The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

Should You Background Check Your Neighbors?

7 Comments

September 19, 2008 by Kathy McManus

In the old days, the protocol was meet people first, discover things about them after.

Then Google came along and flipped the format, allowing so much information to be amassed before meeting someone that the encounter itself was sometimes obsolete.

Now there’s CriminalSearches.com, a new online service that invites users to type in the name of any adult, anywhere in the U.S., and search to see if the person has a criminal record. For free.

“Do you really know who people are?” CriminalSearches asks, urging users to run criminal background checks on nannies, neighbors, teachers, acquaintances, locksmiths and even “hedge fund managers.”

Besides searching by name, users can also type their addresses into the “Sex Offender Finder” and the “Neighborhood Watch” feature, both of which produce maps that reveal crimes and identities of people in the neighborhood--the burglar down the block, the drug dealer around the corner, and the sex offender on the route to school.

But the site “contains some mistakes,” reports The New York Times. “Some records are incomplete, and there is often no way to distinguish between people with the same names if you don’t know their birthdays (and even that date is often missing).”

When a Times reporter ran the name of a colleague through CriminalSearches, the system reported a “criminal offense.” It turned out to be a speeding ticket. “I went to traffic school so this wouldn’t appear on my record,” the stunned colleague explained. “I’m in shock.”

Tell us what you think: How do you balance the right to know with the responsibility to be accurate when it comes to criminal background checks? Do you have a responsibility for how you use personal information you find online? Should everyone be allowed to access anyone’s personal legal history, whether or not it’s criminal?

7 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• September 19, 2008 by James Allard

  While it is true that everyone makes mistakes, myself included, if someone has committed an act of crime that is a matter of public record and then the first responsibility IMHO would be to accuracy. A local man, a badly wounded veteran, asked to use the restroom facilities at a local gas station, when advised there were none available, he relieved himself outside. Not appropriate, but he was in distress, and when arrested, as he had exposed himself to do what he had to do, his name now appears on a public registry available on the internet as a sex offender. While correct (he was exposed, after all) it is not accurate. I do not personally endorse such behavior, but can understand why it would happen. In re: how I (or any member of the public at large) should responsibly use such information? I feel that the responsibility is attached to WHY one is seeking the information. Is the party in question a candidate for hire? A nanny or someone that handles money... that would color my thinking. As to whether or not everyone should have access... it is a matter of public record. Prior to the widespread use of the internet, police records were part of the daily newspaper, and sometimes the evening news.

  Reply

  • May 3, 2009 by Douglas Dietz

    I, too, do not condone the actions taken by the Veteran. However, it should have been the responsibility of that local business to provide an alternative solution to the Veteran's needs. If by either making an exception or at least have information to a different location. If anyone who is in business, is also in business to "serve" the public. I'm sure the decision made to not allow the facilities to be used will probably have a larger impact on the business itself by now.

    Reply

• September 21, 2008 by Pasquale Bottiglieri

  What earmarks this society is information flow. I have often wondered how history might have been changed with even a minor increase in informational capability. A perfect example of that might be some of the major confrontations of the Civil War. But I wonder also whether the developing high tech society we live in has carried along any semblance of responsibility, respect for the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and plain common sense. An ongoing system supporting the personal data for millions of people is immense, costly and very difficult to maintain with respect to accuracy. If the service described is free, where does the revenue come from to maintain that ongoing support? If inaccuracy and the related damage to the lives of people who have not had the opportunity to consent or to review their data is acceptable to the originators, I would suggest that pass through liability might be in order in those cases where those inaccuracies have presented serious personal harm. In short, in the case where a system of this type is installed without the appropriate management and support, I believe it is in violation of the right to privacy and that, where misinformation is distributed which harms the person involved, pass through liability should be available with respect to defamation of character.

  Reply

• September 26, 2008 by Brandylynn

  It is unfortunate that the wrong information may be out there. I would hope that if you hold that much interest in someones background, you know enough about them to research whether or not they are in fact that person. I would rather someone mistakenly think that I have a criminal record, which if needed, I could quickly dispute, than not be able to find out that the person my daughter is dating is a violent criminal.

  Reply

• January 19, 2009 by

  I've always been fairly liberal, in favor of deregulation, i.e. less government involvement rather than more. However, for such a system to work, mankind has to be inherently good, a belief I held when younger. I think all will agree that mankind has proven beyond all doubt that it is not inherently good, that, in fact, it takes a lot of determined effort to be "good," to do the right thing in all circumstances. Compounding that troublesome state of affairs is the fact that I, and all those I've spoken to over the age of 55, have discovered that the two generations born after the late 50s are not only so much worse, they lack the cognitive development to analyze and evaluate an issue to the degree that's being done here. They are also the most ill-mannered, mistake-prone, easily angered and empathy-lacking group with whom I've ever had the displeasure of dealing. This group is in the workplace now making mistakes at such an alarming rate it's as though they believe they're being paid to do so. This is not meant to offend anyone. It is simply an incredibly unpleasant fact that everyone wants to deny is true. It's a reflection of the poor quality of our education system since around 1968 and the fact that, as children, this group spent too much time sitting passively in front of the TV and playing video games. Making mistakes, by itself, is not a disaster. What is, though, is the fact that they don't seem to care much about correcting them, about getting it right the next time. So, given that this group is, or soon will be, controlling access to information, it may be that those of us with superior cognitive ability need to step up to the plate and see that carefully drafted regulations are in place to prevent the kind of disastrous problems this group is likely to cause with their carelessness, inability to empathize, substandard communication skills, and disinterest in doing a good job at their respective places of employment.

  Reply

• May 3, 2010 by Donna

  Some people privacy has been invaded by their friends the cops and can be wrongly framed. The only help would be through JESUS THE CHRIST.

  Reply

• August 3, 2010 by royalafrart

  Your ideas are amazing and helpful. Write more, and remember that "No person is your friend who demands your silence, or denies your right to grow."

  Reply

Tell us what you think.