Background Checks

[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?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

I think a history of convictions for violent crimes, even if not committed against children, should disqualify someone from officiating. Do you want someone who served 25+ years for manslaughter being around your kid?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I think a history of convictions for violent crimes, even if not committed against children, should disqualify someone from officiating. Do you want someone who served 25+ years for manslaughter being around your kid?

Frankly, I don't think that alone should be disqualifying. From coaching? Probably (depending on the specifics). From officiating? No.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I think a history of convictions for violent crimes, even if not committed against children, should disqualify someone from officiating. Do you want someone who served 25+ years for manslaughter being around your kid?

Are you aware that that is what one is charged with if crash into someone while driving drunk and kill that person?

Legal Definition of Manslaughter

So if someone went to party while in college, got drunk, tried to drive home anyway, and ended up in a crash which killed someone, then is convicted of manslaughter and serves his time, you are saying that should disqualify this individual from officiating HS sports?

What does that have to do being around kids?

Sorry, Padgett, but you are off the mark with that example. Now had you written murder, which "requires malicious intent," then I would be with you.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Berkut

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.

It is? I have had a US driver's license that did not have a picture. Pictures have only become standard on driver's licenses in the past 20-25 years. For the 1st 100 years or so of cars, pictures were not part of driver's licenses. So, it is demonstrably clear that they are not a necessity.

Originally Posted by Berkut

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

That is exactly what it is.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is? I have had a US driver's license that did not have a picture. Pictures have only become standard on driver's licenses in the past 20-25 years. For the 1st 100 years or so of cars, pictures were not part of driver's licenses. So, it is demonstrably clear that they are not a necessity.

There is a compelling reason for law enforcement officers to be able to positively identify a driver during a traffic stop. No, it's not so they make sure they write the ticket for the right person. It's for officer safety, so they know whether or not the driver has a history of violence. Without a picture ID, such positive identification is impossible.

So, maybe they did it without pictures for the first 80 years (I would say that's an overstatement as I think most states have had pictures on the licenses for quite a few years.) I think there is a very clear distinction here between having your picture on a license and submitting your background check to every venue you officiate.

The picture on your license provides a very clear benefit. The background checks do not.

[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?