Connect with us

Business News

Aerial photography ban proposed for all but government

In New Hampshire, an aerial photography ban has raised more questions than answer as fears regarding drones heat up – measured reaction or overreaction?

Published

on

aerial photography

aerial photography ban

New Hampshire bill proposes aerial photography ban

Neal Kurk (R), member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives since 1986 has recently sponsored HB 619-FN to make aerial photography illegal in their state, which many are considering a look into the future. States are currently struggling with how to deal with advances in drone technology, particularly mini-drones, fueled by fears not only that the federal government is using drones on U.S. soil, but are using them abroad not only to take out terrorists, but suspected terrorists, even if American. Click to tweet.

Much media attention has been showered on the topic, bringing light to the full array of uses, not just the CIA’s implementation of the technologies. According to Fox correspondent Catherine Herridge, the Federal Aviation Administration has already granted 327 licenses, and it projects as many as 10,000 licensed systems by 2017.

New Hampshire’s proposed aerial photography ban states the following:
[ba-quote]A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly creates or assists in creating an image of the exterior of any residential dwelling in this state where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground. This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects. In this paragraph, “dwelling” means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more individuals. [/ba-quote]

Potential problems with this bill

Although the bill seeks to protect residents from being spied on or documented, it very clearly excludes government officials who may use drones for official business. Most protests against drones are not against hobbyists, Google Maps satellites, commercial flights, the film industry, or aerial photographers, rather against the government’s use of the devices.

The aerial photography ban is unclear as to the very specific non-threatening uses of aerial devices such as aerial real estate photography for listings, or if a homeowner is photographing their own home, and while it states that “This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects,” possibly implying that if no human is in any photo or video taken, it is acceptable.

Additionally, it is unclear the implications of this bill on existing Google maps or existing images that have been taken via aerial device, and videography does not seem to be clearly addressed in the bill.

Fines for violations of a bill that could spread to other states

Rep. Kurk proposes a fine for violating the aerial photography ban, costing $62.71 per case in fiscal year 2014, rising to $64.40 per case thereafter, with an estimated $10,000 burden on taxpayers should someone appeal, and of course the $35,000 per year prison cost per person that fails to pay and is arrested.

Real estate photographer Larry Lohrman said, “Based on the public discussion that I’ve seen on this subject, I’m going to go out on a limb and make a wild guess and predict that this is not going to be an isolated incident. My guess is that other states will be doing this too. Particularly since so many cities are resisting use of UAVs by law enforcement.”

[ba-pdfviewer pdfurl=”https://theamericangenius.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/HB0619.pdf” width=”100%” height=”900px”]

The American Genius is news, insights, tools, and inspiration for business owners and professionals. AG condenses information on technology, business, social media, startups, economics and more, so you don’t have to.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
37 Comments

37 Comments

  1. Demtrev Tonstoski

    February 26, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    People have been able to do this with zoom lenes in planes for years. I don’t think this Rep. Kurk has thought through his bill very well.

  2. Don

    February 26, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    “This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects,” possibly implying that if no human is in any photo or video taken, it is acceptable.”

    ~This assumption is incorrect as a man made object could be cars, houses any other type of vehicle, fence, tower or any other man made object making the only permissible photos those of nature.

  3. Scritti Politti

    February 26, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    Amateur-hour and embarrassing. The fact that people like this get elected explains why our country is in such dire straits. Local and state governments don’t control airspace. That’s the domain of the federal government and ONLY the federal government.

    Everything about this reeks of ignorance. “Human beings or man-made objects”? So you can only take an aerial picture if there’s not a single person, building, boat, road, power line, or trash can in it? How about man-made lakes? Not to mention that this is totally arbitrary. Why are aerial pictures prohibited but not ground pictures? Is it based on some theory that people can hide behind trees or other foliage? What about those in barren areas who are just as visible from the ground as from the air?

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

  4. @rh

    February 26, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Drones could be useful in the motion picture industry, apparently not in New Hampshire.

    • Shawn Woelfel

      February 26, 2013 at 10:41 pm

      Exactly.. this ban proposal is absurd.

  5. BlondeFurious

    February 26, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    Making this decision was easy for Kurk. It was simply a matter of getting paid well—or receiving some other significant favor—by the special interest group behind it or not getting paid well. He choose to get paid!

    Kurk doesn’t have a difficult time living with himself over proposing bills like this either. He’s in a special class of 550 or so individuals that get to call the shots for the other 300 million Americans. He’s mostly exempt from living by the same rules the rest of us live by. That’s one of the perks of holding his office. Isn’t it wonderful the fine people of the United States elect representatives that cannot truly represent us because of the perks of their office?

    Enough sarcasm… this is an awful, awful bill. In the hands of the masses the fantastic advantages of drone aerial technology far outweigh the negatives. Think of aerial crop scouting, validating insurance claims, taking overhead pictures of your property, leveraging another great tool for professional photography, filming independent films, etc…

    The vast majority of people are law abiding, and desire to be so. Will there be people on the fringes who use aerial drone technology with malicious intent? Absolutely. I think people on the fringes do that with computers, animals, other people, guns, knives, food, financial schemes, mobile phones, etc., etc., etc. Those outliers are always going to be there.

    What is the appropriate response to this bill? Throw it out! Demand any and all proposed legislation that caters to the fringe cases at the expense of the majority’s liberties to be rejected.

    • BillinDetroit

      April 13, 2013 at 10:45 am

      “Demand any and all proposed legislation that caters to the fringe cases at the expense of the majority’s liberties to be rejected.”

      That casts fresh light on the current proposed gun confiscation laws now working their way through congress and through the legislators of several states.

      • Robert Eidson

        April 18, 2013 at 1:47 am

        “Gun confiscation laws”? Who are these dumbass Constitutional experts?

  6. Shawn Woelfel

    February 26, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    Aerial photography and “drones” are two totally separate things. Drones are used by the Police and the government. Aerial photography is done with R/C models or an actual full scale aircraft. This ban proposal is due to people NOT knowing the difference between the two. A drone can do far more than any radio controlled model ever could, and if some whack job did build a model to do what drones can do.. then by all means.. lock him up. The ban proposals are getting way out of hand. You’re trying to ban someones hobby and even worse some peoples profession. Get real.

  7. Keith mckenna

    February 27, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    Seriously Mr Kurk? Do you kiss your mama with the same mouth you use to propose such stupid bills with?

  8. Tom Benedict

    March 2, 2013 at 5:16 pm

    Wow. So some kid setting a self-timer on his camera and tossing it into the air to make a photo of their back yard is suddenly guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Greeeeeeat…

    And the next lawmaker who says, “But that’s not how the law would be used” needs to have their brain checked at the door to see if they have any actual live neurons inside. It’s not up to the author of the bill to enforce it. It’s up to the police and the judicial system. So if that’s not how the law should be used, that’s not how it should be worded.

  9. Gerel Gruber

    March 2, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    Stupidity will get you anywhere including being continually elected I guess. Absurd coming from the Live Free or Die state, or did the motto change to Just Die recently? Google Maps et. al., real estate developers, tourism, news reporting, Freedom of Speech, land management, conservation, science and education, professional sports coverage, art, hot air balloons, gliders, public lands, private property rights, commercial enterprise, traffic and disaster reporting to name a few reasons why this law sucks. Limiting freedoms limits free enterprise which damages the economy among other things, but if you want to charge and fine a twelve-year old child as a terrorist for taking a photo with his camera from a plane in order to make up for lost revenue I guess that’s up to you Kurt.

  10. Happeh

    March 4, 2013 at 5:40 am

    None of you attacking Mr Kirk have made any comments indicating you have truly thought this through.

    Every one of you that says “this has been going on for years” has not followed that up with “on a limited basis”. How many airplanes, helicopters, model airplanes, model rockets or balloons have there been in the past taking aerial photos? Not very many.

    But now that technology has improved so much, instead of buying a new TV, video game console, or clothes for the new school year, anyone can buy a drone that can fly all over the neighborhood taking pictures through people’s windows.

    And since the law says “anything visible from the street is legal to take pictures of”, all of those people flying spy drones are going to be perfectly legal when they catch you and the missus through your open bedroom window, open living room window, open kitchen window etc, where you thought you were safe because you live on 5 acres that is completely fenced off.

    If you really want to trash someone like Mr Kirk you should examine the issue from every angle so you look thoughtful and concerned, instead of looking like people who don’t care about the issue at all and are only here because you want to disparage Mr Kirk.

    • HairyHerry

      March 4, 2013 at 5:05 pm

      I could take one of the two tiny spycams I possess and tape it on the end of a broomstick and use that to look over your fence to view your property. Does that mean we should now outlaw broomsticks, long sticks of PVC pipe, long lengths of copper tubing, long tree limbs, etc I could use to violate your PRIVACY? Get my drift on this?? This is why I’m commenting against the lack of logic that Mr. Kirk in this regard. There are already privacy laws existing in New Hampshire already, so why does Mr Kirk want responsible users of the technology to be barred from utilizing it, yet makes NO PEEP WHATSOEVER regarding his State’s usage of such? I will continue to disparage Mr. Kirk when he doesn’t use his functional cranium – a typical faux pas of nearly all legislators whom act on non-existent kneejerk reactions. In Other Words, I want him to seriously reconsider balancing his proposed Act, and if I were a New Hampshireman in the legislature in Concord, I’d insist on modification to balance this.

    • Christopher Jay Campbell

      March 6, 2013 at 1:28 pm

      Perhaps you should learn a little more about aerial photography. It is a huge business, from Google satellites to aerial surveys for proposed businesses. Before almost any chain restaurant is built, there is an aerial survey. Aerial photos are extremely popular in postcards, magazines, and advertisements. Aerial photography is not rare; the fact is, most inhabited places are photographed quite frequently. People even buy aerial portraits of their homes and businesses and hang them on their walls. Private companies, scientists, and researchers of all kinds rely extensively on aerial photography.

      The fact is, if you are outdoors, you are on public view. Someone probably sees you, whether from the ground or from the air. As for people taking pictures of you in your bedroom, there are already laws against voyeurism. However, if you are standing in your window looking out at the street, there is no way in the world that you are going to successfully argue that your privacy was violated. Think of all the photos in magazines and elsewhere showing people in windows, in stores, in restaurants, at sporting events, in their offices, etc. Do you really think a picture of a glass office building full of people is secured with model releases from every individual in the building? Your employer may have security camera photographing you at work and in the parking lot. Your hotel is filled with security cameras photographing you in all public areas. Security cameras watch to catch cheaters at casinos. Security cameras look for crime such as prostitution, robbery, and drug dealing in public parks and other public areas.

      Further, the proposed law is probably unconstitutional as an unreasonable restraint on freedom of expression. It is easily proven that the law provides no additional level of privacy that you do not already have. The courts are highly unlikely to uphold this law.

    • Robert Eidson

      April 18, 2013 at 1:50 am

      You sound like a strong supporter of that waco congressman. Need to check hospital records to determine when the full-frontal lobotomy was performed!

  11. HairyHerry

    March 4, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    What is the deal New Hampshire? Live Free Or Die?? Or are these just words on your license tags??? I’m glad some New Hampshiremen are asking questions now about this Act of Stupidity. This is problematic when 1) existing privacy laws are not being cited with this proposed act, 2) that the sponsoring legislator assumes this technology in the hands of We The People will be abused against their fellow New Hampshiremen, 3) that no issues regarding FPV craft in New Hampshire have been noted going into this proposed Act, 4) No mention that State Government should be EQUALLY BOUND as their Citizens, and 5) Not even at consideration would be a sunset clause to revisit this potential issue that does not even exist!
    This is even a better reason why FPV hobbyists should unite. Texas is considering similar legislation now and before you know it, only the same government fascists who allow the banksters their free reign will be those with the ability to use this technology, no checks and balances by We The People because legislators would rather we remain as Sheeple instead of the People, despite the fact a NH lawmaker makes extremely little from their legislative activities.

  12. HairyHerry

    March 4, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    Please! It’s our GOVERNMENT who is into the terrorism part of this. Are you really that much of a sheep? Read more of these comments, take your meds, and get a grip!

    • vonskippy

      March 4, 2013 at 5:11 pm

      Apparently you’re so completely stupid that you can’t recognize simple sarcasm.

      • HairyHerry

        March 4, 2013 at 5:32 pm

        Sorry about that. Understand that I did not sense sarcasm in this and I, HH hereby withdraws that comment against you as it’s the correct thing to do. Too many sheeple simply say Meh! at problematic matters as this and move on. Until enough take this and other issues seriously enough, we won’t even have a Country left worth living in.

  13. Christopher Jay Campbell

    March 6, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    Okay, so people are afraid of being spied upon by government drones. So let’s outlaw all aerial photography except spy photos made by government drones. How does this make any sense at all?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business News

CEO is offering folks thousands to *quit* their jobs, with one catch

(BUSINESS) A CEO out of Arizona is challenging employment norms by offering a sort of “sign-off” bonus upfront, but this method has one fatal flaw.

Published

on

Man counting cash in his hand representing the CEO offering money to employees who quit.

Chris Ronzio, the CEO of Trainual, a software company in Arizona that aims to systemize and scale your small business, is offering cold hard cash to quit your job in an unconventional ploy to bypass the effects of the Great Resignation.

Before you rush to turn in your notice and make some extra cash, you should know that this offer is dependent on being selected as a hirable candidate and making it through the hiring process for Trainual. This option is also offered to new hires after 2 weeks of employment.

This model of employment gives the employee the ability to fire the company and walk away with a little sum of money. The thought process of the CEO was outlined in an article by the Insider, saying it is a strategic move to retain top talent and maintain a strong company culture. While this is a unique approach…it has a glaring flaw. The offer is only good for the initial two-week period. However, it can take some time to recognize the shortcomings of any company when you begin employment. We can all recognize the long-term financial potential of reoccurring income and while $5,000 is not anything to shake your finger at, it will eventually be gone. I think we can all agree that constructive criticism can be difficult to swallow at times, however, if Trainual was truly invested in this model they would extend the offer at other key times during employment. What if this offer was again available at the 1-year mark? If the offer reappeared at a one-year review, the turnover may increase.

Per the Insider article, Ronzio was quoted as saying, “With today’s market, hiring teams have to move quickly to assess candidates and get them through the process to a competitive offer, so it’s impossible to be right 100% of the time,” Ronzio said. The CEO added, “The offer to quit allows the dust to settle from a speedy process and let the new team member throw a red flag if they’re feeling anything but excited.”

These statements detail another dimension to consider which is the employment hiring process and timeline. If top candidates are in such high demand that the process has to be sped up to secure a workforce, this monetary compensation can help to ensure the hiring decision. Although, when the offer was implemented in May of 2020, the offer was $2500, half of what it is now. Ronzio reasoned that they could stay while they looked for another job so they increased the amount to compensate for those with a higher salary range.

Let me preface this by saying that yes, accountability should exist, but I would be interested to know the turnover rate for the hiring team. The cost to the company from this unique approach adds extra weight for those making the decisions on who to hire. The stress the hiring team faces has to be factored into the candidate decisions. How many times can the hiring team get it wrong before they’re let go? While the pressure to hire the right candidate should always factor in, one has to wonder about the effects of this model.

Continue Reading

Business News

Zoom fatigue? This new messaging tool is here to replace live meetings

(BUSINESS) Live meetings & emails can feel monotonous & unproductive. This new messaging tool offers everything we’re wanting in remote communications.

Published

on

Woman looking at ZipMessage messaging tool on her laptop on couch.

Even before the pandemic, meetings where everyone was corporally present were becoming less frequent. With technologies allowing for Jim to “conference in” from the east coast and Judy to “video in” from the west, computer-mediated meetings have been becoming the norm for quite some time. This has become even more true over the last few years, both due to the pandemic and due to new technologies such as ZipMessage. What’s that, you ask? Let’s ask the expert. “It’s a video messaging tool made for replacing live meetings with asynchronous conversations,” explained founder Brian Casel in his tutorial video of ZipMessage.

The tool is designed to create video, voice, and screen conversations without live meetings. It’s described as async video messaging software, made for remote work.

As the website explains, people everywhere are experiencing meeting overload. Remote teams everywhere are embracing asynchronous (“async”) communication to overcome three big problems with live meetings.

First, Zoom fatigue is a real thing. ZipMessage states that “your team craves the space for the high-value deep work.”

Second, great ideas are bound to get lost in these spaces. It’s impossible to retain each item being shared, even if taking notes.

Third, email doesn’t fully cut it. Typed messages don’t always convey the full message. With ZipMessage, you can still type your thoughts, but you also have the option of recording a video and sharing attachments.

The conversation about that meeting topic is kept to one page in a back-and-forth, threaded format. Anyone with a link can join in on the conversation without anything to download, install, or sign up for.

This allows you to talk in real-time while giving the opportunity to go back and recap what may have been missed the first time around. In addition to conversation pages and the face/voice/screen/text options, ZipMessage offers intake forms and the ability to go public or private.

It also includes integration with Zapier and Slack. There are embed options, automatic transcriptions, pre-recorded message templates, text and attachments, branded link URLs, multi-speed playback, and more.

This isn’t only useful for communicating with your team, but it can be used to share information with customers, as well.

Will you be ZipMessage-ing?

Continue Reading

Business News

80 reasons why you didn’t get the job interview or offer (brutally honest)

(BUSINESS NEWS) An interview is stressful and getting a good job offer can be life-altering, but remember that you can only control what you can control.

Published

on

bureau workey leap hiring culture, bias, job interview, job offer, elevator pitch

The reasons are infinite

Job hunting is one of the most stressful periods in a person’s life, right up there with a death in the family, divorce, and illness. There’s so much at stake, and it can be frustrating. In Austin, where we’re headquartered, we operate a popular tech job group where the most universal question is “why didn’t I get the job??”

In almost all cases, you’ll never really know why.

Sorry. That’s disheartening, but it’s true. The positive side is that it isn’t always your fault. So, we’ve crafted a massive list of reasons you didn’t get the job interview or job offer that you can learn from if you read from top to bottom (we promise this isn’t the same old garbage you already know).

Don’t let this list get you nervous, the idea is that there are infinitely complex numbers of reasons humans reject each other, many of which can’t be helped. Remember, the hiring person has a lot at stake, so does the employer (it costs a lot to hire, onboard, and retain employees), not just you.

The hiring process can be inhuman and indignant and your resume goes into a black hole or you never get feedback after a phone or in-person interview, but arm yourself with as much knowledge about the process and avoid as many objections as possible. We’re pulling for you!

Job hunting or career refining?

It’s the robot’s fault

1. Did you know that if you apply online that your resume goes through an applicant tracking system (ATS)? And if your resume didn’t match the job description (meaning none of the keywords they were looking for were used), the robots didn’t even give your resume to their HR human? Pay attention to job descriptions and tailor your resume to each application accordingly.

2. Sometimes the applicant tracking system (ATS) where you sent your application online kicked out a rejection letter without the hiring manager knowing. It happens.

3. You put your resume on one generic job search site that promises to send it to hundreds of employers (but is really just there to sell your information to third parties). At no point did you apply directly, through a third party recruiter, across various platforms, and so forth. Applying on some of the junk job search sites is not always applying (we don’t mean Indeed or Dice or reputable brands, but the “apply once to a trillion random jobs” platforms – be cynical).

It’s the hiring manager’s fault

4. Sometimes it really isn’t your fault, the recruiter or hiring manager is imperfect. That’s harsh, but you can’t guarantee that person will be perceptive or even professional. The overwhelming majority are really insanely good at their job, but they’re humans too, thus they’re fallible.

5. The hiring manager is petty and/or shallow and didn’t like the school you went to or the purse you were carrying or the car you pulled up in. You’ll never know you received a secret demerit.

It’s the company’s fault

6. Sometimes the company changes the job specifications in the middle of the process.

7. The company might have changed in the middle of the process. Maybe the CEO is on the way out. Or there’s a temporary hiring freeze, but they can’t say that in public. Or their funding status is changing. Or the business just took a big hit and everyone’s scrambling.

8. They were never hiring to begin with and were using candidates for marketing ideas or free labor. It’s a sick practice that some companies commit.

9. Someone that no longer works there told you to start as a contractor and they’d consider you FT after 90 days, but it was never in writing and no one knows what you’re talking about and your contract is up and it’s not going to be renewed. You didn’t really get the job, amigo.

10. Your interview with the Chief Hug Officer about how many stars you give yourself as a leader wasn’t the appropriate number of stars and they didn’t want to hug you after all. Or your phone interview with the 18 year old social media intern where you couldn’t name any Marvel characters rubbed them the wrong way. Companies have unique interviewing methods that involve humans, and some are just plain silly.

11. The company’s not willing to accept your type of Visa or citizenship status.

It’s timing’s fault

12. There was a candidate interviewed before you applied that they really like and are waiting for an offer acceptance from. And now they have said yes and you’re out and sad, and I’m sorry.

13. Someone else took precedent (an internal hire, an ex-colleague, or someone the CEO said they know and is the new hire no matter what).

It’s someone else’s fault

14. Someone unexpectedly gave you a bad reference and you may never know about it.

It’s your fault

15. Let’s start with the obvious repetitive junk you already know – you have a bad resume or cover letter. There are red flags, incomplete information, grammar errors, it is too long or to short, super generic, and/or never expressed how you impacted any company’s bottom line.

16. You couldn’t answer basic questions (“why did you leave your last job?” or “why were you only at X place for 3 months?”). Or you answered any number of interview questions poorly. Or you were asked to critique something about the company and you wailed on their shortcomings rather than offer a positive, followed by a meaningful critique with actionables, closed with a positive.

17. You made a mistake on your application (you worked at Google from 1904-2006?) or you straight up lied. Some companies do basic employment checks prior to requesting an interview, so you better get your story straight from minute one.

18. You applied for the wrong jobs – you read too quickly and you’re a Java developer who just applied to a JavaScript role. Oops. Or the ad says you must have three years of Salesforce experience and you missed that part and while you fit everything else, you have zero years with that platform. You wasted everyone’s time.

19. You’re not a culture fit. But wait, it’s not what you think – you’re not unlikable, they’re just looking for a puzzle piece. Their division might be in chaos or the there’s already an A-type on the small team. Hiring managers deal with truly complex situations and it isn’t personal if you’re not the right puzzle piece, despite your incredible pedigree.

20. You raised major legal red flags. Nothing says you plan to sue like vaguely saying “I have schizophrenia, is that going to be a problem?” or “I’m not sure working for a male boss is a good fit, do you have someone I can answer to that is female?” or “what is your policy on sex in the workplace?”

21. Speaking of legal red flags, you put your picture on your resume which tells sensitive employers “I’m doing this so later I can say I didn’t get the job because of my [gender, race, etc.]” Discrimination is no joke. It happens, and you don’t want to put an employer in an uncomfortable situation – your picture’s already on LinkedIn. That suffices.

22. To “where do you see yourself in five years?” You said “in your job” to be clever or “President of the company” without explanation. Come on, people. How you answer that demonstrates your intent on longevity in the company, your willingness to move up, your desire to be a leader, not supplant your interviewer.

23. You applied to basically every role in the company and now they take you seriously for none.

24. You applied for a Senior-level role when you’re barely entry-level.

25. You asked nothing about the company or role during the interview. This is sadly common and so easy to fix.

26. You knew nothing about the company during the interview. Do your research, people.

27. You failed a required technical test or psych profile and there really is no coming back from that. Objective requirements are just that – objective.

28. Your work history is unstable, too short to be applicable, and/or filled with holes you can’t (or didn’t) properly explain.

29. You’re missing a certification or education level the employer wants (either publicly or secretly).

30. You’re too educated – your PhD is scaring them into thinking your salary demands might rapidly increase even if you’re currently amenable to minimum wage. This is based on endless studies and experiences of people settling – they don’t stick around for long.

31. You forgot to include your continuing education (coding courses, professional leadership retreats) because you thought they were irrelevant. They’re not – they show that you take initiative and eager to always learn more.

32. You ghosted at some point or were slow to respond.

33. You arrived (or called) way too early or way too late.

34. You were rude to the receptionist.

35. You were overly familiar during the interview because you’ve done so much research and feel like you know the company so well. This trait says you’ll be an unruly team member and will likely disqualify you. Be a pro, even if you know the hiring manager personally – anything else is disrespectful.

36. Someone random in the company met you at a networking event 10 years ago and when politics came up you called them a moron. They didn’t forget, and you’ll never know it was even a factor. But it might have been.

37. You briefly dated the hiring manager’s dramatic best friend and over drinks, you come up and she tells horror stories about you – you’ll never learn this was the reason, but seriously, it’s possible.

38. You were sweaty (if that’s a problem, wear a sweat-wicking shirt under your top).

39. You had a smell – either body odor or too much perfume/cologne/axe deodorant.

40. You had a limp or overly aggressive handshake – some people are really sensitive to that and you may culturally offend someone.

41. You looked at (or stared at) your phone during an interview when it wasn’t ringing. Or your smartwatch.

42. You weren’t memorable – some people are just boring or try to be overly calm. Remember you’re connecting with another non-robot human, so try to be at least human.

43. Your desperation permeated the entire process. They could smell it on you and it wasn’t appealing. Why? Because they know you’re going to take the job so you can pay rent, but you’ll still be job hunting and they’ll lose you quickly, so why bother?

44. You live in the wrong place – they may be unwilling to pay for relocation and may screen accordingly.

45. Salary negotiations went awry. They demanded your previous salary and you refused or they didn’t like the number or you’d done too little or too much salary research, or maybe the job listing said a range and you demanded triple (or they offered less than the range).

46. You asked questions at the wrong time – don’t lead with “so what are the benefits and how much time do I get off?” Wait until you know that they like you already. Asking pay as the first question, although the most important, can disqualify you. This is a delicate dance.

47. You failed some simple (probably stupid) test like a sales role being offered half salary and being tricked into negotiating their way up, or somewhere on the job listing it asked you to “Like” their page on Facebook and you didn’t, who knows?

48. You dressed poorly at the interview or were way overdressed.

49. When asked if you’re a night person or morning person, you didn’t say you’re flexible, you said you’re terrible at mornings, and now this company that is really serious about productivity starting at 8:00am, is no longer interested in you.

50. You fidgeted or shook during the interview.

51. You were awkward during the interview, maybe you held your bag in your lap or kept your winter coat on.

52. Your nerves got the best of you – you spoke too quickly or quietly or couldn’t stop saying “like” or “umm.”

SIDENOTE: Being introverted or socially anxious is a challenge, so during an interview, gently express that so it’s not misinterpreted. “I do tend to be introverted, but I want you to know that I am enthusiastic about this opportunity even if I sound a little shaky and nervous.”

53. You didn’t thank the interviewer (or act interested) at any point.

54. You sent an extravagant thank you gift to the hiring manager that disqualified you as it appeared to be a bribe, not the kind gesture you meant for it to be.

55. You followed up too soon and too frequently.

56. You were too cocky or too insecure.

57. You were too eager and it came across as insincere.

58. Your body language was off (you used practiced/disingenuous hand steepling, or you slouched, or maybe you couldn’t make eye contact).

59. You were too scripted – you obviously regurgitated scripts you studied online (a good HR pro can see right through that – they’ve read them, too).

60. You sneezed into your hand and wiped it on your pants, then offered it to shake at adios time. Gross, bye.

61. You trash talked a former employer or coworker (or the interviewer’s favorite sports team, or their religion, or them).

62. You didn’t laugh at the CEO’s joke during a final interview.

63. You shared way too much personal info – not stories about vacay to humanize yourself, but like made sure they knew you have irritable bowel syndrome.

64. You were overly apologetic about your past rather than calmly explaining that you took five years off to be a stay at home parent, but you’ve kept your skills sharp by studying [X].

65. You kept talking about why their competitor is awesome.

66. You accidentally called them by their hated competitor’s name during an interview.

67. You kept calling the interviewer “Jacob,” but his name was always “Jason” and now he thinks you can’t tend to standard details (or is just butthurt).

68. You’re trying to pivot from one industry to another and you do a poor job of explaining that in any way, you just hoped you’d get an interview (but it doesn’t work that way).

69. You’re painfully ugly or overly hot. Sorry, it’s possible.

70. You’re overqualified and that means you might leave when a sexier offer comes along.

71. You’re underqualified which means they’ll have to pay for your learning curve (which they won’t).

72. Your credit is awful and you’re applying to a highly regulated industry like finance or law enforcement, which may hold you back.

73. You didn’t know that your criminal or credit history might not be a disqualifier so you didn’t even try. Sometimes companies are open to certain types of offenses, or you can explain the illness in the family that destroyed your credit.

74. You failed a drug test – this is one of the few instances where you’ll know what happened.

75. You pressured them on social media (you started “IBMShouldHireMichael.com” or started #IBMHireMike and had friends use it on Twitter endlessly, which is clever and has a slight chance of working if applying to a digital media role, but almost always just comes off as annoying and overly aggressive – not worth the risk). Plus, if you depended on that being your hook and they didn’t even notice, it was a hugely wasted effort.

76. You’re so addicted to internet jargon and slang that you used it on your resume or during an interview (“btw, your shoes are on fleek”). Save it for your tumblr, folks.

77. Being cute with videos, online resumes in infographic format, and so forth, forces an employer to investigate you outside of their normal parameters and could land you in the trash bin. Do those things in addition to the traditional resume requested.

78. Your social media accounts are offensive, filled with garbage, or overly sexualized – lock it down while on the job market.

79. You bitched about the company on social media “phone interviewer at X company was straight up retarded” — uh what!? This actually happened recently.

80. You didn’t express interest after the interview. In fact, you may have closed with “well I have several more interviews to complete, so I’ll have to get back to you,” hoping to prove value but really pissing off the employer.

The takeaway

If you’ve read this far, you know that sometimes it’s you, sometimes the stars just didn’t align properly. Sometimes you’ll get feedback, but most of the time, your secret demerits will remain locked in someone’s brain.

But now you know some of the pitfalls that you can fix, so you will. You can only control what you can control, the rest you simply have to let go of.

Let this information empower you, not discourage you.

Good luck during your job search, and don’t let the robots hold you back!

This story first published in April of 2017.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Our Great Partners

The
American Genius
news neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list for news sent straight to your email inbox.

Emerging Stories

Get The American Genius
neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to get business and tech updates, breaking stories, and more!