![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sollunastella had it first...
Jan. 14th, 2004 10:31 am
Jan. 14th, 2004
Jan. 14th, 2004 10:31 am
(no subject)
Jan. 14th, 2004 12:26 pmFollowing a jokey work e-mail about ( The Rules of Manhood ) I am distracted, lost somewhere between 2b and 24...
CRB = Criminal Records Bureau
Jan. 14th, 2004 03:51 pmThe CRB is 'consulting' as to the merits of taking the finger-prints of the people they do background checks on. This is supposedly to help verify identity. How are they planning to link up our finger-prints to who we are, one wonders. Is there to be an uber-database, The System, to which we will all be enslaved?
I know the arguements for "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear". It is not a matter of hiding, it is a matter of respect and privacy.
More then that, this is a false sense of security, one of the completely-usless but sounds-okay-to-Daily Mail-readers protocols for dealing with convictions. It is being justified on the Ian Huntly bandwagon, the "useful especially when looking at recruiting for roles dealing with vulnerables adults and / or children".
How many people who are a risk to vulnerable adults and children 1 - have criminal recorsd, and more to the point, 2 - how many of their crimes actually leave finger-prints.
This does not mean I like the idea of giving DNA samples either.
My point, and I do have one, is this...
It is another layer, another "something is being done" procedure that will be all but completely ineffectual. If makes me sad and angry. Only those people who are unable or unqualified to look at the actualities of these risks would think such a thing as taking finger-prints would make any difference.
One has to try to think... what is is we are afraid of, and is there actually a risk of that happening under these circumstances?
Of course, being frustrated by Civil Rights and the ever decreasing circles of tightening 'security' measures, although all relevant to my sphere of employ, is not actually helping me to get the post franked.
I'm looking forward to eventually getting involved in something far more interesting, well, a role that is far more involved...
I know the arguements for "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear". It is not a matter of hiding, it is a matter of respect and privacy.
More then that, this is a false sense of security, one of the completely-usless but sounds-okay-to-Daily Mail-readers protocols for dealing with convictions. It is being justified on the Ian Huntly bandwagon, the "useful especially when looking at recruiting for roles dealing with vulnerables adults and / or children".
How many people who are a risk to vulnerable adults and children 1 - have criminal recorsd, and more to the point, 2 - how many of their crimes actually leave finger-prints.
This does not mean I like the idea of giving DNA samples either.
My point, and I do have one, is this...
It is another layer, another "something is being done" procedure that will be all but completely ineffectual. If makes me sad and angry. Only those people who are unable or unqualified to look at the actualities of these risks would think such a thing as taking finger-prints would make any difference.
One has to try to think... what is is we are afraid of, and is there actually a risk of that happening under these circumstances?
Of course, being frustrated by Civil Rights and the ever decreasing circles of tightening 'security' measures, although all relevant to my sphere of employ, is not actually helping me to get the post franked.
I'm looking forward to eventually getting involved in something far more interesting, well, a role that is far more involved...
