Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday February 08 2017, @05:21PM   Printer-friendly

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

The FBI's Rap Back program is quietly transforming the way employers conduct background checks. While routine background checks provide employers with a one-time "snapshot" of their employee's past criminal history, employers enrolled in federal and state Rap Back programs receive ongoing, real-time notifications and updates about their employees' run-ins with law enforcement, including arrests at protests and charges that do not end up in convictions. ("Rap" is an acronym for Record of Arrest and Prosecution; "Back" is short for background.) Testifying before Congress about the program in 2015, FBI Director James Comey explained some limits of regular background checks: "People are clean when they first go in, then they get in trouble five years down the road [and] never tell the daycare about this."

A majority of states already have their own databases that they use for background checks and have accessed in-state Rap Back programs since at least 2007; states and agencies now partnering with the federal government will be entering their data into the FBI's Next Generation Identification (NGI) database. The NGI database, widely considered to be the world's largest biometric database, allows federal and state agencies to search more than 70 million civil fingerprints submitted for background checks alongside over 50 million prints submitted for criminal purposes. In July 2015, Utah became the first state to join the federal Rap Back program. Last April, aviation workers at Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport and Boston Logan International Airport began participating in a federal Rap Back pilot program for aviation employees. Two weeks ago, Texas submitted its first request to the federal criminal Rap Back system.

Rap Back has been advertised by the FBI as an effort to target individuals in "positions of trust," such as those who work with children, the elderly, and the disabled. According to a Rap Back spokesperson, however, there are no formal limits as to "which populations of individuals can be enrolled in the Rap Back Service." Civil liberties advocates fear that under Trump's administration the program will grow with serious consequences for employee privacy, accuracy of records, and fair employment practices.

Rap Back Privacy Impact Assessment

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @07:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @07:44PM (#464709)

    Guns? GUNS...?
    Good luck with you pew-pew stick when they come at you with an MRAP [wikipedia.org] which your friendly police department managed to pick up for a good price at a surplus sale managed by the DoD.
    And when you do manage to 'overpower' your local police department, your elected representatives will be super-quick to call in the national guard which has even more toys to fuck you in the ass with.
    If you have any illusion that you can fight the Government of the Day, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

    It's staggering how people keep thinking that guns will keep you safe.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @09:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @09:18PM (#464770)

    Yes. Guns.

    Were we to go there - and we are not there despite people's opinions IMVHO, and I am not advocating we go there.... I do NOT need to take out an MRAP. I would need to take out a mayor. Or a Senator or five. If said person is stupid enough... and they are... that is a capability for guns and maybe a small action squad.

    Or I may need to shoot you and a few others in a random shooting to convince the populace that their po-pos and National Guards can't keep the populace safe. Again, a matter for guns.

    If I NEED to take out an MRAP...... I have my foreign relations officers talk to Mexico and persuade Enrique Nieto that the best way to get Trump to stop talking about a wall is to set me up with some RPG-29s that I'll use on the Canadian border. Or convince Bashar Assad of the same. Before I can get them to listen to me.... I'd better prove that I have enough small arms to support my anti-armor infantry members.

    So don't knock the capabilities of an armed populace.

    Again, all of that would be how I'd handle things as a small unit commander if I ever needed to, and I do NOT. And oh, by the way..... that's not much more than what the CIA did for teh Afghans before the Taliban tallied our bananas. (You guys do the fighting, we'll give you the additional weps you need to topple your government.)

    It amazes me that the terminally stupid who've likely never had military service think that an armed populace in revolt would stop at needing guns or that more things couldn't be procured if things ever got that dire. But that's OK. Let the cops fuck you in the ass. I've got my pew-pew sticks and apparently you don't.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 09 2017, @12:38AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 09 2017, @12:38AM (#464828) Journal

      Yes. Guns.

      Imagination fail. Gorbachev time, most of the East European countries got rid of their communist regimes without guns. Why? The police/army are living in the same country

      Maybe the "competitive mindset" of USian may fuck up the initial stages, but non-violent revolutions are possible to some extent

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @09:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @09:21PM (#464773)

    Speaking as a veteran who fought in Iraq, and whos primary job was finding and removing roadside bombs made by people living 50 years in the past, I am seriously surprised at how many people underestimate an insurgency. I am also seriously surprised at the number of people who think the government could get even half of the armed forces to fire on other Americans. I actually remember that subject coming up and essentially everyone said they would disobey that order. I would not be surprised to see entire units defecting to the insurgency.

    The rank and file military is NOT corrupt in the same way that cops are. Soldiers see civilians as people to be protected, where cops see them as enemies. We did everything in our power to protect even "nonallied noncombatants" from the roadside bombs that were put in on routes not used generally by the allied forces, meaning the real target was other civilians. Try not to ascribe the tendency of cops to the military.