8 ms·

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 usi

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.
    - relics443 10y ago
      I think you're reading too much into this. It's to make sure that the interviewee isn't trying to game the system. Pretty simple. You can opt-out anytime you want. You don't even have to start in the first place. It's not spying by any definition of the word. Unless you make one up for it.
      - fattire 10y ago
        I understand that the goal is to stop cheaters. That's an admirable goal, and a perfectly legit one. However it's the completely wrong way to do it and sends a very strong message to anyone applying that "our company, for any reason that serves our interest, expect you to be compliant, to give up your personal privacy, and to submit to our invasive internal processes whenever we feel it's necessary. Expect more." Asking this of you, before you're even working for them is presumptive and not a good sign that this is a place you're going to want to be. It's basically a huge flashing "We Fuck Our Employees!" right there on your job application.
        Tempest1981 10y ago
        It's probably the cheapest and most efficient way to screen candidates, and ensure accuracy. Not disagreeing with you -- just saying that their primary goal is probably efficiency (no surprise).
        gaius 10y ago
        submit to our invasive internal processes whenever we feel it's necessary This is also the company that requires warehouse workers to queue for bag searches on unpaid time.
    - goflyapig 10y ago
      > Depending on which definition of "spying" you want to apply, it is spying. Without the secrecy aspect, I don't think you can say it's spying by the definition people typically use. If you went to an examination hall and took a real proctored exam [1], would you consider that the proctor was "spying" on you? > Moreover, it is invasive and unsettling. This, I can't argue with. It's hard to pin a definition on what makes things creepy or unsettling. Some people find clowns creepy. Why? I have no idea. But there's no sense in arguing about it. Personally, I think it's a clever use of technology to streamline and scale a traditional process (exam proctoring) that avoids making you travel to an exam hall or interview. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exam_invigilator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exam_invigilator
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- dgritsko 10y ago
  >Why not do an onsite if you want to make sure of the validity? Convenience and logistics. Is it worth yours (or Amazon's) time to pay for travel expenses, when applicants could literally be located anywhere? Evidently not, at least not in the early stages of the process.
  - jcoffland 10y ago
    If it's not worth Amazon's time to interview me in person then it's not worth my time to consider them as a potential employer. This is just lazy and they will end up with lower quality candidates because of it.
    - mattzito 10y ago
      I agree with your reasoning, i think the alternative perspective is that traveling somewhere to interview is a significant time commitment on my part, and I might welcome alternative testing approaches where I don't have to fly somewhere until I'm reasonably confident I'm going to get an offer.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - derefr 10y ago
      They will probably fly you out after this, for another stage of the interview. But at the "FizzBuzz stage", they do really need to make sure that the person answering the question is the same person they're later flying out. There are a surprisingly large number of college students who've gotten used to "paying for grades", who attempt things like that.
      - Aeolun 10y ago
        Maybe they should just conduct fizzbuzz then?
        wyclif 10y ago
- davidgay 10y ago
  Isn't a normal class room in which you take tests while required to be silent and with an instructor/TA/proctor keeping en eye on you very much akin to spying on people? (using people rather than tech, but why is that distinction important?)
  - cs2818 10y ago
    I'd be more concerned about the the level of access the monitoring software has to my computer and any services with vulnerabilities it might leave behind. I think I'd only consider doing this if I used a computer I could wipe completely before and after. Even then the amount of distrust is off-putting.
    - dalore 10y ago
      There is an idea! Have them mail out laptops to do the tests on and you mail them back in.
      - vkjv 10y ago
        Strangely I really like this. It starts the relationship off with trust instead.
  - bmj 10y ago
    Not necessarily, because that classroom proctor is not asking to install spyware on my personal laptop. I can understand why ProctorU does what it does, but that process puts a significant burden on the test taker, one which is entirely different than taking a proctored exam in a classroom.
- selectiveshift 10y ago
  Because this is mainly being used for interns. In general, you don't fly in interns for onsite interviews.
  - avarun 10y ago
    Yes you do.
- minusSeven 10y ago
  I don't know what is so wrong with this. It's only for the test duration when they want to ensure that you don't cheat. You can remove the extension once the test is over.
- minusSeven 10y ago
  I don't know what is so wrong with this. It's only for the test duration when they want to ensure that you don't cheat. You can remove the extension once the test is over.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
chipperyman573 10y ago
I took a test with ProctorU a few months ago for my university class. It didn't seem creepy at all. They installed LogMeIn and watched my webcam, but as soon as the exam was over they disabled both. It's just a way of making sure there isn't any cheating.
- dgritsko 10y ago
  Yep, and a pretty convenient one at that. When using these services, the effortlessness of taking a test in the comfort of my own home (at a time that worked for my schedule) outweighed privacy concerns, although I certainly empathize with those that don't feel the same way.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
  I can't believe what I'm reading. A university installed effectively spyware on your device, to watch you as you were sitting an exam? I sat about a dozen university exams in the last couple of years and in no instance did I have someone staring at my face, or peeking over my shoulder, during them. There were always supervisors in the theater, but they mostly walked along the aisles of desks and made sure to be unobtrusive and quiet as a mouse. I really don't see any justification for what you describe.
  - Dr0Dre 10y ago
    Had the same experience. I passed my PRINCE2 (similar to PMP certification in the US) with ProctorU from my home. I connected with a Lady via cam and she asked me to show via cam in a 360 style if I had anything else in the room I was in (books, someone helping,etc). Took the exam after that and passed it. It is a bit unusual but very very convinient. If I had to take the exam physically somewhere I would have needed to take a day off.
  - dagw 10y ago
    I really don't see any justification for what you describe. In the case you describe you have to be physically present at a fixed location at a fixed time. In many cases that might be inconvenient or impossible, and I can certainly see situations where it'd be nice to have an alternative. Not having to have my physical location coincide with the physical location of my university of choice could be quite handy.
Alex3917 10y ago
This immediately brings to mind the history of scientific racism, specifically with craniometry being used to 'prove' that certain races are inferior. I realize this probably isn't what they're doing, but the fact that they're giving themselves permission to store facial data for later analysis seems questionable given the context.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  This is not racism. It's a tool that could be used for racial discrimination but that's not the same thing. It's like saying a knife is murder.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  > This immediately brings to mind the history of scientific racism, specifically with craniometry being used to 'prove' that certain races are inferior. I can't imagine why...? That would be like seeing a freeway and instantly thinking of the Nazis.
  - Alex3917 10y ago
    US corporations have a multi-hundred year history of using thinly veiled proxies for race as part of their hiring practices. This continues to this day, including in the tech industry. It's not exactly that far fetched to think that someone might someday think it's a good idea to start applying some of those new AI APIs to the candidate interview videos just to see what happens. In fact given enough time and enough departments/companies, it frankly seems more likely than not. Especially given that we already have AI scouring GitHub looking for people to recruit. Assuming it's not already happening, it seems unlikely that there won't be startups applying AI to hiring interview videos within the next couple years.
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      > US corporations have a multi-hundred year history of using thinly veiled proxies for race as part of their hiring practices. This continues to this day, including in the tech industry. That's a pretty serious accusation, one that could spark a lot of successful lawsuits against those companies -- especially in the current political climate in the states they tend to be located in. Do you have any specific evidence to back it up?
madeofpalk 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. If Amazon has chosen to use use Proctorio, with an understanding of how it operates, then it's very much Amazon's restrictions.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Exactly. And if they don't "understand" their constraints (or pretend not to)... why would you want to work for them?
gravypod 10y ago
> ProctorU - https://www.proctoru.com/ https://www.proctoru.com/, where a human will actually watch you via webcam I'd just take it naked. I'm a fat hairy guy. I'm sure it'll be fun for all of us.
- overcast 10y ago
  Intentional username? :)

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.
  - relics443 10y ago
    I think you're reading too much into this. It's to make sure that the interviewee isn't trying to game the system. Pretty simple. You can opt-out anytime you want. You don't even have to start in the first place. It's not spying by any definition of the word. Unless you make one up for it.
    - fattire 10y ago
      I understand that the goal is to stop cheaters. That's an admirable goal, and a perfectly legit one. However it's the completely wrong way to do it and sends a very strong message to anyone applying that "our company, for any reason that serves our interest, expect you to be compliant, to give up your personal privacy, and to submit to our invasive internal processes whenever we feel it's necessary. Expect more." Asking this of you, before you're even working for them is presumptive and not a good sign that this is a place you're going to want to be. It's basically a huge flashing "We Fuck Our Employees!" right there on your job application.
      - Tempest1981 10y ago
        It's probably the cheapest and most efficient way to screen candidates, and ensure accuracy. Not disagreeing with you -- just saying that their primary goal is probably efficiency (no surprise).
      - gaius 10y ago
        submit to our invasive internal processes whenever we feel it's necessary This is also the company that requires warehouse workers to queue for bag searches on unpaid time.
  - goflyapig 10y ago
    > Depending on which definition of "spying" you want to apply, it is spying. Without the secrecy aspect, I don't think you can say it's spying by the definition people typically use. If you went to an examination hall and took a real proctored exam [1], would you consider that the proctor was "spying" on you? > Moreover, it is invasive and unsettling. This, I can't argue with. It's hard to pin a definition on what makes things creepy or unsettling. Some people find clowns creepy. Why? I have no idea. But there's no sense in arguing about it. Personally, I think it's a clever use of technology to streamline and scale a traditional process (exam proctoring) that avoids making you travel to an exam hall or interview. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exam_invigilator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exam_invigilator
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
dgritsko 10y ago
>Why not do an onsite if you want to make sure of the validity? Convenience and logistics. Is it worth yours (or Amazon's) time to pay for travel expenses, when applicants could literally be located anywhere? Evidently not, at least not in the early stages of the process.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  If it's not worth Amazon's time to interview me in person then it's not worth my time to consider them as a potential employer. This is just lazy and they will end up with lower quality candidates because of it.
  - mattzito 10y ago
    I agree with your reasoning, i think the alternative perspective is that traveling somewhere to interview is a significant time commitment on my part, and I might welcome alternative testing approaches where I don't have to fly somewhere until I'm reasonably confident I'm going to get an offer.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - derefr 10y ago
    They will probably fly you out after this, for another stage of the interview. But at the "FizzBuzz stage", they do really need to make sure that the person answering the question is the same person they're later flying out. There are a surprisingly large number of college students who've gotten used to "paying for grades", who attempt things like that.
    - Aeolun 10y ago
      Maybe they should just conduct fizzbuzz then?
      - wyclif 10y ago
davidgay 10y ago
Isn't a normal class room in which you take tests while required to be silent and with an instructor/TA/proctor keeping en eye on you very much akin to spying on people? (using people rather than tech, but why is that distinction important?)
- cs2818 10y ago
  I'd be more concerned about the the level of access the monitoring software has to my computer and any services with vulnerabilities it might leave behind. I think I'd only consider doing this if I used a computer I could wipe completely before and after. Even then the amount of distrust is off-putting.
  - dalore 10y ago
    There is an idea! Have them mail out laptops to do the tests on and you mail them back in.
    - vkjv 10y ago
      Strangely I really like this. It starts the relationship off with trust instead.
- bmj 10y ago
  Not necessarily, because that classroom proctor is not asking to install spyware on my personal laptop. I can understand why ProctorU does what it does, but that process puts a significant burden on the test taker, one which is entirely different than taking a proctored exam in a classroom.
selectiveshift 10y ago
Because this is mainly being used for interns. In general, you don't fly in interns for onsite interviews.
- avarun 10y ago
  Yes you do.
minusSeven 10y ago
I don't know what is so wrong with this. It's only for the test duration when they want to ensure that you don't cheat. You can remove the extension once the test is over.
minusSeven 10y ago
I don't know what is so wrong with this. It's only for the test duration when they want to ensure that you don't cheat. You can remove the extension once the test is over.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

chipperyman573 10y ago

I took a test with ProctorU a few months ago for my university class. It didn't seem creepy at all. They installed LogMeIn and watched my webcam, but as soon as the exam was over they disabled both. It's just a way of making sure there isn't any cheating.

dgritsko 10y ago
Yep, and a pretty convenient one at that. When using these services, the effortlessness of taking a test in the comfort of my own home (at a time that worked for my schedule) outweighed privacy concerns, although I certainly empathize with those that don't feel the same way.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
I can't believe what I'm reading. A university installed effectively spyware on your device, to watch you as you were sitting an exam? I sat about a dozen university exams in the last couple of years and in no instance did I have someone staring at my face, or peeking over my shoulder, during them. There were always supervisors in the theater, but they mostly walked along the aisles of desks and made sure to be unobtrusive and quiet as a mouse. I really don't see any justification for what you describe.
- Dr0Dre 10y ago
  Had the same experience. I passed my PRINCE2 (similar to PMP certification in the US) with ProctorU from my home. I connected with a Lady via cam and she asked me to show via cam in a 360 style if I had anything else in the room I was in (books, someone helping,etc). Took the exam after that and passed it. It is a bit unusual but very very convinient. If I had to take the exam physically somewhere I would have needed to take a day off.
- dagw 10y ago
  I really don't see any justification for what you describe. In the case you describe you have to be physically present at a fixed location at a fixed time. In many cases that might be inconvenient or impossible, and I can certainly see situations where it'd be nice to have an alternative. Not having to have my physical location coincide with the physical location of my university of choice could be quite handy.

Alex3917 10y ago

This immediately brings to mind the history of scientific racism, specifically with craniometry being used to 'prove' that certain races are inferior. I realize this probably isn't what they're doing, but the fact that they're giving themselves permission to store facial data for later analysis seems questionable given the context.

jcoffland 10y ago
This is not racism. It's a tool that could be used for racial discrimination but that's not the same thing. It's like saying a knife is murder.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
> This immediately brings to mind the history of scientific racism, specifically with craniometry being used to 'prove' that certain races are inferior. I can't imagine why...? That would be like seeing a freeway and instantly thinking of the Nazis.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  US corporations have a multi-hundred year history of using thinly veiled proxies for race as part of their hiring practices. This continues to this day, including in the tech industry. It's not exactly that far fetched to think that someone might someday think it's a good idea to start applying some of those new AI APIs to the candidate interview videos just to see what happens. In fact given enough time and enough departments/companies, it frankly seems more likely than not. Especially given that we already have AI scouring GitHub looking for people to recruit. Assuming it's not already happening, it seems unlikely that there won't be startups applying AI to hiring interview videos within the next couple years.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    > US corporations have a multi-hundred year history of using thinly veiled proxies for race as part of their hiring practices. This continues to this day, including in the tech industry. That's a pretty serious accusation, one that could spark a lot of successful lawsuits against those companies -- especially in the current political climate in the states they tend to be located in. Do you have any specific evidence to back it up?

madeofpalk 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. If Amazon has chosen to use use Proctorio, with an understanding of how it operates, then it's very much Amazon's restrictions.

kafkaesq 10y ago
Exactly. And if they don't "understand" their constraints (or pretend not to)... why would you want to work for them?

gravypod 10y ago

> ProctorU - https://www.proctoru.com/ https://www.proctoru.com/, where a human will actually watch you via webcam I'd just take it naked. I'm a fat hairy guy. I'm sure it'll be fun for all of us.

overcast 10y ago
Intentional username? :)