal. On Juniper or Cisco certification test (using Pearson vue) they warn the candidate something like this (not fully the same especially for eye and mouth movements, but the candidate is video recorded). Basically it is to make sure the candidate is not cheating. The different is it is using Desktop provided by testing center partner.
- fattire 10y ago
  Don't normalize it. It is not "normal". It's invasive as hell.
kuschku 10y ago
So, what if I run the browser in a VM, and cheat in a second VM? With a secondary input device to switch between which VM is displayed on my screen? Or even an overlay? They’d be completely fooled. It’s completely useless, and so needlessly invasive.
- labster 10y ago
  If you can cheat that well, I think you'd be probably be qualified for the job. Especially considering the "USB type C" cables they sell.
- sperglord 10y ago
  Why not just put a second laptop on your desk?
  - kuschku 10y ago
    They have a human watch you all the time through the camera, so they’d notice if you look anywhere else. And they require you to show them all around your room first, to prevent that. That’s why you install the system below the desk, and use it that way.
    - lucb1e 10y ago
      > And they require you to show them all around your room first, to prevent that. Holy hell, did I miss that or wasn't it mentioned? This might even be the most invasive of all.
- misingnoglic 10y ago
  If it looks like you're typing, and you're not entering any text into the test, they can infer what's going on.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    I have a solution for that, too, and verified it kinda works (just needs some improvements). If you stick a magnet to your tongue, and move it around, a modern phone can recognize that even from below the desk. So if you had a tongue piercing, and magnetic jewelry for that, you could use that as a crude input device that’s invisible.
riazrizvi 10y ago
I think it's a bit silly to get so worked up about this. The test is simply to gauge programming skill in an online test, and they want to check you are not cheating. Though I think they could have worded it without freaking people out: "You are going to be video monitored during the test".
- coldcode 10y ago
  What the heck is cheating in programming? Do people watch you on a webcam at work to see if you are reading stackoverflow?
  - flukus 10y ago
    Having someone else take the test for you. Even in sit down on site university tests this is somewhat common. Although in this extreme case it does sound like checking stackoverflow is considered cheating.
  - wutbrodo 10y ago
    Presumably you're aware that job interviews and the actual job are different things? At a real job no one cares if you use Stack Overflow because there's ample other data to assess your productivity (like...your actual productivity over the months and years that you're employed). The challenge with interviewing is trying to extrapolate performance from a much, MUCH shorter time horizon[1]. You're not testing the exact same environment, but you're using a different environment (the test/interview) to hopefully assess skills that are relevant in the environment you're optimizing for. This is hardly a new concept: exams work pretty much the same way. There are other ways to assess candidates (like looking at their portfolios), but they have their own weaknesses, and testing skills in a constrained environment can still reveal things. [1] And this is for the benefit of both parties: I've lost count of how many people I've heard complain about companies that have gauntlets of technical interviews.
    - sillysaurus3 10y ago
      Presumably you're aware that job interviews and the actual job are different things? This is the core problem with tech hiring circa 2016. The sooner this idea dies, the better. It's surprising that more companies haven't noticed the most effective interviews are ones that resemble the company's day-to-day work as closely as possible.
coldcode 10y ago
Having just reread 1984, it seemed familiar to me. Sure, people cheat all the time to try to get a job (I have no idea why, even a cursory phone call will eliminate the ditch digger). Maybe Amazon should focus on making the jobs more enjoyable so people stick around and they wouldn't need such excess to find live bodies.
- nicknack27 10y ago
  The reason Amazon (and other large tech giants) are hiring so many people isn't because they are loosing good talent -- it's because the company is growing at such an aggressive rate that there are always new positions opening.
LandoCalrissian 10y ago
Don't have a webcam or microphone hooked up to your computer, problem solved?
mgiannopoulos 10y ago
When I was taking exams at university I am certain the professor could monitor my eye and mouth movements. I could also of course be seen at all times as well as any sounds I made were heard . How is this different?
- sgift 10y ago
  Did your professor store all of this with perfect recall and shared it with who knows how many people?
  - Dr0Dre 10y ago
    Was wondering if all this information can be used for Machine Learning by Amazon?
  - mgiannopoulos 10y ago
    Depends on the teacher. For sure, I had no access or control of his memory functions :)
haylem 10y ago
Doesn't really fade me. I mean, it's just for the duration of the exam. Install on a throwaway laptop, do your interview, be done with it. It's not so much the recording of these metrics that I'd be worried about, but them storing it to build profiles. Different story. These particular metrics are now quite common for online exam systems. Mind you, these are valid concerns, and anyone should feel free to reject them. But on the other hand it's nice to have a remote option (for certifications, exams, interviews...) and at the same time a cheat-prevention system. You'd be creeped out by the stories I have of freelancers or even consulting companies having some "star" employees doing interviews and then other employees showing up at work instead (remotely or even physically). Once you've been burned by stuff like that, you understand they take precautions. In OPs position, I'd ask for the storage and retention terms and conditions though.
dexterdog 10y ago
Is it really creepy? When I interview you in-person I am able to note all of those things if I want to and I can include "Your odor" on the list. They probably just have a legal team somewhere that feels that it is worth disclosing these items that really are common sense in a face-to-face.
edblarney 10y ago
That they have the webcam and microphone is not 'creepy'. They just want you to be able to take a test remotely without cheaters. If this were a regular website, sure, but it's for a specific reason, during a specific event, that ultimately you are participating in. If you were to go and 'take an exam' on Amazon campus - they'd be doing the same thing - but a human proctor would be looking for the same things :) I think the contextualization of it (i.e. it's 'your home') definitely seems 'creepy' - but I don't think it's a cause for concern - there's a reason they are doing it, it's not nefarious, they are open about it. Again - it may feel a little creep-show because we're not used to this, or rather, in any other situation it would be truly creepy ... but I don't think there is cause for concern here. I also think that the logical questions are not unreasonable.

rl3 10y ago

Not to mention: Any website you visit What a fantastic way of driving away virtually every candidate that's even remotely high-caliber.

andrewguenther 10y ago
Keep in mind, this is during the test. What are you going to do, take a break and load up some porn? These conditions only apply for the 24 minutes in which you take the test. How is this different than if a person were watching you during an interview?
- will_hughes 10y ago
  Keep in mind that if you have extensions installed, many of those extensions will make callbacks to other services. This will track the use of those, too.
- rl3 10y ago
  It's the principle of it. Needlessly invasive. It's my hardware, and my network traffic—not theirs. Using such a system in the first place also signals their ineptitude at hiring, or at least an ignorance of quality hiring practices. >What are you going to do, take a break and load up some porn? Well, yes: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/669103856106668033/UF3cgUk4.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/669103856106668033/UF3c... [NSFW]
  - prodigal_erik 10y ago
    What's the non-inept way to stop cheating on the test? They can't ask the applicant to walk into their neighborhood Faraday cage.
    - rl3 10y ago
      Not administer it in the first place. Paid homework projects are far superior. Plagiarism checks can be run on the provided solutions, and a follow-up conversation concerning the project at the interview should easily suss out anyone who had a third party to do it for them. That approach also has the advantage of actually being a relevant to the position—unlike some generalized intelligence test. Frankly if people are putting up with the test they have now, Amazon could probably get away with issuing unpaid homework projects, however classless that would be.
      - prodigal_erik 10y ago
        > conversation [...] should easily suss out anyone who had a third party to do it for them This will lead to hiring people who can be coached until they sort of understand a solution, although they still couldn't create it.
        EdHominem 10y ago
        > This will lead to hiring people who [...] Every non-perfect solution is worthless? I've found that the answer to all this is to give a 30-60m remote test (no proctoring), where they get to write the thing as they want, and a 15m discussion where you analyze their solution and assign one new feature then let them walk you through the changes. No code, no whiteboard, just discussion. A lot of people can't whiteboard code from scratch but can take a piece of code they've just written and discuss next steps. And it's also an actual work skill that many good coders are bad at, so it gives you a good insight into high and low-level people.
- artmageddon 10y ago
  > What are you going to do, take a break and load up some porn? If they're collecting this much data already, how much of a stretch do you think it is to obtain your browser history?
  - pensatoio 10y ago
    THIS! This is the real issue. Such unfettered access presents the risk that they won't just collect data on what happens during the 20-something minute window. The risk is that they gather files, collect your browser history, and read your communications.
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
  >> How is this different than if a person were watching you during an interview? It's different because they're recording you, not to mention they're doing it by installing spyware on your computer. That's not what a person does when they watch you, unless they're watching you through a camera.

adnzzzzZ 10y ago

I don't see how this is creepy at all. If you're building a product (especially in the entertainment field) and you want to get feedback from users a really good way of doing it is by having access to their facial expressions as they go through your product. This should be done with their consent (such as in this case), so I don't see the issue.

rickycook 10y ago
they weren't building a product. it was a job interview, he was at home, and this was software they required to be installed on his own computer (at home)
- adnzzzzZ 10y ago
  The same idea applies. The company wants to ensure people aren't cheating and also wants to get some insight into how people respond to their interview process. This only improves the process for future interviewees.
  - slmyers 10y ago
    Yes, sure is one hell of an "improvement"!
  - rickycook 10y ago
    if you're interviewing someone and your interviews questions can be answered by a quick google, maybe you should think that during the course of a work day, the same applies and you should think about a test that actually tests skills involved in the work the candidate will be doing i have no problem with a candidate doing something totally by themself in part 2 of 5 before in in person interview; theres still another 3 different interviews (many of which will be in person) to catch cheating and such it's just a filter; it's not the interview

dgritsko 10y ago

It's worth noting that these are Proctorio's (https://proctorio.com/ https://proctorio.com/) restrictions; they're just a third-party company that Amazon is using to administer the test. I've used a couple of similar systems (e.g. ProctorU - https://www.proctoru.com/ https://www.proctoru.com/, where a human will actually watch you via webcam(!), or ProctorTrack - http://www.proctortrack.com/ http://www.proctortrack.com/), and "monitoring" of this sort is pretty much par for the course (no pun intended). These companies are typically used in settings where some level of rigor is expected (e.g. administering an exam for an accredited university). In that context, I think these restrictions make sense in order to ensure some degree of validity in the test results (especially since you're only expected to run the software for the duration of the test).

electic 10y ago
It just sends the wrong message. As a company, you are advocating tech that spies on people or in this case the test taker. Overall, it leaves a nasty taste in your mouth that a company would use technology such as this. What else would they be okay with doing once you start working there? Why not do an onsite if you want to make sure of the validity?
- relics443 10y ago
  Is it spying if they let you know what they will be doing?
  - fattire 10y ago
    Depending on which definition of "spying" you want to apply, it is spying. Moreover, it is invasive and unsettling. Perhaps most critically, it is a more subtle test for the prospective employee-- are you the kind of person who would comply with a ridiculous request that violates your privacy in the hopes that it will land you a job? I dunno. If I were an employer and an applicant actually installed this without question, it would make me seriously reluctant to hire them-- this is the sort of unquestioning, docile employee who could be more vulnerable to social engineering,who would not be likely to consider consequences of their actions, who does not take security, privacy, and safety as a priority for even themselves (and is therefore less likely to do so for customers and clients). These may not be qualities that some companies value, but from my perspective, I think the "nope" letter to Amazon shows strength in independent thinking, creativity, and moral character. It's like those companies that required you to hand over your social media passwords so HR could dig through your history. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/job-seekers-getting-asked-facebook-passwords-071251682.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/job-seekers-getting-asked-fac... That is horrifying. If Amazon doesn't hire you because of this, it says quite a bit about their company, fuck 'em. Their loss. There are companies out there that actually respect their employees. Congratulations. You passed the test.

superuser2 10y ago

All of this information is available to an interviewer in person.

chillingeffect 10y ago
No, an in-person interviewer will not know the tabs on my browser or the programs running on my computer. Also at an in-person interview, the interviewee has a symmetrical power relationship to the interviewer in that they can both observe on another. This practice slides the power relationship heavily toward the interviewer. Furthermore, at an in-person interview, the information is not analyzed in an unspecified manner which further skews the power balance toward the large corporation. Finally, at an in-person interview, the information is not digitally stored at an unspecified location for an unspecified time and transmitted to unspecified parties. Nor is it subject to unauthorized access by unspecified parties in unspecified countries due to unspecified security arrangements.
- superuser2 10y ago
  The interviewer is most certainly looking at your computer screen if you are using it during the interview. I will probably never be in a situation that comes close to the staggering power asymmetry of someone deciding whether or not I will have a job. Even if I'm charged with a crime the court has less power over me than an interviewer, in that its decisions are subject to juries and appeals and I get to watch the proceedings. The information is analyzed unscientifically according to the personal biases and tastes of the interviewer to form an emotional impression he may not even be conscious of. "Not enough eye contact, I don't like this guy." I'd much rather it be judged by an algorithm trained on actual job performance years in. Ever heard of Greenhouse? Your interview performance (as reported by the interviewer) is absolutely stored indefinitely in some 3rd party's database subject to unspecified controls. Amazon has piloted a program to make offers solely on the basis of the test, not just to put a gate in front of the onsite. They should be making it at least as resilient to fraud as an onsite, which is why I think these measures are appropriate.

bwblabs 10y ago

And lots of contradicting privacy claims: "Secure Exam Proctor Exam Environment: You can generally utilize the Secure Exam Proctor for taking a proctored examination without revealing any Personally Identifiable Information about yourself. The types of information collected depend on the exam settings and can include video, audio, desktop recording, and websites visited. The aforementioned data is encrypted and will not be used by Proctorio in anyway. This information may be used by "Authorized School Officials" to review the actions of Students during exam administration. Proctorio may collect additional information set forth below in the "Aggregate Information" and anonymous information. Aggregate and anonymous information will be used to improve the quality of the Secure Exam Service. Note: Proctorio utilizes zero-knowledge encryption to keep your information safe."

zakki 10y ago

If it is using proctorio.com as mentioned in other comment, I think it is normal. On Juniper or Cisco certification test (using Pearson vue) they warn the candidate something like this (not fully the same especially for eye and mouth movements, but the candidate is video recorded). Basically it is to make sure the candidate is not cheating. The different is it is using Desktop provided by testing center partner.

fattire 10y ago
Don't normalize it. It is not "normal". It's invasive as hell.

kuschku 10y ago

So, what if I run the browser in a VM, and cheat in a second VM? With a secondary input device to switch between which VM is displayed on my screen? Or even an overlay? They’d be completely fooled. It’s completely useless, and so needlessly invasive.

labster 10y ago
If you can cheat that well, I think you'd be probably be qualified for the job. Especially considering the "USB type C" cables they sell.
sperglord 10y ago
Why not just put a second laptop on your desk?
- kuschku 10y ago
  They have a human watch you all the time through the camera, so they’d notice if you look anywhere else. And they require you to show them all around your room first, to prevent that. That’s why you install the system below the desk, and use it that way.
  - lucb1e 10y ago
    > And they require you to show them all around your room first, to prevent that. Holy hell, did I miss that or wasn't it mentioned? This might even be the most invasive of all.
misingnoglic 10y ago
If it looks like you're typing, and you're not entering any text into the test, they can infer what's going on.
- kuschku 10y ago
  I have a solution for that, too, and verified it kinda works (just needs some improvements). If you stick a magnet to your tongue, and move it around, a modern phone can recognize that even from below the desk. So if you had a tongue piercing, and magnetic jewelry for that, you could use that as a crude input device that’s invisible.

riazrizvi 10y ago

I think it's a bit silly to get so worked up about this. The test is simply to gauge programming skill in an online test, and they want to check you are not cheating. Though I think they could have worded it without freaking people out: "You are going to be video monitored during the test".

coldcode 10y ago
What the heck is cheating in programming? Do people watch you on a webcam at work to see if you are reading stackoverflow?
- flukus 10y ago
  Having someone else take the test for you. Even in sit down on site university tests this is somewhat common. Although in this extreme case it does sound like checking stackoverflow is considered cheating.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  Presumably you're aware that job interviews and the actual job are different things? At a real job no one cares if you use Stack Overflow because there's ample other data to assess your productivity (like...your actual productivity over the months and years that you're employed). The challenge with interviewing is trying to extrapolate performance from a much, MUCH shorter time horizon[1]. You're not testing the exact same environment, but you're using a different environment (the test/interview) to hopefully assess skills that are relevant in the environment you're optimizing for. This is hardly a new concept: exams work pretty much the same way. There are other ways to assess candidates (like looking at their portfolios), but they have their own weaknesses, and testing skills in a constrained environment can still reveal things. [1] And this is for the benefit of both parties: I've lost count of how many people I've heard complain about companies that have gauntlets of technical interviews.
  - sillysaurus3 10y ago
    Presumably you're aware that job interviews and the actual job are different things? This is the core problem with tech hiring circa 2016. The sooner this idea dies, the better. It's surprising that more companies haven't noticed the most effective interviews are ones that resemble the company's day-to-day work as closely as possible.

coldcode 10y ago

Having just reread 1984, it seemed familiar to me. Sure, people cheat all the time to try to get a job (I have no idea why, even a cursory phone call will eliminate the ditch digger). Maybe Amazon should focus on making the jobs more enjoyable so people stick around and they wouldn't need such excess to find live bodies.

nicknack27 10y ago
The reason Amazon (and other large tech giants) are hiring so many people isn't because they are loosing good talent -- it's because the company is growing at such an aggressive rate that there are always new positions opening.

LandoCalrissian 10y ago

Don't have a webcam or microphone hooked up to your computer, problem solved?

mgiannopoulos 10y ago

When I was taking exams at university I am certain the professor could monitor my eye and mouth movements. I could also of course be seen at all times as well as any sounds I made were heard . How is this different?

sgift 10y ago
Did your professor store all of this with perfect recall and shared it with who knows how many people?
- Dr0Dre 10y ago
  Was wondering if all this information can be used for Machine Learning by Amazon?
- mgiannopoulos 10y ago
  Depends on the teacher. For sure, I had no access or control of his memory functions :)

haylem 10y ago

Doesn't really fade me. I mean, it's just for the duration of the exam. Install on a throwaway laptop, do your interview, be done with it. It's not so much the recording of these metrics that I'd be worried about, but them storing it to build profiles. Different story. These particular metrics are now quite common for online exam systems. Mind you, these are valid concerns, and anyone should feel free to reject them. But on the other hand it's nice to have a remote option (for certifications, exams, interviews...) and at the same time a cheat-prevention system. You'd be creeped out by the stories I have of freelancers or even consulting companies having some "star" employees doing interviews and then other employees showing up at work instead (remotely or even physically). Once you've been burned by stuff like that, you understand they take precautions. In OPs position, I'd ask for the storage and retention terms and conditions though.

dexterdog 10y ago

Is it really creepy? When I interview you in-person I am able to note all of those things if I want to and I can include "Your odor" on the list. They probably just have a legal team somewhere that feels that it is worth disclosing these items that really are common sense in a face-to-face.

edblarney 10y ago

That they have the webcam and microphone is not 'creepy'. They just want you to be able to take a test remotely without cheaters. If this were a regular website, sure, but it's for a specific reason, during a specific event, that ultimately you are participating in. If you were to go and 'take an exam' on Amazon campus - they'd be doing the same thing - but a human proctor would be looking for the same things :) I think the contextualization of it (i.e. it's 'your home') definitely seems 'creepy' - but I don't think it's a cause for concern - there's a reason they are doing it, it's not nefarious, they are open about it. Again - it may feel a little creep-show because we're not used to this, or rather, in any other situation it would be truly creepy ... but I don't think there is cause for concern here. I also think that the logical questions are not unreasonable.