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?
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
What does "go absolutely apeshit" mean? I contend that there's risk of termination, likely without severance. Anything more would expose the individual in a way that most people would avoid.
Also, "employer" isn't a monolithic concept. The players all have different motivations. Maybe HR dings everyone with a conviction. He hides it, gets through the HR wall. His boss likes him. He gets in, does great work for 9 months. Then HR finds out. His boss has to fire him. His boss isn't mad at him (maybe at the situation, but not at him). In that very plausible scenario, yes he's fired, but he gets a decent reference.
If it's between the risk of getting fired later and not being able to get a job at all, then you take the former.
I proposed "odds and evens" because I don't think either of us know which is the better strategy (lie vs. disclose) and I think mixing is the way to go.
In some industries, your advice isn't practical. Tptacek's home base being Chicago probably brings commodities trading firms to the fore of his mind.
Otherwise, your ideas benefit the individual with an almost adversarial approach to companies. Tptacek looks at things from the position of that adversary. Your advice stands to surprise the established order... Instead of relying on the mercy of an all-powerful business benefactor, someone who followed you would continue operating under their own power, through their own exploit.
So it's possible you guys might agree in certain cases but it seems unlikely you'll come to public agreement on the hypotheticals here.
1. Criminal complaint that results in arrest. Youthful folly can be forgiven, but being caught in a calculated adult deception is pretty much nonrecoverable.
2. Audits of everything he touched, with a view towards uncovering a repeat of his earlier deceptions. Even if he is innocent, there is a good chance that the security consultants and forensic accountants will find something interesting. Something that the detective investigating the case will not understand.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This may be. That's why I suggested the "odds and evens" (full disclosure with half, full omission with half) strategy. Not only is it hedged but it will also give him data-- which we don't have.
It's obviously better if he can disclose and still get a job. Then he has nothing to worry about.
To be honest, I feel like we're both suburban kids arguing about inner-city gang life. :) We both think we're tough, and we both are tougher than most people in our neighborhood, but we haven't actually been in the slums. We don't have the data. I guess that's a good thing, given the nature of what we're arguing about.
I'm glad that you're arguing the other side of this, though, because we're talking about Serious Shit and OP needs to hear all sides.