[Chernobog]

I was convicted for drugs and firearms in Norway. The only time it has ever come up during my many years as a programmer, was when a consulting company I worked for had the police IT service as a candidate for my next project.

Since it was for the police, a background check would be required. I politely told my department head that I would not pass that, and a short summary of my case. At that time I had worked for about 2 years and got a kind "we would never have guessed" and "you will get another project then".

As a side note: In our country, an employer needs a legitimate reason to do a background check, and they won't see crimes that are not relevant, or for some crimes - too long ago.

[koiz]

In the USA, background checks are often just part of the process. There's an entire industry built around providing the service.

[noobermin]

Americans have been completely conditioned into accepting all sorts of trouble while maintaining the idea of freedom in contradiction to that.

[jorblumesea]

Many Americans talk about "freedom" but their definition is largely narrow and specific to political issues they feel strongly about. The same people who talk about "small government" simultaneously use the federal government to bludgeon states into submissions on issues such as legalized marijuana. It's usually something that's used to justify a specific political position and not an overall sentiment of allowing actual freedom.

On the contrary, many Americans support policies that are against many ideas of freedom such as the disenfranchisement of felons.

For example, someone might use an example of being able to deny a LGBTQ person a service as "having freedoms" but ignore the fact that by denying them that service, that person is also simultaneously less free.

[tssva]

There is no such thing as actual freedom. You exercising your "freedom" almost always means imposing upon someone else's. In your example wouldn't someone having to provide a service to a LGBTQ person even though it is against their religious beliefs be a violation of their freedom of religion just as much as refusing to provide them service would be a violation of the LGBTQ person's freedom?

"Freedom" is used a lot when politics comes up not because it is a way to justify political positions but because politics is to a great degree the arguing of whose freedoms trumps another's under what circumstances.

[keithnz]

that's party of the problem, that view of freedom, that's more about individual choice. It often flys in the face of achieving greater freedoms through rules and social cooperation. People are familiar with the concept but often don't think about it, like driving on the road, if people were allowed individual choice about how they want to drive on roads it would be a nightmare to drive on the roads, but luckily, people aren't "free" to choose which side of the road to drive on ,etc, there are a bunch of rules, and because the vast majority follow these "restrictions" a greater freedom is achieved, you can get from A to B in relatively short time periods in relative safety. Cooperative freedoms tend to give some of the greatest actual freedoms, however, they need to be underpinned and balanced with a set of core individual rights. Working out that balance is... tricky.

[klyrs]

In the same way that federal money can't be spent on abortions because of "religious freedom" but we still go to war with taxes collected from Quakers, we had to fight for decades over the "definition of marriage" because a certain religion's liberties are more equal than others.

[bborud]

Not all exercise of freedoms comes at someone else's expense.

[tssva]

Can you give an example to support this statement?

[eeZah7Ux]

> In your example wouldn't ... be a violation of their freedom of religion

Not at all, that's not what freedom of religion is.

I can practice a Mayan or Inca religion by myself - that's freedom of religion - but I cannot allow it to affect other people's life e.g. by organizing human sacrifices.

[tssva]

How is an individual refusing to provide a service which is readily available from others significantly impacting other people's life?

Also not being able to practice ritual sacrifice if it is part of your faith is a violation of your religious freedom. We as society have made the decision that the right to life is a greater right than your right to freely practice your religion but it is still a violation of your right. It is just another example of how in a functioning society decisions have to be constantly be made regarding whose rights are greater than someone else's under what circumstances.

[bredren]

I think freedom and access to power are entangled.

People with access to power or money either don't need to interview for jobs, or don't have criminal records that complicate that process.

So, they are more free by default. Not only do these checks not affect them directly, they create a nerf on a whole set of other people, which creates a contrast of freedom.

I do not think many would go out in public and say they like seeing the poor unfairly burdened. However, I believe in many cases groups in the United States have chosen "power over principals."

This is where the choice to protect power supersedes choosing to act principals or professed beliefs.

I do not think this is a new thing, though I think it has never been so public and given today's politics the contrast is particularly stark.

[koiz]

There are some that only care about "freedom from sin".

[adventured]

Being free to background check someone you're going to work with, work for, or hire is in fact an entirely correct aspect of being free broadly. The US position on that is correct, not contradictory.

Restriction on action which does not involve using violence against others is restricting freedom in any proper liberal model of the word. That goes for everything from prostitution to drug use, and it absolutely includes being able to research information about other people you're going to work with.

It's hilarious that a place like Norway, which eg thinks publishing open salaries is to be touted, is then magically closed on checking other information about a person. So which is it, open information or not culturally? It's contradictory, arbitrary horseshit is what it is.

The position is philosophically identical to claiming that speech must be heavily restricted to be truly free (ie free of "hate" etc.). It's nothing more than intellectual infantilism, part of the mental immaturing and weakening of the West. It's Orwell-think, inverting everything; more restriction on personal action is freedom, more restriction on speech is free speech.

[formerly_proven]

ITT corporations are people and have feelings, too.

[Barrin92]

> It's nothing more than intellectual infantilism

No, infantilism is being unable to contextualise freedom and see it in its proper communal and social context. Handing private entities the ability to engage in surveillance against their fellow citizens isn't freedom, it's eroding the very basis of freedom. It's creating a private panopticon in which everyone is constantly conditioned to behave and comply. That is actually what modern American society is by the way, literally infantilized. Students are being policed by their universities, children by theire hyper-religious parents, minorities by their neighbours ring doorbells, and workers by their companies, no state required.

The proper way to understand the liberal tradition and apply it today is to understand that the liberal tradition is concerned with threats to individual freedom, period. 200 years ago, in early capitalist times, citizens were equal and the state was powerful. Today private power and surveillance is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than anything the American government can come up with.

The liberal tradition applied today, by the spirit rather than the letter of the law and its proper intent, must be concerned with stopping citizens and private firms from controlling each others lives, rather than be obsessed with some 18th century homesteading logic or 'voluntary contracts'.

[Dahoon]

So TLDR; your opinion is the way it should be done and anyone who thinks otherwise are wrong. How free of you.

> It's Orwell-think

Hilarious in a comment stating the US position is the correct one. I'd like to know of an example of another nation that is more or even on the same level of Orwellian as the US? I can't even think of one historically, far from it today. Of course the US way of thinking would require you to yell CHINAMAN or RED RUSSIAN now as loud as you can, but in reality neither have near as Orwellian a state as the U.S. of NSA.

[vorpalhex]

In Texas, if you pull a background check on someone you're required to provide a copy to them which I always felt was a good minimal standard - at least then you know that someone pulled the check and what they found.

[vel0city]

That's interesting because I've filed many things in Texas related to background checks in Texas and have never received a response. I'll edit this comment with more research about this, as this is personally a very interesting topic.

EDIT 1: A quick look shows a guidebook for employers which references this, but the link to the Texas state code talks about in-home employees. https://www.twc.texas.gov/news/efte/references_background_ch... I'm still unsure about the law related to other kinds of employees.

[mullen]

California is the same. Also, if someone runs a credit check, you can also request a copy of the report.

[wolco2]

Required to vs can request is a huge difference.

[Reedx]

Maybe their compare function is written in javascript. :)

[jbperry]

As far as background checks in California, I thought they were only required to provide a copy if they decide to rescind their offer?

[djsumdog]

Readers from other countries, what is it like there?

I remember when I lived in Australia, my friends told me that many crimes do not show up on background checks after 5 years. Also in Australia, the sex offender registry is confidential, and can only be checked for very specific things (jobs involving children, certain types of housing, etc.)

In the US, there are ways of getting records expunged for some crimes, but due to freedom of speech laws/1st amendment, typically background check companies are free to hold on to older records if they were at one time public.

I know in the EU, many countries have right to be forgotten laws, but the EFF has historically stood against them due to the fact they've often been used by wealthy individuals to hide their crimes.

[chmod775]

> I know in the EU, many countries have right to be forgotten laws

These are not even really relevant, since in most places it's considered unethical or even illegal for journalists (or anyone really) to publish names of suspects or convicted common* criminals. You will generally read "Man/Woman convicted for X" and sometimes just their first name.

This is a consequence of systems that mostly focus on rehabilitation and reintegration. Having your name show up in newspaper articles would seriously hinder that.

If your main focus was punishment instead, then publishing the names of criminals just goes well with that.

And finally you can't just ask to see the criminal history of X, and it would be illegal to discriminate based on such knowledge if it is not relevant to the job. In Germany only yourself can obtain your own criminal record (Führungszeugnis) - your employer can't obtain it directly. It's generally thought to be illegal for an employer to ask you for this (it was never tested in court though, because nobody was stupid enough to try). The only exception are if you will be working with minors or if it's specifically relevant to your job (compliance officers, financial stuff...).

*If you are a high-profile individual you are fair game. For instance the Wirecard CEO and COO.

[anttisalmela]

Here in .fi employers are not permitted to do any background checks - all they can legally use is the information provided by the applicant. They can ask permission to request security clearance from the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (Supo), which would then do the background checks, but this is allowed for only some jobs.

Working with children may require that you provide extract from the criminal record, but only certain crimes (violence, child abuse, sex offences, drug offences, human trafficking etc.) are considered.

[polytely]

Here in the Netherlands some jobs require you to submit a Certificate of Conduct. It's a document you can request from the Ministry of Justice and Security that declares that you have not been convicted for any crime relevant to the job you request the declaration for.

I have never really thought about it that deeply but it seems like a decent way of doing things. I really like that your employer can't just look it up.

[beachy]

In New Zealand, your criminal record consists of solely those crimes you have been convicted of in court, and is automatically clean slated if you have gone >7 years without an offence (unless you have been convicted of a serious crime in which case it's on your record for life). In fact it is an offence for most employers to ask for your full (non-clean-slated record.

We also have a system known as police vetting, which is a far more intrusive background check, and includes not just actual convictions but also mere encounters with the police, warnings, etc. Police vetting can only be requested for roles that involve working with vulnerable adults or children.

In all cases the candidate must (a) consent, and (b) be supplied with a copy of the results. Overall I think this is a good system though there are some areas for improvement.

[AdrianB1]

It depends on the job, for some jobs employers are required to ask you for a clean police report; if you don't have criminal records you can get it, if you have something then you either don't apply or they will have to disqualify you for missing that clean record proof from the police.

Some examples that I know personally: sports club gun trainer (precision shooting is an Olympic game); policeman; any job as security guard, driver on armored cars that carry money from banks etc.

I think for cashiers there is a similar requirement, not 100% sure. It was ~ 20 years ago, but laws change from time to time.

Not so funny is when I had to go to the police section, take such a "clean bill of criminal record" from one office and give it to another policemen at the next office 5 meters away. It was the third time that month because I needed some certificate that had cascaded requirements to have other certificates that also depended on this bills and each required a separate bill in the list of documents.

[Kosirich]

Croatia - it's common to ask a person applying for a position a proof issued my Ministry of Justice that they don't have an active criminal case against them but some will ask for an equivalen of background check from the Ministry of Internal Affairs ("police")

Denmark - I have a friend who was asked to provide something like a proof of not being prosecuted for a an engineering position, while another colleague who applied and for the same position wasn't asked for one. The difference between the two was the country they were from with, I'm guessing, appearance of the former one playing a role. The guy looks like a bouncer with his 1.90 height, 100 kg of muscle and a crooked nose from being an ex amateur boxer (under the appearance he is a teddy bear).

[Ichthypresbyter]

In the UK, it's changed recently because of a Supreme Court ruling, but AFAIK there are various levels of check depending on the specific job. In most cases a conviction for which the person was sentenced to less than 4 years in prison will eventually become 'spent' and won't show up on background checks apart from for specific jobs (such as working with children). Even for those jobs, some minor convictions are 'filtered' and removed from the record.

[voxic11]

> typically background check companies are free to hold on to older records if they were at one time public.

That is true, but it is however often illegal for employers to base a hiring or firing decision on expunged records. So background check companies do generally try to comply with record expungement as it protects their customers from liability. However due to the complexity and variety of laws on expungement and lack of direct consequences for them they frequently fail at it.

[seer]

In Bulgaria (EU) they often ask you to provide proof that you are currently not being prosecuted, but apart from that, the only time I’ve been asked to get a criminal record was when applying for a citizenship. And having one is not something that would stop the process, but can be grounds for denial.

Programmers can get a free pass for a lot of things here though.

[Justen]

Just curious how you would typically prove you aren't being prosecuted.

[seer]

Go to the police station and ask them to give you a “note”

Fun fact is that you need this note even if your dealing with another government agency.

When applying for Bulgarian citizenship, I was required to obtain such note. I would have guessed that they have more reliable ways of telling if someone actually is in an active police case, but no, they want that “note”. No web service to actually do this. I mean they could have just called the police department or something... I had to spend a good part of a day waiting there just to get it... </rant>

[filoleg]

Just a guess on my end: probably fill out some form at a local police station or court, submit it, and then they you receive the results later that list what you are being prosecuted for or a lack thereof.

[Const-me]

Not from BG, but my guess is you go to a police station where you live, show your ID and ask them to print and sign a paper that says so.

[ciberado]

I worked in the finantial industry 20 years ago in Andorra, a small independent country between France and Spain. You needed to present what in Spanish is called a "certificado de penales" (criminal certificate, I think is the expression in English).

Ironically, the country itself was at that time well-known for its opaque finantial practices.

[sbmthakur]

In India, it's like the US. There are dedicated firms which do that. I am not sure if it's a legal requirement.

[justatdotin]

my (aussie) hobbies include sabotage (mostly trespass and refuse to obey, but also a bit of criminal damage) - never been an issue finding the kind of (software) work I prefer. Corporate employers say they do a check: maybe they don't. I assume they google, so I guess they don't care.

obviously I don't pursue jobs that require a clearance level. I once got in an exchange with a recruiter:

"do you have [clearance]?"

"I wouldn't want to work anywhere that requires it"

"Oh, you wouldn't be able to work here without it"

"No, I wouldn't want to work with you if you require it"

"No, you wouldn't be able to work here without it"

...

- I guess we were both rite.

[JackFr]

> due to the fact they've often been used by wealthy individuals to hide their crimes.

due to the fact they've often been used by [anyone who commits a crime] to hide their crimes.

[ticmasta]

including a YC-backed firm that does this explicitly. I find it sad/humorous that they have copy about "connecting companies with a more diverse set of candidates" while essentially selling a service for streamlined filtering out this pool of people. I get the need in certain circumstances, just get tired of companies trying to have it both ways.

https://checkr.com/company

[INTPenis]

No kidding. My sister went off to the states almost 20 years ago. Got a job as a teacher, she was trained for it here in Sweden.

At the time I worked at a small web hosting company, we had her personal homepage for free since she was my sis.

Suddenly she calls me from the states telling me I need to go into her website and edit out some links.

Apparently lawyers working for the school where she was applying to work had found her homepage (which she made under an alias and afaik had no references to her person) and didn't like some of the links on it.

I'm still blown away by this. The links were about certain sexual fetishes, but again, her website was under a pseudonym. I have no idea how they connected it to her. Could have been something dead simple like her using an e-mail address on the same domain, or using her pseudonym in her e-mail address on hotmail. She wasn't that careful about remaining anonymous, it was just a thing back then that people would have alter-egos online.

[microcolonel]

I've found a mix with background checks in the U.S; a lot of rental landlords want background checks for the obvious reasons (e.g. housing a convicted rapist with a young woman), employers can go either way, and in my experience it has tended to be reasonable (but I've always worked as a professional, and for people I know through colleagues or acquaintances).

A background check is, in my experience, unusal for renters in Canada, but that might just be my bias, having mostly rented from slumlords and acquaintances.

[ticmasta]

The demands for background checks tends to be inversely proportional to the ability of the employee/applicant to do criminal or civil harm. You'll need a clean criminal record to work a random retail job but could have numerous convictions and be a software developer. A crummy rental will require it but fancy executive rental will not.

I know some of this has historical/data underpinnings on experience, but fear most of it is based on biased expectations.

[noobermin]

Do you have evidence this is true? Also software developers can cause loads of damage I think.

[737maxtw]

Personal/anecectotal, but totally.

In my experience you will more likely see it if you are in a shop that is paying below market. I.e. Devs there make 10k less than other local shops.

We wound up with some interesting folks. Got to see what someone going through methadone withdrawals looks like. On the other hand, a few people got some really meaningful second chances at a career there.

[smnrchrds]

That's why they say "inversely proportional".

[K2h]

in US - Most employers don't have super deep pockets to do the background checks, and they pay to do a check in each of your previous addresses listed and decide how far back to go to pull the records. [...If I had a reason to...] To give a higher chance of passing a background at a small employer I may list only my current address. It depends how complex the the HR team is.

[kazinator]

Do you find that this industry is staffed with rude people with a bad attitude, who treat everyone being screened like a criminal?

[__s]

No

[liversage]

It's mostly the same in Denmark. However, there is one situation where background checks are mandatory and that is when you work with children below the age of 15. You have to pass this check not only for a proper job but also if you are doing volunteer work with children (e.g. sports association, scouts etc.)

The check is only for crimes against children so you can be convicted for violent crimes and pass this check.

Any entries in your criminal record will no longer appear in background checks after some time (depending on the severity of your offense). However, any offense against a child will always appear on this special background check no matter how long ago it was committed.

You have to approve that this background check is performed but if you can't produce a clean "child certificate" then you are prohibited from working with children by law.

[AlexTWithBeard]

A part of that may be a legal requirement for the employers to provide a "safe working environment".

[jrochkind1]

The U.S. is just so awful.

[dang]

Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. It's just what we don't need here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[lioeters]

As an expatriate American, I just hope people recognize that "America the beautiful" does exist, there's a lot to love about the country, its people, land and culture.

It's sad how that's overshadowed by their corporations, politicians, and somewhat intentionally broken system - but I choose to believe that good sense will prevail eventually, when enough people care and do something about it - as they've done time and again through history.

[ta12352356]

My brother did jail time for federal larceny, he makes six figures in the US. In fact over half my family have criminal records, and they're mostly employed, including active drug dealers.

It matters to some degree for sure but it's really overblown.