Background Checks

[rsl]

Originally Posted by constable

I still stand by my point- if you have nothing to hide than WHO CARES.

If it costs $5, maybe. If it costs $100, as it apparently does in New York, I care. As many have pointed out, the cost/benefit ratio is small given the risk with referees, and we may lose some good referees.

Oh, and by the way, I do have nothing to hide.

[Berkut]

The entire "If you ahve nothing to hide, you should not care if I have access to your private information" argument is really rather fascist.

I guess I just broke Godwins law, but there it is.

The standard is not "Do you have anything to hide", the standard is "Can you prove to me why you NEED to go poking around in my life?". Whether or not I have "something to hide" is completely irrelevant to whether or not you have the right to demand access to my private life.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Berkut

The entire "If you ahve nothing to hide, you should not care if I have access to your private information" argument is really rather fascist.

I guess I just broke Godwins law, but there it is.

The standard is not "Do you have anything to hide", the standard is "Can you prove to me why you NEED to go poking around in my life?". Whether or not I have "something to hide" is completely irrelevant to whether or not you have the right to demand access to my private life.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

[Adam]

Agreed, there must be some demonstrable benefit before we should be able to require people to turn over aspects of their private lives.

That said, I found out this week that CO is has pretty open records. You can go to the CBI website and pay < $10 and request a background check on anyone for any reason.

That'll come in handy when my daughter starts bringing boys around. "What's your birthday, young man?" "Oh, don't worry, it's just for a scrapbook I like to keep."

pssst: Instead of "fascist," maybe you could have used "authoritarian."

[Berkut]

I think the cost in New York is so high because they do fingerprinting and a pretty full check.

So you get the added bonus of having your fingerprints on file with the State somewhere as well. Joy!

[Camron Rust]

Every point being brought up in opposition to the checks are all in reference to PUBLIC information. Prior convictions are public record. All the background check does is gather public information from various public sources. The person who was convicted has to forever live with the fact that they messed up. These background checks don't delve into private information. The person convicted might like them to be private, but that doesn't make it so.

Note that while various indiscretions may lead being disqulified, not all do...at least in Oregon. In fact, many of the given examples are not considered exclusionary.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Every point being brought up in opposition to the checks are all in reference to PUBLIC information. Prior convictions are public record. All the background check does is gather public information from various public sources. The person who was convicted has to forever live with the fact that they messed up. These background checks don't delve into private information. The person convicted might like them to be private, but that doesn't make it so.

Note that while various indiscretions may lead being disqulified, not all do...at least in Oregon. In fact, many of the given examples are not considered exclusionary.

Maybe, but what happens when some enterprising reporter decides an official's fraud conviction is worthy of plastering all over the region? Oh, wait, background checks aren't required for that information to happen, but they sure as hell would make it easier.

Look, personally, if I thought it would prevent abuse, I'd be for it. I just don't see it. And no, "even one" might not be enough.

Again, let me ask this question. What exactly would be found in criminal background check that can't be found in a sex offender registry that is relevant to officiating?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

I think the cost in New York is so high because they do fingerprinting and a pretty full check.

So you get the added bonus of having your fingerprints on file with the State somewhere as well. Joy!

Talk about being paranoid. Do you worry about your photo being on file with the DMV....it is basically the same thing....they have something to identifiy you with. What about your income history? They have that too.

Just as you don't have the right to drive, you don't have the right to officiate. Both of them are privileges that you can choose to engage in as long as you follow the requirements of that choice. Those granting the privilege basically have the authority to set the requirements for that privilege. Don't like them, do something else.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Talk about being paranoid. Do you worry about your photo being on file with the DMV....it is basically the same thing....they have something to identifiy you with. What about your income history? They have that too.

If there was no need to take my picture to get a drivers license, yes, I would question why they wanted to do so.

However, it seems rather clear that it is in fact necessary to the concept of licensing drivers that their picture be taken, so I accept that as a reasonable request.

There is nothing "paranoid" about this - I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Berkut

So you get the added bonus of having your fingerprints on file with the State somewhere as well.

Is a cheek swab next?

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is a cheek swab next?

Hey, you don't have anything to hide, do you? What is a small DNA sample for us law abiding citizens with nothing to hide?