[michaelochurch]

DISCLAIMER: This is NOT legal advice. I am not a lawyer, and there's a hell of a lot of risk in what I'm going to tell you to do.

When I was a teenager, someone I knew did something nonviolent but pretty bad (severe academic dishonesty) and had a non-empty answer to the "Discipline Question".

You might judge me negatively for keeping such a person as a friend-- and I shouldn't have, but that's another story-- but at the time, I was naive and not a great judge of character. Anyway, he asked for advice on the Discipline Question and I told him to take an "odds and evens" strategy: rank his choices. For the odd-numbered (1st, 3rd, ...) choices, omit it. For the even-numbered ones, full disclosure. The idea was that whether the information would be disclosed (by the Guidance Office) was an unknown but constant variable: they'd either tell all colleges or none.

If his HS Guidance Office disclosed to all, he'd have a slight chance of getting the ones where he did disclose (his evens) and no chance of getting the ones where he omitted (the odds).

If Guidance disclosed to none, he'd have a slight chance of getting the evens and a pretty good chance (they wouldn't know) of getting the odd-numbered choices.

His HS took his mistakes off the record, so they didn't disclose. He did well on his odd-numbered college choices and zeroed the even-numbered ones. If I recall correctly, he got 3 out of 5 odds and 0 out of 5 evens. Not a lot of data, but the conclusion was: don't answer the Discipline Question.

There isn't a constant, hidden variable (guidance office) for your case but it's still unpredictable how easily employers will find out and how your conviction will be perceived. There are hidden variables you can't easily measure.

So I think "odds and evens" is the right strategy. Full, honest disclosure with half. Full omission with half. Collect data. Iterate.

You didn't hear this from me. I don't know the details and I'm not a felon, but I think it is pretty fucked up how any felony leads to long-term economic disenfranchisement, so I sincerely hope this advice helps.

With governments, full disclosure always. It's unambiguously illegal to lie about a felony conviction to get a government job. So tell the truth.

Get a lawyer, too. Find someone who's dealt with this and knows the risks. I don't think my "odds and evens" approach is, to quote Inception, "strictly speaking, legal".

[losvedir]

That's an interesting story.

As a counterpoint, since we're all just dealing in anecdotes here, I had a non-empty answer to the "Discipline Question"; I was suspended for "hacking", albeit after voluntarily telling my principal about it.

I disclosed it on my applications, while my high school did not. I was still accepted to MIT and Stanford. I later learned that MIT actually called my high school to get clarification on it, so I know it was seen at least by them.

I was also a finalist for an NSA scholarship program (flown out to the Maryland "friendship annex" for interviewing) despite having disclosed it.

So, I dunno what my point is. Maybe these things depend on who reads your application or what, but it's not an automatic dealbreaker, and I do encourage people to be honest.

[devonbarrett]

Just a curious thought, if you was applying for a CS course, do you think it could have actually had a positive impact on chances?

[0x00_]

Well, to be honest I figured it wouldn't hurt my chances. I've learned more from google and boredom with a heavy dose of frustration than I've ever learned in school.

All of my associates in the field do not have to deal with this issue and maintain the perspective that actual experience is more important than education. I've an incredible obstacle to surmount and it matters to me that I have documented training. It's just one-less-thing standing in the way.

[losvedir]

I think it may have helped with the NSA scholarship, but I didn't apply to colleges for CS, so it wouldn't have helped there.

[coopdog]

I guess with cracking the intent is crucial. Ie were you just curious and forgot to respect the boundary, or were you in it for personal gain. The first would make good NSA agents once set straight, the second much harder to trust.

[osteele]

If you hide it you risk being discharged a month, a year, or five years from now when your employer finds out, and then they aren't referenceable.

If I were hiring for a security-related job, I'd consider the poster if he not only disclosed the conviction, but also contextualized it on his cover letter the way that he did in the pastebin, and if he provided some character witnesses (teachers, employers).

[tptacek]

If you deliberately conceal a criminal conviction from an employer who asks, that employer is more than "not referenceable"; they're a company who has fired you for cause. Among other things, they are now another thing you'll have to either disclose or try to conceal from future employers, many of whom will ask whether/from-where you've been fired for cause.

In extreme cases, making fraudulent bogus disclosures to employers can be actionable, if for instance your criminal status comes up on a background check for your employer's clients or business partners and damages the relationship.

Deliberately lying about this issue seems like an extremely dumb strategy.

[yep_throwaway]

I'll agree that it's dumb but, unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary if one wants to eat.

[JDGM]

"If you hide it you risk being discharged a month, a year, or five years from now when your employer finds out, and then they aren't referenceable."

This, this, a million times this. It's not even losing the job that would be the worst for me, it would be the paranoia of turning up to work every day thinking "Did they find out about that thing now? Are they considering firing me or did they decide it didn't matter? Argh!!".

There's a Calvin & Hobbes strip where Calvin breaks his dad's binoculars and is certain at the dinner table that night that his father knows. The anxiety gets to Calvin so much that after about 30 seconds (this is Calvin, remember) he breaks down and confesses. That would so be me in an employment situation where there was something I hadn't disclosed which could lead to dismissal.

[michaelochurch]

There's a Calvin & Hobbes strip where Calvin breaks his dad's binoculars and is certain at the dinner table that night that his father knows. The anxiety gets to Calvin so much that after about 30 seconds (this is Calvin, remember) he breaks down and confesses. That would so be me in an employment situation where there was something I hadn't disclosed which could lead to dismissal.

Everything you have said on the Internet, ever, "could lead to dismissal". It's a risky world. You just gotta make the best decision you can at each point in time.

[JDGM]

Upvoted, I think that's a very fair point. From Calvin and Hobbes to Montaigne: "There is no man so good that if he placed all his actions and thoughts under the scrutiny of the laws, he would not deserve hanging ten times in his life".

[mayanksinghal]

For one, I don't think I deserve to be hanged even once. I believe I cannot even be convicted for even minor crimes. Following the law has its benefits, not worrying (about being caught), is a significant one for me.

[JDGM]

I hear you, but with respect think you have misconstrued the quotation. Montaigne is saying that the law is so wide and so complex that without knowing it we are constantly committing crimes, for which no fair judge would try us and for which we will never be punished, but nonetheless we are committing.

He exaggerates for effect both in the extent of the crimes and the extent of the punishment but, as a complement to the idea that an employer (if you will, a potentially "unfair judge") can extend their checks from criminal activity to all online activity and in so doing legitimately dismiss an employee, it seems an appropriate "polite" reply to my comment's parent.

[ra]

Yes absolutely. I know at least one highly regarded info sec consulting firm has a "reformed computer-hacker" (their words) on staff who will penetration test your systems for a handsome fee. ($30k per system last time I checked).

If this is your passion then I would encourage you to apply. Definitely use a cover letter along the lines of the pastebin.

[rmc]

But (and correct this ignorant european), but doesn't at will employment in the USA mean that they could be fired st any point for any or no reason anyway? And that's if they were never convicted of anything, right?

[michaelochurch]

At-will employment is very complicated. http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/what-is-at-wi...

What you say is essentially correct, but there's enough gray area that companies would not want to fire someone carelessly. Even winning a termination suit is losing, for PR reasons. So most professional jobs give enough severance to move on to your next job, unless it's "for cause", which usually means you did something horrible (but occasionally not).

Lying about a felony conviction is "for cause" and he'd get no severance if that was discovered and the reason (or discovered and made the reason after the fact). There is no dispute about that.

If a company will hire him in spite of the conviction, it's better to disclose. Most likely, he'll start disclosing it in 10+ years once he has a track record and no one cares. If no one will hire him, however, he might need an alternate strategy.

[michaelochurch]

If you hide it you risk being discharged a month, a year, or five years from now when your employer finds out

Long-term job security no longer exists. When you take a job, you are always at risk that it ends. For sure, this risk is real. He might get fired for hiding that detail. On the other hand, that likely means he wouldn't have gotten the job in the first place. Which is worse: getting a job for a couple years, building up savings, and then getting fired... or not getting any jobs and being long-term unemployed?

There are no easy answers here. We're comparing bads here. There are risks either way.

and then they aren't referenceable.

At 1 month, you just omit it.

At a year or 5 years, there are two cases. One is where the boss likes you but has (or feels he has) no choice. He probably didn't find you out or make the decision and he may want to help you out. You can discuss the reference issue and he'll probably be your ally.

If he's genuinely mad and won't give a good reference, then make him retreat to name and dates. Have lawyers on it if needed.

In the very-rare case that you need an affirmative good reference (default name-and-dates won't be enough) and he won't give it, then you have to go to extortion. That's an uncommon and ugly topic that I don't want to get into, but at 1-5 years, you have enough important knowledge to make that happen, unless he really hates you.

[acjohnson55]

Extortion? You're just full of great advice, now aren't you?

Lying on your application and extorting people risks torching an already damaged reputation, not to mention potentially huge civil and even criminal liabilities.

To the OP, I recommend ditching the Machiavellian stuff. The best bet in my opinion is to network and contribute to projects where possible (such as through OSS, freelance, etc.). If people actually know you and your story and you have a track record with them, the chances of them putting enough trust in you are much greater. I don't think you should leave the CS world. You're going to find the same issues in any line of work, so you might as well stay in the field where your skills lie.

[michaelochurch]

We're talking about what to do in rare but extremely bad situations where there are literally no good avenues... not what people should do in normal circumstances.

"Extortion" was too strong a word. I meant it in the sense of "aggressive negotiation". Demanding a positive reference not to blow something humiliating is not extortion. If you demand money not to blow something, you're breaking the law, because there's no connection between the payoff and the threat (exposure). However, with a reference, it's "we're going to part ways, but it's best for both of us that we tell the same story, so let's get straight about what just happened". That's how you present it. Not really extortion.

Your advice to OP has a lot of value and on the whole I agree with what you are telling him to do. OSS contributions are a really good idea for him.

However, I still contend that an "odds and evens" mixed strategy will perform better than full disclosure.

[tptacek]

Demanding, using "strong negotiation", a positive reference from somebody to whom you lied about your criminal status seems like a good way to get a billboard erected with your face and a URL to your LinkedIn profile on 101.

This isn't the first HN comment you've left where you suggested playing hardball to get positive references from employers. You have an idiosyncratic view of the dynamics of employee references. I find it disquieting, but that obviously doesn't make it intrinsically wrong. I do feel safe saying that it is out of step with the way most employers view the same dynamics.

(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5007550 - "For me, it's really about references. I don't need a severance, but if you don't agree on a good reference I will do everything in my power to fuck up your reputation.")

[michaelochurch]

If there's no severance, then I'd expect a solid-gold reference, yes. With appropriate severance, the neutral name-and-dates is fine.

A bad reference is an existential battle. You do everything you can to fight that. However, pushing neutral to good is generally a waste of time. Dust yourself off, get clean, and move on.

[tptacek]

You seem to be working under the delusion that the worst thing that can happen if you lie to your employer is that you might lose your job. No.

[oijaf888]

In some high profile cases, people haven't even lost their jobs (e.g. http://readwrite.com/2012/05/03/10-executives-who-lied-on-th...) and the damage was limited to their reputation and bonuses. I'm surprised there weren't more shareholder lawsuits or similar in the case of CEOs. Obviously if your employer is a government lying can result in jail time but other than that it seems the worst that happens is you get fired or lose your bonus. What else have you seen?

[phaus]

I can't believe that Warren Cook didn't make the list. His story is far more outlandish than any of these. He was one of the highest paid employees at the company my father worked at, the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, ME.

He claimed to have a Master's degree from a prestigious university, that he was awarded the Navy Cross(1 step below the Medal of Honor) and that he played for the 1968 U.S. Olympic hockey team. No one fact checked a single qualification that he listed on his resume, they just hired him.

The sad part is, after they discovered that he was a fraud, they still wanted him to stick around. From what I hear, he did a pretty good job.

http://archive.bangordailynews.com/2003/09/30/jackson-lab-of...

[michaelochurch]

For reasons of self-interest, most employers are not going to fuck with their exes' reputations after parting ways.

There are exceptions-- sometimes you have to hire legal professionals and very occasionally one might have to hire illegal professionals to make someone do the right thing-- but those are way outside of the norm.

If he does good work and still gets fired, it's probably by a boss who had little choice in the decision and doesn't want to fuck him over, not someone who's going to be vengeful and make a bigger mess than what already exists.

[tptacek]

You seem very certain about this. I don't know if I'm as certain as you are about this issue, but my thoughts about this issue have opposite valence.

[michaelochurch]

Unfortunately, we're talking about situations of depravity over which there are practical and ethical reasons why data collection is not possible. One falls into them very rarely, and hopefully never.

I've never done most of this extremely chaotic shit that I endorse, but I think it's important to have the ethical conversations to shine some light on to things that actually go on.

Societies like to see themselves as existential struggles between lawful good and chaotic evil, but neither of those are major players. (Lawful good is too restrained; chaotic evil is too maladjusted to have a chance unless the world's already fucked.) The real battle is between chaotic good and lawful evil. So excuse my chaos. :)

[rms]

Criminal prosecution for fraud? Does that really happen with any regularity? I think by far the most common consequence of being caught lying about a felony is firing with cause.

[tptacek]

I'm not a lawyer but I think a fraud prosecution is very unlikely. However, there are a bunch of torts involved.

The real consequence I'm referring to here though is a firing for cause. Real for-cause firings are rare in our business, so I think we tend to forget that they are a big deal.

[michaelochurch]

The major consequence of "termination for cause" is that you don't get severance, and the company will probably fight unemployment claims.

I grant you that if he gets fired over this, he shouldn't expect a package. His life is already in a state of fucked-up-ness that is beyond worrying about that he might get fired without severance. He needs to get a job, first and foremost. Severance is almost a Maserati problem, where he is.

Right now, severance is nice to have but not a huge deal. Fifteen years from now when he's getting large (~1 year) contractual severances due to being in highly strategic roles-- he can be cut for reasons that aren't his fault, and job searches take years at his level-- he will want to start coming clean about the felony. By that time, he'll have a track record and can come clean because no one will care about a 15-20+ year old felony conviction.

[0x00_]

Ahh yes. The good ol' hat problem. I never considered remaining silent about it, but most places around here do CORI background checks with the information on CV so It is hard to avoid. Also, a simple google query of my name pulls up quite a few embarrassing news articles. Imagine the fun it was to explain the situation to your spouses parents after they have googled you.

Thank you for your response. I will give non-disclosure a shot and see how that works. It feels inappropriate deceptive for me to omit those details when asked (via interview question in person, phone, or form) about them.

[michaelochurch]

Have you thought about using a different name in business? A friend of mine Anglicized his and it fixed a reputation problem.

For most people, that'd be a loss. You'd lose your whole reputation. It sounds to me like your reputation is of negative value, given the Google problem.

Keep in mind also that Googling happens before interview, and background checks happen after a successful interview. So even if the name-change won't get you around a formal check (by some stable identifier like SSN) you can at least control the time of disclosure.

The ugly thing about being Googled is that you don't know when or if it happens. Name change gets you the interview and then, if you're pretty sure they'll find it in a more thorough check, you can disclose it on your terms.

[gte910h]

You're often not allowed to change your name for this sort of reason.

[jlgreco]

Really you can change your name for whatever reason you want, and there isn't even a process. You just start introducing yourself as that new name. Of course you have to be careful which name you use on which form (legal name goes on the I-9, chosen name goes on the resume, occasionally you get the opportunity to fill out the 'other aliases' field, etc), but otherwise there is zero hassle and so long as there is not an intent to defraud, you are in the clear.

Almost every member of my immediate family has casually done this at least once with no problem (it's kind of a family tradition it seems..). The name on my credit cards, the name I am known by professionally, and the name my parents know me by are all different. They share similar derivation yes, if you know one of them you probably would not bat an eye when another came up, but they are absolutely sufficiently different to isolate online reputations.

[gte910h]

I meant legally change your name. Of course you can change your name by going by a different one.

http://www.co.stearns.mn.us/Portals/0/docs/Document%20Librar... for instance for one of the hassels here

[wilfra]

If you're saying anybody who Googles you can find out about your record, it would obviously be silly to lie about it. If your employer somehow fails to do that during the hiring process, somebody will eventually do it after you start working there.

[cm2012]

This is the best answer I have ever seen to a question like this. It's articulate and carefully explains the steps leading up to an evidence based conclusion. I've rarely felt more that something is "Insightful".

[loumf]

You do not have to rely on an application process when looking for a job. This isn't just advice for people who think they have a challenging story -- it goes for everyone. There are hundreds of stupid ways you get filtered out.

There are examples of far worse felons than the OP who are employed in CS. Find a way to tell the story honestly and in a way that shows that you learned from it. (1) Become a top performer in college by working hard (2) Make public works (3) Build a network

Do that and you won't need to run an application test.

[yep_throwaway]

Government jobs are, obviously, not going to be an option.