My wife, newly hired, was asked to un-blur her camera during a routine meeting to confirm her I9 information. This seems like a violation to me?

Uh, I hire a lot of remote people, and have been remote for a long time. That is absolutely not fucking normal. I'm not going to say racism/poor/or anything, but I will say asshole behavior and huge red flag.
- I've been remote the past 5 years as well. I've never heard of anyone, anywhere, for any reason being asked to un-blur video. Customers, vendors, coworkers, everyone does it. In fact, I consider it more professional, and certainly less distracting to do so unless you background is 100% work dedicated. Hence my post.
  
  okay but consider that you don't have as much surveilance of your employees, and without that, how are you supposed to discipline them?
  
  I agree! I brought this up with my team and they all laughed at it, and brought up too that "Wouldn't it look more professional having it on?"
  
  Even in a 100% work dedicated office, there is no background that looks as professional and uncluttered as a blurred one.
  I only unblur if I'm showing off my bookshelf or video game posters

It sure sounds like racism and poorphobia to me. HR trying to make sure her surroundings don't look like what a "typical poor person" would have (clutter, children, signs of disability, "drugs", etc.) It's not super common, but it's common enough that I hear about it every so often.
I can't offer any kind of legal advice, but it sounds like this job will be potentially problematic and HR will definitely be one to watch out for.
ETA: There's a lot of paranoia in the US right now about "laptop farms". Remote jobs are paranoid about people getting remote work to send money back to North Korea. It's completely ridiculous, and it's causing issues for a lot of people, mostly marginalized people. I think it's useful context to know why this kind of thing is happening more lately.
- This could be raised as discrimination. Not only regarding income, but could also be against disabilities. People with ADHD (hello it’s me!) are really bad at organizing, especially desks and work areas (I work in layers of papers like sedimentation). I would definitely take notes on this incident and if it continues or if he job gets changed following.
  
  Definitely! However if your first experience with HR is being discriminated against, raising concerns about discrimination can be dangerous. Who do you go to when HR is causing the issues? HR is there to protect the company, not you. If the easiest way to protect the company is to fire someone, HR will probably do that.
  I'm not trying to talk OP or anyone else out of going to HR, they aren't always sharks waiting to fire someone. It's just good to be careful here and OP and their wife should be aware of the risks before taking any action. Definitely document this incident. If this becomes a repeat issue, documentation can be the difference between getting fired and winning a wrongful termination lawsuit.
  
  Ah the sedimentary filing system. I can tell you exactly when I last touched each layer of each pile and what's there but if I file it all away somewhere I can't tell you shit.
- If I hadn't seen the blatant discrimination she's faced job hunting, I'd be more skeptical. She's Filipino, but that's "Mexican" to many. When I say blatant, I mean to say heads would roll if we had some of this on camera. She's mostly unhurt by these things, just figures that's the way of the world. But damn. One lady asked if she was Asian and was visibly appalled. Another said she would have to attend their church, and barely stopped short of asking her to renounce Catholicism. There's much more I'm not remembering ATM.
  What's shocking is that this employer is widely considered to be the best in the whole area. Solid pay and benefits, really cares about their people. My ex-wife worked there and loved them. I'm guessing their HR folks would have kittens if they knew this guy had pulled this.
  Also, just read your edit, makes much more sense. Still, I would have said, "This is not where I will be working. If you want to pick this back up in 5, I can be in my home office." (We hadn't set up proper video cam or setup the laptop so I had her use my machine.)
  Having said that, this is a hybrid position, so the laptop farm shouldn't be an issue. She'll be in 3 times a week.
  
  I completely believe all of that, and I'm sorry she's had to deal with so much crap. Lately a lot of employers seem to be showing their asses by being overtly racist, ableist, and transphobic. Everyone I know who isn't a white straight cis man has had employment troubles in the last six months.
  I hope this is just a strange interaction with one HR person and you have a better time with everyone else!
- There was a big headline recently about a tech company accidentally hiring a North Korean "hacker" (I'm just going off the headline) so that might be fresh in memory with regards to your laptop farm reference.
  
  Exactly what I was referencing! I've known a few people who were recently fired from remote jobs under very strange circumstances. I can't prove anything of course, but I distinctly got the feeling that they were fired because the intersection of their marginalizations made them look like "evil North Korean spies" to management.
  
  That was knowbe4, a fairly large player in the information technology security game, failing to vet its own employees and potentially exposing its customers to a foreign hacker.

"Sorry, this is a shared office and my partner is working under NDA"
- No such thing as an NDA that allows a spouse to work in the same room, and allows the spouse to actually be on video while blurred, but draws the line at not being able to unblur the video.
  
  It is it's the NDA you made your partner sign.
  
  There is and unfortunately I cannot show you the NDA as the NDA won't allow me to show you the NDA. The NDA does allow me talk about the conditions in general like this though.

Huge, HUGE red flag. Even without it being I9 stuff.
I have worked remotely for 8+ years at this point. Sometimes I don't even turn my camera on for meetings. It depends on a lot of factors. If my employer cared about any of that, they probably wouldn't be a good employer for remote work.
- 15+ years working remote. I only turn my camera on when there are new vendors/clients on the call and it is my turn to introduce myself.

There was just a news article about US corporations hiring North Koreans for remote work unintentionally, and the north Koreans then did a sabotage and stole secrets... Strikes me as HR is freaking out across the board and they were looking to confirm you aren't actually based in a foreign country. It is very easy to hide where you are(phone numbers can be forwarded, addresses can be false). If it's a 1 time thing, not racism, if they consistently single her out, is there anyone else of her race being singled out? Did HR maybe get a derogatory report from someone that doesn't like her and they wanted to see if she was sober? That's happened to me.
- That is the reason why identification documents are needed. How can they hire people without knowing who they are?
  
  NK stole the identity of other Americans. They dotted i's and crossed t's to get into knowb4 via social engineering. Really fucked up.
  Edit: check out the link above for full story
- KnowBe4 has an article about their experience.
  They also covered at least one other instance in the US.
- Seems like something sufficient IT security could prevent easily enough.

It seems like you are getting more knee jerk than actual answers here. There is no evidence of any discrimination in asking to deblur the camera by itself. It also has nothing to do with an I9 validation. The I9 validation is checking for employment eligibility and citizenship status and that's it. See below for the remote procedures. The employer's obligation is to be consistent in the procedure and not discriminatory with the procedure based on race, gender, etc. I just think that HR drone is a dumbass.
Lastly, I think based on your other response to another poster she should take the job and just be keenly aware if anyone else in HR asks other funny stuff. There can always be dumbasses in every department and that's not a reflection of their ability to be lawful or a bad company. I also think it's worth reporting the person if they keep doing funny stuff.
From USCIS: Remote Examination of Documents Procedures: Examine copies (front and back, if the document is two-sided) of Form I-9 documents or an acceptable receipt to ensure that the documentation presented reasonably appears to be genuine and relates to the employee; Conduct a live video interaction with the individual presenting the document(s) to ensure that the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and relates to the individual. The employee must first transmit a copy of the document(s) to the employer (per Step 1 above) and then present the same document(s) during the live video interaction; and Retain a clear and legible copy of the documentation (front and back if the documentation is two-sided).
Link https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/remote-examination-of-documents
- the HR drone could've probably explained it better, but it's possible for the background blur effect to distort a close up img on camera of a document, such as for I9. I recently went through a verification of my documents and had to do the same thing, except I made the call to unblur and immediately my docs were verifiable via camera.
  Likely policy is to ask for blur effects to be disabled to remove the possibility of interference in be able to actually see/verify docs.
- that HR drone is a dumbass
  My take as well, and thanks for taking the time for a real answer.

You really shouldn’t hire a wife, that seems wrong
- I mean I bet he got a really good deal for it otherwise he wouldn't be bragging on the internet

I’m not sure what was going on, but a clear background can tell you a lot about a person. I’ve had a few interviewees that applied for US work with no sponsorship turn out to be not already in the US. Pretty sure they were trying to fake it long enough to get us to agree to sponsorship, or overlook the fact they weren’t in the US. The interviewees were both caught because of details in the background during the interview process. Weather and time of day outside the windows not matching where they claimed to live was one, the other was architecture that would be very atypical in a US home.
- Excuse me sir. I can’t help but notice the Eiffel Tower out your window. Are you sure you’re calling from the US?
  
  Reporting from Las Vegas, babyyy
  *spins a roulette *
- People are downvoting you, but you're correct. I don't work a particularly sensitive or interesting tech job, but we've had 2 candidates in the last year who were faking who/where they were. One had other people in the room feeding them answers. I'd expect weirdness in remote interviews as companies figure out how to navigate this.
- I guess they'll have to get a shipping container office
  
  Based on the condensation on that wall back there, I’m guessing he’s in the Port of Los Angeles right now sir.
  Sorry I’m just cracking up at the idea of sensitive state secret-involving location-based jobs using people’s work surroundings as the criterion for confirming they’re not a foreign actor.
  Like if that’s the level of security we’re putting on our state secrete we are fucked.

- Oooh that's a good point. Never thought of that.
- That would be fair, but the stated reason was to look at her background.
- Have they not got emails where you live?

AHRAB
- All HR Are Bastards?
  
  That's a bingo
- I don’t know if they’re all bastards, but HR is absolutely not your friend. Human Resources <> protections for employees. Instead, Human Resources = protection for the company
  
  Technically anything that is a "resource" for a company is something that is meant to be exploited for profit.
  
  I don’t know if they’re all bastards
  As it's not likely that all people who work in HR have unmarried parents, it's probably less literal language that labels them as belonging to a group of people who would harm you if it suited their interests.
  All the HR people I've known who were not like that eventually left their job, because what they were asked to do went beyond their moral boundaries. Leaving HR to be the ones who were, indeed, those who didn't feel such qualms.

I was a little bent when she told me he had asked her to remove her blur filter "to have a look at her working environment, make sure it's not cluttered" (something along those lines).
Creepy.

Post pandemic, this kind of ID "verification" is SUPER bogus, but it's quite common unfortunately, and, tbh, I can't think of a better way to handle it that isn't either in person or via snail mail.
Not great for sure, but most likely not racist, or at least not purposefully so (not that that matters).

Is this the US? Because iirc there's some workplace injury stuff in some EU countries, where the company might be liable and so they might need to advise you to do certain things to prevent injury if you work remotely.
Not trying to take the wind out of your sails, just making ppl aware.
- Same thing in Canada. When we transitioned to fully remote we had to ensure that our workspace is safe.
  
  It's actually a really nice thing to know that (a) your country makes sure you get into less accidents and (b) that your company usually pays for any workplace accidents, even if it's remote.
  I work remotely at a company in the EU where they actually host seminars about posture and stuff because it's better for them than dealing with workplace injury from bad posture.
- ... except they ask you for a photo in the other direction, showing your chair and desk and keyboard. And not by surprise, just "send us a picture sometime for the audit."
  
  Idk, every company is different and so is every country.
  But let me also make clear, I'm not arguing this isn't odd. Just some things to rule out before going mayhem.
- I've had similar language in employment agreements in the US and in Japan, framed around safety and insurance compliance. I never had to send an actual picture, but I'm pretty sure they said they reserved the right to ask for one.
- US, yes. But the worker's comp code for this position would be "clerical". Nothing is rated safer by the comp insurance companies. Having worked for an employee leasing firm, I never heard of any sorts of safety requirements beyond normal office stuff. Fire extinguishers and first-aid kits, and that's only for a shared office environment.

I've put a shoji screen behind my workspace for these kind of situations. One client was really paranoid like that.
- Aha! Japan detected!

Why does she think it's a racism thing?
- No one else at this company requested such. Was he way out of line?
  People who experience discrimination develop a sense for when someone is othering them. It's not always correct, because it involves intuition, and you can misread people. But will still develop a sense for it.
  Now, apply this to OP's wife. OP says this about her:
  If I hadn't seen the blatant discrimination she's faced job hunting, I'd be more skeptical. She's Filipino, but that's "Mexican" to many. When I say blatant, I mean to say heads would roll if we had some of this on camera. She's mostly unhurt by these things, just figures that's the way of the world. But damn. One lady asked if she was Asian and was visibly appalled. Another said she would have to attend their church, and barely stopped short of asking her to renounce Catholicism. There's much more I'm not remembering ATM.
  
  OP should consider screen-recording her zoom calls.
  
  But why racism is particular? Sure I see how she has been "othered" by the interviewer, but why racism?
- She’s probably a race

Long before Covid, the company I worked for started trialing work from home for some call center agents. They had a whole list of requirements for an acceptable work from home space: dedicated work area with a desk, locking file drawer (why??? I don't know), first aid kit, fire extinguisher, etc. Someone would actually go out to physically inspect the space to make sure every box was checked.
My guess is someone from legal wrote up the requirements from a workplace safety standpoint. They probably could have just had the employee sign a statement agreeing that they met all of the requirements, but someone in the middle got overzealous about their role. During Covid, everyone got sent home permanently without any regard to any of those rules, so clearly they weren't that important in the first place.
- We need to provide a photo of our home work area as part of our application for work from home. It's needed as part of the employer's duty of care - managers are supposed to examine the photo and determine its a safe work area
  Really all that happens is a photo is attached to the application and never looked at
  I doubt American employers have any duty of care towards work from home employees.
  I bet the unblurring was about being able to see the documents. AI blur is pretty aggressive at blurring anything that isn't a face

My I-9 verification is birth certificate, so no photo. Not sure how unblurring would help? I've never done it remotely though. Wanting to see work environment isn't so great. I set up for a video interview a while back by carefully positioning the camera so there was nothing interesting around or behind me. I had trouble getting the video working though, so we did a voice-only phone interview instead, which was much better anyway.

I wouldn’t call that kosher, personally.

Hmm, so, policy in our office is a clean desk. Before you jump to conclusions, it's because our secured area and office occasionally has people come through that should absolutely not see what information we have on our desks. This requirement is a compliance issue for our continued contracts and certifications.
Our work from home policy hasn't addressed this issue, but it sounds like it's a clear gap. Your neighbour coming around for a cup of tea absolutely should not be able to see any work related information.
My assumption is that someone has considered this kind of aspect and had a check to confirm that they've done diligence by asking you to reveal your working space. A space the companies sensitive information would be visible. Actually you too should maybe not be looking at your wife's screen nor materials on her work desk. Depending on the situation.
Either way, policy comes first so perhaps her employment agreement or employee handbook would reveal more.
- Bravo! A well stated and sane explanation. She will be working in the financial sector, so that explains much. Doesn't quite fit her situation, but yeah, I get it.
- We have a clean desk policy at my workplace too, we also don't take classified documents home
- How can one not have a clean desk when working remotely? Do people just print random documents for no good reason when you can just have it on the screen?
  I don't even think my work would even let me plug in a printer to my MacBook, they disabled all the USB drivers except mouse and keyboard to prevent usage of flash drives and other unauthorized peripherals.
  They made damn sure the only thing displaying sensitive information is the computer screen, which automatically locks after 5 minutes and cannot be configured by the user. I'd really have to willingly show company data for this to be a problem.
  That really shouldn't matter at all for remote workers as everything should be self contained in the company provided computer, with encryption enabled, strong password policy, 2FA, the whole thing.

...cluttered? the fuck?
has this fucker seen a cubicle? why did she allow it?
- She landed the highest paying job she's ever had, that's why she allowed it. Also, she's foreign and steps very lightly, doesn't want to offend anyone and doesn't really get American norms.

If they want to see my green screen colored walls, it's up to them. I think the background looks better when it's dark abstract art, less distracting than bright green.

I can see this as a one time verification to help verify the video isn't being faked / you aren't working out of a remote cube farm in another country.
Clearwater firm KnowBe4 accidentally hires North Korean hacker
- She's met them in person and the 6-week training is in person.

Not a racism thing. Happened to me at my last two companies (white guy, both remote jobs).
- Same here. It's company policy to review remote workers space to make sure it's not in a place where client information can be overhead/people can see the screen. My boss is really lax about it and just requires me to unblur for a minute, tops.
  
  For me it was strictly during onboarding for verifying I-9 documents. I assume it's just to ensure any documents you present aren't getting software blurred.
- I'm inclined to agree, and was surprised my wife though it might be a racist thing. She's not one to pull the race card, quite the opposite in fact.
  What was the reasoning for the company's request and at what part of the onboarding process was it?
  
  No judgment here, and to be clear I don't mean to invalidate her suspicion or yours. It wouldn't surprise me if there were unethical individuals in HR who take things like this as an opportunity to call out things they don't like... But in my experience, the asking part is pretty typical, and I doubt it was targeted.
  For me, I-9 verification was very early on in the onboarding process. A list of eligible I-9 documents was provided in the onboarding paperwork and HR scheduled a time in my first day or two to show them on camera. Took maybe 2 minutes once we were actually on the call.
  I didn't press them on why when asked to unblur, but given I-9 is about presenting documents that verify your identity / eligibility to work, I suspect it's best practice to avoid any obvious image processing as a matter of policy. At the very least, not having to worry about the paper getting blurred just makes things easier. Ultimately, they're keeping these images on file to cover their own ass, so they want them to look as clear and legitimate as possible.

This is common for i9 verifications.
- Common =/= acceptable

I work in tech and needed to do this as part of onboarding after receiving an offer. Asking during the interview is a little weird but if they've had problems where their desired candidate didn't have the necessary documents then it makes sense. I wouldn't assume they're wanting to see your house, they're likely just wanting to make sure you won't need H1B sponsorship to get the necessary documents to complete the I-9.
- She's not H1B, in fact, I'm worried about her PC skills for this position! But I get your drift.
  Another weird thing is checking her docs online when she's been to the office already. She's there now! You would think for something so important to the employer in-person would be required .

EDIT: Misread the post like an idiot.
- The post was about being asked to disable background blurring specifically.
  
  Oops. Thanks for the heads up. I completely misread. That's what I get for multi-tasking.
- She had already met them in person and will be working in the office 3 days a week. I understand the concern, but this is not that.
  
  I get it. I misread the post earlier. If unblurring the background was useful to uncover anyone helping her during an interview then maybe, but it's not. We do a lot of these and my clients have requirements like what I wrote before (when I misunderstood), but I have never come across someone objecting to a privacy setting like that. It's fucking weird.

Your title suggests that you're asking whether it seems like a violation to you.
Only you can answer this question.
- 🛑 halt!
  you're in violation of the cooperative principle.
  please report to the authorities.
  
  I love tom scott.
- I do thinks it a violation, or at the least, it's a strange request, especially given the context I noted.
  What I'm asking is, "What's everyone else's take on this?"