
Ask HN: CS Degree, felony conviction, need not apply? - csfelon
I am a convicted felon. No &quot;explanation&quot; field here. Explanation: http:&#x2F;&#x2F;pastebin.com&#x2F;PfLcKyHj<p>I am also a graduate of a 4 year university with a degree in computer science. I have worked gainfully since I graduated (roughly 5 years ago) as a software developer for a variety of start-ups, and as a &quot;contractor&quot; whom was eventually hired full-time at a mid-sized business. Well some of the start-up jobs were less than &quot;highly paid&quot; as my career has advanced, I&#x27;ve easily bested all my friends and most of my family in pay and benefits.<p>In the start-up world it&#x27;s easy to avoid the question because most small start-ups lack the infrastructure to perform regular background checks on perspective employees, and new-hires often come on a &quot;word of mouth basis&quot; so my attitude has always been: honesty is the best policy, when asked I&#x27;m always totally upfront. However, most don&#x27;t ask.<p>My question is: I&#x27;ve recently been contacted by recruiters at much larger corporations (some of which I would very much like to experience and work for, internet-tech top-fivers like: Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Salesforce, etc.). I also feel that my skills have reached a level where my candidacy is viable. I would like to add a job at these company&#x27;s to my resume and hopefully while there make connections in the start-up world.<p>That being said, if I submit myself to these rigorous interviews, what should I expect when I ultimately have to disclose my felony conviction and &quot;explain&quot; it to a recruiter &#x2F; hiring manager?<p>At this time there is a remote possibility that I could apply to have my record sealed in another 2-3 years depending on adjustments in state law. Should I wait to apply to this companies until after I see how the law changes?<p>##ratelimit from HN will respond when I can
======
rbobby
Tighten your explanation a bit:

I was arrested for selling marijuana to a roommate in the dorms while a
freshman at [Name of School] in 200?. This was an especially difficult period
for me; my father/mother had committed suicide the year before and I was
having a difficult time coping with his/her death and being on my own at
college for the first time. This led to me making a very poor choice, one that
I regretted then and continue to regret today.

I agreed to plead guilty, and was given N months of probation with no jail
time. I successfully completed my probation in 200? without incident.

It was a well deserved wake up call, one that helped to set me back on course.
I completed my degree at [Name of School] and have been working in IT ever
since.

You don't need to explain that the roommate was working for the police. You
don't need to offer information that you were regularly selling. You don't
want to call it narcotics. You don't want to mention that you were facing 8
years in prison. You don't want to use the word habit (if you must "to support
my use/consumption"). If they ask if you were selling lots, deflect (who knows
what "lots" is... you weren't Scarface you were a troubled kid just trying to
get by). If you also got community service you should also mention it (N
months of probation and N hours of community service). If you did something
special for your community service (eg. worked with disadvantaged kids) you
could mention that (if you just picked up trash on the highway I wouldn't).

Practice saying the explanation and writing it. You want it to sound
natural... especially as it's the truth. It's embarrassing but frankly even
for a position requiring trust (eg. handling money) I don't see your
conviction as a serious problem. Note that if you still smoke you should
consider stopping (or getting a prescription) as some larger companies require
drug tests.

~~~
csfelon
Yes, I agree. I think the version I gave was a bit more "theatrical" because I
was writing it out for a non-employer.

And no I don't use illegal drugs - and am not a heavy drinker. I have coped
with depression and anxiety with the help of psychotherapy and anti-depression
drugs. Which have worked very well, and helped me lead a balanced and healthy
life.

~~~
aestra
No. Don't mention depression or your treatment for mental illness or use of
psychotropic medications. There is still serious stigma against mental
illness.

~~~
DanBC
People with a mental illness are covered under discrimination laws in the US.
While it's probably a good idea to not disclose (in the US) before you have
the job it's something that people need to think about.

The EEOC advice is here.

[http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/index.cfm](http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/index.cfm)

[http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm](http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm)

------
blahedo
It's also worth noting that there is some movement towards preventing
businesses from asking about convictions until after a conditional offer has
been extended, and then putting some burden on them to demonstrate relevance
before they rescind the offer. (So, under that rule, someone whose felony was
embezzlement can be rescinded from a bank job, but a pot conviction shouldn't
matter for a programming position.)

See [http://bantheboxcampaign.org/](http://bantheboxcampaign.org/) and e.g.
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/ban-the-box-
minneso...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/ban-the-box-
minnesota_n_3240209.html) , among others.

~~~
yetanotherphd
I don't see why this is a good thing. One of the consequences of committing a
crime is that your conviction becomes part of the public record.

I am all for trying to convince employers that certain past crimes are not
relevant for employment, if that is really the case. But I don't see why the
government should be forcing employers to ignore past convictions, or why
employers should have to _prove_ that the information is relevant.

Of all the categories we might seek to protect, be it race, gender, religion,
etc., past convictions strike me as the least worthy of protection.

~~~
bennyg
I'm 50/50 on this. A pot conviction doesn't matter - a murder conviction might
(depending on circumstances, I guess). Why should someone be shamed for life
for something that isn't a big deal, and has no bearing on professional
accomplishment/ambitions. If you think a pot conviction hinders someone from
doing their job, then I think it's up to you to explain why.

If Person A has an engineering degree from Stanford and passes in-interview
personality tests, and person B has the exact same degree and is just as
likable/desirable as an employee, but person B has a one-time pot conviction
record - then both people are still equally hirable in my mind. I just don't
see the disconnect where that needs to be weighed at all in the hiring
process.

~~~
yetanotherphd
You might have your own opinion on what information is relevant to an
employer. However as a society, right now we only protect certain categories,
like race and religion. An employer does not have to _prove_ that all
information they use is relevant.

My question is why are we seeking to protect a category of people who have
been placed in that category by a particularly fair and rigorous process? And
if a particular crime is not a big deal, then it shouldn't be a felony in the
first place!

As a moral principle, I don't see why, if you are allowed to judge a person
based on their personality or character, you cannot judge them based on acts
which by their nature reveal a lot about that person's character.

~~~
hackinthebochs
There are numerous moral reasons why such information should be protected.
Firstly, the whole idea of completing a sentence is that he or she has paid
their debt to society. If they are released and are looking for a job, they
should be able to get that job on their own merits. We as a society should not
allow discrimination based on crimes that in principle are already paid for. A
job is a necessary part of being a member of society, we should not allow
employers to filter candidates for arbitrary reasons, whatever they may be.

From the perspective of society, it is against societies interest to hinder a
convicted person from obtaining meaningful employment. Having legitimate
access to income is one of the mains ways that a person can become and stay a
productive member of society rather than a drain as a criminal. Society should
do everything in its power to encourage this. Eliminating this barrier to
reintegration is an obvious choice.

Lastly, the assumption that the process is fair and impartial has been shown
repeatedly to be false. At least one can argue that an unfair or
disproportionate conviction is not permanent, but it becomes that when people
are subsequently barred from full reintegration in society through extra-
judicial processes.

~~~
yetanotherphd
I think one difference between us is that you see jobs as a resource that the
government should regulate in order to maximize the social good, while I see
employment as a private contractual agreement between the employer and
employee, where the government should respect the freedom of the employer.
Hence the high bar I set for government intervention. The current very limited
protections against discrimination that the law provides, are closer to my
view than to yours.

While the government should not punish a person who has served their sentence,
convictions to become part of the public record. Since this is the case now,
it is implicit that the consequences of this public record are also part of
the "punishment".

On the social benefit of reintegration, there is also a social cost to giving
people who have committed crimes special rights or privileges. Doing so
removes some of the social stigma of crime that is part of the justice system.

On discrimination in the justices system, it would be good to provide some
quantitative information on how much of the increased Black conviction rate is
estimated to be a result of direct discrimination, and how much is a result of
Black people committing more crime.

~~~
hackinthebochs
>The current very limited protections against discrimination that the law
provides, are closer to my view than to yours.

What is your argument for government intervention in the current class of
protected groups? How would it not also apply to convicts?

~~~
yetanotherphd
Personally I don't support current anti-discrimination laws but I think they
have more justification than what you are proposing.

Race, gender, religion etc. are categories that one the one hand don't have an
inherent relationship to a person's ability to do their job, and on the other
hand, are things that are either beyond a person's control, or we value a
person being able to choose freely.

In comparison, convictions are within a person's control (except false
convictions), and we certainly don't value protecting this "choice". There is
the issue of discrimination in the justice system, I don't see how this could
be addressed except for reforming the justice system especially in relation to
drugs.

And there is a clear relationship between past convictions and whether a
person is suitable for a job. It relates directly to that person's moral
character and attitudes towards crime that could directly impact their
behavior as an employee.

------
b6
I apologize for not directly answering your question--I don't have any
knowledge or opinion about what to expect from big companies--but I want to
say that I consider it a minor miracle that I didn't serve time for various
ultimately harmless but very illegal things I did when I was younger.

It's the same with my best friend. It's the same way with another close
friend. We're all programmers, and we all work together at the same startup.
We all did crazy things. We could all have criminal records, but don't, just
due to chance.

The point is, please be sure you really want to work somewhere where you feel
you have to explain yourself more than what you said in the pastebin. That's
more than enough.

------
meritt
Unfortunately, you can murder someone, rape a child, blow up a building or
sell a plant that won't even be illegal in 10-20 years and they are equally
horrible on paper.

I'd say you were convicted for selling marijuana and not lead with the term
"felony".

------
Amadou
Getting your record sealed won't hurt, but there are plenty of other data
sources that will still list the conviction - so anyone who does even a
moderate background check will find out.

If I were you, my long term goal would be to get myself set up with my own
consulting company. It will help to separate your personal history from your
work history. Companies don't have felony convictions.

~~~
chimeracoder
> Getting your record sealed won't hurt

Actually, it may. If someone runs a background check and sees a sealed record,
it tells them that a record exists, but not the nature of the offense. They
would probably therefore assume something worse than a marijuana conviction,
which is what OP has.

This may vary by state based on what information remains available, but
sealing the record MAY actually be worse than leaving it open.

Obligatory: IANAL.

Edited wording to clarify that this is a hypothetical employer, not what I
myself would do personally.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
> I would probably therefore assume something worse than a marijuana
> conviction, which is what OP has.

...sigh. That just makes it worse for those of us that try to move on past our
mistakes.

------
felon2
Pretty serious conviction here - served six years in prison.

Had significant experience before incarceration, which helped me get a
telecommute job within a month of release. Crappy pay (1/2 - 1/3 of industry
standard). Kept getting additional gigs, all telecommute. Worked my way up to
industry standard in short order. 4 1/2 years later I have all the work I can
handle, and am limited by my own desire to work.

A few times background check concerns have popped up. I was 100% up front. I
haven't seen it get in the way as a result - and my situation is far more
serious than a drug conviction.

However, I have to be smart. I see a lot of juicy gigs that require clearance,
or in other ways would be a concern. Just look the other way.

I can understand wanting the "high profile" employers, but I think the lower
profile, the better. As has been mentioned, some companies simply cannot hire
you. (In the same way that some apartment complexes can't offer leases to
felons, as their particular liability insurance dictates)

tl;dr I have a serious felony and prison experience - I've built up a good
development career working from home and laying low.

------
kfcm
One option is to apply for a pardon to the governor of your state.

If you can show the reasons why you were doing what you were doing (in short,
repercussions of a parental suicide), show you did receive a degree, have
people who can vouch for you now (including the work you have done and the
value you have provided their business), you _might_ have a shot.

In other words, have you become a valued member of society worth erasing a
felony conviction for? If it is erased, would your value to society increase
or decrease? What has your character been like since? And most importantly,
what potential political ramifications exist if your conviction were to be
pardoned?

~~~
csfelon
Yes, I have considered this. Again this is a little known legal avenue that is
highly politically motivated- and even less well understood than the laws that
are on the books around expungement / sealing in my state.

The only indication I have found any of these avenues is a single line
statement on the governors website stating that I should "contact the
governors office" if I have had at least 10 years since the date the
conviction. Though I don't know if this is referring to the day I was arrested
or the time of final disposition of court, or sentencing (either imposed or
dismissed...due to my early dismissal)

As such I have tried to volunteer my time for legislators whom have advocated
bills that flesh out these laws in hopes that they can point me in the right
direction in the future.

------
jlgaddis
Are you in California, by chance? I'm making the assumption that you are ...

You made me curious and while googling I came across some information that
seems to indicate that companies in California cannot go back further than
seven years on a background check and cannot ask about convictions more than
seven years ago.

You mention that it happened when you were a freshman and that you graduated
roughly five years ago so I'm guessing you are past the seven year mark or, at
the least, very close to it.

If that's the case, it sounds like you might be able to avoid the situation
altogether.

~~~
brymaster
> California cannot go back further than seven years on a background check and
> cannot ask about convictions more than seven years ago.

No business is going to reasonably follow this. They use all sorts of
background check services so an arbitrary number means nothing to them.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
Actually, the background check company specifically cannot pass along
convictions wherein the end of the sentence was more than seven years ago. If
you read a HireRight report, it specifically mentions this. Any background
check provider that supplies convictions older than seven years is liable
under FCRA (with a few exceptions), and in California, you are entitled to
your report after it is completed. You can connect the dots yourself.

~~~
brymaster
There are numerous data collection companies and they're definitely not all
following the rules on background checks.

Ever heard of conflicting information on reports between credit bureaus?

------
leokun
Some companies cannot hire felons. Companies that require PCI compliance and
companies with secured data centers like Rackspace will often not hire felons
as a policy. I'd hire you though. I hope someday after we've had enough of
ruining people's lives in our never ending drug war we can get a general
amnesty for all drug convictions for non-violent offenders.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
> Companies that require PCI compliance and companies with secured data
> centers like Rackspace will often not hire felons as a policy.

That is their choice and not required by either. I walked into secured data
centers as a felon at PCI-compliant Linode. Rackspace does not hire felons due
to their terms of service; their lawyers pointed me to the clauses regarding
protecting customer information as the reason why.

------
natmaster
Drug laws are evil. Any sane person would not care about your felony. However,
giant corporations have policies, so I'm not sure what the answer to your
question is. I just wrote this for moral support.

------
mattmaroon
"In the start-up world it's easy to avoid the question because most small
start-ups lack the infrastructure to perform regular background checks on
perspective employees".

Umm no. You Google "Background check" and pay $30.

~~~
sgt
This must be unique to the US though, in other countries you have to go
through quite a lot of red tape to be allowed such information, even as an
employer.

~~~
noir_lord
In the UK unless the job is incredibly sensitive (prison officer, position of
care etc) _or_ requires a security clearance background checks just don't
happen.

They ask on your application and if you lie they can fire you for it but since
they don't check it's kind of a don't ask/don't tell.

I also (think) you can have many crimes expunged after a period of time and
those then only show up on enhanced checks.

------
duncan_bayne
Personally speaking, I'd see it as evidence of entrepreneurial spirit and
experience ;) I'd also hope that anyone knocking you back on those grounds
weren't themselves users, because that would be rank hypocrisy.

However you weren't asking about me :)

Firstly, lawyer up. Get a lawyer who specializes in this sort of thing and ask
him or her what to do.

Secondly, try to see this from a risk management perspective, which is most
likely how your prospective employers will approach it.

From their perspective, it's probably (but see 'lawyer up' above) immaterial
to them on a daily basis if you're no longer dealing, and not going to turn up
to work stoned or have a shootout with another dealer in the company carpark.
_But_ imagine the fallout if you did. Imagine being the guy or girl who signed
off on your hiring.

That's what's going through _their_ heads when considering your application, &
that's what you need to mitigate.

~~~
csfelon
I do regularly consult with friends whom are law enforcement lawyers (DAs) and
personal my personal representatives.

And I don't have any illusions about the concerns a perspective employer might
have about the "worst case", so better not to take the risk.

I'm not at all at odds with reality, the frustration emanates mostly for me
from a personal sense of vanity, and the situations where I've been declined
and not offered an explanation if it was a technical deficiency or personal
preference against a perceived "risk"

------
DenisM
Seattle makes it harder for companies not to hire felons[1]. Not just for
government job, for any job.

[http://crosscut.com/2013/06/11/seattle-city-
hall/114930/city...](http://crosscut.com/2013/06/11/seattle-city-
hall/114930/city-council-changes-rules-employee-background-che/)

------
tonywebster
Without getting on a soapbox about how the criminal justice system only
guarantees repeat customers...

I'd definitely retain a lawyer to pursue expungement, but I'd ask them about
what new records seeking an expungement can create. For example, ten years ago
when you were convicted, the records probably weren't as likely to be
digitized and searchable. Now, practically every state uses e-filing, has
public access tools, and sells filings to third parties who SEO it up,
guaranteeing it to be more public than it is now (just like shady mugshot
websites).

In reading your other comments, it sounds like you start a conversation with
volunteer work, talking about your testimony about it in front of your
legislative body... I think that's the right approach. Possibly you could
broaden the topic of your legislative involvement to other areas beyond
criminal expungement, though.

------
jsmthrowaway
I have direct experience with the companies you have listed, which I don't see
elsewhere in this thread; I'll give you a timeline of my career so you can get
a feel for what you're up against. In 2007, I was convicted of Interference
with or Disruption of an Educational Institution, a class 6 felony in the
state of Arizona. Since then I have had a steady career, with its share of
bumps, but it is possible.

In 2009, I found work at Linode. The founder of Linode is an understanding guy
and I was up front about my situation. It was also more unique because my
career up to that point had been broadcast television and radio; when I was
convicted, I was an on-air technical director at a Phoenix news/talk station.
So I had no demonstrable work experience in computing. I was given a unique
interview and passed, so I spent the next two years and change working at
Linode. My situation was not a secret to anybody at Linode.

Once I had that experience on my resume, I translated that to Foursquare,
where I worked for a year and a half. Again, same story: I was completely up
front with everybody I spoke to about the situation, and my immediate manager
only wanted to know the details out of curiosity. I do not keep my conviction
a secret, even from my colleagues and those around me. It is a part of me and
I am no longer embarrassed by it.

After Foursquare is where the tragedy begins, and the salient part of what
you're asking about.

Earlier this year, I courted and finally accepted an offer to work at Google.
I disclosed the conviction to Google right at the beginning of the process.
The recruiter assured me it shouldn't be an issue[1], but they do something
sneaky: they offer you employment _then_ perform the background check, and
write their offer so that the offer hinges upon the results of the background
check. Everybody else I've worked at has had this reversed (including my
current employer), so this was a first for me. They let you see the Google
offer and get excited, then begin the background check.

The results of the background check arrived very soon. I want to say by the
following Monday. I followed up with another e-mail, and Dan said the results
go directly to company leadership. I heard nothing for _two months_ , even
after I began work. To reiterate that, I worked for two months at Google while
Google had the results of the background check in hand. After two months,
Google scheduled a meeting half an hour in the future on my calendar and
terminated my employment. Ben Treynor and Ben Lutch, two higher-ups in the SRE
organization, fired me having never met me. My immediate manager appealed but
Ben Lutch refused to reconsider or even speak with me.

Considering I know of some very public felons that work at Google, I can't
help but feel shafted, but it taught me a valuable lesson about how to
negotiate during the offer process regarding a felony. From Google, I courted
three companies:

\- Facebook was honest and said with a felony it was unlikely. The recruiter
did everything possible to basically talk me out of continuing the process
once I disclosed it.

\- LinkedIn suddenly filled the position once I disclosed it, even though the
position remains open on the Web site and it is a general position.

\- Apple resulted in a closed offer. I was up front with Apple as I was
Google, and I requested that we put all the horses in order before we move
forward. They were understanding of that, given my Google experience, and I am
happy to report that I am far better off at Apple than I was Google. I'm not
going anywhere; Google is an extraordinarily passive aggressive culture and I
could tell I wasn't going to be happy there anyway. Apple also compensates me
better than Google did. The side benefit of my long-term goal at Apple is that
by the time I'm considering moving elsewhere (if I am at all) the felony will
have long passed the seven-year mark. I'll probably have long since set it
aside in Arizona (Arizona has no "sealed", just "set aside").

Two other highlights of my career to show you mistreatment of felons by
companies:

\- Rackspace booked a flight for me to San Francisco when I still worked at
Linode, then I took time off from work to fly out and they cancelled the
flight the evening before with about 12 hours to go once I disclosed the
felony conviction. They pointed to their terms of service with their
customers.

\- 1010data, a competitor to the Foursquare offer, called me in for a meeting
during my offer process. They were vague as to what the meeting was about.
When I was brought into the room I discovered most of the board of the company
as well as various senior leadership, and I was grilled about my 'prank'
felony for better than a half hour by investment banking types in their upper
forties and fifties. I wish I would have known that was coming. To their
credit, they did the research and still extended an offer, but that meeting
left a bad taste in my mouth.

Your best advice, which I received in the thread when I discussed this
before[2], is just to be up front and explain it and own your felony. I
promise.

[1]:
[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6121606/assurance.pdf](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6121606/assurance.pdf)

[2]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6245316](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6245316)

~~~
hackinthebochs
I remember reading this story on here before, and I'm glad to see everything
worked out for you! Personally I think its terrible the treatment we give
convicted felons, they're supposed to have paid their debt to society, right?
So why are we denying them the very means to keep themselves on the right
course and productive? It's absurd. Society should not be in the business of
handing out life sentences outside of the judicial process.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
The day I was sentenced and began probation was the same day Mike Tyson began
his probation for the cocaine charges in 2007. I sat across from him in the
probation office. While his lawyers talked to the probation people, I made eye
contact with him and realized that while we both were convicted of felonies, I
was going to have a much harder time going forward than he was. (Granted, he
has a pretty tough life with addiction.)

If you're famous, felonies are just an inconvenience. If you're middle or
upper class, felonies are a big roadblock to a career that require great
perseverance and stress. If you're lower class, a felony is a death sentence
unless you turn to crime. 83% of offenders who violate probation or parole
were unemployed at the time, and only 13% of companies surveyed in one study
said they'd even consider applications from felons. I'd wager if our attitudes
about felony convictions changed, a lot of crime in the inner city would
disappear in the long term.

What a lot of companies don't know is that under certain circumstances,
employment of felons can be a tax benefit. UPS famously uses this.

~~~
csfelon
jsmthrowaway - I'd be very interested in corresponding with you on a personal
basis because of your experience - given I can't verify your identity from
this - post your source address here if you'd like, and I'll get back to you.
Otherwise thanks a million for taking the time.

Bitmessage: BM-NBeSoXNvHgqXKXVNykt51LayfXEJz1Yz

~~~
jsmthrowaway
You didn't look very carefully at an attachment, then, which includes my name
and e-mail address. I only created a throwaway because my (very) old HN
account is set to be usable again in 2055.

~~~
csfelon
emailed.

------
johnymontana
I used to work for a large background investigation company.

The Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) generally (there are exceptions)
limits pre-employment background checks to convictions within the past seven
years. Although sentencing can bring this into scope. So for example if you
were convicted 10 years ago, but were sentenced to 4 years probation that
conviction could still be used against you. State laws can impose further
limits on background checks. Depending on how recently this conviction
occurred and your state of residence it may not even be an issue.

~~~
csfelon
Yes, the FCRA rules interest me. Though they don't seem to be universally
applied - and god knows if it would be at all enforceable without a great deal
of litigation that is ultimately not worth-while to undertake.

I would be interested in learning more about these laws. Do you have any
particular documentation?

------
joering2
I think (my) common sense tells me those large corporation have some many
applications that they will turn down anyone for any reason and in your
situation they would want to avoid, if ever asked, answering "yes" if someone
ask "do you have felons working for you" [1]. I don't work for HR, but I could
see the point where decision-making person is turned down by this, as I am
sure they cherry-pick to the extreme (they do not hire on "we extremely need"
basis, rather "we hire if someone has amazing skills and we can always use
them").

If I were you, I wouldn't disclose until asked for, because this does not
affect your work output, or your footprint on society. If you were a rapist or
psycho then for society sake yes you should say something before you flip over
and machine-gun half of Googleplex (but that's not your case). If asked for, I
would be honest and straightforward (your pastebin story seems you were young
and stupid, something we all go through (some caught and recorded in the
system, most not)). Just be honest and explain them your situation and leave
rest to them and God (if you believe in one).

[1] I sympathize with your story. The longer I live on US soil (I am sure this
is not narrowed down to US), the more I become aware jails and prisons are
filled in with innocent people (I'm serious) or otherwise we all should be
jailed for this or another reason.

Good luck!

------
jheriko
as someone with no degree and a criminal record for something similar
(probably worse in fact - being found in possession with some 250g (9oz) of
cannabis - which here at the time counted as supply due to quantity) i can
tell you first hand that it shouldn't be a serious problem for you.

i would add though that in most of the civilised world this is not an issue.
the US law regarding drugs is almost universally viewed from the outside as
being massively unjust.

(again i find myself saying 'except for the US' when discussing the
'civilised' world - this is tiresome)

the truth is that people are quite aware of right and wrong for the most part
- but many areas of the law are not - your employer might make their own
decision in this regard, even if they are a big company - unless they can
afford to reject the best they need to consider drop outs and criminals. a
quick look at the 'elite' of todays tech world shows a bunch of drop outs and
criminals...

i know that here in the UK i was open every time i applied for a job about my
conviction - even though it is spent it still comes up and becomes known. it
never caused me a problem, and its an interesting conversation at worst...
this included some pretty large companies, Virgin Media, Codemasters and J
Sainsbury to name a few. it wouldn't surprise me if their official policy on
such things is to not care - and I can imagine Google, MS, Amazon etc. will
have similar properties - the fact that Bill Gates has a record is quite a
popular piece of trivia for example, it would be hypocritical for MS to have
employment strategy that would rule out hiring the next Gates... surely?

------
manulp
Some of the companies you named explicitly exclude marijuana related offenses
from the thing you have to declare, if they are small and old offenses,
basically anything related to personal use more than 2 years ago. This seems
to apply to you.

That being said, be honest and ask your recruiter if it's a problem, it's
better to be upfront than to get screwed because of a background check.

------
volume
Since it's on your record (until 7 years?) then you seem to have some options
limited. In this case, maybe choose one as a litmus test?

In the end, a big part of the interview is salesmanship and you'll need it for
whatever way you tell your story. How about interview with a few other
companies that are not on your big list. In fact, find something like an
insurance company or a place you know will freak out. Use those experiences
for your final test.

~~~
volume
Also to add - after re-reading your post and this part: " I've easily bested
all my friends and most of my family in pay and benefits."

... it sounds like you're doing fine without working at Google/Apple. It's
entirely possible you are already a success but don't think so? Maybe you see
it as a way to prove something? Personally, I'd like to know what that feels
like to introduce who I am based on an instantly recognizable company.

But even if I do end up in one of those companies someday, I like what Tyer
Durden says: "you are not your job". That said, there's a ton of awesome
companies to work for other than them.

~~~
csfelon
Agreed. And the reason I chose to bring this up today was, I was contacted by
a recruiter at a company that is very small and in a space that I was very
interested in. However, after a rather positive reception, I was called back
by their recruiter and told that they didn't feel that I could be a "viable"
candidate because of my background. There was no explanation.

I contacted the company's CEO directly for an explanation, going over the 3rd
party recruiter. I have not heard back from him, though I don't expect to. I
know he doesn't "owe" me an explanation. However, all I can do is work harder
to better my skills and make myself an invaluable asset.

And yes - it's something of a "selfish" motivation, vanity as well. The same
way I proved that I was capable of not only graduating from school after being
expelled but getting a technical degree, and being a functional citizen
despite of coming from a background that predisposed me to this (physical and
mentally abusive childhood household, single parent home, suicide, etc.) It's
easy to hold yourself to a "different standard" than the money.

Also sometimes I feel like "start-ups" have a tendency to clamor for engineers
whom have a Google or a Facebook on their resume as they might not know about
hiring, and assume these companies have 'vetted' this person for skills - it
makes you stand out.

~~~
YuriNiyazov
I'm going to agree with another comment on this thread: the best opportunity
for you is to set yourself up as a one man consulting company, and proceed
that way. If eventually you get a pardon or get your record sealed, then
employment won't be a problem anymore, but as it stands, contracting might be
your best opportunity.

~~~
csfelon
I have worked as a contractor before. I do enjoy the freedom and an "easy"
fallback, so I'm far from going hungry. I would probably make more money as an
independent consultant than I would within one of these institutions.

That being said, institutions have a certain degree of "notoriety" that
perhaps appeals to me for whatever selfish reason. I just wanted to have this
conversation before I went further down that road only to discover a dead end.

------
fleitz
Mitnick and many other hackers have jobs, their crimes are directly related to
their job, yours is not related at all to your job. Don't worry at all about
it.

That said lighten the charge up a bit if asked say something like, yeah I got
caught with a joint in college, don't say I have a felony conviction. Talk to
your lawyer and he will probably come up with an even better sounding
explanation.

Maybe something like using a friends prescription drugs, etc.

~~~
byoung2
_That said lighten the charge up a bit if asked say something like, yeah I got
caught with a joint in college, don 't say I have a felony conviction. Talk to
your lawyer and he will probably come up with an even better sounding
explanation._

The fact that he got a felony conviction for a first offense suggests that it
was more than just a joint (he says that the quantity in his possession would
mean an 8 year minimum sentence). Looking at the federal sentencing guidelines
([http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_Guidelines/Manual_HTML/2...](http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_Guidelines/Manual_HTML/2d1_1.htm))
and sentencing chart
([http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2011_Guidelines/Manual_PDF/Se...](http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2011_Guidelines/Manual_PDF/Sentencing_Table.pdf)),
it seems like he would have to have quite a large quantity of marijuana to get
that much time for a first offense (e.g. 1 KG of marijuana on a first offense
would only give you 6 months minimum).

~~~
csfelon
Yes, it was my understanding that a conviction of more than 112 grams (4 oz)
of a schedule 1 controlled substance with intent to distribute comes with a
mandatory sentencing requirement. This was roughly 8 years ago, so I'd have to
check with my lawyers. However, it was my understanding as well that the DAs
office had made me what they considered to be a "reasonable offer" and that I
should not attempt to "push back harder" at a risk of having the offer
rescinded or declined - and risk a prison sentence. The DAs I have spoken too
since than are typically dumbfounded by the severity of my sentence given my
lack of criminal history. So I guess I was just unlucky.

~~~
byoung2
You weren't unlucky, you just had bad legal advice. There is a reason 95% of
cases get settled...the DA doesn't want to waste time in court and risk
losing. So they threaten you with some excessive prison term to scare you into
taking what seems like a good deal. Your lawyer should have seen through that,
or maybe he was inclined to get it over quickly as well? A good lawyer could
have gotten the intent to distribute part thrown out or at least gotten a jury
to ignore it given that it was orchestrated by the police. You likely could
have gotten it reduced to a misdemeanor possession and gotten just community
service on your first offense.

~~~
csfelon
I continue to follow and occasionally contact the lawyers I had represent me.
I do feel I had adequate representation. Again there were plenty of
opportunities for me to "refuse" to "take an offer". All of my legal rights
were respected. That being said, DAs have minimum mandatory sentencing as a
"hammer" to incentivize a plea bargin - and keep most cases from completing
the full legal recourse.

The trade off was my lawyers could work as hard as they could to find legal
loopholes, to attempt to get a judge or jury to convict on a lesser charge,
however, simple possession isn't easy to create a reasonable doubt, and the
jury and judge would not have any sentencing discretion so much so as I
understand the way the law is written.

------
maaku
Can you get your record sealed? Then you can at least legally pretend it
didn't happen.

