CRB errors mean thousands wrongly branded as criminals

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Fair point but I am not saying that you can’t have an opinion what I am saying is that you can’t make a claim like “this is coming to America soon” like the OP did like it is an informed opinion without knowing how the CRB checks in the UK work.

I just don’t understand why you would write something like that if you don’t know say the difference between PVG, CRB and D-V checks because surly you would need to have a fairly comprehensive knowledge how criminal records checks work in the UK before you try to argue that it’s a case of “guilty until proven innocent” and then make an analysis that its coming to American “soon”.




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Thanks for your words. It might better if you address Maxmars' comments in a more thoughtful way. Have another go.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I fail to understand your confusion here. Maxmars is in the US, and as you may be aware, the US government is becoming almost as invasive as our own when it comes to matters of personal record. Some people might argue that it has surpassed the UK in that regard. Given that, Maxmars seems to be suggesting that the US equivalent will become as busted, and cause people as many problems.

And I can see Maxmars's point. Unless you happen to have the nouse and the time to fight to clear up such a mistake, it could cost you dear. If the US impliments such a broken system, it will likely as not cause an awful lot of trouble for people who should not have to put up with it, who have done nothing wrong.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I have had both a CRB and a PVG one the latter is specific to Scotland, it’s done by a government agency basically it looks through a few standard databases to check if I appear on any of them. Mistakes are understandable when looking at these vast databases.

My issue with your op was that you seemed to be implying that this was government saying that we were “guilty until proven innocent” and that there where commercial gains being made. The information that my employer gets when they look at my check is limited it might say something like “Driving in excess of speed limit: 2009” they have no other use for it other than to determine if I am safe to work with valuable adults and children. It’s actually a bit of a pain for them because they have to pay for it, sometimes the individual is the one who has to pay, mine cost about £70 by my partner recently applied and hers only cost £55because disclosure Scotland lowered the price. When you look at CRB checks they can be very complicated, mistakes happen, some of these mistakes could be very minor others more serious.

The two areas I disagree with your OP are that there is commercial gain form CRB and that it’s a case of “guilty until proven innocent”



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


OK... we've narrowed it down considerably.. and I understand (I think, anyway) your points of contention....

You are absolutely within your rights to consider the "guilty till proven innocent" remark as suggestive. My suggestion is that this is how it plays out for the wronged citizen. Once damning information arrives at a decision-makers office; no one will correct unless they know it is wrong... the theoretical investigator won't "assume" it's wrong... after all they paid for it.

Perhaps in the UK your officials are more enlightened and less inclined to act upon information without verifying it somehow.... here in America I have seen office drone after office drone operating at near catatonic levels simply accepting what they see on their computer screens and in their printouts while utterly ignoring the protestations of applicants for jobs, services, or opportunities...

I have seen officers act upon the writs and warrants issued with no regard for the dignity or personal security of the "suspect" - always presuming they are as guilty as guilty can be.

It is a trend I see.... perhaps many become jaded and cynical because of it... but then that is another story.

Presumption of guilt is "safe" sure..... but safety that springs from the well of oppressive and systematized processes seems to afflict the lower rung of society in inflammatory ways... it is in my opinion worse than unproductive.. it actually creates danger and exacerbates dissent and rejection of authority.

About the "profit" complaint....

Tata Consultancy Services wins multi-million contract from United Kingdom’s Home Office

Trust me... these are the people who should be compensating those wrongly categorized as criminals... not the British tax-payer.
edit on 4-1-2013 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Fair enough, you have addressed the points I have raised and in that previous post there is nothing to that I wish to debate with you further.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Thank you for entertaining the conversation. I regret that my presentation irked you and others. I certainly meant only to offer the opportunity for discussion. If you can think of anything further please come back.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I wounder how many pass as not criminals.
and get a job that lets them rape kids and steal?
All the politicians...



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 


Actually, I would wager that neither politicians of note, nor certain other 'classes' of individuals appear in the database at all. In fact, I would assume that the database is well-managed in regards to information about certain individuals.... the board members of Tata Consultancy Services, for example.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars

CRB errors mean thousands wrongly branded as criminals


news.techeye.net

Nearly 12,000 people have been wrongly branded as criminals over the past five years as a result of irrelevant or inaccurate information disclosed during criminal record checks.

According to the latest from Big Brother Watch, 11,893 people successfully challenged their CRB results after being branded as criminals - forcing the government to shell out £1.98 million in redress.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Well, since the days of Jackboot Janet El Reno when she and the Wee Willy Klinton administration in the 90's labeled pro-life, food storing, multiple gun owning Christians as "fringe elements" and "potential terrorists and enemies of the State", which has been continued and expanded under Jack Boot Janet Nepolitanut and the Department of Totalitarian State Security, I have been on their list of "enemies of the State" and a "criminal". So, when the country crashes and they declare martial law, coming after everyone on their "hit list", they will have a hard time finding me and those of like mind that I know who love liberty and the Constitutional Republic that they hate so much.

Get prepared people, we are headed toward a totalitarian police state that will make Hitler's Germany look like an English cottage garden.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars

CRB errors mean thousands wrongly branded as criminals


news.techeye.net

Nearly 12,000 people have been wrongly branded as criminals over the past five years as a result of irrelevant or inaccurate information disclosed during criminal record checks.

According to the latest from Big Brother Watch, 11,893 people successfully challenged their CRB results after being branded as criminals - forcing the government to shell out £1.98 million in redress.
(visit the link for the full news article)



That is all they need to come confiscate guns to disarm the population like every tyrannical government does.

Brand you a "criminal", whether true or not is all they need.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars


I remember with fondness, the continuous arguments of the fear peddlers and government control freaks "You've nothing to fear, if you've done no wrong."

yet ... the pudding has proven otherwise - hasn't it?


CRB checks are regularly carried out for employment applications, especially for those looking to work with children or in the medical sector.

Details are then sent directly to current or potential employers, meaning that any black mark could be detrimental.

The stats show 4,196 people challenged information held by a local police force, while 3,519 people were given the wrong person’s criminal record. A further 4,088 people were also claimed to have found inaccurate information or a potential wrong identity on police national computers.


Big Data is being pushed out of it's potential for exploitation (commercial, of course) BUT it is being marketed to us "regular folk" as "AOK" when in fact, the parking place for "big data" seems to be littered with garbage.

When you receive no feedback from inquiry onto a position; when your loan get's rejected, when you find a permit inexplicably not forthcoming.... it's on you to locate their error and correct it... they are - apparently - allowed to hold erroneous information about you...

Nothing to fear? I think the evidence clearly speaks for itself....


This isn't the first time such checks have come under fire. In February last year, The Telegraph revealed that around 20,000 people had been wrongly labelled as criminals or accused of more serious offences because of blunders by the police and the CRB, since 2003.


Coming to America soon (I promise)..... you're a criminal.... until and unless YOU prove otherwise....

news.techeye.net
(visit the link for the full news article)


What do you mean by "Coming to America soon (I promise)..... you're a criminal.... until and unless YOU prove otherwise...."?

We are already there.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Surely the fact that those wrongly fingered by CRB checks not only challenged them but also got redress indicates that there are adequate checks and balances.

Or would you rather have a situation where employers are unable to verify that people applying for positions with access to children or other vulnerable people are actually safe to do so? We've had quite a few child murders and serious assaults prior to the CRB's being introduced by people who specifically sought out those roles in order to gain access to the persons they target.

Also, bear in mind that 11,000 out of millions of people over a 5 year period is actually a rather small number. In any system, mistakes will be made and it is quite misleading to try and paint it as anything else.

Once again, the OP is using something that they don't really understand to try and prove some sort of peculiar point, just like the thread about the LCP.


Stu, I know you Brits have been conditioned to government spying and data gathering on the population a lot longer than most Americans have, and are not used to having the liberties that once were enjoyed by Americans, but I'd like to know exactly at what point do you think government spying and data gathering on the general population has gone too far?

I'd truly like to know.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Considering this has now been commented on twice; may I impose upon someone to explain what it is - exactly - that I don't understand? And - as a matter of principle - would it not be easier to explain it, rather than attribute ignorance to the OP?

Or is there some other point topic-wise that is being made here - especially in regards to my contribution?

What agenda do you see me promoting?
edit on 4-1-2013 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)


I get the point of the OP.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

We have a Big Brother Government Data Keeping agency, that has a degree of incompetence, doesn't care enough to make sure the data is right in order to protect the name, honor and wealth of citizens and essentially violates the concept of innocent until proven guilty by due process, and in so doing violates the concepts of God given individual rights that motivated the founders of this nation to do everything they could to insure that government would not grow so big and powerful as to trample on those rights.

Am I pretty close?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
So it doesn't actually matter if you spout anti-government thoughts on a social network site, they'll throw you in jail anyway


Even if you're not regarded as a verbal terrorist folks, we're ALL in danger


Don't you know?

If you believe in the Constitutional Liberties written down in the Bill of Rights and the restrictions laid up against government in the US Constitution, then you are already a criminal and enemy of the State.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




I have seen officers act upon the writs and warrants issued with no regard for the dignity or personal security of the "suspect" - always presuming they are as guilty as guilty can be.





It has gotten to the point that the US Federal Government has been deliberately, systematically militarizing local police forces, under the fear of "terrorism", which includes training them to act on what they call "reasonable suspicion", which by passes the due process of the 4th and 5th Amendments. We see it every day here in the US.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
It was not inaccurate, SIS is MI6 and the member (who I won’t name) was not aware of this basic fact yet assumed to have an informed opinion on SIS.

It might seem off-topic, but I don’t think it is what I was doing above was demonstrating something that happens all the time on ATS and appalling it to this thread.

11,000 mistakes over a 5 year period in which millions of CRB applications are filed really is not that bad, its by no means bad but it does not mean that the uk has adopted a judicial system where you are “guilty until proven innocent” and furthermore it does not mean that this mythical judicial system is coming to America soon as the OP states.




Your response, to me at least, seems incredibly naive at best. You can say 11,000 mistakes over 5 years is not a big deal, but if you are one of those people who desperately needed a job in order to feed to your family and did not get a potential job because of this type of mistake... 11,000 is too many.

I also have news for you... it already has come to America. Several years ago I was arrested. Prior to going to court, my attorney ran a background check on me. The actual term the attorney used was, "This is your FBI file". The results showed that I had been convicted of Robbery. Now to be fair, I was arrested for suspicion of robbery when I was 19 years old. I was released from jail, never charged, and never went to court about it. Fact is, I was not guilty, never robbed anyone, and there was no evidence to suggest that I was guilty of this crime. Yet here it was in black and white, 20+ years later saying that I was charged, found guilty, and now a felon. Even though I am not a felon, was never charged nor ever found guilty.

Now had I been going to court for any type of a real crime, a mistake like this would be highly prejudicial. I am just happy it didnt show up on my background check for my current employer, because a charge like Robbery would have disqualified me instantly (I currently work in a Casino). When it comes to mistakes like this, in my mind it is the same as a wrongfully convicted man being on death row. It makes no difference if it is 11,000 mistakes or 5 mistakes. One is too many. The consequences of this type of mistake is too great to have these mistakes.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I remember back in 1998 I was in court due to a motoring offense. When they read out my previous there was arson, burglary and all sorts, all committed in the Manchester area, where I had been once previously when I was about 8-9.

Mistakes do happen when people share names.


Mind you, I do now wonder if this is why before going self employed I had such a hard time finding work.......



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Is the fix for these problems that difficult?

When a security check is undertaken, a report is generated and this report is sent to the organization making the request. Surely a copy of the report should be sent to the person, the subject of the report!

This should be bleeding obvious in a free society. If there are errors, the human being, the free person can then seek redress.

But this would affect the bottom line of the company conducting the searches. How many of these reports are wrong and the person never knows it. They just don't get the job with no explanation.

The problem is that we no longer live in a free society.

P





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join