DISCLAIMER: This is NOT legal advice. I am not a lawyer, and there's a hell of a lot of risk in what I'm going to tell you to do.
When I was a teenager, someone I knew did something nonviolent but pretty bad (severe academic dishonesty) and had a non-empty answer to the "Discipline Question".
You might judge me negatively for keeping such a person as a friend-- and I shouldn't have, but that's another story-- but at the time, I was naive and not a great judge of character. Anyway, he asked for advice on the Discipline Question and I told him to take an "odds and evens" strategy: rank his choices. For the odd-numbered (1st, 3rd, ...) choices, omit it. For the even-numbered ones, full disclosure. The idea was that whether the information would be disclosed (by the Guidance Office) was an unknown but constant variable: they'd either tell all colleges or none.
If his HS Guidance Office disclosed to all, he'd have a slight chance of getting the ones where he did disclose (his evens) and no chance of getting the ones where he omitted (the odds).
If Guidance disclosed to none, he'd have a slight chance of getting the evens and a pretty good chance (they wouldn't know) of getting the odd-numbered choices.
His HS took his mistakes off the record, so they didn't disclose. He did well on his odd-numbered college choices and zeroed the even-numbered ones. If I recall correctly, he got 3 out of 5 odds and 0 out of 5 evens. Not a lot of data, but the conclusion was: don't answer the Discipline Question.
There isn't a constant, hidden variable (guidance office) for your case but it's still unpredictable how easily employers will find out and how your conviction will be perceived. There are hidden variables you can't easily measure.
So I think "odds and evens" is the right strategy. Full, honest disclosure with half. Full omission with half. Collect data. Iterate.
You didn't hear this from me. I don't know the details and I'm not a felon, but I think it is pretty fucked up how any felony leads to long-term economic disenfranchisement, so I sincerely hope this advice helps.
With governments, full disclosure always. It's unambiguously illegal to lie about a felony conviction to get a government job. So tell the truth.
Get a lawyer, too. Find someone who's dealt with this and knows the risks. I don't think my "odds and evens" approach is, to quote Inception, "strictly speaking, legal".
As a counterpoint, since we're all just dealing in anecdotes here, I had a non-empty answer to the "Discipline Question"; I was suspended for "hacking", albeit after voluntarily telling my principal about it.
I disclosed it on my applications, while my high school did not. I was still accepted to MIT and Stanford. I later learned that MIT actually called my high school to get clarification on it, so I know it was seen at least by them.
I was also a finalist for an NSA scholarship program (flown out to the Maryland "friendship annex" for interviewing) despite having disclosed it.
So, I dunno what my point is. Maybe these things depend on who reads your application or what, but it's not an automatic dealbreaker, and I do encourage people to be honest.
Well, to be honest I figured it wouldn't hurt my chances. I've learned more from google and boredom with a heavy dose of frustration than I've ever learned in school.
All of my associates in the field do not have to deal with this issue and maintain the perspective that actual experience is more important than education. I've an incredible obstacle to surmount and it matters to me that I have documented training. It's just one-less-thing standing in the way.
I guess with cracking the intent is crucial. Ie were you just curious and forgot to respect the boundary, or were you in it for personal gain. The first would make good NSA agents once set straight, the second much harder to trust.
If you hide it you risk being discharged a month, a year, or five years from now when your employer finds out, and then they aren't referenceable.
If I were hiring for a security-related job, I'd consider the poster if he not only disclosed the conviction, but also contextualized it on his cover letter the way that he did in the pastebin, and if he provided some character witnesses (teachers, employers).
If you deliberately conceal a criminal conviction from an employer who asks, that employer is more than "not referenceable"; they're a company who has fired you for cause. Among other things, they are now another thing you'll have to either disclose or try to conceal from future employers, many of whom will ask whether/from-where you've been fired for cause.
In extreme cases, making fraudulent bogus disclosures to employers can be actionable, if for instance your criminal status comes up on a background check for your employer's clients or business partners and damages the relationship.
Deliberately lying about this issue seems like an extremely dumb strategy.
"If you hide it you risk being discharged a month, a year, or five years from now when your employer finds out, and then they aren't referenceable."
This, this, a million times this. It's not even losing the job that would be the worst for me, it would be the paranoia of turning up to work every day thinking "Did they find out about that thing now? Are they considering firing me or did they decide it didn't matter? Argh!!".
There's a Calvin & Hobbes strip where Calvin breaks his dad's binoculars and is certain at the dinner table that night that his father knows. The anxiety gets to Calvin so much that after about 30 seconds (this is Calvin, remember) he breaks down and confesses. That would so be me in an employment situation where there was something I hadn't disclosed which could lead to dismissal.
There's a Calvin & Hobbes strip where Calvin breaks his dad's binoculars and is certain at the dinner table that night that his father knows. The anxiety gets to Calvin so much that after about 30 seconds (this is Calvin, remember) he breaks down and confesses. That would so be me in an employment situation where there was something I hadn't disclosed which could lead to dismissal.
Everything you have said on the Internet, ever, "could lead to dismissal". It's a risky world. You just gotta make the best decision you can at each point in time.
Upvoted, I think that's a very fair point. From Calvin and Hobbes to Montaigne: "There is no man so good that if he placed all his actions and thoughts under the scrutiny of the laws, he would not deserve hanging ten times in his life".
For one, I don't think I deserve to be hanged even once. I believe I cannot even be convicted for even minor crimes. Following the law has its benefits, not worrying (about being caught), is a significant one for me.
I hear you, but with respect think you have misconstrued the quotation. Montaigne is saying that the law is so wide and so complex that without knowing it we are constantly committing crimes, for which no fair judge would try us and for which we will never be punished, but nonetheless we are committing.
He exaggerates for effect both in the extent of the crimes and the extent of the punishment but, as a complement to the idea that an employer (if you will, a potentially "unfair judge") can extend their checks from criminal activity to all online activity and in so doing legitimately dismiss an employee, it seems an appropriate "polite" reply to my comment's parent.
Yes absolutely. I know at least one highly regarded info sec consulting firm has a "reformed computer-hacker" (their words) on staff who will penetration test your systems for a handsome fee. ($30k per system last time I checked).
If this is your passion then I would encourage you to apply. Definitely use a cover letter along the lines of the pastebin.
But (and correct this ignorant european), but doesn't at will employment in the USA mean that they could be fired st any point for any or no reason anyway? And that's if they were never convicted of anything, right?
What you say is essentially correct, but there's enough gray area that companies would not want to fire someone carelessly. Even winning a termination suit is losing, for PR reasons. So most professional jobs give enough severance to move on to your next job, unless it's "for cause", which usually means you did something horrible (but occasionally not).
Lying about a felony conviction is "for cause" and he'd get no severance if that was discovered and the reason (or discovered and made the reason after the fact). There is no dispute about that.
If a company will hire him in spite of the conviction, it's better to disclose. Most likely, he'll start disclosing it in 10+ years once he has a track record and no one cares. If no one will hire him, however, he might need an alternate strategy.
If you hide it you risk being discharged a month, a year, or five years from now when your employer finds out
Long-term job security no longer exists. When you take a job, you are always at risk that it ends. For sure, this risk is real. He might get fired for hiding that detail. On the other hand, that likely means he wouldn't have gotten the job in the first place. Which is worse: getting a job for a couple years, building up savings, and then getting fired... or not getting any jobs and being long-term unemployed?
There are no easy answers here. We're comparing bads here. There are risks either way.
and then they aren't referenceable.
At 1 month, you just omit it.
At a year or 5 years, there are two cases. One is where the boss likes you but has (or feels he has) no choice. He probably didn't find you out or make the decision and he may want to help you out. You can discuss the reference issue and he'll probably be your ally.
If he's genuinely mad and won't give a good reference, then make him retreat to name and dates. Have lawyers on it if needed.
In the very-rare case that you need an affirmative good reference (default name-and-dates won't be enough) and he won't give it, then you have to go to extortion. That's an uncommon and ugly topic that I don't want to get into, but at 1-5 years, you have enough important knowledge to make that happen, unless he really hates you.
Extortion? You're just full of great advice, now aren't you?
Lying on your application and extorting people risks torching an already damaged reputation, not to mention potentially huge civil and even criminal liabilities.
To the OP, I recommend ditching the Machiavellian stuff. The best bet in my opinion is to network and contribute to projects where possible (such as through OSS, freelance, etc.). If people actually know you and your story and you have a track record with them, the chances of them putting enough trust in you are much greater. I don't think you should leave the CS world. You're going to find the same issues in any line of work, so you might as well stay in the field where your skills lie.
We're talking about what to do in rare but extremely bad situations where there are literally no good avenues... not what people should do in normal circumstances.
"Extortion" was too strong a word. I meant it in the sense of "aggressive negotiation". Demanding a positive reference not to blow something humiliating is not extortion. If you demand money not to blow something, you're breaking the law, because there's no connection between the payoff and the threat (exposure). However, with a reference, it's "we're going to part ways, but it's best for both of us that we tell the same story, so let's get straight about what just happened". That's how you present it. Not really extortion.
Your advice to OP has a lot of value and on the whole I agree with what you are telling him to do. OSS contributions are a really good idea for him.
However, I still contend that an "odds and evens" mixed strategy will perform better than full disclosure.
Demanding, using "strong negotiation", a positive reference from somebody to whom you lied about your criminal status seems like a good way to get a billboard erected with your face and a URL to your LinkedIn profile on 101.
This isn't the first HN comment you've left where you suggested playing hardball to get positive references from employers. You have an idiosyncratic view of the dynamics of employee references. I find it disquieting, but that obviously doesn't make it intrinsically wrong. I do feel safe saying that it is out of step with the way most employers view the same dynamics.
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5007550 - "For me, it's really about references. I don't need a severance, but if you don't agree on a good reference I will do everything in my power to fuck up your reputation.")
If there's no severance, then I'd expect a solid-gold reference, yes. With appropriate severance, the neutral name-and-dates is fine.
A bad reference is an existential battle. You do everything you can to fight that. However, pushing neutral to good is generally a waste of time. Dust yourself off, get clean, and move on.
I am no kind of authority, so please don't take this comment any further than the actual words in the comment box. In particular, I have never worked with you, or anyone who has worked with you; I don't even know what you do (I'm sure it's something interesting and challenging). You're an abstraction to me. I cannot possibly have any opinion about the advisability of employing you and am only sharing my opinion about the ideas you are expressing.
What I have to say about your perspective on references is that I will never, under any circumstances, work with, for, or over someone who believes what I think you're saying you believe about references. "Bad reference => war", to me, is essentially an endorsement of professional dishonesty.
Negotiating over the quality of your reference is to me a bit squicky, but it's on the right side of the line, just a couple steps past coaching your references (which is also white-lie dishonest]). Using aggressive negotiation tactics to ensure good references from people who don't believe your work merits a good reference is on the wrong side of the line. You think it's a concession you're extracting from your former employer, but it is really a concession you are surreptitiously taking from your future employer.
"Bad reference => war", to me, is essentially an endorsement of professional dishonesty.
This whole subthread is about 3-sigma outlier cases that (may) require dishonesty.
I am not ashamed to say that, in a 3-sigma bad situation, I would rather lie (especially, being an immensely capable person who would be a good hire, which means the lied-to party would benefit) than starve.
Honestly is a luxury of the 99% of us (including you and me) who aren't "cosmetically challenged" in some severe, career-damaging way.
Why have interviews at all? You're an immensely capable person who clearly knows what's best for your prospective employer. Just hire yourself for them!
michaelochurch brings up a great point that having even the most minor slip in your records will too often result in a disproportionately, unreasonably unfair reception in the job market:
I don't know the details and I'm not a felon, but I think
it is pretty fucked up how any felony leads to long-term
economic disenfranchisement, so I sincerely hope this
advice helps.
There is something wrong in the system that things are that way, and really I don't see anything abjectly wrong in one doing what he suggested, when you're in a position where the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against you and you've still got to somehow provide for your family.
> He is incorrect about the job market for former felons in our field
I recall that you are in the security field. Naturally some of the best workers in the field very well might be individuals who got into trouble in their teenage years for hacking offenses -- I think you're operating on certain assumptions that are valid indeed only for that niche security field. I can tell you from my experiences in the corporate IT world that the situation here is the opposite to the one you speak of, employers come down hard on folks with the slightest slip in their records, and will absolutely use that bit of information to discriminate against them in hiring decisions.
I agree with michaelochurch when he points out that getting a job for a couple years, building up savings, and then getting fired... is probably better than not getting any jobs and being long-term unemployed in most scenarios.
That's an easy statement to agree with because it is obviously true. I agree with it too! Who wouldn't agree with it? The problem is, that advice came packaged with another piece of advice which was much worse.
I would suggest that while there might be employers who'd take a risk with someone who had a dishonesty offence from their youth, that same pool would very quickly dry up when in became apparent such a person kept behaving dishonestly, in employment situations, no less, years later.
In some high profile cases, people haven't even lost their jobs (e.g. http://readwrite.com/2012/05/03/10-executives-who-lied-on-th...) and the damage was limited to their reputation and bonuses. I'm surprised there weren't more shareholder lawsuits or similar in the case of CEOs. Obviously if your employer is a government lying can result in jail time but other than that it seems the worst that happens is you get fired or lose your bonus. What else have you seen?
I can't believe that Warren Cook didn't make the list. His story is far more outlandish than any of these. He was one of the highest paid employees at the company my father worked at, the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, ME.
He claimed to have a Master's degree from a prestigious university, that he was awarded the Navy Cross(1 step below the Medal of Honor) and that he played for the 1968 U.S. Olympic hockey team. No one fact checked a single qualification that he listed on his resume, they just hired him.
The sad part is, after they discovered that he was a fraud, they still wanted him to stick around. From what I hear, he did a pretty good job.
Criminal prosecution for fraud? Does that really happen with any regularity? I think by far the most common consequence of being caught lying about a felony is firing with cause.
I'm not a lawyer but I think a fraud prosecution is very unlikely. However, there are a bunch of torts involved.
The real consequence I'm referring to here though is a firing for cause. Real for-cause firings are rare in our business, so I think we tend to forget that they are a big deal.
The major consequence of "termination for cause" is that you don't get severance, and the company will probably fight unemployment claims.
I grant you that if he gets fired over this, he shouldn't expect a package. His life is already in a state of fucked-up-ness that is beyond worrying about that he might get fired without severance. He needs to get a job, first and foremost. Severance is almost a Maserati problem, where he is.
Right now, severance is nice to have but not a huge deal. Fifteen years from now when he's getting large (~1 year) contractual severances due to being in highly strategic roles-- he can be cut for reasons that aren't his fault, and job searches take years at his level-- he will want to start coming clean about the felony. By that time, he'll have a track record and can come clean because no one will care about a 15-20+ year old felony conviction.
You are providing what I believe to be --- pragmatically --- terrible advice in this thread. It is not impossible to find employment in tech with a felony conviction; in fact, by all outward appearances, the opposite is true; people with CFAA convictions are employed at a rate higher than that of the overall population; they are, as a general rule, employed.
What you're saying is that you think the job market is so inhospitable to people with criminal convictions that they should endanger their career to weasel their way into jobs. We could debate how unwise that advice was if you were right about the employment market. But you're wrong about the employment market, which makes the risk/reward on what you're suggesting so far out of whack that your suggestion isn't worth entertaining.
I don't have strong opinions about what you do with a prospective employer who at no point asks you about your criminal record. But if you're asked about it, you're crazy if you lie.
Again, let me (tediously) repeat that I don't know you personally; you happen to spend a decent number of words on HN articulating ideas that I find worth disputing, but on the street I wouldn't know you from Adam and I have no issue with you personally.
It is not impossible to find employment in tech with a felony conviction; in fact, by all outward appearances, the opposite is true; people with CFAA convictions are employed at a rate higher than that of the overall population; they are, as a general rule, employed.
This may be. That's why I suggested the "odds and evens" (full disclosure with half, full omission with half) strategy. Not only is it hedged but it will also give him data-- which we don't have.
It's obviously better if he can disclose and still get a job. Then he has nothing to worry about.
To be honest, I feel like we're both suburban kids arguing about inner-city gang life. :) We both think we're tough, and we both are tougher than most people in our neighborhood, but we haven't actually been in the slums. We don't have the data. I guess that's a good thing, given the nature of what we're arguing about.
I'm glad that you're arguing the other side of this, though, because we're talking about Serious Shit and OP needs to hear all sides.
For reasons of self-interest, most employers are not going to fuck with their exes' reputations after parting ways.
There are exceptions-- sometimes you have to hire legal professionals and very occasionally one might have to hire illegal professionals to make someone do the right thing-- but those are way outside of the norm.
If he does good work and still gets fired, it's probably by a boss who had little choice in the decision and doesn't want to fuck him over, not someone who's going to be vengeful and make a bigger mess than what already exists.
Unfortunately, we're talking about situations of depravity over which there are practical and ethical reasons why data collection is not possible. One falls into them very rarely, and hopefully never.
I've never done most of this extremely chaotic shit that I endorse, but I think it's important to have the ethical conversations to shine some light on to things that actually go on.
Societies like to see themselves as existential struggles between lawful good and chaotic evil, but neither of those are major players. (Lawful good is too restrained; chaotic evil is too maladjusted to have a chance unless the world's already fucked.) The real battle is between chaotic good and lawful evil. So excuse my chaos. :)
Then add to the problems I have with the very bad advice you're giving on this thread that this is a game or an intellectual exercise for you, and a lasting painful career-threatening injury to anyone who takes that advice.
Don't deliberately lie to employers who ask about your criminal record. The only ones who won't go absolutely apeshit on you when they find out are the ones who would hire you anyways if you just told them in the first place.
Like you, I have a lot of sympathy for people stuck with criminal convictions. We agree there. We'd both like to find advice to help people get excellent jobs despite stupid criminal convictions. My problem with your advice isn't with its intentions, but rather that I'm pretty sure it's dumb.
Don't deliberately lie to employers who ask about your criminal record. The only ones who won't go absolutely apeshit on you when they find out are the ones who would hire you anyways if you just told them in the first place.
What does "go absolutely apeshit" mean? I contend that there's risk of termination, likely without severance. Anything more would expose the individual in a way that most people would avoid.
Also, "employer" isn't a monolithic concept. The players all have different motivations. Maybe HR dings everyone with a conviction. He hides it, gets through the HR wall. His boss likes him. He gets in, does great work for 9 months. Then HR finds out. His boss has to fire him. His boss isn't mad at him (maybe at the situation, but not at him). In that very plausible scenario, yes he's fired, but he gets a decent reference.
If it's between the risk of getting fired later and not being able to get a job at all, then you take the former.
I proposed "odds and evens" because I don't think either of us know which is the better strategy (lie vs. disclose) and I think mixing is the way to go.
In some industries, your advice isn't practical. Tptacek's home base being Chicago probably brings commodities trading firms to the fore of his mind.
Otherwise, your ideas benefit the individual with an almost adversarial approach to companies. Tptacek looks at things from the position of that adversary. Your advice stands to surprise the established order... Instead of relying on the mercy of an all-powerful business benefactor, someone who followed you would continue operating under their own power, through their own exploit.
So it's possible you guys might agree in certain cases but it seems unlikely you'll come to public agreement on the hypotheticals here.
Right, I presume tptacek to be older and also see him as more in line with lawful good. I'm closer to chaotic good.
It's generational, I think. My parents grew up in a time when it was unthinkable to do some of the things I've advocated (e.g. concealing a felony record, using harsh tactics to improve a reference) but, in their time, it was much more the norm for employers to be decent. You wouldn't get fired because your new boss (hired 2 days ago) wanted his high school friend in your position. That happens all the time now. My parents' generation grew up before the corporate social contract fell to pieces. It vanished for them before most of them could get to the top of anything, but they still want to believe in it and have a hatred for the rule-breakers at the top who killed it.
Millennial rule-breakers are different. We never believed anyone took the rules seriously, and we break them from the bottom.
I was born in 1983 (after the apocalypse had begun) and the differences in assumptions are huge. I never grew up thinking anything positive about corporations in general. Specific companies, sure. Microsoft seemed OK, Google was neat for some time. But it was clear even in the mid-90s that most of them had turned brazenly evil and weren't coming back.
As a generation, we are ethical, but we have more fluency with rules than older generations. None of us would think twice about bumping a performance-based bonus to the top bucket (e.g. in finance where that's important for future jobs). That's just something you do. It's none of their business and the lie is what they get for asking. On the flip side, there are a lot of things that most of us find disgusting and truly unethical (war, pollution, oppression of overseas workers) that Baby Boomer CEOs don't seem to oppose.
Frankly, in a world with the Koch Brothers and Xe/Blackwater and private health insurance, I don't give the square root of a fuck if someone decides to lie on his resume. I don't lie, but that's because I have a good resume and don't want to gamble credibility, but other people who do it are a rounding error, compared to the real shit going down.
1. Criminal complaint that results in arrest. Youthful folly can be forgiven, but being caught in a calculated adult deception is pretty much nonrecoverable.
2. Audits of everything he touched, with a view towards uncovering a repeat of his earlier deceptions. Even if he is innocent, there is a good chance that the security consultants and forensic accountants will find something interesting. Something that the detective investigating the case will not understand.
Lying in a job search, while usually unethical, is not always illegal. Most of the lies people tell to make themselves look more impressive or to conceal blemishes are not in violation of law.
Job fraud is pretty tightly defined. If you cannot perform the job (or have no intent to do so) and know it beforehand, you're committing job fraud. It's illegal (it's fraud) and you can go to jail for it. The same is true if you feign qualifications to get a job you cannot legally perform (e.g. quack doctors). Also highly illegal.
However, if your deception makes you a more attractive candidate for a job you can perform, then it's not job fraud. It might be unethical, but it's not jailable.
In fact, job search lies are only cause for termination if the employer can establish (sometimes requiring cavity searches of personnel decisions) that the person would not have been hired were the truth known. If the company only hires 3.5+ GPAs as a matter of HR policy and he turned a 2.8 into 3.7, that's "for cause" (even if he was a great employee) because there is an internally published and consistent policy and he didn't fit. However, if the person concealed a 5-month gap in employment history, that might have been a factor but the onus is on employer to establish that it constitutes "cause".
However, with this particular case (concealed felony conviction) the employer will have almost no controversy on that one when it comes to firing for cause. I don't think anyone doubts that. If he gets found out and fired, he can't expect severance.
Audits of everything he touched, with a view towards uncovering a repeat of his earlier deceptions.
Yeah, he's got to be whiter than white, ethically speaking, from here on out, except when there is strategic necessity. Avoiding long-term unemployment constitutes "strategic necessity". Once you're in check, the way he is, you really have to limit your lies and make them count. Picking your battles becomes key.
Ahh yes. The good ol' hat problem. I never considered remaining silent about it, but most places around here do CORI background checks with the information on CV so It is hard to avoid. Also, a simple google query of my name pulls up quite a few embarrassing news articles.
Imagine the fun it was to explain the situation to your spouses parents after they have googled you.
Thank you for your response. I will give non-disclosure a shot and see how that works. It feels inappropriate deceptive for me to omit those details when asked (via interview question in person, phone, or form) about them.
Have you thought about using a different name in business? A friend of mine Anglicized his and it fixed a reputation problem.
For most people, that'd be a loss. You'd lose your whole reputation. It sounds to me like your reputation is of negative value, given the Google problem.
Keep in mind also that Googling happens before interview, and background checks happen after a successful interview. So even if the name-change won't get you around a formal check (by some stable identifier like SSN) you can at least control the time of disclosure.
The ugly thing about being Googled is that you don't know when or if it happens. Name change gets you the interview and then, if you're pretty sure they'll find it in a more thorough check, you can disclose it on your terms.
Really you can change your name for whatever reason you want, and there isn't even a process. You just start introducing yourself as that new name. Of course you have to be careful which name you use on which form (legal name goes on the I-9, chosen name goes on the resume, occasionally you get the opportunity to fill out the 'other aliases' field, etc), but otherwise there is zero hassle and so long as there is not an intent to defraud, you are in the clear.
Almost every member of my immediate family has casually done this at least once with no problem (it's kind of a family tradition it seems..). The name on my credit cards, the name I am known by professionally, and the name my parents know me by are all different. They share similar derivation yes, if you know one of them you probably would not bat an eye when another came up, but they are absolutely sufficiently different to isolate online reputations.
If you're saying anybody who Googles you can find out about your record, it would obviously be silly to lie about it. If your employer somehow fails to do that during the hiring process, somebody will eventually do it after you start working there.
This is the best answer I have ever seen to a question like this. It's articulate and carefully explains the steps leading up to an evidence based conclusion. I've rarely felt more that something is "Insightful".
You do not have to rely on an application process when looking for a job. This isn't just advice for people who think they have a challenging story -- it goes for everyone. There are hundreds of stupid ways you get filtered out.
There are examples of far worse felons than the OP who are employed in CS. Find a way to tell the story honestly and in a way that shows that you learned from it.
(1) Become a top performer in college by working hard
(2) Make public works
(3) Build a network
Do that and you won't need to run an application test.
When I was a teenager, someone I knew did something nonviolent but pretty bad (severe academic dishonesty) and had a non-empty answer to the "Discipline Question".
You might judge me negatively for keeping such a person as a friend-- and I shouldn't have, but that's another story-- but at the time, I was naive and not a great judge of character. Anyway, he asked for advice on the Discipline Question and I told him to take an "odds and evens" strategy: rank his choices. For the odd-numbered (1st, 3rd, ...) choices, omit it. For the even-numbered ones, full disclosure. The idea was that whether the information would be disclosed (by the Guidance Office) was an unknown but constant variable: they'd either tell all colleges or none.
If his HS Guidance Office disclosed to all, he'd have a slight chance of getting the ones where he did disclose (his evens) and no chance of getting the ones where he omitted (the odds).
If Guidance disclosed to none, he'd have a slight chance of getting the evens and a pretty good chance (they wouldn't know) of getting the odd-numbered choices.
His HS took his mistakes off the record, so they didn't disclose. He did well on his odd-numbered college choices and zeroed the even-numbered ones. If I recall correctly, he got 3 out of 5 odds and 0 out of 5 evens. Not a lot of data, but the conclusion was: don't answer the Discipline Question.
There isn't a constant, hidden variable (guidance office) for your case but it's still unpredictable how easily employers will find out and how your conviction will be perceived. There are hidden variables you can't easily measure.
So I think "odds and evens" is the right strategy. Full, honest disclosure with half. Full omission with half. Collect data. Iterate.
You didn't hear this from me. I don't know the details and I'm not a felon, but I think it is pretty fucked up how any felony leads to long-term economic disenfranchisement, so I sincerely hope this advice helps.
With governments, full disclosure always. It's unambiguously illegal to lie about a felony conviction to get a government job. So tell the truth.
Get a lawyer, too. Find someone who's dealt with this and knows the risks. I don't think my "odds and evens" approach is, to quote Inception, "strictly speaking, legal".