RE: [BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: New book -- good but disturbing
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Wiseman
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 10:03 AM
[ Snip ]
> (Footnote: my privacy rights attorney friend notes that there
> is not even a requirement that the info in NCIC be
> *accurate*. Therefore somebody can be adversely affected by
> *inaccurate* NCIC info and have no recourse. Yeeks!)
(A) With regards to the lack of recourse: no competent company is going to
tell you that they didn't hire you because of your arrest record in the NCIC
[Note 1], therefore the accuracy of otherwise of the records has no impact
on the issue of _recourse_ to you not getting the job. You may choose to
believe that they didn't hire you because of of an inaccurate record, but
it's your word against the prospective employer's, and while some people
seem to think they're entitled to whatever job they want, that's actually
just an amusing conceit with no basis in reality.
(B) With regards to the accuracy of records: you have perfectly good
statutory recourse. Perhaps someone interested in this stuff might find
checking the statutes may be relevant and informative at some stage? One
might find that, say, 5 USC 552a would be entertaining reading!
> Here is a brief quote from page 39: "The electronic
> plantation is less visible than the criminal justice
> plantation, the social services plantation, or the rice and
> cotton plantations of centuries past. Nonetheless, it's
> real. Employers, schools, and government agencies would
> rather not hire someone who has been arrested, or whom the
> social service has lableed as "troubled." Lendors would
> rather not make a loan or a mortgage. Credit cards? Forget
> about it.
> Landlords, ditto. Why entrust rental property to someone
> who's been arrested?"
And how much money are they going to pay to investigate the candidate? Like
it or not, the arrest record _exists_, because the individual got arrested.
So while the "don't get arrested" thing certainly applies, the NCIC aspect
is a bit of a red herring -- not least because not all states routinely
participate in sending records to it!
Realistically, these days the easiest and most efficient way to check a
candidate for a job or an rental is to simply run a credit check, which are
100% legal, dirt cheap and will tend to reveal most other potential
negatives anyway (think about it: if you get arrested and then subsequently
acquitted, is it very likely that your credit is going to be great
afterwards?)
The core issue boils down to the fact that in our society it is generally
desirable to have formulaic checklists in lieu of individual judgements for
such things as job applications, because the more mechanical one can make
processes, the less the risk of expensive "operator error".
Malc.
Note 1: Because 5 USC 552a(i) details the criminal penalties for the misuse
of the NCIC records, while 5 USC 552a(g) controls the civil remedies
available.
Post message: BDSM-LegalIssues@onelist.com
Subscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: BDSM-LegalIssues-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/BDSM-LegalIssues
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
posted by Annja Sue at
1:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home