SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday February 09 2017, @07:51PM
"This sounds an awful lot like "This oppression won't be targeting me and mine, so that makes it OK.""
I am talking about pragmatic reality, and you continue to compare my evidence-supported basis of the world not ever being a perfect place to your idealized vision of society.
"It is not the only solution."
OK, name a single other one that is actually realistic. I hope you realize that all of recorded human history disagrees with you. Spies and surveillance date back millenia, and you are a fool to think people have intrinsically changed since then.
Let me guess: Your proposed system (if you have even taken the time to develop one, which I highly doubt) will rely on people who seek power and influence to have the types of character qualities that are polar opposites to ones typically found in people who seek power and influence. Or let me guess, "A socialist system where there are no borders." Or, "We won't give ourselves this power, and everyone (Iran, Russia, China) will get warm fuzzies inside, and feel so inspired by our deliberate degeneration that they will find it in their hearts to disarm, too!"
I will say it again, in vain hope get it through to you: I am talking about reality. You are comparing this reality to your fantasy, and you think yourself insightful (as do other Liberals, apparently) for stating that flawed reality is less desirable than perfect fantasy. Of course bigotry fucking sucks, but 100% guarantee (again, evidence-supported statement Source: All of recorded human history) it will always exist as long as people are allowed to have differing opinions.
" I said Sanders was attacked for it, but not that those attacks were coming from liberals."
I knew you would make this argument, but also knew if I rebutted prematurely, that you would cry "strawman."
You are grasping at straws. "the more authoritarian wings of the Democratic Party" is a ridiculous statement to make. You think liberal California and New York have the laws they do because a minority of Democratic voters support these policies? Yet again, objective reality does not align with your statements.
The Burden of Proof now rests with you: If you can prove to me that the voters in Liberal states do NOT support restrictive gun laws, please do so. I have the entire populations of California and New York to disprove your claims. Where is your evidence?