[phillmv]

Talk about a great way to phish any unsuspecting saps who might try out the service.

Also, I'm vaguely horrified at the notion that background checks might become standard even for 'sharing economy' gigs. Ah, well, you see, your pot charge disqualifies you from picking up my laundry.

[timjahn]

Would you ever want a stranger driving you home who wasn't background checked in some way?

I wouldn't.

[phillmv]

I have the privilege of being a white male who lives in a safe city and thus rarely feels threatened.

So, it's not something I think about. What's the threat model? They're going to case your house and rob you at some point in the future?

In an ideal world, that sounds plausible. Let's keep child molesters away from child care! Who can disagree with that?

But in practice, it means that all offenders are permanent second class citizens barred from non-marginal employment opportunities.

It's extremely pernicious, and you don't have to exaggerate anything to reach slippery slopes. Because there is no discretion in the system, anyone remotely tagged by law enforcement can be screwed by this.

Recently here in Canada it turns out that non-offense data was turning up in background checks. So, some guy was in the process of becoming a nurse, iirc, but was not allowed to graduate - because his neighbour five years ago was a drug dealer. That's it. The background check revealed that he was asked some questions and that's that. Four years of tuition down the drain.

If you can never find a way to reasonably support yourself, regardless of how much you've turned your life around, then we've created a self fulfilling prophesy in terms of recidivism rates.

Keep in mind we're talking about the sharing economy, which almost by definition are going to be bottom of the barrel 'gigs' to begin with.

Does it matter if person folding your laundry got into a drunken fight when they were 19? Not really.

[timjahn]

"Does it matter if person folding your laundry got into a drunken fight when they were 19? Not really."

No. It doesn't.

Does it matter if a person with a history of DUIs (or even ONE) drives me for Lyft? Yes.

Does it matter if a person with a history of armed robbery or home invasion delivers groceries to my house for Instacart? Yes.

[phillmv]

Surely, your emotional reaction depends on how long ago the DUI was. What if they had ONE DUI ten years ago?

Armed robbery and home invasion are very different crimes. Just because they held up a liquor store doesn't mean they're going to rob you while you sit in the backseat of their car, with their picture and full identity flashing on your phone. And home invasions are crimes of opportunity.

I'm not sure I think that background discrimination is always wrong. Just that it's grossly overused, and there is no room for discretion - especially considering how many people get bullshit charges in the US.

Does a DUI disqualify you from being a good programmer, or a well respected project manager? I'm not sure that it does. Maybe you're an asshole, or maybe you did something stupid while undergoing your divorce.

It's especially egregious to start barring people from the bottom-of-the-barrel gigs as well. At that rate, you might as well never release them from prison to begin with.

[tehwebguy]

> Surely, your emotional reaction depends on how long ago the DUI was. What if they had ONE DUI ten years ago?

Yeah, DUI should disqualify you from ever driving professionally IMO. Anecdotal, sure, but my experience is that people who actually have a DUI are the ones that finally got caught after years.

Then again, the well to do people I know (or ones with a well to do family) with a DUI actually got their charge reduced to reckless driving by fighting it in court, so maybe there are as many false negatives as positives.

[hueving]

>Yeah, DUI should disqualify you from ever driving professionally IMO. Anecdotal, sure, but my experience is that people who actually have a DUI are the ones that finally got caught after years.

What you are implying is that once someone drives drunk they will never stop. If that's the case, they should be stripped of their license completely. It doesn't make sense to stop half way and say they can keep driving themselves but can't drive professionally. Both scenarios put many people at risk.

[maratd]

While your points are valid, this is an automated solution. We can sit here and debate this, but software doesn't debate anything.

There will be one conditional statement.

If criminal at any point in time, deny.

That's it.

The overwhelming majority of those utilizing such services do not have the depth or foresight to distinguish between various offenses nor the time periods involved.

[the_ancient]

Why? Are they Drunk when they pick you up? If not why does not matter if they were drunk 5 years ago, or 1 day ago, they are not drunk at the moment so that is all that should concern you.

I see you have a huge amount of faith in the legal system... That is sad

[dyanisse]

Hi, I am the cofounder and I want to jump in. The Fair Credit Reporting Act regulates the background screening industry and gives rights to consumers. We cannot disclose offenses older than 7 years old. https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0096-fair-credit-r...

[the_ancient]

1. FCRA has nothing to do with Criminal Records, if you think it does you might want to be looking for a lawyer or a new one if you did get legal advise.

2. My post said 5 years ago so even under your misguided time frame your company would still disclose this information

3. I am firmly against databases and service companies such as yours... I find it creepy and a huge invasion of personal liberty and privacy.

[maresca]

I see nothing in there having to do with criminal charges. Only credit and financial records. Am I missing something?

[xauronx]

If someone got a DUI last week, I would NOT want them driving me. What's your logic behind thinking that people's actions shouldn't affect their future? Seems like the majority opinion here is similar to yours, which is absolutely confusing to me. "Who cares if they raped a child last week? They aren't raping you RIGHT NOW so it doesn't matter!"

[the_ancient]

There are multiple reasons for this, first and foremost even if you believe you should be allowed to know about criminals you may be interacting with I do not agree that most of that info should be publicly available in a simple REST request where anyone from Stalkers, to other criminals can get any information they desire on me simply by paying a small fee. That is an extreme privacy violation IMO. you are looking at only from the Rose Colored "Catch a criminal" lens, and not considering any of the consequences.

Further I do not trust the government or the legal system at all, and have no reason to believe a person convicted of DUI or raping a child under the current legal system was in fact guilty of those charges.

Lastly even if a person is a criminal I do not believe in the notion of a Scarlet Letter society which is what this company is companies like it are attempting to create. This effectively kills any Second Chance a person that made a mistake in the past has. You forever make them second class and ultimately encourage them to commit more, and probably ever increasing violent crimes

[mgkimsal]

front line employees making $9/hour get screened, but executives with golden parachutes manage to get hired with falsified university transcripts, leaving trails of steaming wreckage behind them, destroying thousands of those $9/hour jobs. :(

no real relevance to what you posted, but it made me want to rant.

[timjahn]

Completely agree.

[cnaut]

Background checks are already pretty standard in the sharing economy

[pjc50]

It's the reputational, "whuffie" economy, only in reverse.

[benlesh]

TIL (well, today I Googled) what a whuffie is.