It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Be careful about where you work

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:13 AM
My Daughter was working for a company that did back ground checks for fortune 500 companies before she passed away last year and there was a lot going on in the field. Much change is upon us and so many things are happening that people are unaware of. Had that not happened you would not have known the truth. Amazing time to use your heightened awareness. Most certainly everyone that has ever logged on to ats has been checked out by someone.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:16 AM
reply to post by antar

I used to be a private investigator and one of the biggest part of my job was doing background checks on people - mostly for employers. We did checks for little convenient marts, fast food major corporations, apartment complexes etc.

Good thing IMO

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:21 AM
Hope no one checks me out. I swear that murder charge was aquitted when they aquitted OJ!

Seriously at what point does this cross the line in to your privacy? Certainly we all did things that we wouldnt want someoen,say an "employer" or a "friend" to know. Ofcourse we dotn really have privacy in the name of "national security."

Big brother if your watching im sorry!...and this is where id give them the finger

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:22 AM
If they were so concerned about this guy paying his fine, why didnt they go to the address printed on the license to round him up? Why should he get dragged out of work?

Furthermore, private security does not have to report to the police. I've wroked in security and if the police wanted to view my log books they needed a warrant.

I'm also sick of the argument that "big brother is okay because I'm not a criminal and it makes me feel safer." As far as I'm concerned, it's certainly not okay for the police to search my bags without a warrant for one thing, just because I want to use public transportation.

By the way, this is a police state now. Police cars where I live are now mounted with cameras that automatically run the plate of every car they pass on the road, in parking lots, etc.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:32 AM
Well even if they do round up all the "criminals", how do they figure it will change anything? Other criminals will just move in to continue their activities.

As for the camera that automatically run plates, are we in such a precarious situation that we really need to be constantly monitored?

Just a thought

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by kain_the_hunter

The whole community loves it now because, coincidentally enough, it was the key evidence in a huge murder trial. I still don't like it.

I wonder if this system will prove to be as effective as the no-fly list. Especially if they start sharing information with homeland security.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:45 AM
reply to post by jackinthebox

I agree with you jack, i dont like it either. True such a system can have its usefulness. What im saying is i think for the most part is its a gross violation of privacy. I dont want Dubyah knowning how often i go the bathroom. you know..Size color frequency. get a tag that reads "Dubyah Bites" or something else to that effect.

At what point do we stop being private and become a public display?

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:56 AM
reply to post by kain_the_hunter

Then of course there is the whole threat of any measure of non-conformity becoming criminalized.

It's already illegal to be homeless for example, as if most people homeless people have a choice.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:05 AM
In my line of work i have come across many who are homeless. Many say they are happier. They say no bills is a great thing.

Honestly though, how many things arent illegal? We have to have special permits to carry a gun? Comon thast was one of our first rights. "right to bare arms". We cant even carry a knife longer then 6 inches. Which i feel if we could in truth "bare arms" we woudl have alot less criminal activy. who woudl rob a guy if they can see a sword or a magnum strapped across him?

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by kain_the_hunter

My brother and I are from NY, where gun laws are very strict. People are getting robbed, pistol-whipped, car-jacked and shot all the time.

When my brother ended up in Texas with the Army, he said Texans "don't even know what a car-jacking is." Who's gonna car-jack someone with a .357 mounted on the dash and a 12-gauge in the back window?

More laws only make the average citizen more ignorant and less responsible. It's not about safety or public well-being, it's about control. Where does it all end.

Here's a little hypothetical scenario. What if a terrorist dressed up as a woman and hid explosives under false breasts? Should it then be made a lwa, in the interests of public safety, that your wives and daughters have to be felt up and examined when they get on a plane or a train? Sound ridiculous? If you'd told me ten years ago that you would have to take off your shoes to get on a plane I would have laughed in your face and no one else would have believed it either.

Repeal all laws enacted after 1776!!!

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:01 PM
Must of been a slow day for the cops to round up a dog walker with a no dog walk warrant. I'm amazed the guy didn't get tazed besides. Thats one high priority warrant to be arrested on in the hollyweird district.

It is obvious the security detail are the ones who alerted cops to the perp on the premises. That mentallity reminds me of the old lady who sits in her window all day and calls the cops on everything. I have seen security guys try to act as cops and bark demands when uncalled for.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:11 PM
Im a law abiding citizen, so I dont mind big brother, but to an extent, I dont want people to know everything about me when I walk into a store. I dont want to be watched 24/7, even though im not commiting crimes. Sony studios has a strict policy about nobody is allowed on the property with a warrant, or anybody whos backround is questionable, and they can find this info out on you whithin a short time of you going through the gates. I just think that this is where our country is headed, anywhere you go people will know all about you and where to find you.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by tac109

Also keep in mind that "police-state" doesn't have to be state-sanctioned necessarily, only state-supported. As in this case, the offender was on private property. Wherever you go, someone owns the property and can set their own policies arbitrarily.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:19 PM
I am thinking that Sony, or whatever lot it was, is just trying to protect those who are on the property. It was mentioned that even big name stars have to show ID. Periodically there are stories in the news about movie star stalkers, and kidnap threats against star families and so on. There are probably a lot of people working on that lot with serious money... directors, actors, CEOS, etc. I can understand the heightened security.

Also, depending on what kind of check was run, they might not have known what the warrant was for... just that it was a warrant. Since you said that nobody with outstanding warrants is allowed on the premises... there you go.

I am about to start working in a government building (local gov't), and on Monday I am getting my picture ID. Every day I will have to walk through metal detectors, and but my bag in an x-ray machine. If asked for my ID, I must show it. Good! I want to be safe at work. And check my name for warrants! It will be a waste of time, but I don't have anything to hide.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by TheHypnoToad

That makes the most sense I have seen here so far. LOL

Many stars probably have restraining orders out against their stalkers. So the gaurd would be the best bet at not letting those people in. Then there are the stolen IDs, etc.

I guess I just dont see any issue here at all. Its private property and people want to be protected as best they can. Nobody is forced to enter it.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:39 PM
"I have nothing to hide" hold no water with me. You might not have nothing to hide now, but as the laws become more crushing, you will find that you are indeed hiding.

When they implemented the no-warrant bag searches in NYC subways, a close friend of mine was all for it. She still is. It makes her "feel safer" and she "has nothing to hide."

Random bag searches are useless against preventing a terrorist attack. The real purpose is simply to further degrade the legal threshold of probable cause once again. This will continue.

Such priveledge by the authorities to pry into my personal life is made with the presumption that they are acting in the interests of the public without nefarious aims. Does anyone really trust the government as a whole? I think not judging by the approval rating of Congress. Furthermore, it assumes that there is no corruption among officials who could use these powers for personal gain. Trust me, there are plenty of crooked cops out there.

Aside from all of that, here are a few mundane examples of how this new law might affect the average person.

Let's suppose that you are a human being with an interest in sex. A man with a booby-mag in his brief case, or maybe a woman who carries a bit of mechanical pleasure in her purse. There you are with a person you have met for business purposes, and you have to travel with them by subway. Let's say to look at or to show an apartment for rent. The next thing you know, your dirty little secret is exposed by a chuckling officer of the law, simply because they saw you.

Even more mundane. You're in town to do some holiday shopping with your significant other. You buy the other a very nice gift, and plan to take the subway back to Grand Central or Penn. The nect thing you know, a cop is emptying your bags and your expensive surprise is revealed right there on the subway platform. Happy Holidays!

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by TheHypnoToad

Will they be running a backround check on you everytime you show the I.D.?

In places I've worked, I've "run" visitors but not employees with valid I.D.
If there were a problem with an employee, I would be notified through proper channels, not fishing.

I do have to agree though, the guards probably did not know what the warrant was for. It could have been anything I suppose, but felony warrants are usually distinguished from more common ones.

[edit on 12/7/0707 by jackinthebox]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:55 PM
I think pretty soon there won't be a way of getting out of anything that's against THE LAW, and the more laws they make up the worse it'll get.I don't suppose many folk will agree with me but I think that laws should be guidelines for life ONLY, and IF you're caught then take the consequences. What I mean is that chasing up folk for petty stuff is a bad way to run a society. It breeds hostility and hatred of authority.In the UK we have police recruiting under age kids to go into off-licences to buy alcohol. When the shopkeeper sells them the booze they're nicked. I find it odd that whereas we ALL want people to be good to each other, our authorities, the police, and whoever put them up to these schemes, are teaching children to lie and to trick folk.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:18 PM
It probably cost more money to capture and process the offender than the amount of the fine he had to pay.

I think it is a terrible waste of resources that the cop had to write this guy a ticket in the first place. He couldn't just tell the guy to get the dog off the beach?

This is a bit off subject, but on the subject of legal practitcality I am reminded of an article I read recently in a book authored by David Southwell. (ISBN-10: 0760784337, Barnes & Noble Press). "Juries have the right to acquit a defendant even if he has broken the law." "...a jury can acquit even if all the evidence proves that someone has broken the law..." This right is know as jury nullification which exists in both American and English law. The US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled in 1969, "If a jury feels a law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if the verdict is contrary to the law given by the judge and contrary to the evidence."

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:41 PM
I am going kinda off subject right here but I just wanted to share this quick story with you guys, I got off of work in L.A. around 2:30am and at the small intersection they had a camera, there were no other cars or people around so I thought id have a little fun, I wrote F*** You in bold black lettering on a piece of paper and taped it to my front plate and slowley crossed the double white lines, I never went more than a foot across, and sure enough I saw a bright flash. I only wish I could have seen their faces when they finally saw the picture....Did I say I did this? I ment I heard a story of sombody doing this...My mistake. Thats one way to have fun with our Big Brother.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in