The prisoners hired ostensibly showed commitment to good behavior, rehabilitation, and self-education, over a period of many years, in an environment extremely non-conducive to such aspirations. That amounts to more than “zero”.
Why do you assume they're not earning trust? The article says: All three apprentices were placed on the test-automation team, which writes tests to ensure the quality of other engineers’ code, precisely because it’s insulated from customer data. The people doing the hiring are aware of the issue, as anyone in their position would be. It is obvious.
Would you mind re-reading the site guidelines and noting this one?
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
That sounds nice and dramatic, but I don't see how a terrible choice someone made 10 years ago says anything about how trustworthy they are with regard to financial or personal information. It seems you're leaving out the assumption: once a criminal, always a criminal.
This possibly speaks more about how our current incarceration methods are failing society, than it does about any particular person who’s been incarcerated.
How many tech firms hire at zero--other than in situations like this limited-time virtue signaling / PR fodder opportunity?