This post over at Kate’s place actually has me wondering if John Kerry would have been so bad.
At an employer’s request, the FBI will retain employee fingerprints and notify the employer if a worker has an encounter with law enforcement. As Wired points out, that’s the kind of service you’d expect from a private company, not from a tax-funded agency. Not even the courts or police bother to notify employers if their workers are charged with criminal activity, and yet the FBI is offering to perform this service regardless of whether someone’s been charged, much less convicted.
I have my fingerprints and my DNA stored in some government computer somewhere and I know that if I were ever to commit a crime, the chances of law enforcement finding me would be pretty darn good. However, I’m no longer employed by the government, I’m employed by a private company. Does this mean that if I get a speeding ticket, I may be called into my boss’ office and talked to? If I buy a firearm will that background check also flag in my employers’ files? Is my “good conduct as a citizen” now going to be part of my personnel record?
I was used to this type of scrutiny as a member of the military. As a private citizen, I’m not very happy that the government is willing to provide this kind of “service” to employers. It’s one thing to outsource and privatize certain functions of the military, it’s another for a Federal office to act like a private contractor.
Am I going to get a tax break for this? I’m assuming the FBI is charging for this service. That wouldn’t make me feel any better about this, but if the Government is going to provide services like this, I sure as hell don’t want to pay for it too.
For the rest of you mil retirees out there: Is it normal to resent the government sticking it’s nose into your life more and more as your time out of the military increases? I find that I simply want to government to do its job and leave me alone.
I’ll believe it when I see it. Call me a skeptic but I don’t buy it. First off, when was the last time your getting hired hinged on fingerprints?
Comment by Joe — 20080102 @ 0828
In the WaPo article, it says “The FBI will also retain, upon request by employers, the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks so the employers can be notified if employees have brushes with the law.” (my emphasis).
Notifying employers of someone who had an FBI criminal background check, if that status changes, does not seem unreasonable (presumably the company pays the FBI to do the check, if the employer isn’t the State).
I see no reason to believe that any employer can do this for any employee; if that was so, that might be worrisome, at least as a waste of tax money. But, again, I don’t think it’s the case.
Comment by Sigivald — 20080102 @ 1247
Hey Joe, I don’t know about you but the last time I recall “your getting hired hinged on fingerprints” was when I joined the IT staff at a stock brokerage and it was required for the bonding process. The only way you knew what the results of THAT was is if the DIDN’T come to your desk and escort you to the door. If you got escorted, you didn’t clear the process.
OTOH I find it a bit creepy that the FBI would be providing something akin to “commercial” services. Having the government move into private industry is something to be discouraged. When the move is overt, its called nationalization. What’s the move called when its stealthy?
JoeC
Comment by Joec — 20080103 @ 0957