5 ms·

> Not to mention the applications that require you to turn on your webcam (!) while you do them. I don't understand what this means. Did she have to turn on he

> Not to mention the applications that require you to turn on your webcam (!) while you do them. I don't understand what this means. Did she have to turn on her webcam to upload her cv? How does that even make sense. Also, how is that legal? I thought requiring a photograph to apply for a position is illegal (except for stuff like acting).

peterfirefly 3y ago
There is a lot of cheating going on... This is a way to avoid some of it.
- phatskat 3y ago
  This doesn’t make sense - cheating on what?
  - brasic 3y ago
    From OP: > Now with all those aptitude training [...] that require you to turn on your webcam They are referring to an automated personality or skills test to screen candidates. The webcam is to make sure the applicant is the one actually doing the test. These things are dehumanizing and snake-oil but there’s’s no question that applicant misrepresentation happens, including situations where the person interviewing is a ringer being paid by an agency or the applicant.
    - phatskat 3y ago
      I guess I don’t understand how cheating on these things benefits the candidate. Like, you lie about any of that and get put in front of a panel, how’s that going to go?
      - crooked-v 3y ago
        Generally the people trying to fake their identity or skills in interviews are doing so with remote jobs, with the goal of bumbling along indefinitely once they no longer need to be on camera. The problem here is that companies have now gone from identity verification to this 'aptitude test' ML bullshit that's just another cover for increasingly weird arbitrary discrimination against applicants.
      - humanistbot 3y ago
        See this HN thread for all kinds of experiences with hiring fraud: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32996457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32996457 It doesn't benefit genuine candidates to blatantly lie. They'll get caught later in the process. But you're assuming identity thieves are acting rationally or fear getting caught. They don't, and they're playing a numbers game. If you get past an interviewer and get fired after two weeks, your salary at a US tech company can be $5k, which is the average annual salary in many developing countries.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    I would assume this is an attempt to catch people who hire impersonators for the interview early.
    - peterfirefly 3y ago
      Precisely.
  - Tangurena2 3y ago
    I don't know about other folks here, but in the past decade, we've encountered recruiters who present one candidate when doing a telephone interview and then a different person shows up for the in-person interview.
humanistbot 3y ago
The idea is that you keep your webcam on your face while you fill out the application for identity verification, to make sure it is actually the applicant. But if you think that's bad, the hot new thing in these hiring startups is that you have to record yourself answering interview questions with some chatbot interviewer, and then some black box model scores it to give you all kinds of psychometric astrology even worse than Myers Briggs. Except it's a bunch of AI snake oil, and as the article says, you get different personality scores if you put on a headscarf or glasses. In the US, it is illegal per the EEOC, which has barely any resources to actually enforce the law: "Similarly, employers should not ask for a photograph of an applicant. If needed for identification purposes, a photograph may be obtained after an offer of employment is made and accepted." [1] [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  It is not illegal to ask for a photo. “Should not ask” is not the same as “cannot ask”. Asking for a photo opens an employer to claims of discrimination, but it would still have to be proven, so the government is advising against it. But it may well be that in practice, the government will not be spending resources on trying to or be able to prove discrimination, even if a photo is required.

peterfirefly 3y ago

There is a lot of cheating going on... This is a way to avoid some of it.

phatskat 3y ago
This doesn’t make sense - cheating on what?
- brasic 3y ago
  From OP: > Now with all those aptitude training [...] that require you to turn on your webcam They are referring to an automated personality or skills test to screen candidates. The webcam is to make sure the applicant is the one actually doing the test. These things are dehumanizing and snake-oil but there’s’s no question that applicant misrepresentation happens, including situations where the person interviewing is a ringer being paid by an agency or the applicant.
  - phatskat 3y ago
    I guess I don’t understand how cheating on these things benefits the candidate. Like, you lie about any of that and get put in front of a panel, how’s that going to go?
    - crooked-v 3y ago
      Generally the people trying to fake their identity or skills in interviews are doing so with remote jobs, with the goal of bumbling along indefinitely once they no longer need to be on camera. The problem here is that companies have now gone from identity verification to this 'aptitude test' ML bullshit that's just another cover for increasingly weird arbitrary discrimination against applicants.
    - humanistbot 3y ago
      See this HN thread for all kinds of experiences with hiring fraud: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32996457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32996457 It doesn't benefit genuine candidates to blatantly lie. They'll get caught later in the process. But you're assuming identity thieves are acting rationally or fear getting caught. They don't, and they're playing a numbers game. If you get past an interviewer and get fired after two weeks, your salary at a US tech company can be $5k, which is the average annual salary in many developing countries.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  I would assume this is an attempt to catch people who hire impersonators for the interview early.
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    Precisely.
- Tangurena2 3y ago
  I don't know about other folks here, but in the past decade, we've encountered recruiters who present one candidate when doing a telephone interview and then a different person shows up for the in-person interview.

humanistbot 3y ago

The idea is that you keep your webcam on your face while you fill out the application for identity verification, to make sure it is actually the applicant. But if you think that's bad, the hot new thing in these hiring startups is that you have to record yourself answering interview questions with some chatbot interviewer, and then some black box model scores it to give you all kinds of psychometric astrology even worse than Myers Briggs. Except it's a bunch of AI snake oil, and as the article says, you get different personality scores if you put on a headscarf or glasses. In the US, it is illegal per the EEOC, which has barely any resources to actually enforce the law: "Similarly, employers should not ask for a photograph of an applicant. If needed for identification purposes, a photograph may be obtained after an offer of employment is made and accepted." [1] [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices

lotsofpulp 3y ago
It is not illegal to ask for a photo. “Should not ask” is not the same as “cannot ask”. Asking for a photo opens an employer to claims of discrimination, but it would still have to be proven, so the government is advising against it. But it may well be that in practice, the government will not be spending resources on trying to or be able to prove discrimination, even if a photo is required.