reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I can respect your reasoning here. I may not be communicating as effectively as I should, or perhaps I am taking for granted a certain perception
which we disagree upon. This is not insurmountable.
Please - with respect - educate me.
My concern goes specifically to the application of the information and its curation.
Criminal background checks are part and parcel of maintaining security in any free society. I never stated (or intended to imply) that the idea of
housing and using this data is a problem. My issue with this is that the information is being 1) contracted to commercial interests (notorious for
minimizing their costs to maximize their profit,) and 2) that the misrepresentation of any citizen as a criminal should not be in any way
"acceptable" or "excusable." Certainly if, as you hypothesize, criminals were not being recognized and reported as such; the criminals most
certainly would not complain. So this tendency to 'allow' for the discrepancy applying to thousands of citizens has a very real potential to
include the inverse problem which you allude to.
Our two societies, American, and British (I hope that's a proper way to phrase it) are often on the same page when it comes to governance methodology
and it's apparent imperative drive to "outsource" the effort to business concerns. It leads to this kind of problem, where compensation for errors
fall to the tax-payer rather than the business concern contracted to execute the project.
Already, in America we have seen the explosion of video surveillance, the immediate posture of law enforcement to operate under the presumption of
guilt for any suspect, and a litany of other cultural migrations away from the efforts of justice institutions to promote peace and community
well-being; towards the imposition of force of law as a rule rather than an exception.
If the title of the article, and it's accompanying material were to have announced that thousands of criminals have no records because they have been
attributed to others, perhaps you might feel differently. Instead the author only focuses on the thousands of cases with the opposite flavor...
Surely, this alone must indicate a problem which deserves attention.
All of these 'measures' to enhance the process of law were offered up to secure the common good... now we must face the reality that the common
good includes thousands of non-criminals who - upon detection in any scenario involving a background check are to be treated as defacto criminals...
because a machine says so.
Are we (or you in the UK,) as citizens, allowed to simply petition the government for a full accounting of their records of us? No. That would be
ludicrous in the establishments eyes.... why? because they are never wrong and it is always someone else's fault? Or is it because they don't
really have to answer for errors... as they outsourced the data management to someone with limited corporate liability?
Whatever the case may be, I stand ready to learn if my perception is flawed or illogical.
I do have some direct experience with this in the US, and I wager it is hardly much different in the UK... I feel confident stating that because I
know our two nations are much alike in many ways...especially in regards towards the exaltation of technocracy, oligarchy, and plutocracy.... which is
to say - those to whom the "regular" rules never seem to apply.... who happen to be the one's who make and promote the rules in the first place.