Hello:
I have a question pertaining to a citizens right to refuse finger printing during a back ground check. This is in reference to the Child Protection Act of 1993 which enables "qualified entities" (or basically any company that deals with children or the elderly) to request a complete background check and criminal history of each employee, prospective employee, volunteer, or otherwise in proximity to children or elderly.
Now, I agree that persons that are in direct contact with children or the elderly should be subject to background checks and criminal history reports for the sake of protecting our children. The issue I am debating is the need for fingerprinting an individual before this background check is performed. I don't believe it is necessary to document a fingerprint when a legal name, SSN, and birthdate (or birth certificate) can be provided as identifiers in lieu of biometric identification.
As in my case, I do not have a criminal history, do not have a fingerprint onfile (other than a baby print) and do not intend to be databased along side other criminally identified people.
I have read through the article 943.0542 of the Florida Statutes concerning the Child Protection Act of 1993 and privious sections pertaining to the DOJ in Florida. It does not indicate that a finger print is critical to performing the background check or criminal history, as well, it states that should a person commit an illegal act, they will be fingerprinted and the file sent to various agencies affiliated with the DOJ. As also stated: the fingerprint is the "basis of the criminal history".
I gather from this, that criminals are fingerprinted and their file is distributed to any agency that requests it. I am not a criminal, nor do I have anything to hide. However, my finger print is mine and I believe I have to do something to protect it.
Basically, I don't see a need for them to create a criminal history in their database. I see more as a means for the government to catalog people under the guise of "protecting our children".
What are your opinions on the necessity subjecting law-abiding citizens to biometric identification for the expressed purpose of databasing and creating a criminal record (even though it may contain no charges... the record will be created)?
I have made known my agreement to the background checks and criminal history (if any) retrieval of my employer. And I have demonstrated that I am not trying to hide anything, and am willing to submit my SSN card and birth certificate to authenticate my identity for the purposes of a background check. I think this is sufficient. As previously noted, I do not have any fingerprint onfile with any agency, and therefore, comparing a current finger print will not link me to any other aliases. Basically it is a superfluous act that only serves to database me as a citizen.
Can my employer fire me because I refuse fingerprinting, even though I give expressed consent to the background checks they are wanting?
Tsubo
--
I have a question pertaining to a citizens right to refuse finger printing during a back ground check. This is in reference to the Child Protection Act of 1993 which enables "qualified entities" (or basically any company that deals with children or the elderly) to request a complete background check and criminal history of each employee, prospective employee, volunteer, or otherwise in proximity to children or elderly.
Now, I agree that persons that are in direct contact with children or the elderly should be subject to background checks and criminal history reports for the sake of protecting our children. The issue I am debating is the need for fingerprinting an individual before this background check is performed. I don't believe it is necessary to document a fingerprint when a legal name, SSN, and birthdate (or birth certificate) can be provided as identifiers in lieu of biometric identification.
As in my case, I do not have a criminal history, do not have a fingerprint onfile (other than a baby print) and do not intend to be databased along side other criminally identified people.
I have read through the article 943.0542 of the Florida Statutes concerning the Child Protection Act of 1993 and privious sections pertaining to the DOJ in Florida. It does not indicate that a finger print is critical to performing the background check or criminal history, as well, it states that should a person commit an illegal act, they will be fingerprinted and the file sent to various agencies affiliated with the DOJ. As also stated: the fingerprint is the "basis of the criminal history".
I gather from this, that criminals are fingerprinted and their file is distributed to any agency that requests it. I am not a criminal, nor do I have anything to hide. However, my finger print is mine and I believe I have to do something to protect it.
Basically, I don't see a need for them to create a criminal history in their database. I see more as a means for the government to catalog people under the guise of "protecting our children".
What are your opinions on the necessity subjecting law-abiding citizens to biometric identification for the expressed purpose of databasing and creating a criminal record (even though it may contain no charges... the record will be created)?
I have made known my agreement to the background checks and criminal history (if any) retrieval of my employer. And I have demonstrated that I am not trying to hide anything, and am willing to submit my SSN card and birth certificate to authenticate my identity for the purposes of a background check. I think this is sufficient. As previously noted, I do not have any fingerprint onfile with any agency, and therefore, comparing a current finger print will not link me to any other aliases. Basically it is a superfluous act that only serves to database me as a citizen.
Can my employer fire me because I refuse fingerprinting, even though I give expressed consent to the background checks they are wanting?
Tsubo
--