Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
No, I didn't miss your point. I was commenting on the rationalization, which I quoted in my response. I was commenting on these two things:
1) Only people who have something to hide should refuse to disclose information or permit searches, or the corollary, that if you refuse to disclose information or permit searches you must be hiding something.
I reject that notion categorically. Maybe all I am doing is defending my liberty.
2) Loss of liberty is worth it if it protects "just one" innocent. No, it isn't, since the loss of liberty leads eventually to the repression of many innocents.
You'll note above in this thread I pointed out that much of the information needed to "invade our privacy" is publically available in commercial databases. Commercial databases are the property of the business owner, not the property of the individual the data is about. I'm talking about credit reports and the financial records and other random data that back those up.
The other common source of data you (or someone) listed has always been public data - criminal records. It is just only recently with the computerization of these data and the interstate cooperation in the wake of 9-11 that combines these data across jurisdictional boundaries that this massive amout of data could be searched cost effectively.
So, background checks are relatively easy and cheap to do due to the combination of commercial databases and the computerization of criminal databases.
All of that has absolutely nothing to do with the rationalization I was commenting on.
|
OK. It sounded to my like your comments were a rebuttal to mine. Now it sounds like they weren't. I actually don't disagree with either of your numbered statements above. I just don't think being asked to sign a form that allows a background check is a loss of liberty, since I've already lost that bit of privacy already. If one wants to rail against the already existing "services" around which have already served to limit our liberty, I will probably be right there with them. I just don't agree that being asked to sign a form that allows a group to do something they can already do infringes on my existing rights at all.
Regarding "1) Only people who have something to hide should refuse to disclose information or permit searches, or the corollary, that if you refuse to disclose information or permit searches you must be hiding something." I never said that, and I don't agree with it. I'll assume now that you were refuting something someone else said, or that you incorrectly inferred that notion from what I did say.
Regarding "2) Loss of liberty is worth it if it protects "just one" innocent. No, it isn't, since the loss of liberty leads eventually to the repression of many innocents." Again, I agree with you. Where we obviously differ is the assumption that being asked to allow a background check is or is not a loss of liberty. In today's world, it is not. It may be a liberty or more accurately a privacy that we have already lost. We may even both agree that we should fight to get it back ... but the requirement that we allow a sanctioning body to do what they already can do is absolutely not a loss of existing liberty.