Slashdot Mirror
When Background Checks Go Wrong...
Kraken137 asks: "A friend of mine recently got a new job, and as a routine part of the hire process, a background check was done. At 5pm on the Friday before she was to start work, she was notified that the background check had turned up a felony on her record, and as a result, she could not be hired. My friend has never done anything worse than a speeding ticket, so she was suitably confused. If the incorrect results of a background check led to someone not being hired, or being fired, etc... would the person have a legal recourse against the security company?" In this, the age of information, where the numbering, collating, indexing and cross-referencing of millions of identities happens in a single second, the fact that mixups like this still occur disturbs me. What kind protections are in place when the accidental twiddling of a bit can change your entire history?
"[In the end] she ended up having to go to the county courthouse for some sort of proof of her identity, and then had to get them to re-do the background check. The matter was resolved, and she started work (a week late however). The felony actually belonged to someone in another state with the same name as my friend (but with a different date of birth and Social Security number). My friend has a very common last name, and a common first name as well. That got me to thinking. Are security companies who do background checks responsible for incorrect results?"
I had a friend of the family who was fired from her job as a nurse because she turned up positive for drugs, when in fact she had just had poppy seed dressing a day before. The lab doing the test didn't even test for the check that. She sued and won.
You need to get your facts straight.
Or better yet, get some facts. Then get them straight.
Not only has MPAA v. 2600 not yet been decided, it hasn't even started. In fact, according to 2600, a few days ago, they were still hammering out pre-trial discovery details. 'Discovery' is when MPAA and 2600 interview witnesses (mostly each other) to try an determine the facts and evidence which they will use to construct their actual arguments for court.
The only thing that's been 'bought and paid for' is the opinion you spout before a judge has heard the case. Any one who 'buys' it, 'pays' the price by being misinformed. You've already given the victory to MPAA, when no DMCA case has ever been tried, and the DMCA may not even stand. You are discouraging people from enjoying 'fair use' by spreading the notion that it has already been struck down when the DMCA explicitly says:
DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT
CHAPTER 12--COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED.
(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright
infringement, including fair use, under this title.
The fact is corporations often do exactly what you do -- claim legal decisions that don't exist -- to discourage individuals and small organizations. If you consider yourself a friend of 'fair use', quite telling peoiple it is illegal until (if ever) it is.
I just wont work for people who require any information other than some business or personal references.
That's fine, you just won't get a contract with any bank's IT department to work on sensitive systems, not to speak of many other places. I worked some incredibly lucrative contracts for some banks, and the rates were partly justified because I was able to pass an FDIC-mandated FBI background check to clear me to work on a highly sensitive part of the bank's infrastructure. If the ASP model takes off, you won't be able to work at an ASP, either. How does an ASP convince its clients that the administrators manning the ASP are reasonably clean? That's right, a criminal background check. The fact is, unless you are widely recognized in your field and/or your reputation precedes you, to most clients you are just Joe Schmuck who walked in off the street, and a background check is the only thing that gives them a modicum of reassurance you aren't some scam artist.
This puerile "I won't work for The Man" braggadocio discounts the reality that if the positions were reversed, where you were responsible for running a system that oversees US$3B in transactions of highly liquid instruments each month, and you had to hire a consultant or perm to modify that system, you would be the first one to squeal for a check that crawled up their asses with a microscope instead of an FBI check. An FBI background check might sound impressive to some, but it is a perfunctory penny-ante chickenshit check; I had one done for my concealed handgun license, BFD. If you don't like it so much, suggest an alternative for individuals and groups to reasonably assess the predicted reliability (or lack thereof) of a specific individual. Or, <shrug>, do as you are doing now and forgo the higher rates; yay, more for me.
Technicall the requirements are 4-fold.
The party has to be at fault. Maliciousness is the usual reason, but negligence is enough.
The information has to be false.
The information has to cause harm.
And the above mentioned communication to an unprivileged third party.
Uhm, in Massachusetts, twice the posted speedlimit or in excess of 100mph can be considered driving to endanger, but they don't just give you a ticket for it, they give you a court date and may take away your license. The tickets have two checkboxes, civil and criminal; civil offenses are ordinary speeding tickets, etc. For any -criminal- offense (driving while intoxicated, driving to endanger, driving a stolen vehicle, driving with a revoked license, driving with a revoked registration, etc) you will be given a summons and brought to court. (I was once driving without a registration. Oops. Check my mail more often.) You would never mistake a felony offense for a simple ticket, here, at least, and I would imagine anywhere. I find it hard to imagine a felony offense that carries a simple fine as the punishment and anything else will involve a court hearing.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Don't be surprised if the Cantel agent is very hesitant to give you your account number; it's an unusual request, and giving out account numbers to anyone is very dangerous, even if they claim that it's their own account number. Be ready to offer multiple forms of identification.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
This should be a simple matter to clear up, but the problem is, the burden to do so is on him, and very often it's not as easy to take care of as this particular issue will probably be.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Given that a large percentage of those who go to prision return to prision, I would venture that there is a positive corelation between commiting a crime in the past and commiting one in the future.
And if every employer refuses to hire a person because they have committed a crime in the past, do you think that will increase or decrease the chance of them committing a crime in the future?
I wouldn't mind if this was all about companies doing background checks, then in an interview saying "so, you got busted for [insert felony here] x years ago - what's with that?". But it's not. It's about companies doing background checks, and flat out refusing to hire people with convictions, real ones or non-existent ones incorrectly reported by the security firm. I don't think it leads society in a particularly positive direction if committing a crime carries a sentence of never getting a decent job again in your life, as well as jail time.
I drove to New York and the background check people sent someone to the courthouse to get a copy of the warrant which was for someone with the same name but a different birthdate.
Just think, people who name their kid Shamiqua, Davion, Jamari, and other non-traditional names are doing their kid a favor. No worries about misidentification there!
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Wow I just saw my Criterion Brazil for the first time last night. [Second time viewing the movie.]
Twins... Triplets... how time flies.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
--
Marc A. Lepage
Software Developer
Are you suggesting he name his next son Joseph K. Narkinsky?
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
--
Marc A. Lepage
Software Developer
Read it regularly.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
--
Marc A. Lepage
Software Developer
I realised to late that I used "you" to describe the "guilty parties". I did not intend to suggest that it was you- Syberghost's - personal decision, allthough that is definatly what my comment said. I apollagise.
I have worked in situations like that before, I understand the powerless situation of a lowly peon.
But the way your employer handled it still really sucked.
Just use your example as an example:
...if somebody has me agree that I will not sue them if they attack me,
>
> and then sneaks into my house and attacks me...
Compare these two: "sexual assault" and "fun with your SO".
The only LEGAL difference is that in one case the two parties involved agreed to the activity, and in the other they did not. Notice that a written, notarized contract is not required, nor is an explicit verbal agreement.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
I think the problem is that for felonies you are suppose to report them on the employement application form and at the end you sign away saying everything on there is correct. It was the fact that they lied on the application, not that there was a felony.
-- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
IANAL but... your not pleading guilty, your pleading no contest, i.e. you have no way of dening what was presented. This is different than pleading guilty, as with no contest is not a conviction. For most things, end result is the same, that you have to end up paying the fee.
-- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
This sounds like a job, but did the person who really had the felony get a job? Maybe as a teacher or daycare worker.
False positives are one thing. False negatives are another
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
Ever hear of plea-bargaining? They'll let you waive any right you like :)
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
> Screw that - employers have the right
> to know about unlawful activities of
> their (potential) employees.
No, I don't think they do. Not at all. The corporations own enough of this country, I don't want them to have any more. The law decides my guilt, innocence, and penalty. No one else.
> If you see oportunity and the only
> thing between you an it is a plastic cup
> and a quick check.
A little thing... and my dignity. No fsckin' way. They don't deserve to ask that of me.
If it's a sensitive military job, or something equivalent, then OK... I can see the justification. I still wouldn't submit to it, but I can see a plausible reason.
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
> Given that a large percentage of those who go
> to prision return to prision.
Uh huh. And at least part of the reason is, they never get a "real" job and a path out of crime. In most cases, that's their own fault, but at least some of the time it's due to discrimination. I think a company can choose to do this... that's their decision, I guess. I just think it's a bad idea to make a blanket decision not to hire ex-felons. If everyone does that, that (duh), they *will* always be criminals!
...and felony != prison. You can be convicted of a felony and serve 30-60 days in a local jail, there are a lot of felony convictions for very minor crimes in the grand scheme of things.
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
I also would never and will never work for a company that requires this. Great job? Too bad, I won't piss in a bottle or submit to my past being probed.
Why give up these rights, it's not worth any amount of money... your dignity and freedom are worth a lot more than that. I can't be bought. Can you?
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
> BTW, even you can be bought. Indeed,
> you most likely already have been.
Nah, I don't think so. I may have made some compromises in my life, but not on those sorts of principles. Drug test == no job for me, thank you. Not because I do massive bong hits or mountains of coke (I don't), but because it's bullshit, pure and simple. Why would I ever want to work for a moronic company that thinks a piss test proves anything? *It doesn't*. Many, many alcoholics are fine on the job, and blotto on the weekend... which is a risk if they drive, but doesn't affect their job at all, does it? Sober at work is all that the *average* employer should care about (note I say average, not the NSA, Lockheed, etc).
Baiscally, I don't need their job or want their job. I *do* have a really good job, I *don't* have to take a piss test, and I could get another (no-piss) job pretty much instantly (because I am very, very good in my field). So since I don't need to, I just plain will *not* submit to this lack of trust, Big-Brother attitude.
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
> I'd like to think that the organization
> would run a criminal background
> check on the employees actually handling
> the information
"Past results are not an indication of future performance".
In other words, if I was a criminal in the past, does that mean I'll be one again? Or if I've never committed a crime, I will never commit one?
Come on, this means nothing! *Nothing*. I agree with what someone else posted -- pay your debt to society, then tell them to piss off. If these firms are concerned with security, let them monitor employees in some way -- clearly that is part of their business. But a background check by itself proves very little.
And drug tests? Don't get me started on those! What does my off-the-job activity have to do with my on-the-job activity? Nothing! If I light up a fat doob at work, by all means fire me... and fire those sales dudes who had a few drinks on their lunch hour with the client.
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
No, you wouldn't want a stoned hippie driving you around town. But you also wouldn't want a DRUNK hippie driving you around town...
It is of no consequence, none at all, if you use drugs in your own time, whether it be marijuana, hash, opium, cocain, heroin, crack or alcohol, as long as you're sobre and accountable on the job. For the reasons you mention, you could just as well fire anybody who has ever had a beer or two, not even to speak of whiskey, vodka and other high alcoholic goodies.
Whether you're a driver, pilot, doctor, lawyer or VP, you should be sobre on the job, and you can be quite rightly fired if you're not. But what you do outside of company time is none of their business. None whatsoever.
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
i cannot believe such things exist in USA... In France it's even worst, they tape your interview on a video tape and someone analyze your hands position and things like this... in France they also use alot graphology, and lot of others scrap like numerology, astrology, etc
--
BeDevId 15453 - Download BeOS R5 Lite free!
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
As far as I know (not being a lawyer :-) you can cross out anything you want in a contract when you sign it. If they then accept the contract then it is valid. (It's possible that they may have to initial those sections, but I don't think so.) If they try to hold you to something you crossed out you can just point to the contract you signed and say that you didn't agree to that (at which point they'll probably fire you, but life's not perfect, right. :-)
Well, places that require a clearance generally produce products designed to kill people rather than help them, so I'm not so sure "cool" is the proper adjective...
I fail to see how you are offended by either of these actions. Wouldn't you like a crackhead/murderer/rapist free workplace? "Yeah... We hired Joe last week. Smart guy, knows systems like the back of his hand. No, we weren't aware that he was jailed twice for pedophilia, and arrested two other times for drug use..." Screw that - employers have the right to know about unlawful activities of their (potential) employees.
Actually, I don't care, so long as he isn't doing anything in the workplace. So what if he's a pedophile? It's the Justice[sic] System's job to deal with that, not mine. As long as he does what he's paid to do, and does it without annoying other employees, why should we care? Does his former drug use affect his job? Does his sexual perversions?
How does society expect a felon to survive outside of jail if they don't give him another chance? Or do we want him to become a career criminal because he can't do anything else?
Perhaps, now she's on the inside, suggesting that they replace the security company - and telling the security company why they're doing it, too - would be a good thing, over and above any legal action.
Hit the lax company where it hurts - in the wallet and the client base.
--
"I do not speak for my employers, though they are controlled from my Teddy's huge pulsating brain."
If it's registered in your father's name, then, legally, it's his car and not yours and the DMV is perfectly correct in not issuing plates for his car to you or any one else except him.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Serves you right for sticking your neck out for a dipshit like that.
:) Friends get more help than strangers. Family gets the most help, if needed. But limits do exist.
Bob?? Is that you? Don't be so hard on yourself.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
On the whole, the harm done was only a week's wages. I would tell her to document it so her next employer won't have the same problem and to otherwise just suck it up.
Point 1: "a week's worth of wages" is not something you refer to as "only." For many people, a week without wages means a week without food on the table, gas in the car, etc... Happily, I've got a tiny bit of savings now, but I have been in a position in the past where losing a week's pay would have been absolutely devastating.
Point 2: If people to whom this happens just "suck it up", then what incentive do these investigative companies have to perform accurate work.
My advice: Hire a good lawyer and sue the investigator for everything your lawyer's imagination can dream up. Even if you don't win a lot, the investigator will have to pay to defend the lawsuit and will likely think twice before doing such sloppy work in the future. It's possible, perhaps even likely, that a lawyer would accept the case on contingency, so it wouldn't even cost her a dime unless she won.
Evidently the armored car company only had problems with people being too smart. Dishonest stupid people get caught, dishonest smart people don't ;)
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
I do. (Yeah, sure I do.)
Absolutely. This will never happen, of course, because the companies that keep all that data on you would do some serious lobbying against it if it was ever proposed. Bastards.
-jon (I can almost feel my credit rating dropping right now)
Speaking of whom, I listened to an interview with him on NPR last week that also involved someone from CIO magazine, and they said that in a survey in that magazine, 1/3 of survey respondents would hire Mitnick. Presumably to turn his knowledge to good use. The story also covered how he can't be near any type of computer, although apparently the terms of his parole (or "supervised release", as he called it) have been altered recently to allow him to have a cell phone.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
So are felons convicted for speeding also denied the vote, like "normal" felons? Maybe people would speed less (or change the speeding laws to make it a misdemeanor) if that was more widely known.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Of course.
Does the FBI have to answer to customers? Does the FBI have to worry about its reputation? Does the FBI face the possibility of any negative consequences if its database contains errors?
Now ask those same questions about a private firm, and compare the answers.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You are correct. A quick search at Google turned up:
This little ditty, which says that:
STOP THE PRESSES! HOLD YOUR HORSES! A NEW STATUTE EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 1997! SPEEDING TO ELUDE ARREST! AND FINALLY - ON SOME OCCASIONS IT WILL BE A FELONY! OH YES! G.S. 20-141.5 Speeding to elude arrest. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle on a street, highway, or public vehicular area while fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer who is in the lawful performance of his duties. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, violation of this section shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor. (b) If two or more of the following aggravating factors are present at the time the violation occurs, violation of this section shall be a Class H felony. (1) Speeding in excess of 15 miles over the legal speed limit. (2) Gross impairment of the person's faculties while driving due to a. Consumption of an impairing substance; or b. A blood alcohol concentration of 0.14 or more within a relevant time after driving. (3) Reckless driving as proscribed by G.S. 20-140.
etc, etc...
Of course you have to do TWO of the things in there, but me thinks they would get you on (1) and (3)...
Yeah, I lived in AZ for awhile (right when they started that program) and thought it was hilarious... In Oregon, we still don't use your SSN (it isn't even a choice, like it was in Arizona back then.) Which I like...
Of course, Oregon is one of the most freedom-oriented anti-federal-government states...
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
And this is all a good reason for the law that states that a Social Security Number cannot be used by the government as a universal identifier! (Hmm, then why is my SSN my ID# for my drivers license, my school, and about a thousand other things?)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
All this talk about waiving your rights to sue is complete bullshit. There are all sorts of federal laws in place that specifically PREVENT you from waiving certain rights, no matter what sort of document you sign saying you give them up.
These laws are specifically put into place to prevent companies/corporations/etc from bullying you into an untenable situation; sign your rights away or you can't have a job and you then starve to death. "fine, I'll sign this, but the law is on my side and if I take you to court anyways this becomes null and void" should be the thought going through your head.
This is not the case in ALL situations, but there are quite a few of these safety nets in place. The problem is that people *believe* that they are signing away their rights and don't realize that the feds are actually on their side in these cases so they never bother taking them out to the woodshed for the whupping they so richly deserve when they end up screwing someone over.
This is one case where the feds are actually doing a good thing, just not enough people know about it. Companies will get away with whatever you let them get away with, they follow the philosophy of "it's not against the law if you don't get caught".
Hmm...well...I don't think it's quite that extreme for plain speeding. There may be other laws in a construction zone or something, but even then I don't think it would go to a felony. A felony is something like leaving the scene of an accident involving death or injury. Thats VERY different from speeding.
:)
:)
I did 104 in a 65 once...very blatantly. The wide open highway is our friend. You pay a fine, do a 15 day license suspension, take 5 points on your record, and go about your merry way. (Provided you don't fight it at all...you can often get them knocked down a notch if you push it.) In PA, over 31 MPH over the speed limit means you HAVE to have either a driving course, or a 15 day suspension, or both. The state decides for you...and they like to dish out that 15 day suspension in almost all cases. That's not even a misdemeanor though. It's not the biggest deal in the world...hell...if it's just speeding that caused your suspension, your eligible for an occupational limited license so you can still even get to work or school or what have you. (You can only get one of those for something every 5 or 6 years though...at least in PA...use it wisely.
Pull any kinda crap like that in a construction zone, school zone, around school busses, or other special circumstances, and it could be a different story.
Regarding having jury trial, I don't think that any plain speeding ticket even CAN ever get a jury. It's just too minor to clog up the court system with.
And no...I don't do that anymore.
I applied for a job a couple years ago, and they wanted to do a background check. So, I agreed.
Anyway, a few days later I get this somewhat frantic call telling me the background check has revealed I am a divorced middle aged woman named Tracy who lives in Utah and who's just declared bankruptcy. Seeing how I'm male, college aged, don't live in Utah, and my name is not Tracy, this was bit of a surprise to me.
Of course, with such an amazing result, the company didn't exactly buy the background check, so I was immediately hired. What was interesting was what happened when I tried calling up Trans Union to see what sort of crack they were smoking.
So, you know, I call up their complaints dept., and they put me on hold for half an hour. So, eventually, some greasy sounding guy picks up. I tell him they just told a company that I was, you know, a divorced middle aged woman named Tracy etc.
The guy says, "No! No! Impossible!" and then goes and types for about 5 minutes. I hear him sort of mumble, "Ah, here it is..." or something like that. Then he comes back and says, "No, that's impossible. We correctly check every single data item we're given, and never make mistakes. I don't know what your investigators were thinking, but we never gave out any such information. There is no record of any such data ever existing, and no record that it was ever given to any third party. The computer clearly says we gave out your record and your record only! *click*"
Anyway, I called them back a few times to find out whether I could have some of what they were smoking, and all their successive representatives would instantly check the record and say, "No, no sir, I don't know what you're talking about. We have no record of ever giving out any such information etc."
So, anyway, as for suing these people, expect to be dealing with slime. You might get somewhere with a detective firm I suppose, but the credit bureaus seem to reach levels of dishonesty exceeding even Microsoft's. They seem to be complete scum and very adept at falsification of evidence and destruction of records.
"On the whole, the harm done was only a week's wages. I would tell her to document it so her next employer won't have the same problem and to otherwise just suck it up."
What do you mean 'just suck it up."? Too many people are just sucking it up, and not doing anything to keep this sort of thing from happening. Every single instance if such a happening should be pursued vigorously to make sure that companies that provide data provide accurate data not half-assed data. I haven't decided if 'just suck it up' is a sign of apathy or stupidity. This sort of attitude is why things are going to crap in the U.S.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
OK, so we just put up with companies that do a half-assed job hoping all the while that the situation get's better, and not worse. It's like not operating on cancer hopeing it get's better while you know deep down that it won't get better, it'll just get worse.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
In the U.S. anything that can be bought or sold will be. There is no practical limit on this and anything that stands in the way of profits. This includes privacy and freedom.
"In God we trust" is printed on what we really hold most dear...money. The U.S. is no longer what it once was. If you really want freedom, you have one choice - move.
Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
William Shakespeare
Did it ever occur to you to read the entire story before posting?
> Sue everybody involved. And then sue a few extra parties.
Ah-ha. Now I know what's happening to Napster.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yeah, if they're an EOE then they shouldn't discriminate against them, otherwise they're contradicting their policy.
Yes, it's ok if they want to do those things. Nobody's forcing them to work there... and if the employee agrees to it, more power to them.
I know what you're getting at, but that relates more to the official "goals" of the American justice system than employment.
But in this case, it's irrelevent. Whether or not you are "supposed" to be ready to rejoin society is meaningless to someone doing the hiring. And this is OK, as businesses shouldn't be required to adhere to whatever philisophical or fundamental views of society our justice system dictates.
If an employer doesn't feel comfortable hiring an ex-jay walker, he shouldn't have to.
I did a lot of research into SSN's because our unviersity still uses them as ID numbers, and I was looking for a justification to change this.
Apparently, it is only illegal for certain government agencies to require your social security number. Anyone else can ask for it, and if you don't want to give it then your only recourse is not to do business with that organization. At least, that's the conclusion my research came to.
The one problem I have with this is:
"
My position is simply that if an employee uses a chemical outside of their work environment and if their employer cannot detect drug use by looking at the quality of the work
that the employee is performing, then the policy of resorting to chemically analyzing an employee's body parts is an unnecessary violation that an employee has no obligation
to tolerate.
"
Unfortunately, there are a number of industries (thankfully not the one I'm in) where I would not want to risk working with an employee who took drugs. Construction for example, would really suck if some guy on drugs killed you and that was the first detectable incident for the employer to discover that the person was not able to perform their job correctly.
I would say that in any job where one person's life is in the hands of another, I would _hope_ for some mandatory random drug testing, because an employer may well _not_ be able to detect the employees inability to function correctly until it is too late. Now in any other field (for example computer programming for applications other than mechanical devices) I'm happy to work alongside, or buy products from, drug users.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Lazy bastard ;-)
When you own your own company, you are more than free to hire all the convicted felons you want.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
What's with companies not allowing you to work there if you've committed a felony? Isn't this some form of discrimination? I personally know people with felonies-some of the nicest people I know. One of them told the police her boyfriend wasn't around, and he was. She didn't know it was a felony, but lo and behold, it was. Now she can't get a job because of the whole "Check this box if you've been convincted of a felony" deal. Does committing a felony make you a bad person? I think not.
Colin Winters
...and a little unproductive! :)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
I used to know a guy that moved to the USA from Britian and had aplied for a green card. But it was being held up because his fingure prints were very similiar to a wanted serial killer's even though at the time of the crime, he was too young to commit them. And this was only 3 or 4 years ago. At least he was not arrested and charged, but it was still a screw up that cost him a lot of time.
because it was so trivial..i would have prefered a criminal mastermind who would be my sugarmomma...
"Leave the gun, take the canoli."
this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
yes, it was when she was 16 or 17, so it got taken off her record when she turned 18. it won't come up at all in a background check unless maybe the gov't does it...plus, it was in a different state from where she lives now.
"Leave the gun, take the canoli."
this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
In their industry, not checking for something as simple as Social Security numbers to match has GOT to be negligent.
maybe not (well, it is, but maybe not against the law), they probably would have been given her name and birthdate and maybe her SSN. i've got access (publicdata.com) and can't tell you how many times i've looked up a person, and only knowing one or two things to begin with can limit what you find out for sure. they could just be telling the company that was hiring that "a person named jane doe has a conviction for this. since this name matches it may or may not be the same person. please hand us some money."
"Leave the gun, take the canoli."
this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
This article talks about the types of confusion that can occur when dealing with legal and criminal records.
Despite the claim that you are "innocent until proven guilty" in the US judicial system, in many cases that's just not true.
--
jvev atvf gurm rabs pern gvba
Well you just proved your own point wrong! If they hired you, being smart and possibly dishonest, you would have gotten away with the money compared to this guy who probably got a stupid and possibly dishonest. They knew he was gonna steal the money and they knew they were gonna catch him. :)
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Sir, we regretfully have to deny credit due to your SlashDot Karma history not meeting our criteria....
The missing Subject notation is Copyright 1999 Scot Wilcoxon, please discontinue its use at once!
I guess you'll fight any organization which allows you to join...
Don't sweat it too much.
I was convicted of Attempted Kidnapping, Robbery, and Conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery. Didn't stop one of the top 5 Telecomm companies in the world from hiring me and I don't even have a degree just a GED.
--
Gellor
You won't have that problem any more, I've just obtained a patent on on-line background and drecit checks
You didn't read the 1st part -> "...while fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement..."
TIP: The blue lights behind you mean something...
This is a link to a joke site. After filling out the info, it shows you a picture of an ape and explains that none of this was real.
Well, my Mom named me Jason in '67 and there were lots of Jasons in that year. When I showed up at Kindergarten there were two other Jasons in a class of 20ish students (girls and boys). Your mom didn't know any ADULT Jasons, but if she asked around the neighborhood, she would have found dozens of toddlers named Jason. I asked around when naming my kid, so I avoided the current crop of overly common names (Megan, etc.)
Now onto topic. My buddy Jason was served with child support papers, (they tried to garnishee his wages!) but they later figured out that the Jason they wanted was of a different race. I have a doppleganger with the same name who is some right-wing christian weirdo around L.A., whereas I'm a left-wing atheist weirdo.
I was basing my reply on conversations I've had with felons and the limitations they faced. I was unaware that these restrictions varied state by state.
Oh, go on, check out my job.
Oh, go on, check out my job.
--
A mind is a terrible thing to taste.
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
if somebody has me agree that I will not sue them if they attack me, and then sneaks into my house and attacks me, then does their private contract really overrule federal law?
Yes, if the contract was with a corporation. Welcome to the United States.
Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
In fact, though I dislike UCITA, there are several passages in it affirming 'unconscionable terms'
Such passages are meaningless. Witness the section of the DMCA that states that no part of the Act may be interpreted as a restriction on Fair Use. Now take a look at MPAA v. 2600.
These laws are bought and paid for, and you can be sure that while they may have "consumer-friendly" feel-good language in them, anything with statutory force is slanted in favor of the purchaser of the law.
Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
That *does* sound like fun... hmmm... no. Most things don't require repeated phone taps. That breaks my limit on invasion of privacy. Background checks don't really invade much (unless you've done something to invade). I know many ppl who have various clearances - none of them have (knowingly) had their phone tapped for a month. That could be a little extreme...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
hehe - wasting copius amounts of money to get a flag pre-sown onto the same jeans or t-shirt you can get at Walmart for 1/3 the price should be a felony... well, at least subject the person to public ridicule...
that goes for boxer shorts too... who the hell needs $30 boxers... trust me, she'll have made up her mind long before she sees whether or not they are 'Tommy' boxers...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Too bad, there's a lot of cool stuff that goes on that you'd miss out on... Any division of UTC (Lockheed, etc (especially Sanders)), any large company (IBM in my case), or anyplace where you might ever need to get a clearance of some sort performs these. There's a lot of cool things elsewhere, but hey, it's up to you. Usually, a place would interview you about the problem first, rather than just say "We found something, take a hike". Heck, it's almost as bad as a credit report, half of the problems on people's reports are insubstantial or the result of a stolen card #...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
They aren't holding you hostage... they can as easily reject you for other reasons. People on drugs are less stable, less dependable, and in the long run, less useful... as for legal drugs - severe alcoholism will punch a golfball sized hole in your brain in about 20 years. Many drugs act on dopamine or seratonin receptors, and either damage the receptors or producers enough that it causes imbalance later on. Try Extacy twice, and you've increased your chances of middle aged depression (and possibly suicide) by a very large factor. Merry Fuckin Christmas. Marijuana causes long term memory problems. Cocaine does all sorts of fun things to your neuro-chemical balance (dopamine agonist).
Don't work for them if you don't want to, but don't complain if they don't hire you because you refuse the test. There's plenty of places looking for good people that don't test, and there's plenty of good people who will pass and don't care about the test. Everybody should end up happy.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Right, they should tell at/before your interview/offer. Then there's no problem. I would have a problem with them asking me now, randomly.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
I would expect similar testing before every employee is hired. This is a choice ahead of time. Once you are working, they shouldn't force it on you. That isn't 'right' (whatever that is)...
Large corps do get their books audited by outside firms (PWC, for example). All of that information should be disclosed for a publicly traded company. Private companies can do whatever they want (with respect to divulging information to the public).
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Note that PR is a big part of corps, too. Oh look - MegaFooCorp hires rapist, community outraged. National Bad Publicity. I haven't mentioned anything that takes away anyones right to anything. Certainly not the draconian measures you (rather sarcastically) mentioned. My company tested me, performed a background check, yet gives me flex time, and encourages personal life more than other places I've worked. They suggest that having a comfortable home life makes you more productive (something about not being pissed off at your place of work quite as much).
I said it before, and I'll repeat it. These are all pre-employment measures, not during a person's tenure at a job. I would find that troubling and unfair - it would make me turn down a position.
That the great thing about personal beliefs and opinion - everyone has their own.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
>does it without annoying other employees
;-D), but there certainly are jobs that warrant it. If you are going to put someone in a position of great trust (say, daycare), or give them access to sensitive information (Lockheed, etc), it should be more than welcomed. Hell, I want anyone in the schools or daycare systems to be checked out. If they have a felony from any sort of violent crime, I'd probably not hire them, but a felony because 10 years ago at the age of 16, they doubled the speed limit in their friend's Camaro, that can certainly be forgiven. Different situations call for different measures. Your workplace may not require the same things as others. That's ok. I'm all for giving people second chances, and they should be treated on an individual basis, but you shouldn't just ignore any history they may have had. It might be relevant (and don't launch in to 'we should search his home for porn, it may be relevant... we should tap his phone, it may be relevant'. Search the things that are a matter of public record. Not really prying. Anybody with an afternoon or three and a little bit of experience could do it - why not check things out.
There is part of the argument, and some of the rest I've mentioned elsewhere - negative publicity for the company. As I've also mentioned elsewhere - drug use *will* affect his performance, if not immediately.
I mentioned before that you don't just toss a guy out because something came up - you talk to him about it, if you wanted to give him the job before. If it was a while ago, and you want to give him another chance, you have that ability. If you don't, same thing. I'm not suggesting background checks for every job (burger flipper, electrician, sales, marketing
If he was a former user, and now is clean, I'd be more than happy to give him a job if he's qualified. I'd like to help out those who aren't clean yet, but not necessarily in the context of working for MyCorp. There's a difference.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
As an employer, I have the right to hire who I think is qualified. As a public company, I have a responsibility to maintain/increase stockholders share value. Making decisions for other people involves careful thought and process. I don't see the problem in screening out potential problems. Give them a chance to explain, but take note of this. I won't decide your guilt or innocence - if you have a criminal record, I'm just looking at what the courts have already written. It's like part of your transcript. Oh, look - johnny got an F in [subject], even though his GPA is 3.5... let's ask him what this is about. Look - johnny has a felony 5 years ago... let's ask him what this is all about. Very little difference, IMNSHO.
The drug tests I've taken haven't actually involved anyone watching me while giving the specimen. If they did, I might feel a hit to my dignity. Seems no different than the urine sample at the doctor's office to me. Me, a cup, a closed bathroom (with funny colored toilet water).
Like I said, you don't have to interview or accept jobs where this is a pre-qual, that's up to you.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
But we don't have the US Constitution, so obviously we still suck. Sorry. You're still the most wonderful fucking country in the world. No, forget that, you *are* the entirety of the developed world.
HHOS
Martin
It is kinda scary how much information a company can pull up on you. When I used to work for a bank, I had the occasion to fix Auditing's background-check software. Typing in someone's name and/or SSN to this database polls all the credit bureaus, driving records, police records, and other vital statistics. The security dude is given a neat little package containing your entire dossier, including things like photos if you have them on file.
I'm all for banks and other "high loss potential" organizations checking on a prospecitive employee or account-holder's past, but what does scare me is the possibility for identity theft, especially with all those credit card promos being mailed out with your SSN printed on them! I get at least a few a week, and they go right into the shredder.
Another side note from the Big Brother department: I was on a business trip with a co-worker of mine, and we went to rent a car. The counter clerk took his driver's license and credit card (I don't like to drive if I don't have to...) and two minutes later, said "Sorry, sir. We're not renting to you." Turns out he had recently "earned" two speeding tickets within six months. Luckily, my driving record is pretty good, so we weren't that stuck...it was just wierd that all the public information bureaus are so well-connected.
And oh yes, $DEITY help you if you have a piece of credit information on your credit report that isn't yours. I'm still fighting the AT&T Universal card. I cancelled my card over three years ago, and a mysterious $1000 charge showed up a month after. Now they claim I never paid it, and the amount went to a collection agency. I've never heard from anyone. They refuse to remove it, and so I'm stuck for seven years with this stupid error.
I'll piss into a cup. If my future boss will hold it. Across the room. In his/her mouth.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Of course, if said friend really wants this job, then as another poster has said, "prove" that she didn't do it and hope for the best.
Doesn't anybody read the damn articles anymore? If you clicked the "Read More..." link, instead of blindly posting, you would have seen that she indeed DID get her job back, after going to the county courthouse and proving her innocence.
For god's sake, check your stories.
Karma: Dyn-o-mite!(mostly affected by Jimmy Walker reading your comments)
Amphigory plans to name all his children with the same initials, and then wrote: "I plan to teach ALL of my kids to give only their initials, and to make up a social security number whenever they are asked."
If you actually carry out this plan, you're putting your kids lives at risk. Bad credit or even mistaken felony records may impact one's lifestyle, but if medical records get mixed up, that could be a matter of life and death.
Think about all the news stories out there about people falling ill or dying from incorrect prescriptions, doctors' performing the wrong operation, and so forth. Now, multiply that by the risk that the charts the doctors are looking at might have other peoples' information.
Doctors could easily misinterpret one child's symptoms, because the diagnosis was based on elements from another child's medical history. I've been in QE and see countless ways this could go wrong. Transfusions of the wrong bloodtype, Incorrect prescriptions, unneccessary surgery...
Do you REALLY want to do this to your kids?
First, there's the one that happened to me. For various reasons, my car is currently registered in my dad's name. I live in Rochester, NY; he lives in Rome (about a 2.5-hour drive away). One of my plates fell off of my car. I went to the DMV to turn in my other plate, and was told that I couldn't get new ones because the car was in his name. This, in a city heavily populated by college students who frequently have such arrangements with their parents. *grr* I have the same last name, I live here, and apparently even CALLING my dad for permission was not an acceptable option.
The one that my friend's going through is a bit more complex. He bought a used Firebird, got in an accident with it (not his fault), and bought a used van. He switched the car registration from the Firebird to the van, and eventually ended up selling the van and switching the registration back again. Apparently, his insurance company had no record of this, insured BOTH the Firebird and the van, and then cancelled his account for non-payment. Of course, since he was getting his mail at a PO box and had during this time cancelled it and filed a change-of-address (which the insurance co. claims they never received), he never got the bills -- even though all the REST of his mail is being forwarded just fine.
The insurance company won't reinstate him now, either. (Idiots.) He had no clue about any of this until he got a nasty notice from the DMV saying "You're driving without insurance -- either provide proof of insurance or turn your plates in within 10 days, or we're suspending your license."
Then, there's my little fight with the electric company. I came home a few weeks ago to a nasty notice on bright yellow paper taped to my door saying that my electric service was going to be turned off for nonpayment of about $850. I called and all I could get was "There must be some mistake, miss; our accounts show that you are paid in full." I called the public service commission (so-called) to complain, was told "this is the emergency number, you need to call complaints," and spent three days trying to call from work (where I share a phone with five other people) and getting stuck on hold for 10 minutes at a time and/or busy signals. All THEY could tell me when I finally got a human is "there must be some mistake." Yeah, and I want that in WRITING. *grrrr*
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Good God Man!
You really intend to do this to your children?
You are going to ruin their lives as an snub to the people who are making your life misurable?
If any one of them (or you, or your mother, or some other unlucky stranger) gets bad credit or a felony record, ALL OF THEM WILL SUFFER THE SAME WAY YOU ARE! This won't fix things, it will only make it worse.
Deal with your own problems and get your children as far away from it as possible. (That is unless you really hate them and want them to suffer all the same anguish that you are suffering, and possibly more)
Spite is one thing.
Collateral dammage is another.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Oh my God it's a G.I. Joe action figure gun! Expel him! (yes this happened).
That's why you set limits (hopefully intelligent ones) on crime. So what you are essentially saying is if you take a pen from work then you should be locked away in prison with murders and rapists. And it's a vast difference between the theft of a shirt and the theft of a Mustang.
Partially true. This guy made it all the way out of the United States (with his partner and the money) and was gone for months. He left behind his wife of fifteen years and their children. He was for all intents and purposes home free. Then he decided that he wanted to see Disneyworld. Some employee in his motel recognized his face and turned him in. So essentially he was smart enough to get away but made a error in going to Disneyworld. I mean if you want to go to the Magic Kingdom that bad why not just go to EuroDisney? As a side note him and his partner managed to spend over two million in the time they were free.
I would think that a smart person would realize how hard it would be to steal the money and get away with it and not do it then someone who is just marginally intelligent and did steal and got caught later. After all why hire someone who is going to rip you off if, even if you get your goods back, when it's going to cause really bad press and higher insurance for you?
Y'see, *this* is why the EU has been unhappy about data transfers to the US - we have stringent data protection legislation.
In the UK (whose implementation I know best), data holders *must*
Therefore, you can view your credit history as disclosed to financial companies by writing to Equifax or Experian (the 2 big credit reference agencies) with a £2 cheque, and challenge any erroneous info they hold about you.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
But most of the time it does mean that.
I don't say people should be thrown in jail and the key thrown away after the first offense, but what gets my angry is when people have 60 some *convictions* in a short time, and are still getting out.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
I don't think you can waive rights like that, can you? I mean, if somebody has me agree that I will not sue them if they attack me, and then sneaks into my house and attacks me, then does their private contract really overrule federal law???
IANAL but...
They would certainly be able to waive harm caused by unintentional errors. The example you give would obviously be intentional, and I expect unless that it is explicitly identified in the contract, they would be liable.
The waiver of unintentional harm wouldn't necessarily prevent the questioner's friend from suing altogether, but it would seriously shift the burden of proof on to them to prove that the security firm either knowingly made a mistake, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Another possible defndant would be the hiring firm, if they were given information from the security firm that was ambiguous, and then chose to interpret as negative for the job applicant, especially if they failed to combine it with any additional information they had. (for example the security firm reports that a Jane Smith was in prison for a felony from 1997-1998, and the employer has already verified a reference that the Jane Smith applying for the job was indeed working at company x, during that same period.
Bottom line answer to the original question - unless the employer, or security firm did something egregious, your friend likely did waive the right to sue either the employer or the security firm (as the employers agent in any case, if not directly), when they consented to take the job pursuant to a security check.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
"We must move forwards not backwards, upwards not forwards, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom." - Kodos
Bitchslapped? Give Rob a bitchslap from bitchslapped.com.
Moderate this up! I command you!
Bitchslapped? Give Rob a bitchslap from bitchslapped.com.
IANAL but I recall reading an article just this week warning employers that they are liable for the "malpractice" of the independently contracted security investigators.
Of course, litigation (or threats of litigation) doesn't exactly endear you to your new employer...
This message composed using 100% recycled electrons.
Now whenever he gets mass mail at work addressed to Mrs. Ashley Hill, it saves him the trouble of opening it.
Wah!
Reporting damaging information about a person you are supposed to investigate, which information is provably not true is prima facie evidence of negligence in conducting the investigation.
--
This is not my sandwich.
I propose a dignity fee, and I'm going to start issuing this challenge to prospective employers: you may test my urine for the presence of drugs once per month on one condition: if the drug test returns a negative result, I shall be awarded a dignity fee of one thousand dollars and two days paid vacation.
The only drug policies I have ever worked under stated that the company could only test me if they had "reasonable suspicion" that I was abusing drugs, and that said abuse was adversely affecting my job performance or work environment. Even in such a "permissive" environment I have seen managers use drug testing as a humiliation/coercion tactic to keep uppity employees in line. Having a dignity fee policy in place would help prevent such things from happening in the future.
--
This is not my sandwich.
I'm curious - is she able to vote, hold public office, or buy a gun?
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
i think in arkansas it's a felony if you're going over twice the posted limit... i know this because i dated a girl who had a felony and this was it. i was a little disappointed... because it was so trivial..i would have prefered a criminal mastermind who would be my sugarmomma...
"Mmmmmmm. Fast Criminal Arkansas Sugarmomma."
Why, it's every mans dream!
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
Assuming, of course, that Mr. Taco doesn't sexually molest nano-monkeys. (I, by the way, feel confident in making that assumption.)
We here at the Society for the Prevention of Nano-Monkey Molestation do not share your confidence. We will be looking into this matter.
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
>I want to see whatever information a company has >on me, whenever I want to.
>If some company, government organization, or >otherwise has information on or about me, it >should be my right to see it whenever I wish. >Nobody has the right to me except me.
The problem with this strategy is that there are so many agencies, corporations, departments, subdepartments, subsubdepartments, etc. that collect information on you. Finding all these organizations is a mindnumbing task... convincing these companies to disclose what information they have in their database about you will be an even bigger task (Because of the amount paperwork that will need to be filled out).
The company that collects information on you should be required to notify the person in writing whenever they collect the information. After all, it's my identity that they are playing with... and I should have the right to know what they say about me, be it what-they-think-is-my-criminal records, credit history, etc.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
I guess I would request the specfics of the charge, and then get a letter from the county clerk in the district where the felony occured. Then show that to the employer, expressing the oppropriate degree of concern about their hiring practices. With a little luck they might even raise their opinon about your friend.
My name is not spam, it's patrick
Home Automation & Linux -- now I know I'm a geek
What if she tricked you into beleiving she is such a nice person...
[hint: sue her]
---
giving your middle initial to the phone company may not be enough. I once got into all kinds of trouble with my then-girlfriend when some *other* girl called and left a message on our answering machine cancelling the lunch date she had with me. The problem was that she had the date with the OTHER L.A. Brown in town, not me. Took me a week to get my girlfriend cooled off.
I don't have much to add here, I just want to point out most universities seem to be using SSN's as student identification numbers now.
I'm not sure what the law states on this point, but universities in general seem increasingly afraid to risk being sued or losing corporate sponsors. In this light it's hard to see universities opening themselves to lawsuits by every single one of their students.
The company could even be held responcible. It would depend on whether or not they had her SSN at the time. It would seem a check on her SSN would have prevented the problem. Since she was eventually hired, I, personally, would not sue the company.
;) I think Gates might raise eyebrows.
She could also change her name?
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Naah. Statistically, you're a lot greater of a risk, considering that MANY folks who commit a felony don't commit just one.
And it's very relevant in numerous cases -- like having an ex-forger with multiple convictions work at a bank or government office is simply STUPID. Period. Complete lack of due dilligence and all that.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
They had their opportunity -- and blew it.
The EEOC will help folks who CANNOT CHANGE the attributes in question, like race, age, sex and so forth. But felons can hardly disclaim responsibility for their behavior.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Yeah to me that seems like a stupid thing to miss, and yes if that was the failure she should be entitled to compensation.
yea. sometimes you gotta wonder how they know this stuff
right, and that was my point about security guards and airline pilots. I could realyl care less if the guy next to me is tripping face or rolling or dusted; if he's writing good code, thats none of my business.
I work for a university doing research on drug and alcohol abuse (yeah, I know, really, really exciting). One of the projects we are currently working on is finding people that have gone through substance abuse treatment programs and signed one hundred million forms allowing us to interview them repeatedly and the look for them in other databases. We are doing this to determine the "reliability" of self-report (i.e. did they tell us the truth when they said they didn't get arrested anytime in the past year?) and determine "cost savings" to the state. This means that I have 500 drug users that have given me their name, social security number, date of birth, gender (which seems to be the most incorrect), and ethnicity. With this information I have the envious task of "finding" them in medical records, arrest records, welfare records, and death records (for those that fail to show up for their follow-up surveys). None of these databases have the same information. Medical records have either social security number (ssn) or insurance card number in the ssn field, but no names. Arrest records have names and ssns, but several (i.e. 80%) have mulitple names and ssns for the same individual. Welfare refuses to give us the information so we have to give them our people with a bunch of bogus people thrown in (this according to theory protects the indenties of the true drug users) and let them do the matches for us. The big problem is that they only take exact matches based on ssn. If it doesn't match we don't get them. I link databases using multiple variables (anything that shows up in both databases) and weight the matches based on score. If all fields match, I'm done. If only some fields match I have to start checking to see whats different. If some are "typo" matches (off by one errors) then I have to hand check each of those for accuracy. I do this because its part of a research grant that is interesting to me, frustrating, but interesting. The people doing background checks and the like do it because its a job, they aren't going to hand check anything. If anything matches I'm sure they take it. For example, I recently found out that I've become a 55 year old woman with a bad credit history according to credit agencies. We have the same month and day of birth, and the same first name. I got cheated somewhere, if I'm that old I should get to be a grandma by now, not the mother of a kindergartener. Sigh....
Sorry for the length. Happened to go on a rant.
*Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics*
That's interesting. I wonder what sort of public official or public figure this woman is, then? I mean, if she were a private person, it would only be necessary to prove negligence in most states.
Incidentally, you may want to research the courts' interpretation of "malice" further - a mistake as the result of "reckless disregard" of the truth of the statement is malicious.
Whether this case would really make sense in terms of libel or slander, I would personally be appalled if my local paper ran a piece saying "Dallas resident Chris Koeberle has been convicted of arson in the November fire that destroyed his Arizona home" when it was actually the Arizona Chris Koeberle (not that there is such a Chris Koeberle, or that if there is, he is a convicted arsonist) who was convicted. I would think that would be actionable if the extent of their fact checking was making sure that Chris and I had the same name.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
Well, you can't waive your right to sue over unspecified future wrongs. So presumably they could have you sign a document saying, "I will not sue you if you claim that I am a convicted felon, despite the fact that I am not." But if they had you sign a document saying, "I will not sue you based on your claims about me in the background report," then that document would be legally meaningless in the U.S. - because you cannot possibly be aware of the depths to which they might sink. Same reason waivers of liability for boat rentals are legally meaningless - most of them, if taken as valid, would prevent civil liability even if the person who rented you the boat were convicted of your murder.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
Again - malice only necessarily applies to public figures.
If the person referenced in this case is not famous, and is not a public official, malice is not necessarily relevant, depending on state law.
You are correct that I am assuming that evidence MAY exist which would show that this was reckless, because you initially claimed that in any case, this was not malicious.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
Bleah.
I don't see why they would have to CONSISTENTLY behave recklessly in order to EVER behave recklessly.
But that aside, you claimed that because malice was necessary, no mistake was libelous, and that's just not true. And we're CLEARLY not talking about this case, ANYWAY, because THIS WOMAN IS PROBABLY NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR CHER.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
It's all very well & good if the company you've applied for the job with tells you they can't hire you because your record check spat up something unsightly - you can at least attempt to get it sorted out.
Meanwhile, for those of us who work in fields where there are usually more qualified applicants than positions, you frequently don't hear back why you didn't get the job. I've heard at least one horror story involving some poor sod who couldn't get a job for several years before some potential employer mentioned that his rap sheet included a murder commmited by someone else (sorry, too lazy to even find a referring url, let alone try to verify it : )..
Then there's the social factor - some young educated white kid comes in & applies for a coding job, but huh, what do you know - he seems to have a pile of drug convicitions. Well hell, we need the coder badly, lets at least ask him about it. Scenario 2: some middle aged black guy comes in for a labouring job (along with thirty others), but huh, what do you know - he seems to have a pile of drug convictions. Oh well, hire one of the other thirty. And off our guy goes, wondering why he just can't seem to get a hire lately.
My wife's family hade an interesting identity crisis. For a period of a year my mother in law shared the same name and the same address as her sister in law. (ie Her brother married a woman with the same first two names). This resulted in two women with the same name at the same address. This caused many problems with government departments, such as.
Electoral rolls. In Australia it is compulsory to enroll, but it is illegal to register more than one or to vote more than once. The electoral roll only looks at names and addresses.
Jury duty. Runs on the same system. Which one has to go to court?
There were a few more but confusion reigned supreme until my mother in law married!
You don't sue for punitive damages; you just sue, and the court ultimately decides the compensatory/punitive damages.
In this case, a lot more would have to be proven before punitive damages were considered. Punitive damages are used to punish a defendant for extremely inappropriate actions.
Just inadvertently mixing up background information on someone isn't "extremely inapproprate" - there would have to be more to it than that. Suppose 99.99% of things sent over US mail make it to their destination - does that mean I can expect to sue 'em and get punitive damages if I my bill payment happens to fall in the other 0.01%? Probably not.
Slashdot is entertaining like pro wrestling is entertaining
Records Research via Google's Open Directory Project pages.
How to Download YouTube Videos
As Heinlein pointed out in Friday, it is the duty of all citizens in this day and age to confuse computers. If you can't avoid a tax, pay too much. Transpose digits. Anything to make information mining difficult.
I think that this was originally in one of John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee novels...
IAAUKIPLNAEL=Im a UK IP lawyer not an employment lawyer: So I cant say what the strict
;) ....)
position is in relation to employment law. As far as false data records go, under the
Data Protection Act you can get details of the records held on you (in most circumstances)
and get errors rectified as of right.
Im not sure if there is an equivalent US statute.
If the company doing the security check is distinct from that providing the erroneous
record they are likely to be bullet proof, unless they've been negligent and I doubt
if any court would hold that they should double or triple check their sources (who knows tho').
As far as the Data provider goes, they may have a problem. One could argue
defamation (libel or slander). Under UK law providing the information to a security company would
amount to publication, contrary to another thread, since one need publish only to a
third party (the security company) not the World. Failing that there once could sue for slander.
Failing either of those one could sue for malicious falsehood -the kissing cousin of defamation.
Oddly, malicious falsehood needs only negligence not malice and here the basis of damages would be financial
loss rather than loss reputation. Specifically loss of opportunity to get a paid job
(or salary if one was sacked).
Whether this would actually work against the record provider I dont know. I think there have been
UK cases but I cant recall the outcome - I think they failed but Im not sure on what grounds i.e. I
dont know if it was said there was no grounds for alleging libel. I certainly think it could
apply on pure juristic theory. If any UK readers are interested email me and I'll try to find out.
(Linux users get free advice Windoze users pay
-he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
journal
At least sloppy code should result in predictable and repetetive errors. Mixups like these occur due to human error, bad data entry, etc...
when you do get incorrect information on your record like this. The reason is, because it's so hard to fix these errors, since the information usually gets spread through tons and tons of databases.
Kind of like telemarketers, they get your info and it's hard to tell them to remove it, because chances are they've already sold it to every other telemarketer.
A friend of mine had a similar experience when applying for a student visa to the US.
One of the questions they ask you is whether or not you've ever applied for permanent resident status (Green Card) in the US. He answered "No". It turns out that when he was about 2, his father had applied for a Green Card and had included his name on the application.
The immigration official said "We're prone to believe you're predisposed to lying", while my friend stared at her gawkishly trying to figure out what she was saying.
(He did get his visa eventually)
Mmmm.. Donuts
.. and it's a pain in the ass when it does. Someone stole my identity, issued a bunch of credit cards in my name, opened a bank account, etc. It took me forever to fix it.
What pissed me off most was Citibank which claimed they had given me a Home Improvement loan. There was no home to show for it (I don't own one), and the address to which they sent the check was not mine. I have a Citibank credit card and they had my address, picture and signature on file at the time.
The law requires them to respond within 30 days. Citibank got around this by saying they would respond after I called their fraud department and then later claiming I had never called. It got cleared up eventually, but I couldn't open a new bank account for several months after I had moved to a new city.
Another thing that annoyed me was the fact that most agencies ask you to give them a copy of a police report you filed before they will take a disputed claim off your record. I had recently moved then and the fraud was committed while I lived in LA and the local police refused to let me file a complaint saying I had to file it in LA.
Mmmm.. Donuts
- "Dowod osobisty", a small government-issued booklet containing photo, name, date of birth, maritial status (with maiden name if appropriate), registered children, and some other info (like officially registered permanent residence). It has a serial number. This is issued when you reach 18 (maturity)
- everybody is issued a PESEL number (Common Electronical System of People/Population Identification - centralized government files). Access to PESEL databases is allowed only to governement above voivoidship (province) level.
- everybody who earns anything is issued NIP (Tax identification Number). This is used on commercial contracts, tax forms and so on. If you misspel your NIP, you get in deep excrement.
There are some laws reducing requirements of ID. You are forced by law to show your 'dowod osobisty' only to police and governement officials. No one else may require you to show it (I often show my "Press" ID - it contains only my name, photo and info on the small magazine I cooperate with). To avoid mistakes, people are identified in the files by first names of their parents like "Jan [this is MALE name] Kowalski, son of Roman and Barbara". This reduces risk of mistake. Furthermore, there is law against 'data hoarding' - if an private institution gathers any data on you, you can go to them and say - I want you to delete all your data on me (of course if you do this at the bank, they drop you as a client) and they are obliged by law to do so.So, in general I'd say that the situation is slightly better - there is unified system of ID (PESEL) at least.
Alex
--
Notice my screen name? Do _YOU_ as a RAH fan think it's real?
Simon Jester was here
I've been hired many times, and never have I given my SSN out during the interview process. Only once I'd been offered and had accepted the job and started filling out paperwork was I ever asked for it. So, assuming the check occurred prior to her actually being hired, the company probably didn't have her SSN.
I am a man of const int sorrows
I believe it used to be standard policy to photograph everyone going in and out of the Soviet Embassy. Think about it, if you're a spy you got to meet with your contacts somehow.
My father receives notification of a debt that he 'owes' about every 8 years. Some guy in Alberta with the same name owes it, and the collection agencies that are hired finds my father, (who owns his own business and so is easy to find) and tells him that they owe them money.
It stopped at the end of the eighties but it was quite annoying to have to prove who you are to get people to stop harrassing you.. and collection agency people are just mean to begin with, they don't wait for explanantions.
I think people are just lazy and willing to assume the worst.
When I applied for a job at Sprint PCS their fine print made it clear (I asked to be sure.) that if the background check people f'ed up they were not responsible. So remember: ALWAYS READ THE FINE PRINT!
We have a law here in the UK which basically, as far as I know, embodies the points that you have brought up. It's called the Data Protection Act. I'm not sure what its contraints and limitations are though.
Companies that wish to store information about individuals have to register first, and individuals can demand to view all information held by a company about them, for a small administrative charge (maybe five pounds).
--
Ben.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
I failed to mention that this only has to do with credit reports and not background checks .. but i figured it was relevant in that the article in consumer reports offered information that may be useful to both credit checks and background checks ..
I am currently in Australia and am in the process of applying for a job in the US. Hopefully I will be based in Australia, but official employed by the company through the US, not their Australian arm.
Part of the process is that a background check will be run. Personally, I have a very clean background (don't we all say that :) The problem is one of my cousins is somewhat of a bad apple. He has the same surname and a very similar first name. Based on the comments read here, I am somewhat worried...
Let's see how much I have to fight this one :(
All thefts should be a felony. Don't bother putting a $$$ amount on it. It doesn't matter whether it's 5 cents or 5 million dollars, it's still taking something that isn't yours.
it seems harsh to ruin some stupid kids record because he tried to steal a Tommy Hilfiger shirt.
I'll lay off on the Tommy flames that other people seem to have beaten me to. :) All I've got to say is that one day it's T-shirts, the next it's Ford Mustangs.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
At least you know what he was doing with the jewelry.
In Wisconsin (and Illinois) you can request a jury trial for speeding ticket cases, but no one ever does. You actually are probably at a disadvantage with a jury; they'll be way too pissed at you for dragging them out of their lives and into jury duty. And for what? So you can save $100 and a few crummy points on your license? They'll hang you quicker than the judge will. IIRC, you have to pay an additional fee to get a jury, too, though it's almost a trivial amount.
Mark
I have never been arrested and never been to jail. I find the idea of background checks revolting,I find it sad when employers are more interested in what some one else has to say about me that what I might have to say. Example I have a Bachlors degree and a DD-214 (Military Discharge , Honarable)Did my last two employeers care about what college I went to or did I get a Honarable discharge NO they want to know what my credits like or if I have ever been arrested.Trying to get a new job is sometimes like going to jail except ,for an employer you have to prove your innocence .
Sometimes I wonder why I ever bothered to transplant my limey ass from the far side of the Atlantic to the USA. (Actually untrue, it was less hassle to move me here than to move my wife there, plus you guys value your geeks a little higher than my countrymen do!) Doesnt it ever strike you as odd that the country within which the internet was born and which spawned many of the technological innovations of the last 100 years is lagging behind when it comes to common sense with this technology? In my jobs back in the UK I had to deal with a piece of legislation called the Data Protection Act.. It controls what companies can do with "personal information" - defined as being any information relating to an identifiable living individual - stored on a "computer". If you want to do anything except trivial stuff like maintaining a contacts addressbook you have to register what information you are storing and why. You must provide a complete transcript to the person it relates to on demand and may not charge more for that service than a nominal fee (equivalent to about $15) - theres some exceptions to this but not many. You are required to take steps to ensure the info is accurate and must correct it immediately if it should prove otherwise. You may not use the info for other purposes than those for which you collected it. (cant sell the addresses or phone numbers to marketers, for instance :) ) You may not disclose the information to anyone not authorised to have it under the terms of your registration. Break these rules and you're in serious trouble. ITs not a civil matter its a criminal offence. Company directors and other corporate officers end up looking at jail time and corporate fines large enough to make even large corporations wince.
Bet it will be only in my grandkids lifetime that this basic protection is available to folks in the USA though.
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
I had a
After your father found out the truth about his mom, did they accept him to the new job, or they still believed he lied?
-- The ballad of arrivederci
So the gist of this story is that you guys are now complaining that the government doesn't know enough about you.
t
At one point, I was working as a contractor with the Air Force. I was getting married and I went the their legal office ("free advice"). I was told my wife needed a 3 month background check because she was a foreign national. I basically told them "HELL NO!" and went to the embassy and was married within a few days.
The funny thing is that even though I was the lead administrator for all the servers, I don't have any sort of security clearance that I know of and far as they know I could have been a convicted felon and a terrorist since I was never asked questions when I was hired.
It also seems as if the contract itself was done and maintained ilegally (personal service contracts are not permitted).
I suppose that brings up the question of whether or not the person signed anything before a check was performed. Companys can do background checks on potential employees without the person's consent, usually through a third party agency. My guess is that the person did not sign away any rights, and therefore is probably able to sue the company that performed the check.
A couple of things on that one... First, you don't have to plead guilty to a speeding ticket. You can also plead "No contest" which means you are paying the ticket, even though you don't admit guilt. Also, when you get to the felony point of speeding, you HAVE to show up in court. You no longer have a choice to just pay the ticket and move on. (Well, at least that is true in Indiana, I am assuming other states are the same).
There are some jobs that require drug testing, for a very good reason. One that comes to mind would be Bus/Cab/Limo/Truck driver. Would you really want a stoned hippie to be driving you around town? Would you want a crack fiend driving a 20 ton truck towards you? I think not.
No, private organizations can not call a Police department or FBI and ask for a background check on a person, only law enforcement has the right to run a background check on a person. But certain specific private organizations (private security firms and bounty hunters) are allowed access to varying amounts of information under certain circumstances. Usually while they can not check on a specific individual they can buy a partial copy of an entire database from an individual department. This incomplete database is traded and appended with other private companies' databases in a kind of corporate pokemon game. Then a third company can ask one of these 'privileged' companies for information on a specific individual in a roundabout way. They say we don't want Walter Midy if, he committed a felony, used drugs, has a chronic health condition, cheated on his taxes, has been institutionalized, etc... The privileged company can answer back, "Walter Midy checks out" or "Walter Midy failed one of your criteria". In some cases they are allowed to be a bit more specific and say "Walter Midy has been institutionalized". It's all done within the law of course. Note also that these databases contain more than just criminal activities, they can have records on purchases, medical information, and who knows what. Note also that while the internet could aid in these transfers of information most companies are still using paper and keyboards which are Much more prone to inaccuracy. So remember that next time your kongressman tries to weasel votes out of the public by supporting a "New and Improved Internet Privacy Law", better ask him if it applies to paper, ink and private databases of information.
She probably checked that little box on the aplication that said "I want a copy of the background report" Without that she would have never known why. A typo by a temporyary employ for a company 20 times removed from the one doing background can destory multiple lives. And the only defense is asking for a copy of a background report on the aplication. The person who made the error can be held resonsible for the error only. Chances are that person will find another job before the mistake makes its mark. Uknowingly buying false information is not a crime, selling that information is not, believing it is not. However, while no crime was commited that doesn't mean you wouldn't win a civil suit.
IMHO, she should go after the company that performed the investigation. I could be wrong, but I doubt that her application provided protection for the investigative service. If the investigator missed such easy details as date of birth and SSN, how thorough can they be? Sue them for negligence and recoup the lost wages. Unless her company performed the check themselves, it's none of their business and they shouldn't be offended.
She could try contacting the ACLU maybe they have experience with this sort of thing.
I would still have had them clear that up because that mistake can come back to haunt me in some unexpected way.
I never want to think I benefitted from a problem in the system that I will in the next minute be screaming about if it had gone against me. No way man. That's bad ju ju. Just my opinion.
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
1: To form characters, letters, or words on a surface
2: To form the letters or the words of
3: To put down on paper
4: To make up and set down for others to read
5: To write a letter to
6: To communicate by letter
Since electronic records must be displayed at some point they are writing in senses 1,2, and 4. Taken more literaly, the bits on a disk are 'characters' on a 'surface'. Electronic Background Checks would be libel if they were defametory (gramtically; not necesarily legaly).
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
But if I do that, will Harry Tuttle still come and fix my plumbing?
--
Off-topic, but I read the above as "...take yourself to court and get yourself restrained."
I was thinking you were talking about suing yourself for having a criminal record. I had to read it four times before it finally sunk in.
Yes, I am dense.
this is a sig.
Of course this all is part of the larger issue of a situation where an innocent person is wrongly accussed of something. What is their recourse? Sometimes even when things are cleared up, others' impressions of the person will remain tainted.
Like everyone else here, IANAL. It has also been a long time since I temporarily fell from grace and went to B-school for an MBA. Nonetheless, I do recall something about relative power and control bearing on the validity of a release from liability. The upshot was that if the person or entity requires you to sign something and you cannot engage in the activity (particularly if it is related to your livelihood, like a job) without signing then your signature is presumed by the court to have been under duress. That means a round of pleadings and lawyer-type paper, but not a binding release from liability.
Only the lawyers win.
Bill Gates is a communist -- he's just more equal than the rest of us.
Maybe you missed something very important: Nothing much happened. A mistake was made, and it was corrected. She could sue, but look at the potential consequences:
Mistakes happen. A mistake was made, it was corrected, and the consequences weren't very severe. Yes she probably has standing to sue in small claims court, but she has to make a decision about the potential costs vs. benefits of doing so, and one of the factors she should consider is the budding relationship she has with her new employer.
One thing she could possibly do is hire a lawyer to write a nastygram. She may get some money out of that, but if they do nothing, I think she should just leave it.
As for this being the cause of things going to crap in this country, notice I didn't say that all cases like this should be ignored, just the ones where nothing much happened. If you actually sustain some significant hurt, financial or otherwise, then you should persue it, but considering the cost of action and then choosing to let the piddling shit lie does not represent a slippery slope.
pornking
Incidentally, you may want to research the courts' interpretation of "malice" further - a mistake as the result of "reckless disregard" of the truth of the statement is malicious.
If the company that did the background check recklessly disregarded the truth, they would probably not be in the business of doing background checks for very long. In addition, if they corrected the error when presented with evidence, then I doubt that "reckless disregard" would apply. The standard for proving libel and slander is fairly high.
pornking
Unless her company performed the check themselves, it's none of their business and they shouldn't be offended.
It may not be any of her companies business, but she will probably have to call representatives of the company as witnesses. In terms of lost work on the part of the employees, the company could very easily stand to lose more than she stands to make.
pornking
I don't see why they would have to CONSISTENTLY behave recklessly in order to EVER behave recklessly.
But that aside, you claimed that because malice was necessary, no mistake was libelous, and that's just not true. And we're CLEARLY not talking about this case, ANYWAY, because THIS WOMAN IS PROBABLY NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR CHER.
Ok, a document is libelous if it was created with a reckless disregard for the truth. That was a mistake on my part. Now, let us discuss the matter of whether the facts in this situation constitute reckless disregard.
Assuming that the company which did the background check makes a business of doing background checks, it seems to me that no matter what safeguards they put in place, there will always be a few errors. Just as a matter of common sense, I think that in order for the woman to prove that reckless disregard has taken place, she must demonstrate one of the following two scenarios:
So no, they don't have to consistently behave recklessly in order to ever behave recklessly. However, you seem to be assuming the existence of evidence you have heard nothing about. Also, you are assuming the existence of evidence that could be very difficult and expensive to obtain. That's quite a bit of assumption for a week's wages.
Finally, throughout the course of this discussion, I have in fact been talking about this case. I'm a little confused by your references to the president and to Cher. I'm also a little confused about why you felt the need to shout them in my ear.
pornking
As should be well know, birthdate collision are to be expected. Citizen ID #s, US SSN and the like, do have cases of several people having the same number although governments are trying to fix such cases. So there's currently no simple way to make oneself unique from the standpoint of information gathering or reporting.This has disadvatages and advatages. Note that some companies will perform background checks even if they are not to do so without your OK. I know someone why had a problem similar to that described here, who had a good interview and then got a "we're not interested in you" phoe call. Turned out that the company had done a background check, on the sly and using a fly-by-night company to do the check. Libel might be an interesting tack to take, especially given that comapnies often end up sharing information of the "avoid this person" sort (again, under the table).
In this day and age, in our litigous society, it is possible, even likely, that the company would give no reason (let's say that they wouldn't make an offer until after the check was completed). Otherwise qualified candidates have no idea that they were rejected based on innaccurate information and there's no "Fair Credit Reporting Act" type of legislation (creditors are required to report why you were reject for credit).
To complete the paranoia, it isn't limited to criminal records. Companies routinely do plain old credit and medical background checks. They are not required to report these findings, or even let you rebut them.
You're pretty much screwed. This type of problem can follow you around for years before anyone notices that anything's wrong.
If you try to get a job at the CIA, they do an "complete and though" background check. Also they give you a polograph (lie detector) test...
On the up side they do have a LOT of posistions open for System Admins, Programmers, Enginners, Computer Sceinists, and other geek related professions. They are supose to pay really nice also. [they do support and maintain a alot of NT and Microsoft products there, so bewarned]
But they can and do deny people from working there if there background is "shady" (ie: felonies, stealing hard drives with NEST data from La Mos, member of the KGB)
Anyone work there? After I get some expeirnce and some education I want to apply there just for the fun of it. It could be a cool job, I want to get standard issuse CIA black sunglass, and ear peice and be able to say to people "Stand back, this is a job for the CIA" then call all my CIA co-workers to fit gang members like in the Michael Jackson video...
Come back to the orignal point I made "Background checks are fine by me"
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
What really bugs me about this is that in some states, "Homosexual conduct" is still considered a felony, and thus you can be denied employment because you are gay. Chason
--------
--------
Contrary to popular belief, stupidity does have its limits. It is a good thing, then, that our race is
Ever since we've been trying to figure out if they failed her because she didn't have a personality or because she had one. :)
The answer to this is to make companies responsible for their actions. At present a company that makes mistakes has to be grossly inept in its activities to face any repurcutions for its mistakes. Now I understand that data can fall victim to file corruption, but I also know that there are many solutions to counter act file corruption. Checksums and/or shadow set data bases are all viable options to keep data viable.
But having done DB admin I know that there is no excuse for poorly stored or entered data. Except for poor programming or bad data entry. Both of these fall to the responsibility of the company to keep its employees or vendors up to snuff to be able to do a job properly.
But as I have said a couple of times before nothing will be done about anything like this unless plain old people like you and me bring it up to local and national governments.
Spin it around from a different perspective. If you were the government (or some other big brother type agency), would you want people to be able to fight those 'mistakes' and potentially have some piece of intelligence lost forever? I mean if at one point they had that you or your family was possibly affiliated with some "bad" organization (for lack of a better term), I don't think that they would risk giving you the ability the chance to fight it and have it removed from your history forever. I think they would leave part of the record in tact or remove it at least to what you see and keep the info as a matter of "National Security".
So although the ideas are good, and perhaps one could defend oneself to a point, I think the intelligence that is/has been/will be gathered on individuals will never truely go away on certain levels, for better or worse....
I agree though that it would be interesting to find out just what information they have on me at this point, because some of the stories up in the Air Force Story section kinda make you think...
Just my 2 cents....
-- A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard
I'm sorry but if I were him, I would sue the < pick your favorite four letter explitive > out of them. I mean if the DA is too stupid to verify middle name or SSN for cripes sake, maybe he shouldn't be a DA.
I would tend to think that SSN is a better piece of information to identify an individual than anything else. Can SSN be easily 'spoofed' (for lack of a better term) thus making it invalid or not as reliable as one would think?
-- A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard
I thought it was illegal to require one's Social Security number for any reason not directly linked to Social Security. These are rights that seem to be forgotten as privacy is being violated by large companies.
On any credit application or job application I've filled out, they seem to require this information (although it has been "optional" in some instances).
Anyone know more about this?
I'm not sure what you meant by your remark, perhaps you could clarify? I just told the guy that I was going to sue him if he continued.
Eh...
Sorry about the e-mail, I was dealing with someone irate at me earlier, and thought maybe you were just, you know, throwing back at me. I seem to get that a lot.
To be honest, if it came down to it, I would much prefer to take a route of courtroom litigation against the person in question. It's really more suited to the case. Revealing my (that's read as in mine, not the clearances of all federal personel) identity/clearances in such a situation is of no consequence to national security, and I could score a nice settlement out of it.
Eh...
I lost my license in HS for that one... Quite a bit over, dragracing...
Eh...
I knew a guy once, who said something quite libelous about me, that, if it were to show up in a background check, would cost me my job (I have a security clearance, which according to federal law, the level of which is none of your business). At any rate, in order to clear me, I sign papers giving permission to the government to do whatever it takes to get the dirt on me. I fill out reams of paperwork, and I repeat this process at a certain frequency.
Now, this prick pretty much started telling lies about me to get a shot at getting into my girlfriend's pants by having her lose trust in me. As a result, a lot of people considered the possibility that he could be correct.
I told him, you can not say such things about me, it could cause a lot of problems down the road.
He said, "Just don't tell them you know me."
Ok, lets review, clearances are granted through background checks, background checks are performed by people that I will probably never meet, it doesn't matter what I say, they will find out...
Ironically enough, he actually convinced someone that he was right.
I know another story, where a man had to hire a private investigator to clear his name. I really can't give you the details, but he scored a false positive.
Eh...
She didn't lose the job - it was cleared and she was hired a week later.
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
And then what? lose 4 more weeks pay to find out that the company doing the check wins because they have more money?
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
.. Done that
As a routine check for a company O worked for, I fail a drug test. I have never taken an Illegal in my life. I sued, successfully, the drug testing company even though I signed a waivor saying I wouldn't sue.
So Sue them. If you cost them enough trouble and or money, they'll find away to double check there facts.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
is that a felony is a conviction that carries a sentance of 1 year in jail or longer. If you were a felon, you would know it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Did I sue the receptionist for 'giving me up' to the Deputy incorrectly? Of course not. I DID give her a hell of a talking to about getting her facts straight before she opened her mouth, but that was it.
I then went straight to my workstation and fired off an e-mail to my boss and our HR department to document the situation in case my company received a request to withold the child support payments from my check...
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
A company I worked for a few years ago instituted a background checking program and a "psychological mindgame test". The psychological mindgame test would throw trick questions at you such as "If every employee in the store you worked at were stealing, would you turn them in?", well not quite as obvious as it would seem the answer is "No." due to the fact that "EVERYONE" (the way it was referenced it inlcudes yourself) were stealing, then no you would not turn yourself and everyone in. Crap quesitons like that got people declined for positions. What makes matters worse, there was a time for about 2 weeks, when the system malfunctioned and failed EVERYONE who took the test no matter if you got every question right or wrong, and the applicants were denied any possibility of retaking the test, even after the screwup was detected. What about those people? Do they get any recourse?
libel = written
slander = oral
electronic background checks = neither written nor oral
But the definition for libel clearly said 'written or oral', albeit not in the primary. As for the grammar nazi's conclusion:
The post said background check, 'electronic' was assumed by the grammar nazi. If we were looking at an electronic check, the results (even if transmitted via email or a report on a web page) would be considered written. I mean, we don't say somebody didn't tell us something just because their voice was transmitted electronically over the telephone network (I'm pretty sure that would work with my wife anyway).
Oh. One more thing. A spelling nazi came by while I was reading your post and said next time you should try to clarify things instead of clearify.
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
It probably almost made some sort of sense back in the day when a felony usually meant you did something really evil, like treason, murder, arson or rape, not the stupid stuff that are felonies now... In any event, the power to take away the vote is the power to manipulate the vote. Excluding felons from voting changes the overall bias of the electorate to favor current laws. Plus they make certain things felonies to try to exclude certain segments of the population from voting.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I have seen source code for a product that was soooooo bad, I would have been embarassed. And they had the nerved to charge $100 for the source. I found 3 pages of bugs, 1 bug per line, single spaced.
Fight Spammers!
I guess you never worked at a chemical plant with highly dangerous compounds and heavy machinery. What would you care if your co-workers smoke dope?
love is just extroverted narcissism
Defamation of Charactor.
One can sue a credit reporting agencey if they misrepresent you too.
I'm a college student so my credit is fairly new. I recently requested a credit limit increase on my Discover but was promptly rejected because of a high ratio of balance to limit. I requested a copy of my report to find out that one of my mom's credit cards was on it. The balance was huge because she had just bought a new car. The balance from that one card was nine times the limit on my own cards. I requested the credit bureau to fix it and they said that they verified that it is indeed mine. I could understand if it were my dad's credit card (he and i have the same name) but it's my mom's. Anyway, i'm still having to deal with it because credit bureaus are, by definition, a pain in the arse.
and when i press my face against the frosted shower stall
I think a better idea would be for the hiring company to back pay for the time missed. They promised to hire before the report was completed; and the employee had in fact *not* misrepresented herself, as was later discovered. The search company may not be liable due to contract; but the employee is definitely *not* liable for that search company's mistake, pure and simple. Who eats it? The hiring company, that's who (should). The original offer to hire should still stand, with the original start date. If they don't like the results of search companies whose findings make them lose money, then they get a new search company, old search company makes many mistakes like this, they're out of business. God I love capitalism.
---
"of course as proven in many horror movies even if you are absolutely certain that the murderer is dead they will undoubtedly come back in a sequel. also, you would have to carry your co-workers weight in the project, and they wouldn't even be able to pitch in on pizza..."
Ergo, the death penalty is definitely not a deterrent.
joel
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
I once stopped on the side of a road somewhere to admire the view. A cop pulled up and kindly informed me that parking in that particular location (nice view, non-dangerous, no risk to anyone) was a misdemeanor.
Ayn Rand observed that a government achieves much greater power by making so many laws that virtually nobody can participate in society without breaking laws, and thus anyone can be manipulated with "you broke law X...do what we want or off to jail you go."
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
To the contrary: they're guilty of libel. When asked about someone's background, they said s/he was a criminal when that was not the case, and that falsehood had a direct financial & social effect on the job applicant. The background check company probably has a "acceptable failure rate" policy, which just re-enforces the fact that they are willing to distribute libelous information about innocent people.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
In the purely corporate world, maybe. But when an organization handles confidential information about people/places/things (e.g. credit bureaus, child exploitation issues, etc.), I'd like to think that the organization would run a criminal background check on the employees actually handling the information. That includes technology staff (especially sysadmins) who have a priveledged level of access to the information.
If they make a mistake, and report something falsely, they should be liable. Would you win if you took them to court? I don't know. ask a liar(i mean lawyer).
Every problem is a physics problem.
you were supposed to be ready to rejoin society?
Hmmm, doesn't this seem strange to y'all?
I don't know that I'd feel comfortable with a mass murderer working next to me (although they may make the latest blood and guts game a titch more realistic...)but still it's not fair to someone who has spent three/ten/twenty years in prison thinking about what they've done wrong.
regards,
Benjamin Carlson
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
I believe that for any court to allow bail forfeiture and entry of a no contest/guilty plea in any "felony" proceeding without requiring a court appearance would violate rights to due process and representation. At the very least it opens the court to the appearance of violations. Alot of court procedures are in place purposefully to document and certify that constitutional protections were in place for defendants. For example, if you were to simply plead by mail to a felony proceeding, how does the court really know you are you? How do they know you understood the nature of the charges against you? How do they know you recieved adequate legal advice? How do they know you were not intimidated and threatened by the police to plead guilty? These are all things they ascertain in court proceedings that arraign, process, try and dispose of cases. Every state is free to institute their own legal codes, however they all must be able to withstand constitutional law tests and that gives booking, arrest, accusatory and case proceedings some similarities across the country. In California misdemeanors and above require booking - which is the immediate detention and identification of the accused along with a formal notice of filed charges. There are certain exceptions where booking can be done "in the field" however and certain traffic offenses qualify. Most traffic offenses are "infractions" however. In no case ever of any felony charge will booking be done in the field or the person not be immediately detained, identified and notified of the charges against them. In fact, arraignment is generally required within 72 hours of felony charges. Additionally, to justify the felony arrest, the officer is required to file an affadavit with the court stating the reasons the felony arrest was required absent a formal arrest warrant by a judge. That is not to say that an officer cannot take information, move the case to the district atty who then reviews and determines whether charges should be pursued. If charges are pursued, the DA goes to the court and gets an arrest warrant. How do I know these things? Ten years of experience working in court, pretrial services and booking facilities in California - in a county that had 75-100,000 booking per year.
................................... Tom Tornado * Making things better since 1960 *
The point of the statute is the evasion of arrest. Speeding is the means by which the crime is being committed, not the crime itself here.
I know that North Carolina can be a tough on lawbreakers but this doesn't seem out of line.
................................... Tom Tornado * Making things better since 1960 *
If they want to know what school I graduate from I'll give them the school name and the dean's phone number... just ask ME...
------
www.chowda.net
------
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
I just wont work for people who require any information other than some business or personal references. I never agree to drug or criminal checks, and I don't even have anything to hide... on the second one that is :)
If a company can't hire me based on what I can show I can do then I dont want to work for them anyway... not like geeks are hard up for work these days...
------
www.chowda.net
------
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
absolutely! :) semantics, it's all in the words...if you look
I'm good with numbers -
1) a speeding violation can be anywhere from 1-100 miles an hour over the speed limit. how do you know I wasn't doing 67 in a 65 zone? 2)I could be going with the flow of traffic, that is moving faster than the speed limit, and the cop may give me a ticket(picked at random, it happens) 3)some cops think they are hotshit and will give a ticket for anything, thereby abusing their power (official oppression). it is the cop's job to press his case in court to prove my guilt, not my job. if he doesn't show up and I do, then what does that say about how he cares about his job and protecting the public? 4)who said any of the tickets were on city streets? they could easily have been issued on the highway, which these were. I drive the speed limit in residential neighborhoods because of children might I suggest that you think of the possibilities mentioned above before you spout off? which includes responding to this post without flaming. you flame, it just proves my point.
I'm good with numbers -
in Texas you can request a jury trial. so far I have been waiting for about 3 years to go to trial in one speeding ticket case. all the other cases took over 8 mths and when I FINALLY did get to trial, it was dismissed. 1)show up for your first hearing, declare if you're guilty or innocent and what type of trial you want (jury or judge) 2)show up to actual docket date with 25 other people on the docket (some of who have been waiting longer than you), prosecutor will say either postpone because the cop is "sick" or will dismiss 3)show up the third time and it usually is dismissed unless the prosecutor tries to postpone it again, which you then protest that it has not been prosecuted in the required amount of time(state statute in Texas) and should be dismissed
I'm good with numbers -
Pleading "no contest" or in some jurisdictions "nolo contendre" simply means that you are choosing not to contest the charges against. Typically you are then found GUILTY by the trier-of-fact after the prosecutor has stated sufficient facts on the record to support a conviction under the relevant statute. Under the law you are just as guilty as if the conviction occurred after a trial. The principal advantage to entering a nolo plea is that it usually cannot be used against you in a civil case, i.e., it is not an admission.
I had a relative of mine get a background check done, and apparently, they have almost entirely the same characteristics as a known killer.
She was informed by her work place about the results, so she went back into the police station to have more "points of identification" taken.
After comparing finger prints, it was, of course, resolved that she wasn't a killer. The police then forwarded this information to her work place, and it was resolved.
It's not uncommon for these mistakes to happen, but they are easy to fix.
PS. This is in Canada.
SSL Certificate
They don't. Very junior CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) people do all background checks, for immigration and for government security checks.
I want to see whatever information a company has on me, whenever I want to.
(...and postin' "Me too!" like some brain-dead AOL-er...) I'd also like to see laws like "If I ask to be taken off your list, then you have to do it" expanded to cover spam.
Mistakes are fined.
If there is a mistake in the information, the information holder has to prove that they are right...
This is a tough one. The burden of proof rests on Security Inc.; too many false claims will raise the cost of business too high. So anybody that makes a false claim needs to be fined. However, since Security Inc. controls the Document(tm), it would be conceivable to run it past the Ministry of Truth and make real accusations look false.
I've also been wondering if there's a way to restrict information to legitimate people. I'm kind of nervous about a 1337 d00d being able to match my e-mail to my real-world location by claiming to do a "background check". That wouldn't work on my Hotmail address, because that was allocated after I got paranoid. (I viewed the HTML source to an ad once. I haven't considered clicking on an ad or giving 100% accurate info since.) But there are enough trusting users out there to be concerned about.
-- LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
On-line names are just the grandchildren of CB handles, anyway. Nothing to get worked up over.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Possible errors:
Program Bug
Human error writing to data file
Human error reading data file
Mistaken identity
User incompetency
Hacked. =P
Either way, the problem could probably easily have been avoided. It really is a shame that this sort of thing happens all the time.
The best solution is a full e-integration. For example: my Ontario driver's licence has several failsafes. It has my license number and photo that humans can read, then it has a barcode ID for computers, and a magnetic strip for computers. This leaves little area for human error in reading the data (unless the license doesn't belong to a human).
Just my CDN$0.02...
I'm British; I have a National Insurance number, similar to a Social Security number in the US.
Simson Garfinkel's book "Database Nation" discusses this sort of error, and many others, and what can be done about it. Read it.
Im sure if she did sign anything, it would have waived the right to sue the company at which she was interviewing. However, the company they hired to do the background check could probably be liable. In their industry, not checking for something as simple as Social Security numbers to match has GOT to be negligent. After reading this, Im damn glad my name isnt John Smith or anything common...
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
What a 'third party background check' consisted of in this case was my father at home on his PC, dialing into service and downloading whatever information he wanted, based on the SSN/Name/DOB of the applicant. If my father mistyped or didn't verify he had the right person, oh well.
There's evidently a sizeable market for these software packages, meaning that Suzie the HR bimbo who had you fill out the application may be the one making the error in the background check.
-Trin.
I never indicated they they were the same. What are you smoking?
Not checking to see if her SS# matched seems like it would constitute negligence to me; considering that it's part of their job.
I've heard of similar background check mishaps ... actually at an alarming frequency.
In fact, a background mishap happened to me. I was applying and was accepted for a position at a sensitive government institution. I assumed there would be no problem in the background check as I had nothing more serious than a traffic ticket on my record ... I even pay my credit cards ontime ;)
Then all of a sudden they started grilling me and even called every one of the references I gave. After several days it quieted down and I was allowedto start work. After a month or so and becomming friends with the security staff, they told me the whole story:
Supposedly, the person who was typing my records for the background check had rested his fingers on the wrong set of keys when he started typing. So when he typed my name, something else (surprisingly still pronounceable) came out!
As to the other question, computers or automated systems are not the problem here but its the operators and employers of those systems not making sure the informatoin is being catalogued corrrectly.
Of course, the solution is to have Big Brother provide everyone with a single identifying number (aka Social Security Number) and everything to be keyed off of that. But that will not better things until we strengthen the weak and unenforced accountablility laws regarding the distrubution of incorrect personal information.
Another thought - how many felons are passing background checks for firearms?
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
hopefully a good mistake will happen when they do a credit check on me.
linux=punk rock
Try outrunning the cops, and driving recklessly. I have four felonies on my record thank you very much. I worry about my future engineering degree being virtually worthless.
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
As as already been said in dozens of postings, the company is not too blame--they must assume that the information they receive from the background-checking service is correct. Therefore, suing the company that hired her would serve no real purpose, and actually cause quite a bit of damage to her relationship with her new employer. That leaves the background-checking service to take the blame. But, I must ask myself, where did they get the information? The likelihood is that it had been mixed up somewhere along the line before it ever reached them. After all, the one thing the whirlwind digital information age has not found a cure for as yet is human error. What it comes down to is that someone mistyped data, then pressed the wrong key, and it was uploaded incorrectly to a database somewhere on (or off) the planet. About the only recourse I can come up with for her is that she hire a cyber-gumshoe (or analog, for that matter) to investigate the Security company and find out a) has this happened before? b) if so, how often? c) if this is the first time, who is/are their primary suppliers of information? and the most important question of all, d) are you a zillionaire who can afford the costs for the amount of time and effort it will take me to find this person? 'Nuff said.
FOIA applies only to federal entities, which is why you have to pay for a copy of your credit record. Private companies (the credit firms) have complete control over some of the (potentially) most damaging information that can be stored on individuals, and individuals have very few rights in determining the management of that information. "Misanthropes are people, too." GungaDan
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
They could argue all day about how it was unintentional. Most everyone believes that is unintentional. Where you will be able to get them is that they are apparently not taking enough precautions to prevent this from happening. If they are going to provide background checks, they are agreeing to provide accurate information. They therefore bear the responsibility of verifying their information. To provide information in the manner posted above is extremely careless. The confused felon had a different birthdate and Social Security number. We have computers nowadays. This stuff should be easily weeded out.
It should not have anything to do with 'intention'. It should have to do with not taking reasonable precautions to provide accurate information. The information they are providing is of a critical nature and therefore they have a legal responsibility to provide it accurately.
I believe that you CAN discriminate based on past felonies. That is why it is an allowable question on an application. They all say 'A conviction will not necessarily bar you from employment', but the only places that probably holds true is a gas station. I sure as hell wouldn't hire a convicted felon, and the government shouldn't be allowed to make me do so.
Do you want a convicted felon in your office? As far as I am concerned, there is just cause for any occupation. I don't want a convicted felon representing my company at any level.
They can't force you to give up your rights. That would leave you with these two (lousy) choices:
1. Agree not to sue us, even if we decide to make up a criminal record for you.
2. Don't sign. We won't do a background check, and your potential employer won't hire you.
They can have you sign a document saying you won't take action against them in the event that the background check turns up undesirable, but true information.
I have no idea what the law is, but if they can make you sign a document that is summed up as "we can make up shit about your past, and you can't sue us for it", then something is wrong.
We are, in effect, allowing law to be written not by elected legislators but by a contract lawyer. (A somewhat direct quote - I fixed a typo).
Unfortunately, laws made by 'elected legislators' amount to whatever the contract lawyers' employers paid for anyway. We are going to get screwed by this system no matter which way they go about it. At some point, the government is going to have to realize that John Q. Public cannot be expected to look out for himself when required to sign a 5000-word contract every time he does ANYTHING.
Since when is the government the gold standard of accuracy? If I'm going for accuracy, I'll take a private company over any government agency any day.
I do think a private firm can do better, but you're never going to get anywhere near to perfect results. After all, who's going to be doing this data entry? Low-paid unskilled workers - I hire these kinds of folks all the time to do the simplest of tasks for me and the best are nowhere near 100%. But it's better than me spending 3 days entering numbers into my computer...
I have never had a background check or a drug test. Up here in Canada, I don't have to tell them anything that may have me discriminated against (age, race, criminal history).
The only time they can perform a background check is if it is pertinent to the job, such as when working with children.
FunkyDemon
Please allow the grammar nazi to clearify this:
libel(as a noun):
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
slander:
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare LIBEL
Grammar nazi's conlusions:
libel = written
slander = oral
electronic background checks = neither written nor oral
Keeping
| Reality Avoidance Therapists Homepage |
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
The main problem I have with all of these background checks and the information that is gathered about us these days is that it becomes almost impossible to redeem yourself for some stupid thing you might have done when you were young.
If you are convicted of say shoplifting at age 18, that info will haunt you for the rest of your life. In the old days if you made some mistakes and wanted to redeem yourself you could easily make a new beginning by going to a new town and starting over.
Not to mention that I simply refuse to participate in drug testing (although I am lucky to be in demand and have that luxury). Just doing my part in the War on the War on Drugs!
for not having performed a thorough enough background check if they turned up misinformation. If they had been a bit more thorough (checking birthdate and social security number) they would've have had the delay. She might even be in a position to ask for lost wages, since their foul-up cost her a week of work. If the screwup hadn't been due to a lack of depth in their check (ie, a mistake in data storage-- someone typed something in wrong on her record, on on a credit check someone had assumed her identity and put her in debt) then the company wouldn't be at fault. In this case, however, they obviously didn't perform their check in a responsible manner, so they are responsible for the poor results.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
Gee.. someone has no sense of sarcasm.. Better yet, it's an Anon Coward who said it.. Any reason for this anger, unless your name is REALLY bill gates, and you're worried that you're next on my list?
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
Hey, if they're not liable, I bet we can find a couple of Bill Gates(es??) out there and suddenly our favourite Micro$lob founder is a known felon.. think of the problems that could cause with his court case...
My $.02
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
Yup. That movie was the first thing I thought about. I loved it so much I made it one of my first DVDs!
I am posting this because i want my words to be part of a big thread.
Thank you.
Ok, this statement either shows extreme naiveite or stupidity. Mixups occur because we're in this "age of information" and it's all done by computers. C'Mon, people! You're supposed to be programmers. You know that programmers write sloppy code.
If anybody has a copy of Rhapsody for Intel to give away, drop me an email.
Another surprise for some hapless individual. When I was visiting Gatlinburg, TN a trolley operator warned us that there was a speed trap on this road that was Federal Property. If you got busted speeding it was not only a traffic ticket but a Felony cause it was on Federal property. So, next time you answer the question have you ever been convicted of a Felony. Yup, for going 5 mph over the speed limit.... Zoa.......
Mensah keeps turning me down... Why?
They ask you to supply your proof of good conduct but on the top of that they do background checking on every candidate anyway.
When I applied for a Canadian visa I had a background check performed in every country that I had lived in. This is a routine procedure if you want to settle in Canada. In my case it was all clear but I can imagine the frustration of someone rejected on the grounds of a failed background check especially once they shelled out $1500CAD for their landing papers. The big problem here is that you have no control over how the Canadian government screens the immigrant wannabes. If you fail their medical or background checks they just send you a refusal note with a couple of weeks to appeal.
I wonder if they too use private companies to do this kind of job. I saw once on misc.immigration.canada a post from somebody that claimed he was erroneously failed in the background check.
Beyond Garbage-In-Garbage-Out humans controlling the DB they also interpret it. When my background check (for a job with Goldman Sacks) was run, their HR thing called me with a long ..."it's ok you filed for bankruptcy etc. but you do have an outstanding warrant in Arkansas from Amex" I was like WHAT? Amex, Arkansas, bankruptcy? Eventually she noticed that my application was (say) David Ralph Smith and she was reading me Ralph Emmerson Smitz. It was right there in front of her. She not only told me his name but then said, wow, lucky thing it's not you, he's in a lot of trouble.
The Point? It's not the technology. You can't stop technological advances (DBs) but you can constrain the rights people have to act like morons.
If a security company was found to have been negligent in performing a background check on a person, then in general, the company may have exposure to a lawsuit filed by the injured party. Furthermore, the hiring company may be liable as well depending on two factors: (1)The relationship between the hiring company and the security company; and (2) whether the injured party deterimentally relied upon certain promises made by the hiring company.
The State sells drivers records, arrest records, etc. to private companies who then resell this information to employers. If there are mistakes, they may be corrected with the State, but the old, tainted records are already floating around by God knows how many private companies. The real issue here is, should we allow the State to sell this information to private companies? My vote is no.
Try having a last name of "Fisher" in Germany, where it's always spelled "Fischer." I'll correct it, but some well-meaning clerk always changes the "typo" back to Fischer.
I'm setting up Telecheck this way at the moment for saying that I have a bad check (I don't), though thanks to the Debt Collector Protection Act (which is actually named something like the "Fair Credit Collection Act") the most punitive damages I can get is $1,000 above actual damages. Sad, but true, debt collectors, collectively the scum of the earth (otherwise they wouldn't survive as debt collectors) bought themselves protection in Congress. Even class actions can only get $500,000 max damages or (get this) 2% of the net worth of the scumbag max.
The real threat to freedom is the fact that government is now a bought-and-paid-for subsidiary of Corporate America.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Heck, why not make it a requirement for employment that they wear a security bracelet on their leg and have wide-angle cameras in their car and in each room of their house hooked up to your security center! That way, you can immediately know when they're engaged in Non-Work Activity, and make sure to diffuse any attempts of theirs to Have A Life. Because all companies know that Having A Life decreases work productivity (all that excess time and energy that could be used for work!).
Personally, I've never worked for a company that requires background checks. I'd like to think that I have enough reputation that I never will. Last time I was out of work, I had a job waiting for me a week after I walked out the door of my previous employer, and could have started immediately if I could have driven across the country fast enough. If somebody needs to do a background check on me to know that I'm a productive member of the community, I probably don't want to work for him anyhow -- my work is publically available, and speaks for itself.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Arizona responded by giving people basically a "lifetime" driver's license. My driver's license is good until I'm 65 years old - and does not have a SSN on it. Thus only newbies to Arizona have the SSN on their driver's license.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Does this guy have a reputation in the industry? Have I heard of him before? Has he released any meaningful Open Source software that would indicate that he has the skills I need? What kinds of things has he posted on USENET? Is the company he currently works for a leader in the industry, a small startup, or some behemoth where most people are marking time until retirement? What reason did he give for leaving that employer? Does that match up with what I know about that employer?
Most of the above merely requires being current in the industry -- NOT having a background check done.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
It does not bother me that Experian has a record of everything I've bought on credit for the past 7 years. It does bother me that if they make a mistake, I cannot sue them for defamation of character and libel if they refuse to remove the mistaken item.
It's odd that Republican pseudo-libertarians are all for civil contract law -- except for those portions of the civil code regarding defamation of character, libel, and other such forms of willful harm, which they're all for having the government suddenly toss out of the civil code.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Does Experian have to answer to customers? *NO*. Customers expect a "reasonably good" result from Experian, not perfect ones.
Does Experian have to worry about its reputation? *NO*. They know they have a bad reputation amongst the general public. They don't care. Their real customers (lenders, apartment complexes, etc.) don't care either, as long as the information is accurate a reasonable amount of the time.
Does Experian have to face the possiblity of negative consequences for errors in their database? *NO*. They got laws passed in Congress exempting them from all negative consequences..
Does Experian care?
Do I need to answer that last question?
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
My dad leaves a couple blocks from someone with the same first and last name (one of the 5 most common last names in the country, and the most common in the area). While his firstname isn't nearly as common it isn't unheard of. Last time the other guy was in the hospital they mixed up records. So now my dad gets occosional letters to come in for a followup.
The neighbor has a serious but treatable condition. I won't say anymore, since the name and address is correct dad gets quite a ways into the letter before realizing this it isn't him.
Your company knew there were special circumstances and yet you still fired him?
This seems to be even stupider than the original mistake. Blindly following policy in the face of reason is insane.
You affected this person's livelyhood. How did this fellony-in-technicallity affect this employees ability to do the job? You say he did a good job, and he was not at fault and yet he was still fired? A real shame.
And I suppose if he ever was stupid enough to use you for a reference you would say "Oh we had to fire him because he's a convicted felon"?
Poorly handled I'd say.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
How is the situation in Europe?
As far as I know, private organizations can't do checks this deep. Probably governments can.
But every adult but the British has a personal ID, don't they?
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
From what he said, printing out a private email on the company's laser printer (value: $0.01) and taking it home would be the same as stealing the Statue of Liberty. Well it makes total sense. He must be a libertarian.
Equal parts greed, stupidity, corporate mentality (emphasis on "mental"), and sheer pigheadedness.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
This type of incident may just be a 'burp' in the system to the security firm, but it has a very real impact on everyones lives. How many times has something like this happened already? If it isn't known and tracked by some method, then it won't get repaired or the attention it deserves. If it gets no attention, then it will still be [ab]used by employeers with possibly devistating results to *your* career.
Is this the same type of 'burp' that gets my check card declined at random even though I have more than enough funds to cover the purchase? That happens fairly often. Do businesses check again or with an alternate service when they get a indication of a criminal record? Should they be required too?
I bailed out a friend when he got arrested for public drunkeness. When his court date came, he was in jail again for the same thing, and they called me to collect their bond. He was in their custody already and they didn't take him to court. They didn't keep track of their own records, and *I* had the burden of proving them wrong. Now move the information down a couple of layers from the actual source and then try getting inaccurate information removed. Good luck.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Ok, so I'm changing my name.....
Henceforth, I will be "The Hacker Formerly Known as Jason."
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
That very right has been in swedish computer law since the 1970's. All you have to do is ask them. Companies (or public institutions) must respond within "reasonable time", which is interpreted to be about three weeks, with a complete listing of all information they have on you. They are also obliged to send you this listing without any cost whatsoever on your part. Everything is open to you, except SÄPO (the swedish seucrity police, somewhat like CIA) and military archives.
Until last year everyone who wanted to store information about customers, employees or similar in a database was also required to get permission from the swedish government, so that everyone could find out who had a database on them. This was eased somewhat, as e.g. UNIX passwd-files were databases according to the definition and thus required a permit (no, people did not get permits for passwd-files, which made the datedness of the law very obvious).
Nowadays, companies that store harmless information (such as your adress and telephone number) are only required to report the existence of their database to the government.
Background checks through databases constantly give false positive results. In the first year after the brady act's passage the FBI's database gave back somewhere in the neighborhood of 60,000 false positive hits on background checks. If the FBI can have that many errors, who do you think that a private firm can do any better?
I think that permanent marking of felons would be a much better way to go, the blaze orange driver's license wouldn't be perfect but it would eliminate the errors of the current system.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
http://thecenter2000.te mpsite.net/access_public_records.htm
There are many legal rights that cannot be waived. In fact, though I dislike UCITA, there are several passages in it affirming 'unconscionable terms' -- meaning that a sensible judge (if he isn't already hamstrung by a pile of bad UCITA precedents) can simply throw out an unreasonable licence condition, like a waiver of liability in the face of clear bad faith, misrepresentation, or known flaws that are not remedied or disclosed.
[I'm not saying I trust this to happen]
Also, any contract for an illegal act is void. In the example you gave: You can consent to being hit with a hammer. However, you cannot waive your right to sue if someone hits you with a hammer without your consent: hitting you *with* your consent is no crime, but hitting you without your consent is illegal. [Similarly, if your boss threatened to hit you with a hammer under this presumed waiver it would be assault, whether or not s/he believed s/he had the right - which would only be a mitigating factor.]
There are lots of 'crazy rulings' (as presented in the media) that rely on this fundamental principle -- but probably an equal number of media-described 'crazy rulings' where it was not applied, and should have been.
The Bottom Line is: a major function of a waiver is to dissuade you from trying to sue, or convince you to drop your suit. It doesn't actually have to be valid to accomplish this, so many waiver terms (and some contract terms) are not enforceable, and the company legal eagles know it.
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
There, an innocent is tracked down by the police because of a computer error : a bug falling in the printer changing the name on a list of wanted criminals.
It is one of the risks of mass data computing : the computer don't think I've perhaps made an error, let's double check this
We, humans, have sometimes the feeling that we have done a typo, that something is wrong about the results we get,... That never happens with computers. And that is one of the things that make us superior to the machine.
We can see many SF tales becoming true... Think about the trip to the moon described by Jules Verne... since that, men walked on the moon. And they went underwater too (but still haven't travelled to the center of Earth).
And other stories become reality... That is a little bit scary... Think of the Cyberpunk theme... Mega corporation are nearly (nearly ?) reality... with information becoming valuable goods (think of the whole CSS mess). Think of all these post-apocaliptic stories (Ravage from Barjavel, where electricity disappears)... Men are more and more relying on machines...
So, I think it's time to put the machines and all around them to the place they really merit : tools.
Everyone knows how a screwer is made... and how many people have found a way to screw/unscrew with other things (from a keyring to a piece of metalic junk). But noone has ever imagined to "pattent" such remplacements. Same thing for hammer and many other tools.
Pythagore never wanted his theorem to be protected so everybody using it should be paying licenses right to him. Neither did Euler for his many formulae. But now, we want to pattent every single idea... Welcome to the world where knowledge is a good you sell... You want to use Pythagore Theorem ? pay 1 cent for each use to XYZ who has gotten all rights on it. Sounds silly ? We nearly got there ! Welcome to cyberpunk world...
Perhaps there are too few SF fans in our government ?
Couldn't this been seen as libel in a way?
I don't see any damages and this would fall under slander if there was a crime here but I don't see one.
If I call you an uninformed monkey buttocks to your face with no one else in the room, that's rude but not slander. Since I'm sure the background check company or the potential employer didn't send out a press release announcing that she was a felon, there is no slander.
As with a tree falling in the woods, if there is no one around to hear it, the crash isn't slander.
Even if either company had published in the local newspaper 'we have done a full backgound check on Ms. Job Candidate and it indicates that you are a wanted felon', she would probably have little grounds to sue. Truth is the prime defense to libel.
If the National Rag prints 'Commander Taco sexually molests nano-monkeys', they are in for a beating. (Assuming, of course, that Mr. Taco doesn't sexually molest nano-monkeys. (I, by the way, feel confident in making that assumption.))
However, if the National Rag prints 'Commander Taco's butler of nine years says the geek sexually molests nano-monkeys', that's okay and isn't libel so long as the Rag doesn't know it to be false. And, even then, given that Mr. Taco is rather famous, probably would not be libel.
she can claim a week's worth of wages, plus damages
Once again, I don't see any damages. The felony report was only given to the employer and not the public. If the only thing keeping her from the job was the bad report, she might have grounds for a week of pay but I doubt it. What does her contract say?
InitZero
I once applied for a job, and had to take a drug test.
I've often turned down jobs (or merely called or wrote to someone advertising a job) because of "required" drug tests. There are too many good jobs out there in the IT industry to allow employers this kind of intrusive power. I've also found that employers who make this kind of arbitrary policy tend to be bad employers in other ways due to rigid or opressive thinking on the part of their management in general.
It is my personal opinion that unless the job is for someone operating a commercial vehicle or other large equipment such as that, that there is no legitimate reason to require a drug test as a condition of hiring.
I would further say that drug tests should only be permitted under normal circumstances if there is a legitimate reason to suspect that an individual might be compromising workplace safety or the quality of their work because of drug use.
Frankly, drug tests are highly unreliable, either in failing to detect use, but more often in false positives. There are too many legitimate over the counter medicines that cause false positives. Too many legitimate prescription drugs that cause false positives for illegal drugs. Too many food items that can cause false positives. If drug tests are only given in a pre-employment exam, then they prove only that a job seeker can abstain for a certain period of time beforehand. That does little to ensure long term safety or performance.
Drug tests are a 'feel good' and 'cover our ass' policy that is just plain a waste of time and money on the part of companies, and an invasion of the dignity and rights of employees.
Same here. I turned down a job when they told me I'd have to take a drug test. I'd worked for this company for 6 months on a contract-for-hire basis at the end of which they offered me a big raise & a permenant position, but I had to take a drug test. I repsonded with a big 'You gotta be kidding!'
Did they think I'd turn into crack fiend the minute I was a full time employee? And even if was a secret heoin junkie the code I was turning out was good enough...
My manager couldn't come up with an acceptable reason for this outrageous invasion of my privacy, so I refused the job. (In the end things turned out for the best: I have a position with a better company, working on a much more interesting project, and have better future growth opportunities.)
I just don't understand why these companies think they have the right to test my urine, and why they would want to hire people who are so desperate for a job that they would forgo any shred of dignity and piss into the little cup on demand.
It is reasons like this I refuse to take drug tests - not that I have anything to hide, I just think it is uber-creepy.
The only drugs I take are caffine and nicotine. Coffee and smokes. Can't beat them when it comes to staying awake. I also have like one beer ever six months if I am lucky. Hell, I don't even take aspirin unless I have one hell of a killer headache.
So, why should I put up with these types of games that future employers want me to play? I just tell them no. If they don't want to hire me because I refuse, then that is their tough luck. Sure, I might not be getting a high paying job, but nothing is worse to me than knowing I sold out just to get a job where my employer does not trust me right off the bat. That is *not* the type of place I want to be associated with.
Things like this just reinforce my beliefs that we need to have some decent data privacy legislation in this country (like everywhere else.) I'm not advocating heavy handed actions, but the ability to have some recourse against mistakes would be a definite plus. However, this is like having a mistake on a credit record- while there is legislation on the books so you can have this sort of thing corrected, it's quite difficult to get the corporate hive mind to fix things.
Does anyone have a good suggestion on how to strike a balance between corporate data mining and libertarians running free across the prairies? there has to be a median here that allows us to have sane data control without giving up essential freedoms.
EOM
In Virginia, it sometimes is.
e arin/ist717/martinez.htm
1. Serious traffic offenses such as driving while intoxicated in violation of 18.2-266, persons under age twenty-one driving after illegally consuming alcohol in violation of
18.2-266.1, reckless driving in violation of 46.2-852, speeding twenty or more miles per hour above the posted speed limit, racing in violation of 46.2-865, and other
serious traffic offenses as the Commissioner may designate, shall be assigned six demerit points.
A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of twenty miles per hour or more in excess of
the applicable maximum speed limit where the applicable speed limit is thirty miles per hour or less, (ii) at a speed of sixty miles per hour or more where the applicable
maximum speed limit is thirty-five miles per hour, (iii) at a speed of twenty miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limits where the applicable
maximum speed limit is forty miles per hour or more, or (iv) in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.
Reckless driving is only a class 1 misdemeanor, but sometimes they will try to nail you on reckless endangerment:
Prosecutors must vigorously prosecute aggressive driving cases. Charges must not be reduced. When appropriate, the charges should be
substantial, including vehicular homicide or reckless endangerment. Judges must treat these cases seriously and sentence offenders with
appropriate severity. The courts must send a consistent message to the driving public that aggressive driving behavior will not be
tolerated.
Reckless endangerment is a class 6 felony.
Sources:
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm
http://www.house.gov/transportation/surface/sth
BilldaCat
Let me tell you about my little problem with a cellular phone company.
Cantel (biggest cellular provider in Canada).
Several years ago (1996 or so?) I went into a cantel agent's office near my apartment and picked up a cellular phone... contract and all.
I used this phone for several months, and then (and it's all my fault) stopped paying the bill. Things built up, and after a couple months of non-payment, they cut me off. That's fine.. like I said.. my fault.
6 months or so later, I started getting calls from a collection agency (a big, reputable one, used by many large companies). FCS (financial collection services) in Vancouver. I brushed them off for as long as I could (like I said.. i was dumb)
Now.. he (collection agent) was trying to collect about $500 off me. I knew I also had a contract (3 yhear I believe) that I probably had to pay out.. and didn't really have any money.
THe guy called me one day and sayd 'look, I can't put this off any more. Tell you what. You come in here and pay us $300 cash, and I'll give you a letter absolving you of all debt on this cantel account (and he IS legally authorized to do this.. it's legit). I believe this is a standard tactic they use. Anyway.. I *PAID* him. Got the letter.
Now.. it's several years later. I've definately lost that letter... and one day I went in to get a phone from cantel. They did their background check and said 'I'm sorry sir.. you owe us $500'. I said 'okay, look.. I *paid* that money to your collection agent, FCS in Vancouver, several years ago.
You know what he said? He said 'Well, bring us proof of payment, and we'll cancel the debt'.
What????
Anyway.. I politely called the collection agency, and they were very polite and helpful, and tried for an hour to locate the information on my payment. Now, they admit that occasionally, it does happen that there is a mixup between them and Cantel (in other words, they believed what I was saying). They also admitted that finding the record in their archives without knowing the cantel account number was next to impossible.. so if I could call cantel and get the account number and get back to them, it would help greatly.
SURE! no problem, I thought.. thanks for your help. I really appreciate it.
So.. I called Cantel. I explained the situation politely to the agent on the phone. She seemed to understand.. I was transferred around a lot.. and all I got was 'Well sir, if you knew your account number, we could help you ' and 'if you knew the phone number you had back then, we could dig it up', but otherwise.. nobody could help me.
So, I explained to her.. look.. the agent at the office when I go to get a phone, whoever it is that he calls to validate that info is going to find out about the money I owe in about 5 minutes on the phone.. so can't we talk to wheover HE talks to and find out what the account number is?
"I'm sorry sir, I'm not allowed to give out that numbe, only sales agents can call that number'
Isn't this rediculous?
They don't need to send out a press release. I'm sure that more than one individual at the company saw the results of the check. And maybe lowered in some way or another (subconsciously or otherwise) alter their opinion of, or attitude to that person, even if found incorrect later...
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Doesn't this mean Errors and Omissions Excepted?
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
From the movie Philadelphia:
Lawyer: "You say the entire street was clear, except for one small section with a hole, with clearly marked warning signs. Yet you chose to walk through this area, fell into the hole causing the injuries you have now?"
Client: "Yes. Do I have a case?"
Lawyer: "Yes. Of course you have a case."
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
they probably waive the right to sue when they sign the agreement to allow the background check...IANAL...
"Leave the gun, take the canoli."
this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
So if the reporting agency is responsible for every incorrect report, how long would it be before every credit agency is shut down? People who deserve their bad credit will quickly learn that they can bend the system by requiring the agency to 'prove' every item.
In a society where no one has prior knowledge of job applicants, et al, how do we decide if someone is honest and upright or a total scumbag?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
In the US, the Constitution guarantees a jury trial for matters of more than $20, so if the ticket is more than that (and all are), you can get one if you ask. If it is denied, you don't have to pay a cent. Of course, $20 used to be a lot more, but it's the government's fault for allowing inflation instead of fixing the dollar.
Excerpt from an email I sent my Congressman:
I recently read an article on http://www.slashdot.org concerning background checks and credit records. The discussion by the users that followed concerns me greatly.
The discussion was about whether or not companies that track information about individuals are liable for that information to be correct. Specifically, several anecdotes by the users referred to individuals not being able to secure employment because a background check that was done on the individual mistakenly listed the said individual as having committed a felony.
Currently there is no system in place that holds companies that do background checks (and credit checks for that matter) liable for the information that they provide. There are no penalties in place for companies that provide false or incorrect information. I believe there should be a law that makes these companies liable for the information that they provide to their customers about individuals.
Sincerely,
Joshua Gramlich
Everyone, go here and write your representative concerning this matter.
That's exactly why they didn't want you - because they were afraid you'd not only be smart enough to steal like this guy did, but smart enough not to get caught.
More recently, a long-lost friend tracking me down via a web-search came across the same information and became somewhat concerned until she found the real me.
I've never had any problems with this coincidence; I just wish I could use it to my advantage by convincing all those telemarketers that I've been executed and that they should stop trying to sell me newspaper subscriptions...
I have a friend who was one of the targets of the now infamous Operation Sundevil in Texas. The thing was he never did anything wrong, was never convicted of a crime, but because he had a record with the SS, he failed bonding (which, if you know the financial industry, is an instant ticket to get escorted out of the building). I suggested that he should turn around and sue the SS to have this removed from all associated records (esp. given Steve Jackson's win against the same operation).
In the end he was too afraid of what the consequences would be if he sued such a powerful organization. Sad, really.
Kraken137 asks: "A friend of mine recently got a new job, and as a routine part of the hire process, a background check was done. At 5pm on the Friday before
she was to start work, she was notified that the background check had turned up a felony on her record, and as a result, she could not be hired. My friend has
never done anything worse than a speeding ticket, so she was suitably confused. If the incorrect results of a background check led to someone not being hired, or
being fired, etc... would the person have a legal recourse against the security company?" In this, the age of information, where the numbering, collating, indexing and
cross-referencing of millions of identities happens in a single second, the fact that mixups like this still occur disturbs me. What kind protections are in place when the
accidental twiddling of a bit can change your entire history?
I'm a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. It can't be -- there aren't enough facts. To make a plausible decision, you'd have to have someone carefully study your particular facts, determine the applicable state's (or federal) laws and apply the same to reach a conclusion.
That being said, on the facts given, the answer is clear. The answer is, "it depends."
Assuming that the statement was false, and that you hadn't signed any waivers of rights to sue, you might be able to proceed on grounds of defamation (libel and/or slander). Given that the question is professional reputation, it might well be defamation per se, so after consulting Constitutional issues, you might well have a cause of action for provable damages. There are several related legal theories as well.
Another line of cases, assuming that the company unreasonably reached its conclusion, and owed you a duty of due care -- both interesting legal questions that might well vary from case to case and state to state, would be to proceed on grounds of straight negligence. The so-called Economic Loss Rule might protect the search agent in this case, but in many states, the ELR is becoming quite weak in its scope.
In short, the question is rather an interesting one. You might well want to consult a lawyer if you are still out of work, or feel that your professional reputation has been seriously compromised.
I know they *say* that this can't/shouldn't be done, but it's also entirely possible that employers would like to see what *legal* drugs one happens to be taking.
I have seasonal affective disorder (a.k.a. winter depression) that is managed by taking St John's Wort about four months out of the year. Yes, I still drag my ass to work on time, and I still maage to be reasonably productive. But I don't need someone to decide that I can't do my data-entry-at-a-desk job because I'm on meds.
Not to mention, if you follow the "drink 8 glasses of water a day" advice and occasionally consume alcohol and/or caffeine in addition to that, it can screw with drug tests because the specific gravity of your urine gets so low that they think you deliberately diluted the sample. (This happened to me the one and only time I've taken a drug test, and I was *highly* annoyed.)
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
... pity the poor folks who have to deal with the information.
I'm currently working data-entry for a large health insurance program. One of my pet peeves is fast becoming parents who give their twin children cutesy near-identical names. One slip of the finger and
And of course, it's all too easy to get into the flip side of the problem. I've lost count of how many times I've been denied credit cards because the credit bureaus evidently think I don't exist. I finally managed to get a $200 card with a $49 security deposit. *grrrr*
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
And then there's the fact that if you steal something over $50 (at least around here) it's a felony. This probably made sense when it was passed and $50 was a huge amount but it seems harsh to ruin some stupid kids record because he tried to steal a Tommy Hilfiger shirt.
I work for a major e-commerce site, we do cursory background checks on many of our customers, without their permission. This happens mostly on large or very large orders...but it does happen. I think our identities are getting probed a hell of a lot more than we suspect.
"AOL, CIA, NSA, whatever, they all collect information, and they are all out to screw the american public"
Unless the company doing the background check was found to be negligent in doing their job there's probably little hope in a lawsuit.
n. Ask him on #slashdot on irc.openprojects.net
Personally I think he should have named them. But perhaps this is a much saner discussion since he didn't.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I was in the "Mentally Gifted Minors" program while this other fellow was in a remedial program.
But our grades came out with our classes intermixed. He got half my classes on his report card, I got half of his.
The only thing that enabled me to ever straighten this out is that I memorized my student ID number. He never bothered.
It happens that our school district computer (A DEC-System 20 - I graduated in 1982) provided only one character for the middle name, so even though his middle name was Dwayne and mine is David, the computer was unable to reliably distinguish us.
Starting around our sophomore year, he started skipping class regularly, and the school tried to get aggressive about his truancy by sending threatening computer-generated form letters to my parents.
My father had to take an hour off work about once a week for an entire school year to drop into the principals office and straighten it out. After a few weeks of this the office staff recognized him as a regular and would fix it right away, but with no way to distinguish us in the school records there was no way to stop those letters from coming to us.
I guess I just happened to fall first in the database.
On another note, I was working at a company where there was another Michael Crawford with a different middle initial who was an MIS programmer.
I got a call one day from a manager at another company who said he was very sorry, but I didn't get the Lotus Notes job - but I hadn't applied! I explained the mixup, but of course he'd let it leak that this long-time employee was out hunting for other work.
And finally I have the same name as a famous british actor, the Michael Crawford who starred in Phantom of the Opera. I regularly get adoring fan mail from both pubescent and middle-aged women. One woman asked me to sing at her daughter's wedding, and when I explained the mixup, she asked me to sing anyway.
I send them to check out my own music at http://www.geometricvisions.com
Note that I was born Michael David Crawford - the actor changed his name for the stage.
Mike
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
I think you're right about ability to sue - technically, a lie or falsification cost her the job, and that's going to follow her every time she changes companies.
"X didn't hire you why?".
I would look to sue against lost wages and possibly earning potential.
Of course, if said friend really wants this job, then as another poster has said, "prove" that she didn't do it and hope for the best.
Hey, if it doesn't work out, then you've got CLEAR proof of lost wages...
Meow.
Yes, that's really my e-mail. Don't change a thing.
Most of the comments seem to be along the lines of "sue the security company for the mistake," which is stupid, since it's probably not a mistake but rather a case of identity theft or an error made by a law enforcement agency. There have been a number of prominent cases where a person convicted of a felon has used a false ID and then gets tagged with that. A particularly incidious version of this is if somebody say steals your name and soc. security number and poses as you, but is found out -- your name and soc. number still go into a database as one of the aliases that this criminal uses. Have fun trying to sort your life out after that. Fundamentally, though, the problem is not with the end user of the information such as the security agency running a background check but the faulty information placed in databases in the first place by law enforcement.
Some people might want to check out the July, 2000 issue of Consumer Reports. It features a section on Credit Reports .. it does a good job of explaining what creditors look for. It suggests you audit your credit reports anually from _each_ of the three major credit bureaus: Equifax: www.equifax.com ; Experian: www.experian.com ; Trans Union: www.transunion.com. Some even offer online and instantly emailed credit reports, while others offer online ordering. It is seriously reccomended that you purchase July's Consumer Reports!
The article is also available online. If you'd rather not pay for the paper version of consumer reports, you may subscribe to their online information (US$3.95/month) at http://www.consumerreports.org. What I like best about them is that they are unbiased and use their income to purchase products and accept no advertising or donations of products or anything. Consumer reports is published by the Consumers Union <http://www.consumer.org/>:
The person trying to get the job did not hire the security company to do the background check. The company doing the hiring did. This means that it would be fairly easy for the hiring company to claim liability against the security firm. However, for the security firm to be liable to the applicant, you have to prove that the security company had a duty to the applicant to perform their job correctly.
This doesn't mean it's impossible - it just means that if you really want recourse taken, you should talk to a lawyer. Chances are there's previous ruling of this sort which you could use to show that the security company did in fact have a duty to the applicant to present correct information on them.
As for libel, which someone else mentioned, I don't think this would hold up. AFAIK, libel involves published statements and published statements only, which obviously wouldn't be the case here.
You know what to do with the HELLO.
You know what to do with the HELLO. ...
Help create an open-source world
The whole deal with background checks is that it varies state to state. And from there company to company. A former operations manager for a large retail chain that sold DIVX told me once that because of the cost the background checks were done rarely.
On the other extreme a corporation who makes a product with Blue Diamonds, and Purple Horseshoes was noted for turning down employeement because the applicant had a suspended drivers license.
IANAL, however, your rights as a citizen are slim because the reports are all based off of public domain information.
In fact these types of errors are fairly common. There have been many similar incidents with more extreme results. Some law enforcement warrent systems are based on common name, instead of State ID number or SSN. This means if you get pulled over in a traffic stop, mearly having the same name as someone who has an arrest warrent will put you in the back of a squad car.
In general your rights vary state to state. Some states allow random drug tests. Others don't. In some states, such as Minnesota, it is not legal to pre-screen applicants with a drug test. You must make a job offer, in writing, (i.e. make them an employee) before having them take the test.
Huh?
A sense of dread came over me. Wow. What a binder I must have had! I guess it started in CA and I drove to NJ drunk, applied for and got a license (while blacked out), and then got caught in this drunken stupour, had my license revoked and returned to CA before detoxing...
Or they had made a mistake.
I told them I had never had a Driver's License in NJ, nor had I lived there, nor had I visited there, nor had I flown over the Garden State, nor had I visited a neighbooring state to NJ. Then they said, "But it's on your record." Wait. I asked, "What's the name on the revocation record?" Robert James Taylor. My name. I continued, "What's the birth date?" ____, __, 1967. My birth date, exactly. *Gulp* Once more, "What's the Social Security Number?" They didn't tell me, but they said it did not match.
*Whew* After that, the counter person conferred with a manager and returned to hand me my card.
I was never so happy to have a Social Security Number as right then.
If you know a 33 year-old (yes, I was born in the first 6 months of 1967) named Robert James Taylor, please pass this note on to him. Tell him, "Hi" and "Thanks for nothing" from me.-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
There was something recently about this on MSNBC. What happened was a man kept trying to get jobs but was turned down repeatedly for jobs he was more than qualified for. When he called back to find out why they tell him anythign or they would just hang up. He got suspicious and hired someone to look into it, it turns out on his record I beleive there was a murder convivtion and a DUI, neither of them were his.
What had happened was when the report on the original man was entered into the computer the social security number was mistyped. It was corrected at the source, eventually, but background check services get their records from police stations, put it into their databases for their searching and they also sell out their records to other companies. And they don't tell who they sold to, meaning if an error occours it can be next to impossible to get it corrected.
Libel wouldn't be the case from the company she was turned down for because they purchased data that was public domain from one of these background services. So they aren't the ones with the misinformation, just the background check company.
They need to get someone to look into it if it happens again, or now if they want.
In cases of identity theft, this can be nastier.
My mother's friend Jerry decided to move to Phoenix and live with my mother until she could get settled. Jerry was a registered nurse but hadn't been working for a few years. She was staying home taking care of her children I believe. When she moved out to Phoenix, she started applying for nursing positions with various hospitals. At almost every hospital she applied at, she would go through an interview, sign some paperwork, including a release for a background check, and never hear back from them. The wouldn't accept phone calls from her and wouldn't tell her why she hadn't been contacted.
Finally one of the hospitals she applied at informed her that they were unable to hire her because of her felony conviction. It turns out that somebody had been arrested for manslaughter after assuming her identity. This person had also just been released from prison. The problem was, he had been using her social security number, birth date, the whole nine yards. Plus, he was actually arrested and stood trial under that information. The only thing that allowed it all to be cleared up in a reasonable amount of time was the fact that she was obviously not male. Were it not for this fact, it may have taken her months to get it cleared up.
When it comes to liability here, it turns out that the person assuming her identity was the responsibly party and she had no legal recourse against the background check company or the city that she had lived in. She was pretty much SOL.
I'm willing to bet she would have had some recourse against the prospective employers that didn't tell here why she was not hired but she didn't want to alienate too many possible future employers.
Unfortunately, libel and slander require that you prove malice. A mistake, even as the result of incompetence, does not constitute libel or slander.
One possibility would be suing in small claims court for a week's wages. This could, however, lead to potential problems with her new employer when she calls her new manager as a witness.
On the whole, the harm done was only a week's wages. I would tell her to document it so her next employer won't have the same problem and to otherwise just suck it up.
pornking
The funny thing is, he didn't know she was born in Austria, and she didn't know she was born in Austria. The background check revealed that she was adopted by a german family, another fact that she didn't know her whole life up until that point.
Now that's a background check.
pornking
It's very easy to forget that people are human beings, not tuples in a database.
I am a tuple and damn proud of it too.
Yea, verily, my record is strong, and lo my fields are mighty. Unto my very key which is unique beyond human measure.
pornking
My wife was the regional customer service director at a local company and had recently hired a new customer service rep. Several weeks after he started her boss approached her and ordered her to fire the new guy. She of course wanted to know why. It turns out that this guy's background check turned up that he had several convictions for misdemeanor theft. The most recent conviction had been a few months before when he had been convicted of stealing from his employer. The reasoned (in a pointy-haired manner) that since he had certified on his application that he had never been convicted of a felony that this misdemeanor theft conviction gave them the right to fire him. Further, since his employment is "at will" and he was in his probationary period that they had no need to tell him why he was being fired.
My wife wasn't very comfortable about the whole situation and neither was I. We consulted an attorney and discovered that, much as we had suspected, what they were asking her to do was against the law. (The Fair Credit Reporting Act, to be specific.)
To make a long story short, my wife made enough waves that her boss finally agreed to allow her to tell the guy why he was being fired. The funny part is that about an hour before she was about to fire him he walked into her office to announce that he was leaving to take another job.
We later found out that the background check was indeed incorrect and that he had no such convictions. He comes over to our house every couple weeks to watch baseball.
The real fallout came right about the same time that he left to take another job: my wife's position was eliminated. Officialy this was due to a recent merger that had made her position obsolete. She was offered a position as the floor supervisor (a demotion of two levels) at the same salary. I'm very proud that she told them to piss off -- even though they refused to give her any sort of severance package whatsoever. She's now working as a help desk manager with a $10,00 raise, a 20% bonus plan, and stock options, so I guess they did us a favor.
--john
I've had similar experiences to those claimed by others here. My father has the same first name, so at one time I was listed as having bought the house I grew up in.
At another time I had a problem when someone applied for a store credit card in my name and then charged $1000 worth of merchandise to the card in one day without even having the physical card ("Oh that's okay we'll look up the number for you"). When I refused to pay and offered evidence (incorrect info on the application, non-matching signatures, etc.), the credit card company still put a bad mark on my record.
The part that bugs me is the attitude of the credit reporting agencies. All it took to get the untrue but GOOD credit history off my records was a simple letter. Getting BAD credit history off my records was an ordeal even with documentation and the reluctant acknowledgment of the credit card company that I should not be held responsible for a card I never applied for and never used.
These people seem to feel that inaccurate reports are okay so long as the inaccuracy says you have bad credit. When there is only one bad mark on your record and you have evidence that the mark is inaccurate, why can't they just be reasonable?
He lived in the same apartment for 10 years, then decided to move downstairs (staying within the same apartment complex). He filed a change-of-address form with the post office, which caught the attention of a district attorney's office in another part of the state.
The D.A. matched the guy's first and last name with a dead-beat dad, but doesn't bother to check his middle name, SSN, or other identifying information. He gets ordered to appear in court on outstanding child support payments (as if the guy had ever been married, let alone fathered a child)! The kicker is that this whole mess cost several hundred dollars in attorney fees to get cleared up, plus time off work and travel to appear before the court!
Now against the agency that screwed up on the report, the cases have been all over the map. These cases I have seen were false positives on drug tests.
I would go after them! They are making money on this, they should have some responsibility for what they do.
That is why the credit reporting agencies have become regulated. They have false things in reports, and their response was, "Hey someone reported it to us, tough luck!"
Testing companies, and investigating companies should take responsibility for their actions.
Programmers should be responsible for their code!
Fight Spammers!
Mistakes will happen -- humans are controlling the databases in question.
However, if I have to piss in one more cup, I'm going to end up with a felonious assault on my record!
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
I have discovered that if I do not tell the phone company my middle initial when I get a new phone number after moving, I will get a call within three days from a collection agency looking for someone with the same first and last name who seems to have a habit of financing jewelrey then not paying for it.
I'm not sure if this is the same guy or not, but I also sometimes get messages from a girl to tell me that she named the baby after me and that she just thought I should know and that she doesn't need money from me or anything. That's a great one to explain to the parents when they get it when you are away at school.
...has a short story with a corollary subject. It's in an anthology called "Ends", and I think the title is "Computers don't lie". Not to give away the plot or anything, but it starts out with a guy named Childs returning R.L. Stevenson's "Kidnapped" to a Book of the Month Club and then getting notices from them that they'll turn his account over to a collection agency if he doesn't pay for the book... eerily familiar to some of us, no?
as for speeding tickets, when I finally joined www.motorists.org, I started fighting them in court. I am 5 for 5 and every single one has been dismissed, never even went to trial.
I'm good with numbers -
She recently started as a chemist for a very prominent research organization with many high-dollar government contracts.
About a month after she started, she was called in to the HR office for an unknown reason. They proceeded to accost her for checking the "no" box on the "have you ever been convicted..." question on the application. Turns out she was convicted of DUI, according to "her" criminal record. Funny considering we weren't even in the state on the day in question.
She adamantly denied it and returned to work. An hour later she was escorted off the premisis and placed on suspension while they "cleared the matter up." Turns out it was a free vacation day. 3PM the next day, they called her and told her they pulled a record with the same name and different SSN. She wasn't happy. I was infuriated.
Repeated demands for an apology from those involved just got replies telling her that it wasn't a big deal and that she wasn't embarrassed. I managed to get her worked up enough that she got an apointment with the head of HR for this company, whose office was next door to the CEO's. Finally he apoligized on behalf of the whole HR department. The disturbing thing is that he said it happens all the time. My question is, if it took them so little time to clear up, wouldn't you think to do that before accusing someone? With the degree of accuracy her job demands, one would expect a reasonable amount from the company's supporting departments.
I realize this isn't the same because her record was correct, they just got the wrong one. But it goes to show what can happen when any link in this critical chain is weak.
Unfortunately, libel and slander require that you prove malice. A mistake, even as the result of incompetence, does not constitute libel or slander.
Bogus. You are only required to prove "actual malice" when you are a public figure. When you are making statements about someone you must exercise "due diligence." Mere negligence in fact checking is, indeed, grounds for a libel suit when it causes damage to the person.
Further, an allegation of criminality is what is called libel per se. In libel per se one need not even prove actual damages. Damages are assumed.
Of course, IANAL, but anybody who reads the fine print on a job application knows that not all past criminal activities make you unfit for a job.
A day care center can refuse to hire a ex-con child abuser, and a security firm might refuse to hire Kevin Mitnick (once his parole is up).
On the other hand, if a day care center refuses to hire Mitnick based on an unrelated criminal past, it would be unfair discrimination, and is actually illegal in some states... and a civil case in some others.
If the charge is false, your friend should not wait around for all the "ask slashdot" responses. Run, don't walk, to your lawyer's office. Jackie Childs is gonna make you rich! Rich, I tells ya!
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I've been filling out job applications lately, and most of them DO make you sign your life away... "we can choose not to hire you for any reason we want, and if your drug test or background check comes up false positive, you agree not to hold us liable, sue us, etc..." And if you don't sign it, they won't even consider hiring you... at least one of them said the agreement could be modified IF it's done in writing by the manager of the store, etc. etc... real pain in the ass... but that's the way it is these days... A court would probably throw most of that agreement out if it was ever challenged, but I certainly don't have the money to pay a lawyer for that...
As someone with an HR background, I can really only stress what a legal minefield HR is today. Practictioners must constantly ride the fence between making the best hirinig decisions based on the company's goals and the legal mandates set by the federal and state governments. My question is this: did the job truly require that the prospective new hire have a "clean" background. It is illegal to discriminate based on arrests, for example, as this has what is called a "disparate impact" on minorities. In addition, there are few jobs in which a check for convictions can be truly justified. For example, someone who is interviewing for the job of Controller or CFO could legally be investigated for fraud, theft of company funds, etc. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. I hope that someone will keep us updated on this, if possible.
I boosted a few items when I was a kid, but I didn't turn into a career criminal, and I wouldn't do it again. Just because you do something stupid as a kid doesn't mean you're gonna be stealing cars and such later on. You seem to have the same mentality that leads people to try kids as adults even though the state obviously believes them to be incapable of acting as adults, which is why they don't get all the rights and privileges of adults. The same mentality that gets those stupid "zero tolerance" rules and things like California's "3-strike" rule, instituted. Makes no sense.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Slander tends to come in a more transitory form.
This seems somewhat more like slander.
In any case, if the security company isn't abject in their apologies, then it seems likely that they are vulnerable to a lawsuit in the matter, assuming we're talking about the litigation-happy United Suers of America.
It's probably a rather better idea to sue the security company than to draw the employer into the fray...
There is doubtless room for the damages to be significantly more than the one week's worth of wages, from two perspectives:
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
And then sue a few extra parties. Make sure at least one either grosses over a billion dollars a year, or at least have good VC backing.
Someone will settle out-of-court, just to be safe, and you'll get a few million out of it.
In fact, I think I'm going to go sue someone for making the traffic too congested this morning.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
With some exceptions (where others' security is at risk, like pilots, etc ...), it is illegal to request such tests here (France). I believe they face jail time for illegal practice of medicine if they don't do it with a registered MD, or if they did, the doctor would lose his license (and maybe go to jail as well). On top of that, with current computer privacy laws (which are actually around 20 year old), whoever is keeping this data (test results for instance) faces up to 3 years of jail time if they store it in a computer somehow (strange, but having it just on plain paper does'nt count) and they 1- don't inform you that they're storing it, 2- dont't give you access to the information or allow you to correct it and possibly delete it, 3- don't register their database with the CNIL (Commission on Computers and Freedom).
I find those test thingies quite scary. I would just plain refuse them, personally. Call me ideological -- but if everybody caves in, things like that will never change. Plus, as a sought after computer geek, it's your responsibility to do this. By doing this, you might force companies to change their whole policy -- do they really want to lose a candidate they desperately need for some useless and immoral policy? -- and make the world a better place for less lucky persons who don't have that bargaining power.
Think about it. It's a matter of honour.
My name is Charles Edward Borner. (No Jr, no II, no nothing)
My father's name is Charles Edward Borner. (No Sr, no I, no nothing).
Our SSN's are even similar (first three numbers identical).
I was born in 1973, my father in 1940.
A couple years back I went to buy a car, cash. They go looking at my credit check. The guy comes back and tells me I have many years of excellent credit.
Fighting to keep the surprise from my face, I thank him and buy the car. On the loan app, however, I made SURE that all the information supplied was mine though. I don't even want to THINK about what my father'd do to me if I fscked up his credit rating.
Probably sic my mom on me.
**SHUDDER** Talk about your archetypical fate worse than death.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It can be worse than that.
We once had a very good employee who had inadvertently closed a checking account while two long-uncashed checks were still extant in his previous state of residence.
When the checks were cashed they both bounced (of course) and since it was two checks equalling a total of more than $50, he was charged with a felony.
Since he could not be located, it was adjudicated in absentia, and he was convicted of a felony he never knew he'd committed.
He had been working for us for weeks when his background check uncovered this, and corporate policy required that he be fired.
He was a damn good employee, who had made a common mistake, and then suffered because of the incompetence of some sherrif's deputy thousands of miles away who couldn't be bothered to do a proper check.
--
What, and get a reputation for being such a stickler for paperwork?
I think what we need are accuracy statistics for reporting agencies. [Pulling made-up numbers out of my ass...] If TRW's report is accurate 91.7% of the time, and Equifax's is accurate 93.1% of the time, and their customers know this, then they might have incentive to find errors on their own.
If they can make "false positive" reports on bad credit history, then they can make "false negatives" too. It's the bank's money that's on the line, not TRW's.
Think in those terms, and you can change "Mistakes are fined" to "Mistakes are fired."
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Her connection with the felon in question ended up being the following:
Other than that, they had different DOB's, SSN's, Drivers License Numbers...
I bought a motorcycle and went to get a learner's permit. They said I had a speeding ticket that needed to be paid, from a city I have never driven in 1000 km and a ferry ride away.
After some digging and waiting it turned out the ticket was for someone with the same last name and a drivers license number similar to mine.
When I wrote a formal complaint that it wasn't me they sent the form back saying I needed to "nominate" the person who was actually doing the driving. How do I know, I wasn't there?! And they could see from the ticket the guy signed that it obviously wasn't me!
So I sent another letter politely explaining that the person processing the form must have been slightly drunk, and the ticket was promptly removed from my file.
My wife and I are adopting soon, and a criminal record check is required. I've never done anything that would cause me to have a record, but for some reason this story makes me nervous.
i think in arkansas it's a felony if you're going over twice the posted limit, not too easy on a highway, but supposedly they get you coming through in school zones...i know this because i dated a girl who had a felony and this was it. i was a little disappointed...
"Leave the gun, take the canoli."
this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
If it kept me from permanently recieving the job (ie. even after the whole mess was cleared up, someone had been hired in my place), I would sue the company performing the background check for punitive damages.
If not, I'm sure you can take it to court and get yourself reinstated.
I once applied for a job, and had to take a drug test. There was an error, and when I explained to them that I was very seriously not on drugs, they held the position till there was a retest. If they are professional, and know that mistakes can be made they will hold the position for you.
Ahha yes, the DoD background check, I remember them well. This was when I was finalizing my employment with Lockheed. I was having my SECOND interview with Mr. DoD and he starts down a line of questioning that makes no sense to me. About the fourth question he ask did I know that my Father was a draft dodger back in the 60's. After I stopped laughing I ask what gave him this impression, My Father was a DI in the U.S. Army back in the 60's, actually he had been in the Army since he turned 17 and had served in three wars by then. Mr. DoD then looked at me and said "No, I meant your BIRTH father" After another burst of laughter I informed him that I have tried twice to see my adoption records and that the state has refuses to let me see them on both occasions. After that the interview was finished and I went to work the next week. I just think it is rather funny that the DoD can look at (and not disclose) the very records I have been trying to get my hands on for 20 years.
__ Fast - Cheap - Good Pick any two
right now, somebody is probably turning your background information into a comodity and trading it with other fans, just to make some silicon valley fat cat rich. that really chaps my hide!
now, i'm going back to the drums...
Can your IM do this?
Of course, wearing a Tommy Hilfiger shirt is itself a felony, so no harm is done in this case.
Couldn't this been seen as libel in a way? I mean, the company misrepresented her. Surely then, she can claim a week's worth of wages, plus damages... Ideas?
Score:-1, Funny
I ran into a problem along the same vein with Maryland's Dept of Motor Vehicles. My 1969 Camaro was registered in DE. After having the tag around 6 months I received notification from a collection agency in CA that parking fines were overdue for that tag. Considering the violation was over two years old and for a jeep (exactly - what the heck?) I sent them a letter that I had been issued my tag only 6 months before and owned an entirely different vehicle, providing a nice suggestion they find out who was issued the tag at the time it was ticketed.
So what do I get in response? A threatening form letter along with instructions to prove I was not the guilty party. My second letter had a copy of all the correspondence up to this point attached and was a single sheet of white paper with the following words: "You are morons."
Haven't heard from them in 4 years.
Andrew Borntreger
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
If we could easily see into records pertaining to ourselves, this problem would never occur.
Read The Transparent Society Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? by David Brin for a well thought out map of the root problem, and a solution to it.
Here are some of the questions it poses:
Thousands of people commit felony theft in the United States all the time, but these people are only prosecuted when the government officials want a conviction on something. Anyone who owes money to a bank on their vehicle is guilty of theft if they drive that vehicle across a state line without first notifying the lending institution. And yes, people _have_ done jail time on this charge. It is one of the many ways police can get a conviction on a person through selective enforcement of the law. In my opinion, selective enforcement of the law is one of the larger threats to individual freedoms and liberties.
Why do people trust these background checks and pre-employment tests so much? Whatever happened to a good old intesive face to face interview?
As an example I took a test to be hired by a armored car company several years ago. It was to be one in a series of tests and background checks (including a polygraph) that a person had to go through to get employement with this company. To make a long story short I was told that the test said that I was, in this order, too smart and possibly dishonest. A short time later one of their own employees, presumably having passed all these tests, stole over $7mil from one of their trucks in broad daylight at a major interstate rest stop and got away with it (caught by his own stupidity several months later).
Just because someone passes these tests and checks doesn't mean that they won't rip you off or comprise your business. It does give a basis but relying on it too heavily is a sure way to get screwed.
In other words, human beings don't have unique identifiers, and many of the things you might expect to be a unique identifier can change, be misentered, forgotten, lost or stolen.
And if you try to force someone to have a unique identifier assigned by you, you are overstepping your bounds in a way people accustimed to at least the illusion of personal freedom and privacy (e.g. Americans) will react badly to. You are also setting up an abusable system.
So it's a mess because the real world is a mess. It's very easy to forget that people are human beings, not tuples in a database.
There are gonna be search errors. A woman in North Carolina recently got thrown in jail for three days because her driver's license number matched the SSN of a fugitive in New Jersey. The fact that she's white, female and in her fifties did nothing to deter the arresting officers from mistaking her with a 22 year old Latino male, so she's suing for wrongful imprisonment. Gonna win, too, I hope.
--
This is not my sandwich.
I don't see a prolem with information storage. After working at a bank for some time, I see the good in knowing that the person you're handing a $5000 check to is actually going to pay you back based on their credit history.
The problem is, there isn't any real accountability. Oh, sure, you can "challenge" items in your credit report and the like, and the companies like TRW and Equifax have a time frame to fix things, but there's no incentive for them to verify on their own what's true or not. And even more insidious is the crime of identidy theft, where someone uses your information as their own to purchase things, defraud others, or even commit crimes in your name.
So here's my wish-list for how to prevent problems. I haven't narrowed down any ideas, but some general thoughts.
I want to see whatever information a company has on me, whenever I want to.
If some company, government organization, or otherwise has information on or about me, it should be my right to see it whenever I wish. Nobody has the right to me except me.
Mistakes are fined.
If there is a mistake in the information, the information holder has to prove that they are right (example: if it says I had a Nordstrom card in 1988 and I never did, they have to prove that I did). If they are wrong, then they are fined some reasonable amount. How long would it take for credit reporting agencies to start being more precise in their information gathering and reporting techniques when they learn it will cost them money?
There's probably more I could add, but that's the short list. The main theme here is accountability and respect; my information is mine, and if you want to hold it, then you'd damn well better get it right, or else.
As always, I could be wrong.
John "Dark Paladin" Hummel
We don't just like games, we love them!
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
At some time around 1994 (not long after my mother died), the credit bureaus collectively decided that I am now "Johnny P. Narkinsky", with my Social Security Number, my Birthdate, and my mother's credit record!
I have disputed items in my credit file. I have fought. I have written letters. Nothing I do can convince them that my mother is dead and I am not she. In fact, one (which will remain nameless due to outstanding litigation) now claims that I am dead.
But wait, it gets worse. A couple of years ago, I was involved in a lawsuit. I won the lawsuit (filed by an apartment complex) and won a countersuit claiming fraud and a couple of other things. Since then, all three credit bureaus are claiming that I lost this lawsuit -- and listing this information as a matter of the public record.
I have been unable to get any of them to remove this entry -- instead, they simply list it as "disputed". I have sent them copies of the written judgement, I have pointed out their error, and they are still non-responsive.
Because of the laws congress passed protecting credit bureaus (while claiming to be for a consumer's protection) from defamation suits, I am unable to find a lawyer who really wants to file suit against these jerks. They have ignored threatening letters from my lawyer -- which are about all I can do.
My solution? I have named my son John Paul Narkinsky. Not John Paul Narkinsky Jr. John Paul Narkinsky. I plan to name my twins sons to be born in Nov. James Patrick Narkinsky and Jeremy Peter Narkinsky. If I am so fortunate as to have a fourth, I will name him Jonah Petronius or something equally difficult.
Girls will all be Jane Paula, Jennifer Patricia, or something equally appropriate. If I am truly blessed, one will be born on my birthday. This one, regardless of gender, will be Johnny P. Narkinsky.
I plan to teach ALL of my kids to give only their initials, and to make up a social security number whenever they are asked.
As Heinlein pointed out in Friday, it is the duty of all citizens in this day and age to confuse computers. If you can't avoid a tax, pay too much. Transpose digits. Anything to make information mining difficult.
Are you doing YOUR part?
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
She needs to go to Central Services and fill out a 27B/6.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Is that speeding in excess of a certain number of Miles Per Hour is in some juristictions a felony. Typically it's between 15-20 over. And many also fail to realize that when you just pay the ticket you're basically "pleading guilty". So if you have a speeding ticket for doing 70mph in a 50mph zone, and you simply pay the ticket ( note that just paying the ticket is really just waiving your rights to a jury trial ) then you've for all intents and purposes been convicted of a felony crime.
:) Note: i may be wrong with the 15-20, in some places it could be lower or much higher. it varies.
Of course, if i'm wrong, i will be corrected
This sort of thing has been discussed repeatedly and at length in the Risks Digest. You guys do read the Risks Digest, don't you?
The Risks Digest is more verbosely known as the Forum On Risks To The Public In Computers And Related Systems, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator. It's a great and fascinating thing to read; it covers almost any topic even tangentially related to the risks of using computers and digital systems, including privacy issues, Y2K issues, software in critical systems, encryption policy, etc., etc. It is known on usenet as comp.risks, and is also available via e-mail. It's an old forum; in the online archives you can read discussions following such famous events as the loss of the Shuttle Challenger and the Robert Morris Internet Worm. Highly recommended reading for anyone making software.
Also recommended are the Privacy Forum and the Computer Privacy Digest.
--Jim
A colleague of mine went to an interview in conjunction with obtaining a top secret security clearance. Once there, he was confronted with and asked to explain a ten-year-old photo of himself, age 12, walking into the Polish embassy. He had apparently arranged to meet someone there while gathering data for a middle school geography report.
Someone in our intelligence apparatus was lurking outside the embassy, taking pictures of random kids, identifying them, and holding on to the photos so that they could surface a decade later during an NCIS investigation.
Creepy.
Chris
I called my uncle who is a lawyer in my area to ask him about this one once. My question was concerning a failed drug test tht my friend had. He failed it due to incomplete results. Basically..what he found out later is that the company lost his sample and could not finish testing. He started his job one month late because of this. (While he had to wait for the next training courses) My uncle said for me to tell my friend just to have a lawyer call them and they will settle. They paid 3/4 of one month salary + lawyer fees for him in the settlement.
I'd tell your friend just to threaten a lawsuit for loss of wages and grief caused by misinformation. They will never win it and probably will just settle.
I gave my 2 weeks notice and on the day before I planned to drive from Chicago to New York, I got a phone call that there was a warrant for my arrest in Chicago for failing to appear in court to answer a drug pusession charge. I was told not to report for work on the following Monday. After making a few calls in Chicago, I was reassured that the whole thing was bogus -- no one had a warrant for my arrest. I drove to New York and the background check people sent someone to the courthouse to get a copy of the warrant which was for someone with the same name but a different birthdate. The company did the right thing: I started on Wednesday instead of Monday and got paid for the two days of work I missed while they were clearing up the problem. I just had my 5th anniversary with them last month.
The background check folks screw up sometimes. You need to get the report in writing from them -- you are entitled to a copy under Federal law. You have a recourse if they refuse to correct gross errors and their failure to correct causes you financial damage.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
When the background check came back, they denied him clearance on the grounds that he lied on his air force enlistment papers. The lie? He said that his mother was born in Germany when in actual fact, she was born in Austria.
The funny thing is, he didn't know she was born in Austria, and she didn't know she was born in Austria. The background check revealed that she was adopted by a german family, another fact that she didn't know her whole life up until that point.
Bingo Foo
----
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!