Slashdot Mirror
Background-Check Software Goes Retail
Makarand writes "According to this article in the Mercury News, ChoicePoint Inc.,
one of the nation's largest vendors of personal, financial and legal data is attempting to
mass market a
background-check software tool-kit which can be used to tap into ChoicePoint's online
databases. Choicepoint requires that you have a business license to run a small business to use this software.
However, as users of these services are rarely audited or asked to produce their business license, the purchaser can potentially
conduct criminal background checks, Social Security number identification and other checks on anyone for a small fee. Privacy advocates are cautioning that making background-check software a consumer product could
easily put personal information into the wrong hands."
The govt needs to do a better job of regulating personal data. I guess passing tax cuts for the wealthy is more important than protecting the privacy of individuals. Businesses get what they pay for, a system of government for the Business by the Business.
I wonder if this will ever change.
Additional checks cost from $3 to verify a Social Security number to $9 for a credit report to $25 for a national criminal screening.
Privacy advocates are cautioning that making background-check software a consumer product could easily put personal information into the wrong hands.
I would argue this info IS ALREADY in the wrong hands and the commoditization of such info merely creates a balance by giving that same access to the little guy (or reasonably little guy).
Now, if you'll excuse me, I was just interacting with my pal, Bonzi Buddy...
Web browsers give you the same info for free..
I can understand that there are legitimate uses for this; I can see why a parent would like background checks on babysitters for my kids and such.
But the larger question is, what is this society coming to? Why are we becoming so paranoid about everything? Everyone wants their own privacy, but then they're willing to go and spy on other people to find out more about them...
I don't know. It's early on a Sunday... just throwing some thoughts out.
So now people who happen to find SS cards can actually find out whose SS it is. Here comes better identity theft!
I hope no-one realises this is a comb-over!
I think that the government should not worry about customer information and worry about what is going on in the rest of the world(IRAQ, Osama...) This is one of the smallest problems in the world we live in today!
I'm as good as fired when my boss sees my childpr0n conviction!
Honestly, how many people lie to their employers? Kinda bugs me.
they had released this before I married that axe murderer.
How does a business license make someone any more reputable? If the guy at the corner Likker-n-Lotto can buy this software, we may as well give it out for free on street corners. "Wrong hands" indeed.
.nosig
One of the scariest parts about this article is that it assumes that this kind of software usually puts private information into "right" hands. In a world where your personal socializing habits are grounds for failing a background check, it really blurs the concept of "the wrong hands."
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
This may be a small change for Joe "Bonzi Buddy Is Cool" User (adding some info that would be more than usernames & passwords. Possiblely credit card #'s)
for the rest of us well...
I don't welcome our new Savvy Civilian Overlords
Knowledge of each of us is only valuable if distribution is limited. If everybody knows everything about everybody, lots of problems simply go away: people are suddenly no longer able to use irrelevant superficial criteria to make decisions if the expect to succeed. (Those naive zealots who continue to do so will fail when all the dirty, scummy, real people out there with actual skills get hired up by their competators.)
Everybody has to grow up in a world where this data is free.
Key point in the ideal being that the data has to be free. Cheap and ubiquitous is a good first step toward free.
Everybody always focusses on "no data collected" as the right answer for building a good world. "All data public," I think, makes an equally good, perhaps more mature, world.
There have for some time been a plethora of web-based services allowing you do exactly the same kind of background checking, with the same level of business license verification. (Or non-verification, depending on your point of view...)
This is really more of a packaging / marketing / merchandising issue, than a technical or even a legal issue.
In fact, since surfing the web is much easier than installing software, I wonder if this product will cause any increase in the occasions of misuse of background checking. Anyone who wants to do it but shouldn't be able to, already can take a crack at it via the web.
This is very similar to "security through obscurity" - if only the elite few have access, then you can be sure it will not be thoroughly checked for abuses.
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
I don't think it's about paranoia. We have a disconnected society. In the case of child care providers, we no longer have ourselves, family members, and trusted friends raising our kids (and even these groups have caused trouble in some cases). We live in a world of complete strangers. It's not paranoia no want a little background info in those cases.
www.publicdata.com
For starters, there's the sticker that seals the top of the box. `Business License Required,' it reads.
Whew, I feel sooo much better, I was thinking just anybody could get their package....sigh!
Or Does a sexual predator live in your neighborhood?
These databases are inevitable and likely to proliferate.
We all watched how "potential" employers used their access to the social security IDs from job applications submited to various job sites.
Imagine how much more effective and automated will be to impersonate someone having access to this wealth of information.
What happened to the Civil Rights?
Privacy advocates are cautioning that making background-check software a consumer product could easily put personal information into the wrong hands.
OK, what planet have these "privacy advocates" been living on? Could easily put? Hasn't personal information been in the wrong hands already for years now? Hell, forget buying software, all you've needed for YEARS has been $100 or so, and you can get your hands on whatever personal information you want on almost whoever you want, from any number of private investigation companies, online and offline.
Just a couple examples:
Background Check International's fee structure
Checkmate.com's fee structure
BackgroundFile background check software
Many many more, this was just the first few I found on a google search. Choice Point is just jumping on the gravy train. Whooptie do.
What's the big deal? This information has been "freely" available on LexisNexis.com for ages!
This is all public information available at the county court house. I do background checks and all I have to do is get off my fat ass and go there. Please to locate reality before crying about the wrong thing. Thank you.
What they are doing is offering a service for a fee, a service they know many people will buy. They are also passing the responsibility onto the user to "be honest that they are using the information for legit cause." Plus they make you fax some form and have a company employee verify the data. I'm sorry but I'm sure they will have a minimum wage or slightly better person to "verify" these requests. It just seems like a company even though is legally correct it putting the burden of proof to the user, are just making a bad decision for all consumers. Like many will say, this will make it allot easier to track people down, get some revenge, and do worse things.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
If it was being sold to regular people rather than just businesses then I would say it's a good thing. As it stands, it's just reinforcing the idea that corporations are a class above real people in America.
It is usually fairly trivial to find out interesting information about someone, especially if you have something like a person's job application in front of them. While all the information there is self voulenteered, it is likely to be at least substantially correct. This contains a plethora of potential leads. It is even easier if you do not contrain yourself to bounds of law and misrepresent yourself on the phone.
You simply call up their previous/current employers, their surnames if the surname is unusual, and their neighbors. One blabby former/current coworker or relation will tell you lots of what you want to know. A proverbial little old lady who lives across the street can If you have access to credit reports, there is also additional fun stuff in there. Credit reports vary in accuracy and completeness, the information there needs verification but there are plenty of good leads there.
Don't forget your public records, like tax assessors, VCIS for bankruptcy filings, and my personal favorite resource: research desks at libraries if you are dealing with a geographic area for which you are not familiar. Research desk librarians usually live for answering odd questions for random people and are usually pretty cool people to boot.
-- benton.
A lot of businesses already require your tax history before they will consider hiring you...
Some even do ongoing investigations, and know who your friends are...
( speaking form experience here.. it shocked me when I discovered they were doing it.. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Oh heck, this can be abused in the "right hands" too. So you need a "business license" to get this? Easily obtained.
And lets say you are a manager someplace that has access to this information, and your college aged daughter has a new boyfriend? Easy enough to check up on him, isn't it. Oh, and it isn't abuse of the system because it's to protect your little girl.
As long as you are using the company equipment, have a neighbor you don't like? Easy enough to find out more about who he really is, too. And it's just to protect your family.
The "Two IDs" sketch of "Amazon Women on the Moon" and that brokerage commercial where the guy is freaked out by his blind date knowing everything about him are not far away from reality now.
-- I Am Not A Terrorist.
Sure, maybe they have good intentions, but really??? I am 21 yrs old and have a Federal Tax ID to run a business (obtained for free through the IRS) and I can obtain a legitamite business license for around $50. So another words, I could use my FREE Tax ID and cheap business license to get this software and run background checks on anybody I want?? All I need is a social?? And a "forged" application of some sort (in case of an audit, I can "prove" they applied). Gee, save me some time researching on the internet. /me doesn't exist. You don't know me..
I'm a ghost... no really, I am. I love my privacy so LEAVE ME ALONE!! Take this software out of production.
The way I see it, this is ultimately a good thing. Right now, most people are totally unaware of how much info is out there about them, because it's not trivial for any random person to get. What they don't realize is that almost anyone could get this type of info if they wanted.
In the long run, this should make people realize what information about someone cannot be trusted as actually identifying that person... then maybe fewer people will think that their mother's maiden name is a good way to restrict access to important things like their utility accounts.
That was actuallya reply to Boomer Sooners comment. My mistake
Who do you think benefits when businesses benefit? No one? The big giant millionaire man hell-bent on creating conspiracies to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The people who work for that business benefit. The investors in that business benefit. As has been mentioned previously here on /., most stock of large corporations is held in pension funds, IRAs, 401(K) Plans, and from shares in mutual hunds held by individual investors. The owner/CEO of a business/corporation isn't the only one who benefits when a business/corporation does well.
/. for anyone who makes a lot of money. We have a progressive tax system in the U.S., meaning proportionally if you make more money, you pay more in taxes on the theory that it's less of a burden for the richer person to pay more to help support the poorer person. Why is it evil and conspiratorial if the government decides to give some money back to the people who are paying most of it (I think it was a stupid idea but that doesn't make it evil)
Now I'm not going to argue that Bush's tax cut was a good idea (it wasn't, IMHO) or that Bush is good for the economy (he's not, IMHO) or am I going to argue against your initial statement (that the govt should do a better job of regulating personal data). I am going to say however that you made an insightful comment (govt should do a...) and followed it up w/ crud about how it's wasting it's time trying to help the wealthy - a completely separate argument.
I get very angry at all the hatred I see on
How accurate is this information? This is an important consideration. I could see a use for this in gunshops, for example. It'd probably be a lot faster than making a call to NICS, and cut down on government expenses for staffing NICS. But what if the information is wrong or incomplete? Likewise with employment.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Choicepoint requires that you have a business license to run a small business to use this software. However, as users of these services are rarely audited or asked to produce their business license, the purchaser can potentially conduct criminal background checks, Social Security number identification and other checks on anyone for a small fee.
What's so magic about a "licensed business", that limiting the data to them would do anything useful?
Crooks license businesses all the time, as do pathologically-lying psychopathic scumbags that manage to stay barely within the law.
Look at a used-car lot some time. Or nearly ANY sales organization. Or the executive suite of any corporation. Or middle-management at a job near you.
And tightening up the requirements for business licenses, or enforcing business-license requirements for disclosure of the data, will do no good and much harm. The crooks, who do their crookery for a living, will still have the time and incentive to hop through any hoops set up, or to skate around them. (As by setting up a business to sell the info under-the-table to their hands-on bretheren.)
Increasing the threshold for access, while still leaving it available to "licensed businesses", just further increases the subjugation of the general population. Why should any seller on E-Bay have less access to credit information on his potential customers (whom he has NEVER seen) than your local five-and-dime? Why should you be unable to check what the company is saying about YOU when asked by a "licensed business", and have to TRUST them to keep your data correct, and to give you the same info they give paying customers if you ask for a check?
The problem is not that it's "too easy" to "fake" being a "licensed business".
The problem is that the information is available to businesses AT ALL.
Privacy advocates are cautioning that making background-check software a consumer product could easily put personal information into the wrong hands.
That's just another aspect of the general empowerment of both the little guy and the big guy by the technological revolution.
Invasion of privacy has had limited impact before automation because it was so costly that it could only be applied rarely and selectively - typically only by government. Now it's cheap. So perhaps we need to protect it explicitly when we could mostly let it slide before, largely protected, like sheep, by fading into a large visually-identical crowd.
But if it needs protecting it needs EQUAL protection from ALL players (including government). Making it available only to "licensed businesses", thus giving it to the crooks while keeping it from the honest individuals and raising the cost-of-entry and/or risk-of-entry for small businesses, just won't cut it.
If it's public record, anybody should be able to see it. If it's not, nobody should. Then focus on defining and enforcing THAT.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You must be new here (earth I mean, not Slashdot). Humans are imperfect, therefore they make mistakes. The smart ones will learn from these mistakes and move on. The problem is, products like this make it hard to move on short of dying and reincarnating.
Choicepoint requires that you have a business license to run a small business to use this software. However, as users of these services are rarely audited or asked to produce their business license, the purchaser can potentially conduct criminal background checks, Social Security number identification and other checks on anyone for a small fee.
So, why can't they use their uber-database to see if a potential customer has a business license???
If their software is so dense as to miss obvious publicly available information like that, then I wouldn't worry.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Mmm, makes me wish I was the coder...
Hate me!
Court records are public info, marriage certificates are public info, and many business transactions result in a public record. Really, your enitre life is published, it's just in so many disorganized places that it's hard for anybody to put it all together.
However, that's where technology comes in. Once all of those databases are converted from paper to bits, and then the tables are brought together and cross-linked, you can get a very scary pile of information just by having a name and address, or a social security number alone.
And really, the laws to regulate the use of such a database don't exist because, well, it hasn't really been fully done yet. But it seems like we keep getting closer and closer to the day where such a system will fully have the kinks knocked out and be availalbe to anybody who can pay for it...
I'd rather build a shelter in the middle of the jungle and eat roots and dried wildebeest dung for the rest of my life than have some pencil-pushing jackass looking over my personal business before I interview for a job.
Why is being a business a more valid reason to have access to this data than being an individual? Oh I forgot, business is the new "law" in the USA...
From Inside Republican America: A blacklist burning for Bush:
From Firm in Florida election fiasco earns millions from files on foreigners: Simply put: ChoicePoint is evil. Welcome to Bush & Ashcroft's Amerika."And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Okay, am I the only one who's getting "page unavailable" and "503 Service Not Available" errors every other time I try to read slashdot?
c ocom_is_a_weapon_of_mass_destruction.html ]
Is slashdot being slashdotted? Or has sco.com finally redirected all the mydoom traffic to slashdot? [as per http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/01/30/wwws
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
And you posted this as an AC ? Where TF is the full dislosure of information ?
You, my friend, are a complete hypocrite.
Voting with my feet - I won't be shopping at EB again.
Users of this software should have to pass a background check before they can use it. See how they like it. Having a business license doesn't prove anything as in most areas anyone that pays the fee can get one.
While I agree with you that the info is already in the wrong hands I don't thjink that widenting the spread is going to help any. In the end I think that the more that this information spreads the worse off we are. Yes If I biy this I can look up data on my neighbor and perhaps on John Ascroft (or his family) but that won't make things any better. My Neighbor won't be able to do anything about it and John Ascroft will come down on me like a ton of bricks (and, on top of that probably get his data removed from the system).
At the end of the day all that this will do is erode our privacy further, make blackmail a more common practice, and let the powerful stay powerful.
Social Security number?
Hmmm. How much you want to bet that his background is blocked?
Given that ChoicePoint is the same sleazy outfit that conspired with the Bush family and the GOP to corrupt Florida's election results in 2000 (see this article and others), it's too late to keep it out of the wrong hands, and also explains why they have no qualms about irresponsibly allowing any (other) crook to get their hands on it. Pathetic.
as if it's not in the wrong hands already
I think the point is that the software is on the shelf at Sam's Club. The market is not for Web/tech savy types like you and I, its being targeted at the average user. So, here some guy goes to Sam's for a 10lb. bag of Gummi Bears and sees this software as he walks by, thinking, 'man, that jackass neighbor pissed me off, now I can get dirt on him.'
While you and I might be fine with paying for a service on the Web, lots of people don't get it, they want a box, a manual, tangible items that they can hold. For example, I bought a Powerbook recently. I wanted the iMac service for a bit of extra online storage and it seemed convenient. Y'know what, they gave me a BOX with an activation code inside (ok, iSync too, which I could've downloaded). But, for the market Apple is after, giving them the box makes all the difference. the sales guy holds up the box and says 'Do you want iMac too?' and the regular guys says 'Well, it comes in a box it must BE something.'
Just becuase the resources are already out there doesn't make this software/article meaningless.
"None of us are as dumb as all of us." - meeting mantra
Every Credit Card, every Bank Account, just about everything that has to do with your finances.
"How could that be bad?" you ask?. Easy.
Get into trouble (Credit rates delayed, Credit Card cancelled, Wrong Information entered into their system [it happened]) and BINGO, now more money from the bank.
In fact, no more Bankaccount. Yes, they can deny you the right to have a Bankaccount based upon a statement from the people at the "SCHUFA".
And it just takes 3 years to get records cleared from the statements.
Still not bad enough? You have to sign a statement for having you information and personal data transmitted to SCHUFA everytime you want something like...a telephone or change your ISP. Guess what happens if you get a negative report? Right.
And last, they invented a scoring system...based upon statistical data.
Living in a bad neighburhood? Negative Points in the soring system.
Had an accident some time ago, maybe even your fault? More negative points.
So the they assess you, and can deny a credit for example, just because you live in the wrong area.
You see, this is happening all over the world, and I don't think anyone can or will stop it. It'll get much worse before it might get better.
Cheers Jens
there criminal record is public record this software just makes it easyer to sift thru the record.
As I'm sure a lot of engineers discovered this year, the Alternative Minimum Tax wipes out any tax cuts at the middle and high end of the spectrum. The AMT is pretty much the reason the tax cut package went through, Dems can bash Dubya for the tax break without actually giving the tax break.
Back to the original point, the public doesn't care about privacy. They will gladly give up everything about themselves for $.10 off a Pepsi.
iceburglar "If it wasn't for date rape, I'd still be a virgin."
Unreal. It's of a puppy licking a little boy's face. I think they need to replace the picture both the dog and the kid to accurately reflect the kind of business they are in.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Do you mean this?
Osama bin Laden captured. United States government waiting to announce the capture so that Bush will be re-elected.
Checkmate.com's fee structure
The funny part is that Checkmate actually says on their web page, "All information is kept strictly confidential."
Five percent of one year's DoD budget puts us on Mars.
So what's the solution? Even more regulation? I think not. What this country needs is less government and more oligarchy.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Claiming your opponents aren't really human is an ancient as well as common part of conflict. It really helps if you plan to go to war or do other nasty things to them, and don't want to feel bad about it.
In reality businesses are nothing but a collection of people. Like all people they do good things and bad things.
Trying to draw a distinction between "people" on one hand and "businesses" on the other is saying that business people aren't really human. If you want to take their money and feel good about it, that's a handly mindset to have.
One simple solution to all of this: Whenever someone is researched by a third party like this, why can't it be mandatory that the researcher be positively identified, and the target of research must be notified of the research within 1-2 months unless a court decides that there's criminal activity worthy of suppressing these details?
C'mon, if secrecy or access control worked, then the windows source code wouldnt have leaked. Just a thought, but why not just make these databases public? At least then, there would no longer be this false sense of security. I think some people care more if their neighbors and/or churches have access to this info rather than some random criminal. If people want privacy to be taken seriously, then you need to get *everyone* involved, which means everyone has to experience a little negative reinforcement. When people start to realize that the information in government databases is world-accessible, they will start to safeguard any information NOT released. As opposed to right now where people don't care becuase they assume all their personal info is protected. Hence, the rise in identity theft. Then, when people get phone calls from scam artists trying to solicit personal information, they'll start to wonder why their so-and-so company front doesn't already have access to such information. Thus producing a more security conscious person. Take for example hackers and virus writers. Would we be motivated to care about security if noone cared to exploit vulnerabilities? [Do Canadians lock their front doors? :)] Without negative reinforcement, noone cares.
:) ]
I think people have to start thinking in terms a world where secrecy provides little or no protection. If you want protection, you have to control the access *yourself*. In an ideal world, a government would provide administrator priveleges to citizens over their own information. They would have firewall-like protection over who can access the database, from where, from when, and what parts can be accessed. The information would be dynamic and treated like UNIX passwords. Social Security (and other) numbers would change annually to a random permutation. etc. We live in a windows-help-desk world, where people are too scared or lazy to RTFM, store passwords on sticky notes under the keyboard, and assume big brother will provide us with security. But in an ideal world, people live their lives for knowledge and not money or power. People would take responsibility seriously and follow protocols. Also, we would know what information is important, so we could write a computer program that follows our everyday activities,indicates when certain information is important, and suggest procedures to deal with it.
Then again, if someone is determined to get information, they will get it. You can invest $X million in security, but its worthless after I drive a truck with 100 ninjas through the front door, kidnap you, and apply duress. I could either leave you for dead while I exploit the information or I could have been more stealthy, too, if I needed you to be unaware so that information remains the same.
Which brings us back to this ideology of assuming nothing is secret and making decisions based off that. You're better off losing sleep over the fact that one day you might die rather than if some unauthorized individual will access your personal information. Why flirt with disaster when you can just face it head on and make contigiencies? [ Disclaimer: milege will vary.
...small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri...
Many municipalities, including mine, don't require businesses to be licensed. What's to keep any customer who buys the package from saying he's from such a place?
The most dangerous and corrosive thing for an egalitarian society is an "inner circle" with access to powers not generally available.
If this is Too Much Information, then the rules need to be changed for everyone. In the meantime, it brings the issue to the fore where it can be looked at.
The correct level of privacy or disclosure is very much up for debate. That the rules should be the same for everyone is not. That's the meaning of the blindfold on the justice symbol, and that blindfold has been slipping badly of late.
Perhaps we are all forgetting the role this company had in fixing the 2000 election in Florida by cleansing the voter registration rolls of 60000+ black voters? Absolutely unacceptable that they should be allowed to do this.
Privacy advocates are cautioning that making background-check software a consumer product could easily put personal information into the wrong hands."
My opinion is that personal information long been already in the wrong hands...now there will just be more of them. It's not just a matter of privacy - it's just as much a matter of accuracy. Not only can these companies harvest, store, and sell information about you, it's your job to ensure that it's accurate. Anyone who has tried to deal with the likes of TRW or any other data warehouse knows what a chore it is to correct any errors, and the incredible amount of time that it takes. Oddly, the data carries with it a presumption of accuracy, and if it's not accurate, or if the data on hand is the result of fraudulent activity, you have to prove that its innaccurate, or that you're innocent with respect to the fraudulent activity. Even worse, if someone is going to use this information in some kind of evaluation, you have no idea where it's coming from or what's in it.
Show me a law that makes a company accountable for the data it stores and sells at the drop of a hat, and I'll show you a business gone bust. Maybe a good starting point would be a requirement that company specializing in the pimping of personal information be required to send a copy of everything it releases to the person being investigated.
IMO, one of the most valuable pieces of information available in the future will be personal information associated with static IP addresses. I suspect many entities are busy compiling "IP databases" and this would be a product that could be of great use to both businesses and individuals who might want to identify users on their web sites, people on IM/IRC systems, or the senders of pseudo-anonymous e-mail.
Even a single company like Amazon.com likely has a huge database of IP addresses associated with detailed customer information (imagine if an information broker started consolidating this information across many sites). Due to the almost non-existant privacy laws in this respect, Amazon, or anyone could sell this information. You get an e-mail from someone you don't like? With their IP address you can get their name, address, phone number, etc. Anyone who wants to gather a mailing list of people who have visited their web site can run a cross-reference of the web logs against these sorts of databases. As more people move to DSL and cable, with static IPs, a database of this nature becomes the missing link to make most Internet activity un-anonymous.
You are a MORON.
in election 2000:
m
.... MORE Harper's Magazine, 3/1/02 ....posted by jkeels, 3/5/02
http://www.whoseflorida.com/electoral_reform.ht
THE GREAT FLORIDA EX-CON GAME
How the "felon" voter-purge was itself felonious
by Greg Palast
In November the U.S. media, lost in patriotic reverie, dressed up the Florida recount as a victory for President Bush. But however one reads the ballots, Bush's win would certainly have been jeopardized had not some Floridians been barred from casting ballots at all. Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protegees of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.) A portion of the list, which was compiled for Florida by DBT Online, can be seen for the first time here; DBT, a company now owned by ChoicePoint of Atlanta, was paid $4.3 million for its work, replacing a firm that charged $5,700 per year for the same service. If the hope was that DBT would enable Florida to exclude more voters, then the state appears to have spent its money wisely.
and they settled out of court
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
I would rather have EVERYONE check each other than only large corporations (or wealthy elites) have the capability.
;), I can get this information).
NOTE: Everything I say is only about things that can be accessed by any wealthy individual or a corporation. I am TOTALLY AGAINST some entity, say the government, collecting new information. Everything I speak of is with regards to existing "personal information". I am not in favour of letting people spy on each other with totally private information (eg. your medical records).
Right now, large corporations and welathy elites (usually by hiring private "specialists") can check someone's SIN (Social Insurance Number) number and things like that. Basically any corporation can do this. In contrast, the typical citizen cannot do these things. This is very unfair for the average person. If I start a bogus business, I can check someone's SIN number but if I don't have a business I can't. What sort of lunacy is this? Obviously no one has said anything about this issue because the clueless masses have no idea what is going on.
By lowering the cost for doing these things, the average person can start spying on each other. This sounds bad on the surface but it is good (no, this isn't some Orweillian double-think at work). The best world is when you have absolute privacy or no privacy!!! Anything in between can be manipulated (usually by so-called "authorities" who are just a bunch of elites).
If someone can spy on me, or access my "personal information*" then I want to spy on them in return. This is only fair!!!!!!!!
I realize that what I said sounds dumb... but think about it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai (* Note that so-called personal information is not very personal since anyone (businesses, wealthy people, etc) can access them. Your SIN number, for example, is NOT private. You might think it is safe but it's not. If I was rich, or had contacts, or ran the country
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
This is nothing.
Wait until some offshore company starts keeping records on everyone in the US. They wouldn't be subject to US law and could keep any information they liked in their databases.
For example, corporations would likely use this offshore information to make hiring decisions, and if there was incorrect or derogatory information in it, no US court could suboena the offsore company to produce the data.
Any reason, that is, other than pure discrimination. No, my credit history isn't the best, but yes, I'm a damn good employee. The two just aren't related in any meaningful way that I can see.
a culture is based on an economic concept. Everyone has the right to run a business, the right to attempt to make money. In the words of many hollyword scriptwriters, 'Capitalist pigdogs!'.
Yay me!
Gamer: One copy of bloodkiller IV
Clerk: Sorry, we have to run a background check and there is a three day waiting period
Gamer: Well what can I get now?
Clerk: Fuzzy Bunnies III The cutening or the gold cart simulator.
Gamer: Nuts
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
...i vote this the most USELESS NEWS POST yet this year. Everyone and their grandma knows about this crap, and WHO CARES....jeez, can we PLEASE get some interesting crap posted here??? I mena for christ sake, the next post donw on here talks about Microdrives becoming more popular because of the iPod. You guys have been out of the loop for a LONG time it seems. The microdrives were popular when they first started appearing in Hitachi MP3 players...the digital photograhy buffs were ripping them out...get with it...
No one cares that factory jobs were sent overseas, because everyone can see that we should instead be concentrating on *replacing* those jobs with robots and automated machinery.
So, what do people do? They train for jobs working with computers and robots and automated processes.
What happens? *Those* jobs are offshored.
What fucking jobs are left? None. We can either join the US military in maintaining US 'business interests' by keeping all those third-worlders working hard doing our jobs or we can train to become accountant/overlords for said third-worlders.
Guess what happens when the accountants are outsourced...
America is such a paradise where only one parent is required to work to support the family.
However most people are not willing for this lifestyle. It means you buy used a car, and keep it running (one, not three or four). It means the kids share a bedroom, girls in one, boys in the other. (Note, compare this to the 1800s where one room cabins smaller than those bedrooms sometimes slept families of 10) It means eating out is a rare celebration, with most meals cooked at home, and even then cheap meals. It means that you never go to the movies, and watch broadcast TV on your free TV from someone who upgraded, and if you can't see the bottom third of the TV because it is broken too bad. It means you books come from the library. It means your clothing is cheap, and not in style.
Note that this is not living in poverty. There is plenty of good food (and healthier than what passes for food at most resteraunts). There are warm clothes, and they don't have holes in them.
As for if it is better? Well that is complex, but if you are not willing to live the above you should not have kids. Love is important for raising kids, somehow you need to keep them out of trouble, while teaching them how to make their own decisions. And a million other things. How you do it is up to the parents, there are thousands of different ways that work. Living on one income can be done, but you can turn out good kids one two if you must. I think it is easier on one income, but either way there are hardships.
However, as users of these services are rarely audited or asked to produce their business license, the purchaser can potentially conduct criminal background checks, Social Security number identification and other checks on anyone for a small fee.
This has been available for years. You can already do a combined credit check, criminal history check, and background check (including known aliases, current address, past addresses and cohabitors, marriages, divorces, etc.) for under $100 from sites like USSearch.com. All they ask for is your credit card number -- they don't care if you're a business owner, stalker, or what have you.
Not to mention the 65 million dollar contract for supplying information to the US for the citizens of Latin American countries. What skated by the news whas that the service www.atxpi.com was shut down as of sept. 30, 2003 and that all data was to be deleted by an oversight committee. What happened to the 65 mil.? What happened to the remaining datasets from Colombia, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Venezeula etc.... Glad I no longer work there :)
some serial rapist child adbucter murderer identity theft will get caught using this software and then they'll make a tv movie about him and then joe sixpack and his wife dailyshow sue will care.
speaking of which, sue told me that the daily show had something about diebold on it and that it was bad. WOW!!!
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
As a previous /.er pointed out, you just can't place the entire mess at lawyer's feet. They are working within the system, and the system is at least serviceable (the system has been the same since before this push towards frivolous lawsuits. It is just a matter of who is using the tool). One of the nice things about common law.
:)
Two things that have changed: insurance companies and stupid jurors.
In a sense, the MDs are just exercising the same privilege that insurance companies have been (denying coverage based upon history), and a good portion of the lawsuit frenzy starts with insurance companies attempting to recoup cost (I am quick to point out most insurance companies make money hand over fist regardless of economic conditions. Part of the culture of fear).
And even then, the entire thing might have been stopped if it weren't for indulgent juror awards. The lawyers don't make the decisions in this respect, juries do. Blame them.
Doctors would do well to demand disclosure from boards just to weed out the poor doctors. Patients would do well to demand full disclosure from MDs (and in a sense we still have this through word of mouth), and both would do well to demand full disclosure from insurance companies. Insurance was meant to pay costs, not set policy. An informed decision helps everybody.
Can't say how to make smarter juries except for have you hugged a geek/nerd today
Choicepoint was involved with the 60,000+ names handed to Jeb Bush of wrongly accused "felons". 7,000+ of which were legally able to vote and were denied. Bush won by under 600 votes.
Now I'm guessing from the no saliry and bank account that you are a minor, and don't have any assets. That's great. However for those of us that DO it can be a major problem. If you got my bank account number, SSN, address, vital stastics and such, you could rip me off for quite a bit of money. You could actually do this with much less, just my check card number and experation date would do it.
This is the real concern. Sorry to shatter any illusions you may have had but the finincal world, at least for normal people, does not invlove 5 keys, 3 passwords, a retenal scan and a secret handshake. Some information and numbers is more or less all you need.
As Calvin Coolidge stated, "The business of America is business." The American government and the press have ALWAYS catered to the business class.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
"The problem, experts say, is that many factors that can affect a credit report have nothing to with an individual's character. "It's going to reflect things like divorce, sickness, loss of one's job, possibly even identity theft ... so as a measure of conscientiousness or attention to detail, it's not very good," says Jerry Palmer, a professor of industrial and organizational psychology at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond.
Dr. Palmer should know. Recent research he conducted with colleague Laura Koppes tested whether there is any correlation between employees' credit reports and job performance. Though the study was limited to one industry - financial services - the answer they got was a resounding "no." "
I have no doubt that the European approach is superior, unfortunately you seem to be exporting the US one to us.
Given that aggregation of personal data and widespread use of it is increasing I proposed a rule a while ago - specifically with regard to medical records and the NHS but it may be generally usable.
Whenever anyone who asserts the right to access personal information does so, this should produce an entry in what will eventually be a statement (like a telephone statement- an itemised "bill") the data subject receives.
Identifiying the person who accessed the data, what data they accessed, and what their assertion was as to their rights, along with the purpose for which they stated the use of data was necessary acts as a reasonable check on the legitimacy of those accesses and uses.
The underlying assertion here in the NHS is that poeple would not mind if they knew, so there is no need to tell them, which I think is highly suspect. In the US you seem to have more of an assertion that people holding the data have the right to sell it, and in fact that makes an evenhanded rule seem quite sensible.
While it may be illegal to *demand*, they can *request* I'm sure.. And if you refuse, then can just deem you 'unqualified' and move on..
Just like they do with age or race.. sure its illegal, but prove the interviewer did it....
In my area it was for a job that paid 1/2 that salary you speak of, however it was 15 years ago.. And they really did do ongoing investigation.. After i learned of this, i left
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why is this suddenly news? The Choicepoint story was on local TV news (not the bastion of anything cerebral, usually) three months ago, and I'm pretty sure TechTV also talked about it around the same time.
Maybe some reporter finally cleared the fast food wrappers off his or her desk and found the ketchup stained (God, they probably hope it was ketchup) wire copy.
Does the system suck? Yes, the system sucks ass. But now you at least have some idea why Americans are "privacy nuts". Because having your information get out is a really big pain.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Agreed.