I am not necessarily asking for thoughtcrime, if that's what you mean. Technology is ripe for benefits and abuse. It's all about the manner in which it is used. For example, can we use sensors and networking on mobile devices to create a distributed system to reliably detect traces of bomb chemicals in the air?
Pre-crime, like in Minority Report, predicting somewhat that someone "will" commit a crime and jail him before it does. Even if he wasn't going to do it, or was just incriminated.
Regarding bomb chemicals or helper devices, most mass killing were using guns that god forbids if you complain about someone having the right to have them. And you can make bombs with common household items (i.e. cleaning products) and use i.e. pressure cookers as devices. The possibility of false possitives, or even discretionary false possitives is too big.
And still will remain the problem that you are giving even more power to the ones that do that control. No one watches the watchers.
This title is quite broad. There is plenty of open research into software security. It seems you're referring to open development of fuzzing tools. I am not really convinced that any kind of after-the-fact testing is the ultimate mechanism for making security guarantees. It's simply inherently flawed. I'm sure you make a lot of good discoveries with it, but when you're talking about 100% confidence I'd highly doubt it's going to happen. And in security, the difference between 100% soundness versus anything less is huge.
How much work is that? It sounds like something that might be a few hours of work, maybe? I haven't looked that closely at it.
Personally I'm totally okay with expecting a code sample. The best hiring process I've been through had me writing some trivial code in the employer's favourite framework (which required me to learn the basics of that framework), and then present my code to the programmers, who would ask questions and then (by email) vote. It was not code that would be used in production, but it was a great way to look at how people worked.
In the DuckDuckGo case, it looks like it might be something that would be used in production, which would make it a bit less ethical, as it would make it technically work for free.
My opinion: Though I do respect the company so far, I view this as a negative requirement. I tried to frame the question so as to not prime everyone for a negative perception.
I've seen applications that require you to go through some challenge(s) before you can submit an application. I don't necessarily see that as a negative because it can be used to measure a real example of an applicants skill (assuming they legitimately solved it).
I've also had the impression that Mozilla, for example, wants you to have a history of open-source work, especially on Mozilla products. If this is an expectation, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing because they are not a for-profit organization.
I understand the challenges DuckDuckGo must be facing to establish a sustainable business model while maintaining a commitment to user privacy. However, they are still a for-profit company, and this requirement in the application process seems to do little to demonstrate an applicant's skill, but instead it directly benefits DuckDuckGo financially because it increases the power of their product, at the sole expense of the applicant who I imagine is very unlikely to get hired, considering the popularity of their website versus the size of their team.
This turned me off from applying to the company, even though I'd love to work with them. A quality job search already requires so much time, and I don't want to do work for free when I know it's probably a long-shot from being hired anyway. That factor is compounded when the want you to just be a contractor for a few months at first and then decide whether they actually want to hire you.
I was curious as to how the HN community views this practice in general. If you view this as ethical, then do you view it as a "good" practice, or something that's likely to dissuade quality applicants?
>> A quality job search already requires so much time, and I don't want to do work for free when I know it's probably a long-shot from being hired anyway.
- I agree that a quality job search requires a lot of time ( -creating your resume, -tailored cover letter, -getting your resume into company x system, getting your resume noticed, researching the company, researching the product, interview prep, the interview process, waiting for the decision, ... )
>> This turned me off from applying to the company, even though I'd love to work with them.
ALL of the above noted job search items, are an investment on your behalf, with absolutely NO guarantee of any return
IF you were "truly" interested in working for ddg ( the product, the company)
WHY would you not want to consider something like this?
YES you are investing a certain amount of your time without any guarantee (just like you would to apply to any company)
BUT if the time you invested contributes to making a product that you use and love, BETTER, how is that NOT still a win/win situation?
AND if you do get hired, well SCORE for you!
DISCLAIMER: I have no duck in this race(aka affiliation with DDG) but i do think this is a potentially awesome idea (depending on their execution).
TLDR: YES i think it has te potential to be both a good practice and ethical, assuming that the company demonstrates some level of transparency in its processes.
I have an interest in many things, especially privacy. I've used DDG primarily for years (even before the NSA leaks). I do like the idea of improving the product, but as another commenter pointed out, one can have many passions with much more limited time.
While applying for a job doesn't guarantee a return like you said, it's necessary investment so that companies can pick the best fit. This extra requirement, working on their platform to directly improve their service with no compensation before you can even apply, is what I view as bad practice. People can be deeply interested in something without having already directly contributed to it.
Would you view this in the same way if Google started adopting this process?
When i submit a "resume, coverletter, interview answers, ..." all of my personal info(PI) goes into a black hole at company {X}. I don't know what they do with my PI, dont know how they determine who is a match and who is not, essentially I am giving up my time and my PI to a process I have 0 control over.
If I were to submit some "actual work" and that "work" was assessed and evaluated by {any} company in relation to others submitting "work" in what I believed to be a fair and open process, I don't think that I would have a problem using this process with any company.
