Hate to be that person, but what are you reading that makes you think this is true?
Agree that the article is pretty dumb though, especially the OSINT and Crypto “don’t trust, verify” comments. Feels like content marketing that didn’t really hit.
Hate to be that person, but what are you reading that makes you think this is true?
Agree that the article is pretty dumb though, especially the OSINT and Crypto “don’t trust, verify” comments. Feels like content marketing that didn’t really hit.
https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/29/north_korea_worker_in...
According to Crowdstrike (the company that wiped out most of global technology last year) at least
> My favorite interview question, because we've interviewed quite a few of these folks, is something to the effect of 'How fat is Kim Jong Un?' They terminate the call instantly
Maybe you’re contributing to the narrative with the posts like above. It’ll certainly drive engagement.
I'm sure there were a lot of false positives with that question.
If I was not reading HN and a few other sources I would likely hang up the phone too.
Thinking that it couldn't be a real job,... some phishing scam or hoax, asking ridiculous questions like that.
Depending on the job, it is quite likely the real talent would not be able to take the interview seriously after hearing suck a question.
Seriously weird times...
Ha if I got asked that during an interview, I'd think either I went to the wrong interview or the interview is a red flag.
It's really, really bad. We post a role, get 500 applicants, and nearly all of them are not legitimate. They all look amazing, really great resume, impressive LinkedIn, etc... but when you dig a little deeper, it's not that hard to find a bunch of red flags (LinkedIn profile create < 3 months ago, VOIP number, using VPN to submit job application, etc). You really have to know what signs to look for. They're very convincing fakes.
We're extremely vigilant about this issue as a company, yet we've had people get through 2 or 3 rounds before someone realized something was off (some people are really, really good at faking it).
I feel bad for small companies trying to hire. For us, it got to the point where we literally couldn't open a role unless we had a full time recruiter to sift through all the international candidates pretending to live in the US.
Edit: We've been dealing with this for a couple years now, and there still isn't a great solution. Unfortunately the only surefire "solutions" we can think of are also things that would make the interview process less enjoyable for real candidates, which sucks. (One idea was to ask candidates to show us photo ID during the video interview, but something about making a candidate do that just doesn't feel good - although we have tried it, and it has effectively stopped a few fake people from getting through)
These rules have become weaponized in a culture war, such as the requirement that an ID match the name on the birth record, meaning women whose last names changed during marriage require additional paperwork, often crossing state lines and in person visits. Bingo, disenfranchised a large population of women.
Personally I think voting should be mandatory as some countries have done, and verification should be easy.
Obviously you need documentation to work, and it’s fair to gather that documentation as early in the process as is reasonable (as in when an application is submitted)
Elephant in the room, someone who can't produce photo ID to vote also can't produce it to work. So obviously you don't always need it to work (even if that's technically illegal). So long as the systemic issues remain I don't see an issue with that.
Actually come to think of it the low skill jobs I had when I was younger never asked for ID. Just my social, full legal name, and date of birth for their tax paperwork. Whereas the higher skill ones I had later demanded multiple forms of ID - I generally furnished them with both my passport and driver's license, which they took copies of and independently verified.
None of that is relevant for a high skill 100% remote job though. Not only does that demographic generally have easy access to ID, those rules really should be strictly enforced for remote positions since the internet is global.
If I produce a social security card and any government ID, that is typically enough to work (in the US).
It won't be enough to vote under the proposed act. In many cases, what will be required is a birth certificate that exactly matches other ID. If your name has changed, unspecified documentation will be required beyond a marriage license or court approved name change. A government issued ID such as military or REAL ID will not suffice.
But the point remains - you often (in practice) don't need ID for low skill jobs whereas high skill ones generally carefully vet you. Thus hand wringing about requiring applicants for a high end fully remote tech job to fork over ID is a bit silly.
The blatant voter suppression efforts aiming at stopping a problem that results in less than a basis point of error in voting counts bothers me a lot, though.
Is the issue skilled candidates that are misrepresenting where they live, unqualified candidates with fake resumes trying to land the position anyway, or something else?
What have you tried?
If they trip enough red flags and it's an international issue, you could just be up front that you're suspicious (including why) and ask them to go outside and take a video of themselves in front of wherever they live. Then you check it against street view, scrutinize the vegetation, that sort of thing. Require the rest of the interview process to be via video call with a wide view of the room to ensure it's the same person. That solution is respectful of their time since it's quick and easy for them. They also presumably already shared their address with you so it's not particularly invasive.
To me, what you call "red flags" rather looks like a description of often outstanding programmers who are quite privacy-conscious (think into the direction of "somewhat cypherpunky").
Then next year it's a different guy, same schtick.
If the employer is satisfied with the employees output, who is being harmed?
Or a company that is handling HIPAA, GDPR or other sensitive data and is certifying that they are following policies around employee training, data sovereignty and document handling?
I worked at an adtech company, he would give talks with powerpoints talking about internet of things which was absolutely wild. (We never sold or touched a single piece of hardware.)