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'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.
That's interesting. I submitted an application for permanent residency in Canada recently. My immigration lawyer has supplied me with a letter and form to fill out to make my life easier when *I* apply for my police records. I'm responsible for producing the information for the background check! Something I think that I should be getting on with...
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.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
DD--
You've got security clearance. This clearance is dependent upon those associated with you giving valid impressions of your character.
You've got somebody intentionally poisoning said impressions of your character. This makes it more difficult for a background checker to determine whether a negative statement about you from *anyone* derives from a valid observation or an intentionally falsified statement. Meanwhile, you're still in a situation where you're directly involved with improving the national security of this country.
You could be trustworthy, but since the feds would be left unable to verify you as such, you'd lose your clearance. Since this loss was unwarranted, national security's been harmed.
You could be untrustworthy, but since the feds have been left unable to believe statements made by your peers, you'd keep your clearance. Since this retention of priveledges was unwarranted, national security's been harmed.
Now obviously, they're more likely to make more mistakes towards the former than the latter. But each unjustified strippage ends up reducing their power and their ability to do their jobs. You want to tell me that these guys would never go ballistic on some asshole spreading rumors trying to get laid? People like that provide camoflague for those who genuinely do arouse suspicion in those around them.
Ever wonder why the Secret Service responds so quickly to threats against the President's life? It's because the empty threats themselves mask the importance of the valid ones. It's simple signal to noise.
Of course, government generally tries not to be too intrusive, but these guys make their living being intrusive. If somebody's spreading counterintelligence to get laid, I'd assume he'd get notified of just Why You Don't Do That.
--Dan
DD--
Last I checked, government folk didn't take kindly to somebody running spoof operations on them.
A couple Men In Black showing up on the doorstep of somebody directly, intentionally, and maliciously threatening the validity of their very precious data sources(a.k.a. the average citizenry) has a way of instilling newfound respect for the social values of honesty in such an individual, wouldn't ya think?
--Dan
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
Also, if we're talking about grass, it tends to promote paranoia, so it's a vicious cycle. It's just as well that those people stay out of the workforce, though. They're fricking burnouts and I don't want them dragging everyone else down in my company.
A few *really* good coders I know are heavy pot smokers. Personally, I don't like haschich. Makes me sick. I also know of a few top level execs who are alcoholic. That's worse. But, as far as I can tell, they do their job quite well. Would they fail to, that would be sufficient grounds to fire them anyway. So what's the point?
I used not to have this opinion. I used to work with a guy who was a heavy pot smoker. We used to work in an early dot com, a few years ago. The guy had been hired as a journalist to write columns for the website, mostly. He was cool and nice, but spoke sooo slowly it was scary. Turned out we could'nt find competent HTMLers. So he started doing HTMLers. I left, they had no programmers, so he had to pick up the Unix admin, he had to install NT boxen, he had to pick up some half assed coldfusion script and correct my hairy perl scripts from 5 years ago.
Now he's been hired for good money as a programmer in another company. He still smokes as much as before. He would turn all the chemicals alarms ringing and flashing if he were to pass a drug test to apply in a US company. And he does a fucking great job for someone who had barely ever touched a computer a few years ago.
So your point was?
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.
I did get it cleared up. But that's what happens when people look at name, address, and only the first three of the SSN.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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
My mother thought she was giving me a unique name when she named me Jason, in 1970. She swears that she didn't know anyone named Jason back then.
I've done an Internet search and found references to fifteen other people with the same first and last name as myself in the United States. One of them lives in the same town I do. I recently (last year) got a call from his employer, the local fire department. There was also a little mix up back in the lates 80s with medical records involving the two of us, though he may or may not know about it.
If you think about it, with all these folks being named Shamiqua and what have you, those names won't be so unique in a few years and they'll be in the same boat that I'm in with Jason.
All the more reason to just have a 128-bit integer tattooed to our foreheads. (No, I'm not serious.)
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
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?
. I can't be bought. Can you?
Sure, if the price is right.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
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?
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.
Besides, its not like its illegal to discriminate against people for having criminal records (but I'm sure some of you will be more than willing to take this right away from us too)
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
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.
there are no good mistakes. they'll always err on the side of caution :)
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.
Ummm, I don't see them asking for a drug test as a 'right' that I'm giving up. They do it once, it's not a random/constant monitoring thing (like the NFL). They aren't required to give me a job unless I meet their criteria. One (extremely reasonable) criterion might be that I haven't been high on something for a span of a week or two (depending on the life of the metabolized drug). Big deal. That's hardly a right, for them to give you a job if you won't give a tiny bit of proof.
As for background checks, there are certainly different levels there... a quick, cursory check (like the large companies do) all the way to the interview half the people you've ever known level (various security clearances). Those can seem more invasive... I've never considered that any harm to my dignity or freedom. Hell, a free society, everyone should be able to know about everyone elses criminal record - a lot of papers list all of the violations/fines there (like speeding tickets and domestics) and courthouse records contain this information, so it's public knowledge anyway. Part of a free society is everyone taking responsibility for their own actions. I'd like to be able to take responsibility for the people I hire, and certainly I'd hope that people in strategic places would do the same. If you have done anything that the test or search would turn up as a problem, then explain it, or piss off. Doesn't bother me one bit.
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.
It's not about being bought. I've never heard anyone complain about loss of dignity or freedom from a drug/background check before. That includes a lot of people with a lot of interviews. I didn't apply for a couple jobs that would have done the more comprehensive background check (interviewing third grade teachers and all that) - that was my choice. It's your choice to not want anything that requires a check of any sort. Good for you (not sarcastic - people should stand up for what they believe). I just don't see a problem with it. Not even a minor inconvenience for most people.
If you are happy where you are, great. If you see oportunity and the only thing between you an it is a plastic cup and a quick check to make sure you are a major detriment to society... I don't see an issue.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
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.
I'm not really concerned so much about the loss of dignity resulting from being forced to take a drug test before being employed. I'm very concerned with the fact that there are many, many, many potential employees out there who can perform the duties required to the complete satisfaction of their employer who would fail that test because they do drugs on their own time.
There's no reason employers should be able to hold us hostage like that. absolutely none. I refuse to work for anyone who even *thinks* about drugtesting.
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/>:
And if they don't... cry havoc and let slip the lawyers of war!
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.
A few years down the road, they wanted me to apply for Top Secret clearence so I could work on "black" projects. This required me signing a form that gave up my doctor patient privacy which basically opens up my medical records. This clearence also would have sent FBI agents out interviewing my neighbors, family, former teachers, friends, you name it. All this so I could work on a job to which I could only sneakernet software into, not talk about, and receive no extra money! I told them NO. Since then I have moved on vowing never to become an aerospace flunky again... :)
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
...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!