Page 1 of 2

Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:19 pm
by Tango5
"The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association said several police departments are collecting “unnecessary, inappropriate and excessive personal information” from people applying for paid and unpaid positions "

"The Victoria Police Department has stopped doing criminal record checks until the province comes up with new legislation regarding what information should be released."

http://www.timescolonist.com/police-too ... -1.1336119

So, I guess we'll see more delays in the process. :banghead:

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:38 pm
by recceguy
I agree to some extent.....if a person has withdrawn charges they have no criminal record and therefore it should be disclosed as such on background forms.

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:15 pm
by Tango5
Never mind. Sorry.

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:58 am
by JaneneF
....but...the whole point is to try and hire trustworthy individuals to be put in an authoritative position... :crazy:

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:43 am
by Tinman
recceguy wrote:I agree to some extent.....if a person has withdrawn charges they have no criminal record and therefore it should be disclosed as such on background forms.


I disagree. Just because the charges were withdrawn, does not mean that they were not involved in criminal activity. If I were a background investigator I would want to know about it so I could read the file and see their involvement and determine why they were withdrawn.

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:48 pm
by Tango5
Tinman wrote:
recceguy wrote:I agree to some extent.....if a person has withdrawn charges they have no criminal record and therefore it should be disclosed as such on background forms.


I disagree. Just because the charges were withdrawn, does not mean that they were not involved in criminal activity. If I were a background investigator I would want to know about it so I could read the file and see their involvement and determine why they were withdrawn.


+1

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:13 pm
by GoodWitness
It makes more sense to me to have an application for, say, auxiliary constable, that is fairly detailed, but only if the candidate is deemed appropriate to progress in the process should their personal life be subject to the scrutiny of a real background check.

On the subject of background checks, there has been a lot said on the subject of dropped charges, mental health reports and "person of interest" designations being inappropriate for a civilian volunteer or vulnerable sector background checks. In some cases the information may be relevant or revealing of a potential issue, but in cases where an individual is said to be a person of interest but subsequently the interest is seen to be unfounded and is dropped, I don't see why that info should show up on a background check. The same for a dropped charge where there was actually no basis for the charge upon further investigation. Rare but I'm sure it has happened.

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:08 pm
by Tinman
GoodWitness wrote:... but in cases where an individual is said to be a person of interest but subsequently the interest is seen to be unfounded and is dropped, I don't see why that info should show up on a background check.


So for example, someone who is a person of interest in a sexual assault on a non verbal senior citizen in a facility, for which they were unable to form sufficient grounds for a charge because the victim can't communicate with police- that information shouldn't be available to a background investigator? Your argument makes no sense. The public needs to leave determining what is relevant in a background check for a position within a police organization (voluntary position or not) to the POLICE.

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:32 pm
by Tango5
Considering assess to stuff, we better be screened to the same or close level as RMs.

Edit: access. Lol

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:22 pm
by GoodWitness
Tinman wrote:
GoodWitness wrote:... but in cases where an individual is said to be a person of interest but subsequently the interest is seen to be unfounded and is dropped, I don't see why that info should show up on a background check.


So for example, someone who is a person of interest in a sexual assault on a non verbal senior citizen in a facility, for which they were unable to form sufficient grounds for a charge because the victim can't communicate with police- that information shouldn't be available to a background investigator? Your argument makes no sense. The public needs to leave determining what is relevant in a background check for a position within a police organization (voluntary position or not) to the POLICE.

If you read my post again, you'll see that I was referring to workplace and volunteer background checks, NOT checks on applicants for positions with police services. I also specified "where the interest is subsequently seen to be unfounded." I was thinking of a couple of real-life examples, one in which a woman was in an abusive relationship, police were involved when she was assaulted, and the partner claimed she had assaulted him. She was completely exonerated and did not go to court (the partner did, and I believe was convicted) but it still showed up to cause issues with a potential employer in the healthcare field. In another instance, a woman discovered she was recorded as a person of interest in the death from natural causes of her elderly relative. Ongoing family conflict led to relatives contacting the police, telling them that she had something to do with the death. Investigated and found to be completely without any grounds to have any suspicion of foul play, but it remained in the database (not necessarily an issue) but ended up in a background check when she applied for some non-police volunteer position in her community many years later.
Is there a liability issue if someone is asked to decide what is relevant when a background check is requested? Perhaps. But on a case by case basis these people seem to have been put in a difficult situation where an employer receiving only part of the story can jump to conclusions that are unwarranted.

Available to a police background investigator is one thing, released willy-nilly to the general public is another.

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 1:51 am
by Sk82
The disclosure form says right in the introduction that answering any of the questions is completely VOLUNTARY. If someone has a problem answering any of those questions then why are they applying? There are plenty of other careers or places you can volunteer where they don't ask any personal lifestyle questions.

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:17 am
by recceguy
Tinman wrote:
recceguy wrote:I agree to some extent.....if a person has withdrawn charges they have no criminal record and therefore it should be disclosed as such on background forms.


I disagree. Just because the charges were withdrawn, does not mean that they were not involved in criminal activity. If I were a background investigator I would want to know about it so I could read the file and see their involvement and determine why they were withdrawn.


This isn't about police background checks for hire. I was referring to where the article alluded to getting a background check from the police to say coach kids hockey.

All they do is tick a box saying no record or yes he is in CPIC but not saying what for. If you have withdrawn charges the criminal record box gets ticked.....which is bullshit because for all intent and purposes that person now has a record in the eyes of a prospective employer when they really don't.

Withdrawn charges doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do it....but that's irrelevant...they were not convicted.

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:20 am
by recceguy
Tinman wrote:
GoodWitness wrote:... but in cases where an individual is said to be a person of interest but subsequently the interest is seen to be unfounded and is dropped, I don't see why that info should show up on a background check.


So for example, someone who is a person of interest in a sexual assault on a non verbal senior citizen in a facility, for which they were unable to form sufficient grounds for a charge because the victim can't communicate with police- that information shouldn't be available to a background investigator? Your argument makes no sense. The public needs to leave determining what is relevant in a background check for a position within a police organization (voluntary position or not) to the POLICE.



So if someone commits public mischief by accusing me of sexual assault, charges withdrawn when they break down in court and admit their allegation was bullshit, I should be branded as a sex offender the rest of my life?

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:43 am
by Bitterman
JaneneF wrote:....but...the whole point is to try and hire trustworthy individuals to be put in an authoritative position... :crazy:



And yet the police ranks still have their fair share of tax cheats, wife beaters, drunk drivers, thieves, fraudees, speeders, music and movie pirates and holders of over due libraries books.

All any hiring process can hope to do is mitigate the chances that an undesirable gets hired.
No way to be sure no matter how deep you dig.

Re: Police application forms too prying, privacy group says.

Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 1:02 pm
by meathead1
recceguy wrote:So if someone commits public mischief by accusing me of sexual assault, charges withdrawn when they break down in court and admit their allegation was bullshit, I should be branded as a sex offender the rest of my life?

This was where I got shit on in the MP's. I was posted in Kingston, where the Royal Military College is. We had dozens and dozens of sex assault complaints where it turns out little Betty Sue let some guys run a train on her on a Saturday night, then felt guilty the next day for cheating on little Billy and reported it as a sex assault so Billy wouldn't think she's a slut. I had trouble with linking the guys as SUSPECTS or ACCUSED in reports because of this. That shit follows you forever.

Bitterman wrote:All any hiring process can hope to do is mitigate the chances that an undesirable gets hired.
No way to be sure no matter how deep you dig.


No matter how good a job the BGI does, the result will only ever be as good as the information that is provided or uncovered.

Along these lines, I don't think that every time a person attempts suicide or calls the police to say they took a bottle of pills should be on CPIC. On the other hand, if there is ANY danger to the public (real or potential), then that sould most definitely end up on CPIC. Kid eats some pills because his GF dumped him? Not on CPIC. Buddy dives off an overpass into traffic or throws themselves under a tractor trailer? Definitely on CPIC.