6 ms·
> Dr Escalera adds that she has also heard examples of companies posting jobs to obtain and sell data. How is that not illegal? Pretending to offer jobs just t
by rdtsc 10mo ago
> Dr Escalera adds that she has also heard examples of companies posting jobs to obtain and sell data.
How is that not illegal? Pretending to offer jobs just to suck in resumes to some database just seems like it should be illegal. Or just like running scams is illegal but they are in another country "so tough luck, you'll never get us"?
- lovich 10mo agoBecause some animals are more equal than others and the government has decided that companies are not only citizens but the more equal group. Half the shit companies do that gets them a fine would land any individual in jail for committing the same action, but we let them get away with just paying it off. Simultaneously we give those organizations the same rights. It’s a system with three classes of citizen where the rich and corporations have a better right to responsibility ratio and the average human has a much worse ratio
- VerifiedReports 10mo agoCitizens United, a monumental betrayal of every citizen.
- Y_Y 10mo ago> The provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within sixty days of general elections or thirty days of primary elections violate the freedom of speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed. I'm sure we're on the same side, but I want to point out that that case didn't make a huge difference. By that I mean it removed a ban on political broadcasts near elections, most of the "money is speech, super pacs can do anything at all" stuff was already legal.
- red-iron-pine 10mo ago> it removed a ban on political broadcasts near elections, Propaganda works, and this was a BIG change, as it now let unlimited shady corpo money spam agit-prop with no consequence. this was step 1 on living in a post-truth world.
- BobaFloutist 10mo agoRight, but if you try to make a gentle, common-sense, broad consensus law and the Supreme Court squashes it as violating the constitution, that also prevents any potential future more stringent regulation.
- danaris 10mo agoWhile this is true, the first such betrayal came in 1976, with Buckley v Valeo. This was (AIUI) the US Supreme Court decision that established the precedent that money counts as protected speech. So much of the rot that has occurred since then can be traced back to this.
- dredmorbius 10mo ago<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo>
- lovich 10mo agoTo add onto this, the single exception I am aware of to this rule is the result of the gas explosions in Massachusetts. In that case the company in charge, Columbia Gas, "exited" the market but all the scuttlebutt I heard in the area was that the Mass government was threatening the corporate execution of revoking their charter, which lead to Columbia gas selling their business off at a loss to Eversource https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NiSource#Massachusetts_gas_line_explosions_and_exit_from_Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NiSource#Massachusetts_gas_lin...
- xhkkffbf 10mo agoYou do realize that the decisions at the corporations are made by people. You may try to draw a distinction between people and corporations, but in the end it was some person who decided to ghost someone.
- lovich 10mo agoYou do realize that the people making those decisions at corporations are largely shielded from the liability of said decisions, and that when companies are treated like citizens they almost never get equivalent punishment like human beings do. I can draw a distinction between people and corporations because it’s literally encoded in the fucking law. I actually don’t know how or why you would imply that such a distinction doesn’t exist.
- the_real_cher 10mo agoIts straight up wire fraud.
- josefrichter 10mo agoI believe it actually is illegal, via a set of more general rules on data collection, on what constitutes a fraud, etc. May not be spelled out exactly like this specific use case, but still very likely covered by law. Just difficult to prove.
- Xylakant 10mo agoIt certainly would be illegal in Europe under the GDPR - data collected for one purpose (handling of applications) cannot be used for another without explicit, informed consent.
- pydry 10mo agoIm sure it isnt that hard to get candidates to tick another check box that says the data can be used for other stuff.
- Xylakant 10mo agoThe box would need to be off by default and clearly state the purpose. It would at least be possible to verify it exists and no example has been shown.
- cluckindan 10mo ago”We and our 972 partners…”
- Y_Y 10mo agoCorporations are people, and very promiscuous ones at that.
- reeredfdfdf 10mo agoIt may be illegal, but shady stuff certainly happens in EU too. Recently investigative journalists here in Finland found out that a significant percentage of job postings over here are indeed fake. Unsurprisingly, worst offenders were recruitment companies, which sometimes listed fake jobs to generate a pool of applicants they can later offer to their clients. Doing this is easy, as no law requires these companies to disclose who their clients are when creating job postings. It's also very common for same position to get posted multiple times. Other than wasting applicant's time, this behavior also messes up many statistics, which use job postings to determine how many open positions there are available. Basically the chances of finding a job are even worse for unemployed people than stats would imply.
- terminalshort 10mo agoIt's technically fraud, but there aren't any damages.
- darreninthenet 10mo agoIn the UK at least Fraud doesn't require any damages, just an intent to gain something of value on the criminals side.
- YmiYugy 10mo agoThis seems analogous to the following. A company asks users to fill out an online survey in exchange for participation in some raffle, except the company never pays out any prize. As with the job application there was never a guaranteed reward, but it's still easy to see the damage. The company induced to you to provide them with an economically valuable asset (filled out survey/application) for which you expected a fair chance at a reward. It seems plausible that you could claim damages at least up to the expected value.
- Dayshine 10mo agoExcept a job offer is generally non binding, so they could interview you, offer the job, then withdraw it. So never being offered a job because it doesn't exist doesn't lose you anything.
- jagoff 10mo agoSpotted the HR worker posting ghost jobs
- amypetrik8 10mo ago>So never being offered a job because it doesn't exist doesn't lose you anything. Ah well look, if the job posting was just to collect resumes with zero intention to actually hire, you did lose some things: - actual time spent applying to a job that was never open - emotional damage on focus to try to get this job - loss of free market value of your data (company profited from this data, when you could have profited from it) - damages for acquisition of your personal data under a fraudulent basis (when otherwise, maybe you did not want your data shared)
- pjc50 10mo agoAmerica has no data protection law, apart from some hyper-specific ones: healthcare, video rental records. That makes all of this data sharing completely legal. As well as that, it is widely agreed there that lying is free speech. It is not wire fraud because you do not pay to apply. (In general; places that charge applicants are even more scammy.)
- rsanek 10mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Pr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Ac... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Educational_Rights_and_Privacy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Educational_Rights_and_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bl...
- pjc50 10mo agoExactly - no national, general data protection law. Although the California one looks pretty similar to the GDPR from the summary, it's not truly national.
- renegade-otter 10mo agoEven if there was, under the current regime, the probability of it being enforced is near-zero, especially if you are in the good graces of the child king.
- _heimdall 10mo agoThe problem of enforcement doesn't fall only on the executive branch. They're tasked with executing laws passed by congress. Congress is ultimately a check on the executive, and if they care to have their laws enforced they do have actions they could take.
- reustle 10mo agoI think there’s a good chunk of the SF tech event scene built around pulling in qualified email addresses, too. “Apply to attend”
- cons0le 10mo agoPlease stop thinking about laws, and think about enforcement. If the cops don't care about something, it's defecto legal. We have all sorts of fancy laws on the books that aren't enforced. Environmental regs, animal welfare regs, anti trust laws, white collar anti fraud laws. Data laws fall into this bucket. Nobody that would actually enforce those laws gives a dam. We won't be able to solve any of our problems with new laws, until we can actually enforce the laws already on the books
- DrScientist 10mo agoThere are lots of forms of 'don't care'. Don't care because: - they have limited resources and they are prioritising something else, - there is little realistic chance of getting a conviction. - it's not one of their politically set department targets - they fundamentally don't think it should be illegal - say historic blasphemy laws still on the books. Is your main concern resources or enforceability, lack of political focus or some combination of all of the above?
- franktankbank 10mo agoThis really has me thinking I ought to just delete my Linkedin. I can't say I've ever got anything out of it except spam and fomo. I don't even like to keep it up-to-date because someone is just ripping that information off.
- nerdsniper 10mo agoI believe a LinkedIn profile is mandatory to apply to YC. I could assume you might not be interested in applying to YC, but it’s an interesting fact, and might generalize somewhat for many other applications.
- franktankbank 10mo agoI think that is a mutually beneficial signal probably.
- sparrish 10mo ago
- zingababba 10mo agoI swear to god a couple of the interviews I have been in lately have felt more like free consultations rather than me applying for a job.