What I wrote was just a reaction to when you said that the arrangement wasn't a privacy invasion. I don't have any problem with off-site testing, just this particular implementation of it, which seems uncomfortably distrustful, like a harbinger of what working there would be like.

> And given that all of this happens voluntarily

There's voluntary in the sense of willingly (I have no reservations about doing this; heck, I'd offer even if you didn't ask me to), there's voluntary (I choose to do a thing that sucks because I don't seem to have another choice), and there's everything in between. My problem is when the "voluntary" action is more on the negative side of that scale, which it often is when someone's looking for a job.

I'm not trying to criticize candidates' choices. I'm trying to criticize Amazon's implementation of their hiring process. The point isn't that "candidates should be principled enough not to stand for it", but that Amazon should decide "this way sucks, let's find something better".

> assuming that Amazon isn't going to infect you with malware(which seems very unlikely)

True, they just have you voluntarily install someone else's malware.