Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CecilOne
And that is exactly what is wrong, wrong, wrong.
|
Look! At that thing way over there! It's my point. You missed it entirely.
You may be right that it's WRONG WRONG WRONG. I'm not arguing that.
But it is true. And it has nothing to do with signing a form for a background check. If I knew extremely minimal information about you, I could run a background check on you at minimal cost. I would not have to get a signed piece of paper from you, and I would not be breaking any laws. If you think it is a horrible thing that I can do this, then by all means do what you can to fix the situation, but it is what it is.
So ... asking you for your permission is truly a moot point. There is no loss of liberty by asking for your permission - I can do it anyway.
In fact, the more I think about this... an association that was running checks for the right reasons would be smarter to simply ask, voluntarily, for permission to run a background check. And then, to save money, don't bother running the checks on anyone who gave permission, and ONLY run them on those that didn't. As long as no one knew that was your policy, it would work.
All that aside, though... all I'm saying is that since they can get your info anyway, asking for it is not a hinderance to you, and it's entirely possible that the mere act of ASKING permission will chase away someone who really DOES have no business working as an authority figure over children.