[slaymaker1907]

I personally think that it maybe be ethically questionable to be making background checks easier. There is a reason why the right to be forgotten is becoming a thing in various jurisdictions and lack of easy access for sensitive data is one countermeasure to try and counterbalance the need for public access to data with the right to privacy for individuals.

[Pinbenterjamin]

I don't have a perspective on the ethics of easier background checks. We run employment checks, the ultimate decision of whether to hire falls to the customer ALWAYS. I've seen plenty of former criminals get hired. It's a workplace culture 'thing'.

The right to be forgotten is alive and well most of the time, 90% of our clients don't observe information further back than a few years. I feel like that is a fair assessment of someone's behavior.

[colechristensen]

"Just" providing the data doesn't absolve you of responsibility for the decisions others make using it.

There is a point where data collection becomes unethical, and making everything fine as long as it isn't legal makes for a shitty society. (i.e. legislating behavior should be a last resort not a first judgement on right and wrong)

I don't know precisely where that point is, but automated scraping of social media probably is past (automated scraping of judicial records? probably ok)

[Pinbenterjamin]

I still don't agree. The whole reason this business exists is to remove the cost from all the industries that need to run background checks.

I think the extent and reason for the checks aren't apparent. So I'll give a few examples where we have high volume and I hope that will enlighten you as to the reason why there are so many players in the industry.

The highest volume checks are around the medical and teaching fields. We often run 6-month, to one year recurring checks on teachers and doctors to ensure licenses and certifications are still active. As well as necessary immunizations to work in their environments.

Do you expect a low margin industry like teaching to staff a full time employee to do nothing but run background checks? They want them done and the schools have access to the information, it's just much easier for them to pay us a few dollars an employee and get a nice report than do the legwork themselves.

Additionally, incurring the cost of access for the relevant data is a barrier for companies without a bunch of cash laying around.

We don't solicit companies with incriminating information about their employees, it's a necessary part to a safe environment.

[colechristensen]

shrug not trying to imply it is all bad. The nature of the information is important. Professional certification or licensing checks are obviously harmless.

What isn't harmless is gathering information about the private lives of people (even when done in the public eye) in ways that are difficult, labor intensive, or impossible without automation.