> 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.

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").

It can be both. Due to how much time the fake applications take throwing out privacy conscious candidates seems like a worthy sacrifice to make.

On the other hand, consider that in this particular case, if you throw out a false positive, it is very often a really good programmer (though not necessarily the kind of programmer that big tech companies are looking for). :-)

Don't you have to ask for ID at the end anyway? So the only question is avoiding behavior that makes it look like you're a fake job listing harvesting PII or something.

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.

Thank you for posting this. It definitely gives a lot of perspective about what is going on right now.

maybe leave the photo id ask for when there's suspicion only is fine

Why has asking for photo ID become politicized. ID for voting and job interviews seems like some of the most reasonable usage for an official ID.

The reason it is political for voting is that the rules needed to get a qualified ID are often impossible (or hard enough to suppress voting) for many legit voters.

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)

> Obviously you need documentation to work

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.

Actually, that isn't the case with the SAVE act.

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.

Well that is even more ridiculous. I have a passport but I think I've lost track of my birth certificate. My state ID isn't even REAL ID compliant (and I am very happy about that fact - it's blatant federal overreach that badly needs to be snubbed).

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.

Well, that last doesn't bother me at all. If a person is doing something valuable, dilligence is due.

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.