Is there anyone hears about "HireRight.com"?

[Stephen Sprunk]

I am not so familiar with the NI number. If it is used like the SS
number here, it is actually illegal to require you to give it out.
They used to use the SS number as your drivers license number
in Virginia, but they stopped that when identity theft became and
issue and they had always given you an opt out where they
would make up a number for you.

It's only illegal for public agencies to require it, and even then there are
dozens of exceptions. You have to give an SSN here to get a DL, period, and
your name has to match. The law specifically allows that since the SSN is
only used to prevent fraudulently obtaining multiple licenses.

Most private companies can use your SSN for whatever they want, and most use
it as a customer identifier, which is why identity theft is so darn easy. I
assume the NIN in the UK is headed in the same direction, though more slowly
due to marginally better privacy laws. Just about the only exception in the
US is healthcare providers; HIPAA specifically prohibits them from using the
SSN for anything other than detecting fraud, and they can't print it
anywhere; this was after folks realized that having everyone's SSN in their
wallet (on their health insurance card) was a major contributor to identity
theft. Too many people are perfectly happy giving out the number when asked
by any stranger, though, so it hasn't helped much.

Regardless, there are lots of jobs and I think it is importan to not
give up rights of privacy and the ability to dispute an erroneous
report. When they get this report before they even call you in for
an interview, you will never have a chance to even know that was
why you were not called in.

What right to dispute or explanation? "We have filled the position with
another candidate since the time of your application." An employer can get
away with just about anything if they are smart enough not to tell you the
whole truth. All you can do to get them back is go work for their
competitors...

S

 

[dick]

The same can be said of any of the hundreds of companies and thousands of
private investigators that do background checks. The only difference in
this case is that you're being asked to give up your privacy _before_ they
make an offer or even interview you. Any other company would do the same
thing later in the process.


It's hardly a crime to have a firewall; it's common sense.

S

You do not understand my situation.

The situation is:

the hiring company wants to know my information and I am willing to
provide after the 2nd round site interview.

but they did not send me the hiring company's application forms. They
gave me a URL and asked me to give them a note after I complete the
"HireRight.com" forms.

If the information leaks, who will be in charge? Nobody!

the hiring company will say: "I did not give HireRight.com this
information."
and the "HireRight.com" will say: "Dick filled these forms
voluntarily."

This is the trick.

another problem is that they sent me this URL too early.

I do believe the hiring company does not trust the "HireRight.com".
the hiring company is trying to avoid US legal system.

Who knows that the "HireRight.com" server is not in North Korea? You
can not ping it.

It is interesting that "HireRight.com" wants to know other people's
information but it does not allow you to trace the route to its server.

 

[msg]

Who knows that the "HireRight.com" server is not in North Korea? You
can not ping it.

It is interesting that "HireRight.com" wants to know other people's
information but it does not allow you to trace the route to its server.

# whois -h whois.arin.net 216.154.252.83
SBC Internet Services SBCIS-SIS80 (NET-216-154-224-0-1)
216.154.224.0 - 216.154.255.255
Hire Right HIRERIGHT-2 (NET-216-154-252-64-1)
216.154.252.64 - 216.154.252.127

# whois -h whois.networksolutions.com hireright.com
Registrant:
HireRight
2100 Main Street, Suite 400
Irvine, CA 92614
US

Domain Name: HIRERIGHT.COM

Administrative Contact:
Marcom (e-mail address removed)
Marcom
HireRight
2100 Main St., Suite 400
Irvine, CA 92614
US

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

You do not understand my situation.

I understand it completely.

the hiring company wants to know my information and I am willing to
provide after the 2nd round site interview.

So tell them that. If they don't want to be reasonable, find a better job.

I do believe the hiring company does not trust the "HireRight.com".
the hiring company is trying to avoid US legal system.

No, they want more information about you before they decide if you're worth
interviewing. Personally, I'd ditch them because they obviously aren't that
interested in making a good impression on candidates, so that doesn't bode
well for how they treat their employees.

There's no reason to avoid the US legal system because it offers you
virtually no protection anyways. Nothing you've stated so far shows they're
doing anything remotely illegal under US law.

That you're still harping on this shows you're not listening to people, so
why did you bother asking in the first place? Everyone has given you the
same advice and for the same reasons (though they don't match your rather
strange and unfounded ones).

Who knows that the "HireRight.com" server is not in North
Korea? You can not ping it.

Being able to ping a server tells you nothing other than that it or some
other box in front of it responds to pings. That's meaningless.

It is interesting that "HireRight.com" wants to know other people's
information but it does not allow you to trace the route to its server.

Again, refusing ICMP is pretty standard practice and indicates nothing
meaningful.

Tracing route to www.hireright.com [216.154.252.83] over a maximum of 30
hops:
[snip]
8 46 ms 41 ms 40 ms ded1-g0-3-0.irvnca.sbcglobal.net
[151.164.42.41]
9 40 ms 40 ms 54 ms bb1-z-g1-0-0.irv.sbcidc.com [66.161.96.9]
10 43 ms 63 ms 60 ms core2-z-g1-1.irv.sbcidc.com [216.65.209.14]
11 45 ms 41 ms 40 ms acs1-a-g2-1.irv.sbcidc.com [216.65.208.106]
12 * ^C

That, plus the information in WHOIS, indicates that, as best as one can
determine without a Lexis/Nexis search, they're in Irvine, CA, US. There's
no reason at all to think they're anywhere else.

Now, can we please drop this? It's blatantly off-topic for all three of the
newsgroups you picked.

S

 

[Default User]

You did, too. Infinity.

But I didn't complain about it. You did. I merely pointed out the
hypocrisy.



Brian

 

[Paul Keinanen]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:58:06 +0000 (UTC),

My employment contract says that I may be required to handle sensitive
material and that, should that occur, my continued employment is
conditional on my passing any required background checks. If all
(or even most) of the work I do required them, background checks would
probably have been made a condition of the job offer. If the hiring
process is fairly long, it would even make sense to start any required
background checks along with later rounds of interviewing so they're
finished before the final job offer is made.

All of these possibilities are still a long way from the OP's description
of being asked for background information *before the first interview*.

At least for jobs involving national security, why would an employer
ask the candidate information that could be forged anyway ?

For such jobs discrete background inquiries are performed by the
"secret" police to check for contacts with foreign intelligence
organisations (such as CIA or KGB) or if the candidate conducts a life
style prone to blackmailing (such as large debts, gambling fever, use
of illegal drugs, illegal sexual activities etc.).

I don't thing that the questions answered by the candidate would be of
any value in these issues.

Paul

 

[Richard Bos]

Countries differ. In Britian if you go for a job through an agency you can
be expected to be asked national insurance number, date of birth for
certain,

Then sue the job agency. Age discrimination is illegal in the entire
European Union, which, surprisingly enough, still includes the UK.

dates of past jobs, even medical history.

And ditto for discrimination on medical grounds.

Richard

 

[Flash Gordon]

rickman wrote, On 17/04/07 00:16:

Why would a company need to know your *medical* history? The rest of
the info is standard issue on the resume (CV). I am not so familiar
with the NI number.

I have NEVER been asked for my NI number before starting work and I am
in the UK. I've also never been asked for a medical history even after
starting work.

> If it is used like the SS number here,

<snip>

It is, I think.

This is highly off topic on comp.lang.c though, so I won't post further
on it.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Paul Keinanen wrote, On 17/04/07 10:58:

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:58:06 +0000 (UTC),


At least for jobs involving national security, why would an employer
ask the candidate information that could be forged anyway ?

For such jobs discrete background inquiries are performed by the
"secret" police to check for contacts with foreign intelligence
organisations (such as CIA or KGB) or if the candidate conducts a life
style prone to blackmailing (such as large debts, gambling fever, use
of illegal drugs, illegal sexual activities etc.).

I don't thing that the questions answered by the candidate would be of
any value in these issues.

In the UK they do ask a number of questions about your background that
they could find the answers to through other means. At least in part it
is to see if you tell them the truth about it. However, the employer
does not get to see the answers, only the vetting agency does.

 

[Richard]

I wish they would add "pedantic netiquette enforcement" to that list.
You can always reply to the author instead of adding one more off-
topic post to a thread.

comp.lang.c is the most pedantic place in the world. There are posters
here who post 90% of the time only "off topic" rebukes. I agree with the
previous poster - if you have something to add then a gentle reminder
helps, otherwise shut up and let evolution work its magic. Personally I
find it very sad to see the usual heads battling it out to see who can
get there first in an "off topic" flame fest. Pathetic to say the least.

 

[Richard]

But I didn't complain about it. You did. I merely pointed out the
hypocrisy.

because the OT thread has now moved to posting styles and is OT in the
thread. But as one of the worst net nannies in this NG one would expect
this of you.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard said:

comp.lang.c is the most pedantic place in the world.

This is not actually true, for at least three reasons. Firstly,
comp.lang.c is not a place, but a newsgroup - it has no single
contiguous physical location. Secondly, places can't be pedantic.
Thirdly, you are more likely to find more pedantry by entering my study
for a chat than you will find by browsing through comp.lang.c - or at
least, you would be if there were any likelihood that you would enter
my study at all, which there isn't.

There are posters
here who post 90% of the time only "off topic" rebukes.

No, there aren't. Post a name, and I'll demonstrate why that person does
not meet your criteria. If you don't post a name that you think meets
your criteria, I'll presume it's because you can't find one, because
there isn't one.

 

[Richard]

Richard said:


This is not actually true, for at least three reasons. Firstly,
comp.lang.c is not a place, but a newsgroup - it has no single
contiguous physical location. Secondly, places can't be pedantic.

Case closed.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard said:

Case closed.

Verdict: the claim (that "comp.lang.c is the most pedantic place in the
world") is untrue, and is rejected. Costs to the defence. You owe me
ten million pounds sterling.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Case closed.

Well done, sir!

 

[Kenny McCormack]

(e-mail address removed) writes: ....
comp.lang.c is the most pedantic place in the world. There are posters
here who post 90% of the time only "off topic" rebukes. I agree with the
previous poster - if you have something to add then a gentle reminder
helps, otherwise shut up and let evolution work its magic. Personally I
find it very sad to see the usual heads battling it out to see who can
get there first in an "off topic" flame fest. Pathetic to say the least.

But amusing - in a sick, sad, world kind of way.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Richard said: [...]

There are posters
here who post 90% of the time only "off topic" rebukes.

No, there aren't. Post a name, and I'll demonstrate why that person does
not meet your criteria. If you don't post a name that you think meets
your criteria, I'll presume it's because you can't find one, because
there isn't one.

("Here" refers to comp.lang.c.)

There may be one, but he's a notorious self-proclaimed troll whose
name I won't mention. (I haven't analyzed the number of his posts
that purport to be "off topic" rebukes, but I think it's a large
percentage.)

I don't believe anyone else here posts as many as 50% off-topic
rebukes. I post a lot of such rebukes myself (and in many cases
they're not so much rebukes as reminders, along with a suggestion for
a more appropriate forum), but I also post a great many technical
followups. Perhaps your 90% figure was a deliberate exaggeration; if
not, it's just wrong.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

Richard said: [...]

There are posters
here who post 90% of the time only "off topic" rebukes.

No, there aren't.

Perhaps your 90% figure was a deliberate exaggeration; if
not, it's just wrong.

Just to be clear, the 90% figure was not mine. I don't know who
"Richard" is, but he isn't me.

 

[Richard]

Richard said: [...]

There are posters
here who post 90% of the time only "off topic" rebukes.

No, there aren't. Post a name, and I'll demonstrate why that person does
not meet your criteria. If you don't post a name that you think meets
your criteria, I'll presume it's because you can't find one, because
there isn't one.

("Here" refers to comp.lang.c.)

There may be one, but he's a notorious self-proclaimed troll whose
name I won't mention. (I haven't analyzed the number of his posts
that purport to be "off topic" rebukes, but I think it's a large
percentage.)

I don't believe anyone else here posts as many as 50% off-topic
rebukes. I post a lot of such rebukes myself (and in many cases
they're not so much rebukes as reminders, along with a suggestion for
a more appropriate forum), but I also post a great many technical
followups. Perhaps your 90% figure was a deliberate exaggeration; if
not, it's just wrong.

One has to love the pedants in this ng. They are even pedants when
denying the existence of such....

But in all seriousness, maybe 90% was a tad too high :-; But there are
some I can think of where probably well over 50% of their posts are non
helpful rebukes or grasping at a chance to strut at the expense of
someone else.

But come on guys - it really doesn't need 10 people to post rebukes when
some poor nOOb asks something wrong or in the wrong manner.

But all this has been said before. Time & time again.

 

[Richard]

Keith Thompson said:

Richard said: [...]
There are posters
here who post 90% of the time only "off topic" rebukes.

No, there aren't.

Perhaps your 90% figure was a deliberate exaggeration; if
not, it's just wrong.

Just to be clear, the 90% figure was not mine. I don't know who
"Richard" is, but he isn't me.

I'm richard too! Or was that once? Err ...