4 ms·

Exactly my point. I should not require current access to a work email account just to update my CV to show that I worked somewhere. Or for how long I worked the

Exactly my point. I should not require current access to a work email account just to update my CV to show that I worked somewhere. Or for how long I worked there (like that suggestion to "re-verify" periodically). I don't update my LinkedIn right away for example when I change jobs. I usually wait about a year until I put the new employer. Why would I accept getting forced, as one of the first actions at my new employer, to list where I work?

derefr 4y ago
Showing that you worked somewhere and showing that you are working somewhere are two different things. A work email can be used to show that you are working somewhere. Proving that you did work somewhere (and for how long) would require... I don't know, an income tax statement? Like banks ask for — "proof of income." IMHO, of the two options, the email is the more convenient and less invasive one — at the expense of not always being reachable by the time you need it.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  What if the place has no canonical email domain for its employees? Or if they don't all receive them? Or if many employees are working there as contractors and not receiving emails? The more I think about it, the more corner cases I see that make this problematic.
  - derefr 4y ago
    Like I said, it would be a pure optimization over a more rigorous proof-of-identity + proof-of-income path. You can always allow the user just fall back to that more-rigorous path if they don't have such a verifiable address.
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago
      Linkedin will never require proof of income. That's much more intrusive. So no it's not an optimization over something that simply never will occur. I think you may just have to accept that if you want to verify an employee, you'll need to call their previous employers. This is the way it's always been done.
      - derefr 4y ago
        > I think you may just have to accept that if you want to verify an employee, you'll need to call their previous employers You're talking about "they" as in the people reading the CV. Which works fine for the scale individual employers operate at. But the point of this conversation, is what the services themselves, dealing with fake profiles at scale, should do. LinkedIn themselves don't make hiring decisions; they make money off of how reliable their listings are. Their incentive is entirely different than the employer's incentive. By analogy: it's fine to talk about how a given person should carry pepper spray with them if they want to avoid getting mugged. But what should a city government do to make a city a place people want to move to, where people generally don't want to move to cities where they might have a high chance of getting mugged? > Linkedin will never require proof of income. That's much more intrusive. You seem to think we're talking about this being done for every company automatically. But my understanding is that bots are always trying to impersonate the same top companies — so this requirement would either be for a certain whitelist of important employers, or (more likely) would be an org setting that the LinkedIn org admin for a given company would set (when they're having trouble with bots), to require LinkedIn to do extended verification for people claiming to specifically be employees of that company. Very much like how Cloudflare has an "I'm under attack" toggle that forces visitors through CAPTCHAs. If your previous employer sets that flag... well, that's their fault. Same as it's their fault if they aren't willing to give you a reference for petty reasons.
- tharkun__ 4y ago
  I understand that it can be used. I am saying that it is a bad idea to require that. Yes sure it is less invasive than the other option you gave. I mean income tax statement to show I worked somewhere, are you kidding me? To LinkedIn? Showing exactly how much I made? Your suggestions are not getting better. Less invasive doesn't mean it's a good idea. Making the president dictator for 20 years is less bad than making him dictator for life. I still like democracy better, even if it's not perfect.
  - derefr 4y ago
    I don't think you've grasped the spirit of what I'm saying. In a perfect world, every interaction with a service would require exactly as much identity verification as is required to entirely, 100% prohibit people pretending to be you... but also, people being people, they would then voluntarily avoid interactions which would necessitate giving that proof. In other words, in a perfect world, the government requires LinkedIn and similar services to put users through KYC (i.e. demand proof-of-identity+income for sign-up)... and poof! These services cease to exist, because nobody's going to give them that for only the small amount of value LinkedIn provides people.

derefr 4y ago

Showing that you worked somewhere and showing that you are working somewhere are two different things. A work email can be used to show that you are working somewhere. Proving that you did work somewhere (and for how long) would require... I don't know, an income tax statement? Like banks ask for — "proof of income." IMHO, of the two options, the email is the more convenient and less invasive one — at the expense of not always being reachable by the time you need it.

CogitoCogito 4y ago
What if the place has no canonical email domain for its employees? Or if they don't all receive them? Or if many employees are working there as contractors and not receiving emails? The more I think about it, the more corner cases I see that make this problematic.
- derefr 4y ago
  Like I said, it would be a pure optimization over a more rigorous proof-of-identity + proof-of-income path. You can always allow the user just fall back to that more-rigorous path if they don't have such a verifiable address.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    Linkedin will never require proof of income. That's much more intrusive. So no it's not an optimization over something that simply never will occur. I think you may just have to accept that if you want to verify an employee, you'll need to call their previous employers. This is the way it's always been done.
    - derefr 4y ago
      > I think you may just have to accept that if you want to verify an employee, you'll need to call their previous employers You're talking about "they" as in the people reading the CV. Which works fine for the scale individual employers operate at. But the point of this conversation, is what the services themselves, dealing with fake profiles at scale, should do. LinkedIn themselves don't make hiring decisions; they make money off of how reliable their listings are. Their incentive is entirely different than the employer's incentive. By analogy: it's fine to talk about how a given person should carry pepper spray with them if they want to avoid getting mugged. But what should a city government do to make a city a place people want to move to, where people generally don't want to move to cities where they might have a high chance of getting mugged? > Linkedin will never require proof of income. That's much more intrusive. You seem to think we're talking about this being done for every company automatically. But my understanding is that bots are always trying to impersonate the same top companies — so this requirement would either be for a certain whitelist of important employers, or (more likely) would be an org setting that the LinkedIn org admin for a given company would set (when they're having trouble with bots), to require LinkedIn to do extended verification for people claiming to specifically be employees of that company. Very much like how Cloudflare has an "I'm under attack" toggle that forces visitors through CAPTCHAs. If your previous employer sets that flag... well, that's their fault. Same as it's their fault if they aren't willing to give you a reference for petty reasons.
tharkun__ 4y ago
I understand that it can be used. I am saying that it is a bad idea to require that. Yes sure it is less invasive than the other option you gave. I mean income tax statement to show I worked somewhere, are you kidding me? To LinkedIn? Showing exactly how much I made? Your suggestions are not getting better. Less invasive doesn't mean it's a good idea. Making the president dictator for 20 years is less bad than making him dictator for life. I still like democracy better, even if it's not perfect.
- derefr 4y ago
  I don't think you've grasped the spirit of what I'm saying. In a perfect world, every interaction with a service would require exactly as much identity verification as is required to entirely, 100% prohibit people pretending to be you... but also, people being people, they would then voluntarily avoid interactions which would necessitate giving that proof. In other words, in a perfect world, the government requires LinkedIn and similar services to put users through KYC (i.e. demand proof-of-identity+income for sign-up)... and poof! These services cease to exist, because nobody's going to give them that for only the small amount of value LinkedIn provides people.