6 ms·

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

by 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.

by electic 10y ago

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.