[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]

I am no kind of authority, so please don't take this comment any further than the actual words in the comment box. In particular, I have never worked with you, or anyone who has worked with you; I don't even know what you do (I'm sure it's something interesting and challenging). You're an abstraction to me. I cannot possibly have any opinion about the advisability of employing you and am only sharing my opinion about the ideas you are expressing.

What I have to say about your perspective on references is that I will never, under any circumstances, work with, for, or over someone who believes what I think you're saying you believe about references. "Bad reference => war", to me, is essentially an endorsement of professional dishonesty.

Negotiating over the quality of your reference is to me a bit squicky, but it's on the right side of the line, just a couple steps past coaching your references (which is also white-lie dishonest]). Using aggressive negotiation tactics to ensure good references from people who don't believe your work merits a good reference is on the wrong side of the line. You think it's a concession you're extracting from your former employer, but it is really a concession you are surreptitiously taking from your future employer.

[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. :)

[tptacek]

Then add to the problems I have with the very bad advice you're giving on this thread that this is a game or an intellectual exercise for you, and a lasting painful career-threatening injury to anyone who takes that advice.

Don't deliberately lie to employers who ask about your criminal record. The only ones who won't go absolutely apeshit on you when they find out are the ones who would hire you anyways if you just told them in the first place.

Like you, I have a lot of sympathy for people stuck with criminal convictions. We agree there. We'd both like to find advice to help people get excellent jobs despite stupid criminal convictions. My problem with your advice isn't with its intentions, but rather that I'm pretty sure it's dumb.

[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.

[tptacek]

You are providing what I believe to be --- pragmatically --- terrible advice in this thread. It is not impossible to find employment in tech with a felony conviction; in fact, by all outward appearances, the opposite is true; people with CFAA convictions are employed at a rate higher than that of the overall population; they are, as a general rule, employed.

What you're saying is that you think the job market is so inhospitable to people with criminal convictions that they should endanger their career to weasel their way into jobs. We could debate how unwise that advice was if you were right about the employment market. But you're wrong about the employment market, which makes the risk/reward on what you're suggesting so far out of whack that your suggestion isn't worth entertaining.

I don't have strong opinions about what you do with a prospective employer who at no point asks you about your criminal record. But if you're asked about it, you're crazy if you lie.

Again, let me (tediously) repeat that I don't know you personally; you happen to spend a decent number of words on HN articulating ideas that I find worth disputing, but on the street I wouldn't know you from Adam and I have no issue with you personally.