Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/21/2007 6:39:16 PM   
queencaliph


Posts: 131
Joined: 6/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Petronius

I'd like to see any evidence from any law enforcement agency that lets any employee legally access the databases for personal information like checking out potential play partners.




Have you heard of "Pocket Blue?"  It taps directly into NCIC and an officer can keep it in his pocket.  As a computer professional you do realize that many police departments around the country are putting computers in patrol cars and issuing wireless handheld computers to their patrol officers. At our PD we have computers in our cars.  It has a criminal database, photographs of perps and I can even do my reports on it. It cuts back on the time it takes to run a check on someone.  What used to take up a lot of time can now be done in seconds and what you used to have to either call in over the radio or go back to the station for can be done literally in the palm of your hand, and without ever leaving you car.  So its not a matter of and agency "letting" their officers use it for personal reasons. If it is in an officers possession he can and does run checks on whomever he wants.  And no one knows who we run checks on because there is no way to keep track of the numerous criminal history checks we do and who the person we checked was and why we ran it (that is IF anyone actually cared).  We have to do background checks on every traffic stop we make, every call we are dispatched to and every suspicious person we make contact with. And sometimes we just run names at random for training purposes. 

< Message edited by queencaliph -- 6/21/2007 7:27:48 PM >


_____________________________

"awwww hell......the Queen!"

(in reply to Petronius)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 7:49:34 AM   
Emperor1956


Posts: 2370
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline
Petronius, thank you.  And yes, I see the irony in the "I had to run a CBC illegally because my job punishes me for associating with felons." 

As for the troll, we all know what she is.  No sweat there.

quote:

SimplyMichael:  Emporer,

Cops break the law all the time and their use of LE resources to fuck with and abuse loved ones is legendary.  Ask anyone who works at a battered women's shelter what they think of cops and you will see more than a bit of rage.  If you think NICS isn't abused constantly, I am shocked.

Also, cops only catch the stupid and the unlucky, any decent criminal never gets caught by the cops and has no record.



Michael, I fear you are correct, at least in the cases of supposed police who also appear on CM.  I was going to chide you for your cynicism, and remind you that generally the police deserve our respect and support, but then THIS tripe got posted (tripe edited to save space):

quote:

QueenCaliph:  At our PD we have computers in our cars.  It has a criminal database, photographs of perps and I can even do my reports on it. . . . What used to take up a lot of time can now be done in seconds and what you used to have to either call in over the radio or go back to the station for can be done literally in the palm of your hand, and without ever leaving you car.  So its not a matter of and agency "letting" their officers use it for personal reasons. If it is in an officers possession he can and does run checks on whomever he wants.  And no one knows who we run checks on because there is no way to keep track of the numerous criminal history checks we do and who the person we checked was and why we ran it (that is IF anyone actually cared).  We have to do background checks on every traffic stop we make, every call we are dispatched to and every suspicious person we make contact with. And sometimes we just run names at random for training purposes. 



QC:  I highly doubt you actually are a sworn officer as you represent.  If you are, your level of ignorance of your own department rules is astonishing.  First, every background check you conduct from a remote computer (patrol car or walking) is logged, registered, and easily subject to scrutiny.  You are right in that no one checks this data until there is a need to do so. 

Second, even in the most backassward PD in Mississippi, there are extensive restrictions on the use of Department equipment and data for personal purposes, and in every major PD the misuse of confidential data base information is an offense that will get you busted in rank and probably suspended.  Might I suggest you call your union rep now?



_____________________________

"When you wake up, Pooh," said Piglet, "what's the first thing you say?"
"What's for breakfast? What do you say, Piglet?"
"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?"
Pooh nodded thoughtfully.
"It's the same thing," he said.

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 8:25:59 AM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

quote:

LaT:  I am just curious E, if this is the case then how is it that I can go into local public record and get my son's entire history of less than exemplary citizenship from his late teens and early twenties? 


Well, I'm guessing he did most of his anti-social behavior in one jurisdiction, and it is a jurisdiction that (1) tracks and stores criminal offenses in a data base and (2) allows access to that data base by citizens.  Is that true?  What are you searching at the public library?

Also, does it really have his ENTIRE history?  Arrests?  Dispositions?  If you are checking in Iowa, it is no surprise as Iowa has maintained (and shared) CBC databases since the early 1990s.  Try it in California.

E.


Thank you E. Yes, everything was all in the same jurisdiction therefor what you are saying makes perfect sense. When I was looking at all of it I was at his house and he pulled it up on his computer to show me. I have no idea what the site he used actually was. As for every arrest, it seemed pretty darn thorough but then again he was a busy guy for a few years so it would be hard to know if every single thing was there.

Now for the putz Petronius......because you are obviously clueless and just wanted to stir the kettle you should probably pay more attention next time. If you had half a clue you would know that I have nothing but respect for Emperor and was simply asking him a question. There was nothing in my post to him that was being argumentative or disputing. He and I have communicated outside of the forums and he has some small idea of some of my family stuff. I also know what his profession is and therefor consider him to have alot more knowledge on the subject than I could even begin to. Hense the question.

By your number of posts you are either too new to the forum boards to have a clue or you are a chickenshit regular that needs an alternate ID to hide behind when attempting to play snide childish games. Either way it has shown you to be a boor.

< Message edited by LaTigresse -- 6/22/2007 8:28:15 AM >


_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to Emperor1956)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 8:47:38 AM   
yourMissTress


Posts: 1665
Joined: 6/14/2005
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Also, cops only catch the stupid and the unlucky, any decent criminal never gets caught by the cops and has no record.


Speaking as a woman with a wayward past...this statement is so very true.  There is nothing that anyone would find doing a background check on me regardless of the fact that I spent a few years breaking the law every single day.  The upside being that since turning my life around, I am extremely honest about my past transgressions and tell anyone that I have a relationship with, just what they are and probably more than most people want to know.


_____________________________

Tress


"If you have to tell people that you are a lady, you are not." My Grandmother


(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 9:17:22 AM   
queencaliph


Posts: 131
Joined: 6/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

QC:  I highly doubt you actually are a sworn officer as you represent.  If you are, your level of ignorance of your own department rules is astonishing.  First, every background check you conduct from a remote computer (patrol car or walking) is logged, registered, and easily subject to scrutiny.  You are right in that no one checks this data until there is a need to do so. 

Second, even in the most backassward PD in Mississippi, there are extensive restrictions on the use of Department equipment and data for personal purposes, and in every major PD the misuse of confidential data base information is an offense that will get you busted in rank and probably suspended.  Might I suggest you call your union rep now?




For starters I don't have to argue about whether or not I am a sworn officer.  You have to argue with the state about that, they certified me.  And its not like its such a prestigious job to claim to have.  And yes there is a log.  It prints out,  we tear it off and shove it in a box for filing.  Now go back to the file room and try to find it to scrutinize.  (Surely you don't believe that any department has nice organized file rooms like you see on TV?) Its in that same box with hundreds of other checks that we run regularly, along with checks we run on fire arms, cars, stolen items and practically anything else with a serial number. ALL of that is run on the same system and from the looks of that file box no one has some much as touched it in years.  So far there has been no need for anyone to question why an officer runs checks. It is considered ROUTINE.  

There is a big difference between OBTAINING confidential information and MIS-USING it.  If an officer checks someone out because he's concerned about them, suspicious about them or wants to know what type of person he is dealing with that is not mis-use. If he reveals that information or uses that information against that person to hurt or harm them THEN that is mis-use. And I never run checks on anyone for civilians.  We have a records division that, upon being asked, tells the public everything the public has a right to know.

In regards to the "extensive restriction on the use of Department data." I'm impressed. That is almost verbatim what the policy said.  But running a check is not personal.  I need to know for purposes of my job.  Officer safety comes first.  I don't know every convicted felon by face and name.  I definitely can't be caught associating with them.  So yes, I run checks on just about everyone I associate with regularly and anyone I intend to date.  You think my Supervisors and Chief don't know?  We had a guy in our department bring one of his "friends" in with him once when he came in off duty to pick up some paperwork. He didn't check him out and unbeknownst to him, his "friend" was not just a convicted felon, he had been convicted of aggravated assault on a police officer.  And the officer he had assaulted years earlier works with us.  Internal Affairs had a fit! After that we were told in no uncertain terms we had BETTER check out anyone we deal with from now on. Because "not knowing is not an excuse." (Their words not mine.)   

And btw- we don't have union, but I am a member of PBA and call them for legal advice and representation whenever needed.  - Take care!

_____________________________

"awwww hell......the Queen!"

(in reply to Emperor1956)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 9:20:33 AM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
Is it just me, or is anyone else disturbed by the 'fact' that law enforcement officers can and may abuse their authority by checking over anyones records they want, when they want?
 
Posts like those that queencaliph and slaverosebeauty's just posted (assuming for the moment they are who they say they are - I tend to at least try and believe people to a certain extent) just do people in law authority no good at all for instilling public confidence.  If it is legal for them to do what they say they do, for personal purposes - then that to me is a complete invasion of privacy.  If it isn't - would anyone trust and possibly date someone in law enforcement or jobs those dealing with law if they truely knew this all went on?
 
Just something to think about.
 
This has been an enlightening thread, Emperor.  I think it says much about those willing to do such checks, and the inadequate nature of such checks and why people should not rely on them.
 
Peace
the.dark.

_____________________________


RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to queencaliph)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 9:27:56 AM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
dark, with all the exposure to various branches of law enforcement and military in my life, I am always pleasantly surprised when I meet someone that is completely above abusing their power and privileges in some way. Sadly it extends to all facets.



_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 9:40:35 AM   
queencaliph


Posts: 131
Joined: 6/4/2007
Status: offline
I'm disturbed that anyone thinks its abuse of authority to obtain criminal background information. Its not.  As an officer I know MANY peoples criminal backgrounds without running a check.  And background checks are considered a routine part of an officers job.  Some days I run more of them than I can count.  Obtaining this information is not illegal, revealing it or using it to harrass, harm or get revenge on someone IS.  And don't forget ANYONE can do a criminal background check in their own state if they pay the fee and fill out the forms.  Its public information.

And on a side note- even in the department there are different levels of checks.  The highest level is called a Triple I, but only certain people can run those and they take freakin forever to get the info back so they are rarely run by anyone. 

_____________________________

"awwww hell......the Queen!"

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 9:46:44 AM   
queencaliph


Posts: 131
Joined: 6/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

  If it isn't - would anyone trust and possibly date someone in law enforcement or jobs those dealing with law if they truely knew this all went on?
 
Just something to think about.
 

 
Some do some don't.  In all honesty I have a lot of guys who won't date me once I tell them I am an officer. So I reveal it right off the bat so they can make their decision then.  Its something I have learned to accept and even understand.  Ironically I refuse to date police officers too. 

_____________________________

"awwww hell......the Queen!"

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 9:52:26 AM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
Personally, it is an abuse of authority.  Running a check on a person for 'personal usage' is extremely 'Big Brother' and just feeds the whole conspiricy theorists (sp?).  That is like a medical professional doing the same to a persons medical records in case they 'may have' some checked history or bankers doing credit checks.  To have the ability to do it is one thing - misusing this ability is another.  And if you have to be in a profession where you need to be 'careful' who you date - why on earth put yourself in the position where you may date someone with a possibly dodgy past and have to ask to do a check?
 
Abuse of power - authority - whatever.  It still does not instill confidence in the system and those employed by the system - especially when a system is so flawed and easily manipulated.
 
Peace
the.dark.

_____________________________


RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to queencaliph)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 9:54:22 AM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: queencaliph

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

  If it isn't - would anyone trust and possibly date someone in law enforcement or jobs those dealing with law if they truely knew this all went on?
 
Just something to think about.
 

 
Some do some don't.  In all honesty I have a lot of guys who won't date me once I tell them I am an officer. So I reveal it right off the bat so they can make their decision then.  Its something I have learned to accept and even understand.  Ironically I refuse to date police officers too. 


I haven't ever met a police officer or law enforcement agent I was attracted enough to, to date...
 
Peace
the.dark.

_____________________________


RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to queencaliph)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 10:02:33 AM   
queencaliph


Posts: 131
Joined: 6/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

That is like a medical professional doing the same to a persons medical records in case they 'may have' some checked history or bankers doing credit checks. 
 To have the ability to do it is one thing - misusing this ability is another.  And if you have to be in a profession where you need to be 'careful' who you date - why on earth put yourself in the position where you may date someone with a possibly dodgy past and have to ask to do a check?
 
Peace
the.dark.

 
Hi again Darcy. 
Anyone I date possibly has a dodgy past that's why I do checks on everyone I date.  Despite what people say on this forum you CAN'T just look at someone and "tell". (and yes, I know check isn't foolproof either) 
 
and btw- medical professionals do check people's medical records and bankers DO run credit checks.  If they work there they have the access and the authority to do that. They just cannot reveal any of the information to anyone. 

_____________________________

"awwww hell......the Queen!"

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 10:05:05 AM   
queencaliph


Posts: 131
Joined: 6/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

I haven't ever met a police officer or law enforcement agent I was attracted enough to, to date...
 
Peace
the.dark.

 
 Well......... I keep telling the guys they need to lay off of the doughnuts.  (God I hate that stereotype.)

_____________________________

"awwww hell......the Queen!"

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 1:31:21 PM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
I guess I just do not believe it is a good or honest course of action.  Sure, if one asks and is up front they wish to do a check, then with written permission I see no problems.  But it's when it is against the knowledge of someone or that they can do it without the written permission - I just believe that sucks full stop and like I said, doesn't put these 'professionals' in a good light.
 
Ha - if it was just doughnuts, there wouldnt be a problem - but I am in the UK - and with our officers, I was never impressed by their 'truncheons'...
 
Btw... just fyi - it's .dark. posting...  Have a wonderful weekend!
 
Peace
the.dark.

_____________________________


RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to queencaliph)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 2:49:55 PM   
orfunboi


Posts: 1223
Joined: 10/22/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slaverosebeauty

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956
My point:   Those of you pontificating about the importance of CBCs don't have an effing clue what you are talking about.


{rofl} YOU haven't a clue as to what you are talking about; you might want to keep your mouth shut, unless you know a bit more, more fact, less speculation and judgement. I run CBCs as you call them, I can get a LOT of information, besides criminal if I asked for it, I don't because, I know exactly what I want and what I need to know.  I don't want to be intrusive, but, I want to keep my job AND be safe.
 
As I said in the other threads my JOB is at risk if I associate with people with felonies, etc, so I do have access to background checks that the general public does not; ALL LEGAL. I set my criteria to a few fields and if neccesary make a few calls {military records are blocked unless any criminal investigation or charges were/are present}.
 
Emperor1956, if an I were potential partners and we were preparing to meet, I would run a check on you, no second thoughts. Not only would my job be at risk IF you had something in your past [I am NOT saying you do] but also my saftey among other things. If that bothered you, then I would tell you 'good bye.' If me keeping my job and being safe is an issue, then we have no business associating on that level or meeting face-to-face and being friends off of on-line.
 
I have ran into men on cm {and a few other sites} that are pediphiles, registered sex offenders, violent felons, have restraining orders and orders of protection against them among other things.  I am a single mother, and their is NO WAY in hell that I would want people like that around my child or myself. How did I find that out, I ran a background check; a few of the guys had skipped out on parole or had not registered with their respective counties, my inquiries set off flags [in the computer system] and a few bad guys are back in prision.
 
I don't want to think of what may have happened if I had not. I do trust my instincts, if something seems 'amiss' I run a more through check, I also talk to potential partners as much as I can.
 
I ran a check on MJ {work said I had too - one of my co-workers is on this site and called me on not having run a check on Him}, and everything was clear; He told me about His military background and a few tickets, nobigdeal. I trusted Him as a friend, and now, I trust Him s a Master and a close friend. He knows I did it, He was fine with it. He can run one on me, I don't have a problem, heck, I will give Him my maden name if He wanted to run a check on my parents, I don't have anything to hide. 

I'm not paranoid; I like my job and I want to keep myself and my son safe.

If someone doesn't like it, then oh well. They have to be hiding something. Once I get te report, I look at it for a few things, then I destroy it. I don't keep it. No reason too.    


I'm just curious...do you run checks on everyone you meet, or just the ones you meet online?

(in reply to slaverosebeauty)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 4:11:26 PM   
Petronius


Posts: 289
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: queencaliph


quote:

ORIGINAL: Petronius

I'd like to see any evidence from any law enforcement agency that lets any employee legally access the databases for personal information like checking out potential play partners.


Have you heard of "Pocket Blue?"  It taps directly into NCIC and an officer can keep it in his pocket.  As a computer professional you do realize that many police departments around the country are putting computers in patrol cars and issuing wireless handheld computers to their patrol officers. At our PD we have computers in our cars.


As a "computer professional?" No. Of course not. There's no reason why a simple pro would know that as part of their work or training. But as a computer professional who is writing on this topic and has published on issues of computer security, I know that the technology for local (as in squad car) access to the federal databases is old news for a technology that's been around for at least ten years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: queencaliph
So its not a matter of and agency "letting" their officers use it for personal reasons. If it is in an officers possession he can and does run checks on whomever he wants.


This was never a point in dispute. Of course cops use it to run checks on "whomever" they want; they also commit a felony when they do.

I refer to Title 18 United States Code Section 1030. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers. Some of the crimes listed involve unauthorized access or an action that "exceeds authorized access" and gets a consumer reporting agency file on a consumer 18 USC 1030 (a)(2)(A) or unauthorized access or an action that "exceeds authorized access" involving "interstate communication" 18 USC 1030 (a)(2),(C)  sort of like a cop in Mississippi exceeding her authorized access to check out a record on a federal computer outside that state.

There have been government employees who had the right to access records but who got nailed for the illegal unauthorized access of those records. See U.S. v. Castillo (W.D. Texas) July 17, 2003 where an FBI employee got nailed for this.

I believe the minimum penalty if five years inprison 18 USC 1030 (a)(7)(c)(2)(B) and it can go as high as 20.

quote:

ORIGINAL: queencaliph
And no one knows who we run checks on because there is no way to keep track of the numerous criminal history checks we do and who the person we checked was and why we ran it (that is IF anyone actually cared).


Actually people do care; the federal government cares; and when some people claiming connection to law enforcement maintain they don't really, I question the person's claims of who they are and where they work.

In fact the Department of Justice / Federal Bureau of Investigation states that "All records in NCIC are protected from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. These safeguards include restricting access to those with a need to know to perform their official duties, and using locks, alarm devices, passwords, and/or encrypting data communications."

You can of course believe queencaliph or you can believe the FBI.

But even absent the FBI's statement, does anybody really believe that the federal government, in the age of terrorism, would simply let people access confidential information and not keep a record? Does anybody still believe in the Easter Bunny?

In a later post she wrote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: queencaliph
There is a big difference between OBTAINING confidential information and MIS-USING it.  If an officer checks someone out because he's concerned about them, suspicious about them or wants to know what type of person he is dealing with that is not mis-use.


She's correct. There is a big difference. Obtaining the information via unauthorized access is one crime; misuse of the information is no doubt a second crime. Just because bank robbery is not drug dealing does not make bank robbery legal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: queencaliph
I need to know for purposes of my job.  Officer safety comes first.


Dead wrong. The law comes first; officer safety comes elsewhere only when it conforms to the law. Moreover, outside a very limited and defined area, the law enforcement officer is a simple citizen like all the others, with no more rights than other citizens and no special privileges over the other citizens'. In this sense I don't think that playing hide-the-salami at some kinky club is one of a cops "purposes of [their] job," particularly when it involves the access of federal crime computers over state lines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: queencaliph
I don't know every convicted felon by face and name.  I definitely can't be caught associating with them.  So yes, I run checks on just about everyone I associate with regularly and anyone I intend to date.


Checking out potential partners for playing bellybump in the dungeon via federal crime computers  isn't part of the law enforcement job. Checking out potential neighbors when a cop is thinking of buying a house isn't part of the job. Checking out potential business partners   is not part of the job either.

That's one of the reasons that 18 USC 1030 gives the victim of the unauthorized or excessive access the right to sue the person who accessed their records.


(in reply to orfunboi)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 4:23:20 PM   
gwendolyn


Posts: 188
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
I'm soo glad that someone called these two on this crap. I get so tired of hearing about 'government officials' having these rights to invade my privacy as they see fit. I really don't see how an officer's safety is any more important than mine. In fact, I believe it's the job of a policve officer to protect me. Par for the course is being in harm's way. You chose the profession, knowing the risk involved. It's crap to think you're special or better than the rest of the population.

_____________________________

Tell me what did you like about me?
And don't say my strength and daring.
'cause now I think I'm at your mercy;
And it's my first time for this kind of thing.

(in reply to Petronius)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 5:12:15 PM   
spanklette


Posts: 882
Joined: 2/22/2005
Status: offline
Just another little tid-bit...
 
I used to work for an agency where I had access to the NCIS database and some other databases, as well, although I never used any of them just the NCIS. The information is flawed, at best, and you generally get a whole lot of nothing even when you know that there is something there.
 
I actually came across a guy who I remember skipped out on bail and ended up back in central lock up. I ran across his bond paperwork and his "clean" NCIS check. I ended up using my memory of him from the case before to turn up his file in another parish (same state)...after much calling and signing of forms.
 
Surely, I have been out of that particular line of work for a while...as I grew weary of the gross misuse of authority, but it can't have changed that much. There are a few reasons that it can't have changed...
 
Each state and county has different ways of recording and retrieving information. Those have not been streamlined into a fluid network that relays reliable information. In some cases, there are states and counties that do work together and have streamlined in order to help with extradition, but for the most part getting reliable information is next to impossible.
 
I don't doubt that there are federal agencies with "unflawed" data, however, I do doubt the availability of that information to those in state and county agencies, not to mention consumers.
 
For those of you running background checks on potential partners using government "license"...good luck with that.

_____________________________

~spanklette~

"The important thing is this: to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become. " Charles du Bois

"Please don't shout, can't you see I'm not listening." Billie Myers

(in reply to Emperor1956)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 5:58:38 PM   
queencaliph


Posts: 131
Joined: 6/4/2007
Status: offline
If you read that same code it defines what it means by “exceeds authorized access.”  Here is the definition quoted directly from the code
 
(6) the term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter;

Police are  entitled to criminal background information.

The FBI only investigates certain types of offenses that:  (quoting from the code)

 (2) The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall have primary authority to investigate offenses under subsection (a)(1) for any cases involving espionage, foreign counterintelligence, information protected against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or Restricted Data (as that term is defined in section 11y of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014 (y)), except for offenses affecting the duties of the United States Secret Service pursuant to section 3056 (a) of this title.
 

In U.S. vs Castillo, Officer Mario Castillo was charged with 6 Counts of unauthorized access of a computer to obtain information for private financial gain and four counts of making a false statement to a federal official. It alleges that between July 13, 2000 to November 12, 2002, Castillo intentionally exceeded his authority and accessed an FBI computer on six different occasions for the purpose of private financial gain. This is not to mention the charges of trafficking stolen property, child pornography and the list goes on and on. 

He was a thief.  It not the same thing as checking criminal histories for officer safety. 

The restrictions you wrote by the FBI are correct that is why law enforcement officers and certain other employees are the only ones that have access to it.  The real disagreement is not about background checks its about whether or not an officer checking them on people they know for personal protection is authorized.  I interpret the law in a way that says it is.

Officer safety does indeed come first.  NCIC lists Officer Protection as one of the main purposes of this type of technology  (quote from NCIC)

PURPOSE: The purpose for maintaining the NCIC system is to provide a computerized database for ready access by a criminal justice agency making an inquiry and for prompt disclosure of information in the system from other criminal justice agencies about crimes and criminals. This information assists authorized agencies in criminal justice and related law enforcement objectives, such as apprehending fugitives, locating missing persons, locating and returning stolen property, as well as in the protection of the law enforcement officers encountering the individuals described in the system.

One more thing; you mentioned confidential information in the age of terrorism?? The government itself has been exposed as violating civil rights with unauthorized wiretapping, unlawful imprisonment and torture of "detainees".  I think they will have to investigate themselves before they look way down here in “backwardass Mississippi.”

_____________________________

"awwww hell......the Queen!"

(in reply to Petronius)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks - 6/22/2007 6:10:48 PM   
queencaliph


Posts: 131
Joined: 6/4/2007
Status: offline
Spanklette, you are correct that the information is often flawed.  One wrong number; one out of place or missing letter in the spelling of a name and it could come back NRF and I guess sometimes the records from NCIC have not been updated.  Not to mention the many days when the NCIC system is unaccessible.

And its not just the technology.  Different law enforcement departments and agencies do not work well together and do not routinely share information with each other.  Its a huge problem and it seems to keep the criminals one step ahead of us.   

_____________________________

"awwww hell......the Queen!"

(in reply to spanklette)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Another Take On Criminal Background Checks Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125