I'm sure Blackberry used to say the same about the various upstarts that tried to dethrown them... and we know how well that worked out.
Because of my political leanings, I tend to assume the worst about our friends in California but this is fantastic. Hopefully it catches on elsewhere.
You know, the really pathetic thing about what you just said is that I've never illegally downloaded music or movies, and never cheated on my partner.
Care to cite where I accused you of any such thing?
And you're seriously saying that will get flagged as a lie and make me untrustworthy?
Depends on what else they know... either based on their own info or that which is said about you by others and the credibility of those statements.
Let me tell you this right now
... the people screening based on those things are morons unless they actually have proof to the contrary.
Oh? And you've been on the receiving end of such Q's and know their mental processes? I haven't... so I can't say either way.
Because unless you have evidence, assuming everyone who answers no to those questions is lying is completely idiotic. Because, not everybody has done those things, and if you have no evidence suggesting otherwise is just being an asshole.
No where did I say answering no would get you flagged as a liar... I said that depending on the circumstances they it will raising a flag that they may not be the most trustworthy. Key word in that sentence *may*. Further investigation may be required. Maybe they've honestly never used Napster back in the day and instead has a rather lengthy iTunes purchase history?
A broader thing is you seem to thinks such a background check has the same level of evidence & burden of proof as a court does in a criminal trial. It does not.
I increasingly believe the people who do security screenings don't give an actual damn about the truth, just their own interpretations of reality.
Very true at the airport, when it comes to security clearances... it depends on who is doing the vetting and to what degree they are doing it (based on the degree of clearance being sought).
It's not about answering yes or no. It's about disclosure.
Exactly, but let me add... these background checks aren't so much about checking as to if you've lead a boring and uncompromised life... but more about gauging your integrity with regards to honesty and ability to be blackmailed.
Example: An old college of mine is now a feeder to a couple of government agencies which give out a few scholarships each year... which in turn require a background check. One of the questions that screws up most kids is "Have you ever illegally downloaded any music or movies from the internet?" (or something to that effect).
Most kids put "no"... not wanting to admit wrong doing... but by doing so end up raising a flag that they may not be the most trustworthy as it's rather unlikely given their age and background (those applying for these scholarships).
Ditto for Q's regarding fidelity. If you've been unfaithful and your spouse doesn't know, it can be used against you (ie "Give me a copy of the blueprints or... I'll tell your wife and the rest of your family that you cheated on them... with another man."
You can't deliberate engage in activities to make it more expensive or complex for law enforcement to search subpoenaed records.
That's not quite accurate.
If the intent is to make it more difficult... then you best not have any evidence that it was done deliberately then you will be in for a world of pain.
If however it is part of your normal business processes and as a side effect it makes law enforcement's job harder... that is still perfectly legal.
No they've been very clear... just like Al-Qaeda was in the 90's.
Hopefully this time around it doesn't take a few buildings getting knocked down down for us to respond properly.
True, but don't forget that Germany did declare war on the US first and that the US was more or less obligated to respond in some way... which we did with our own declaration later on the same day.
The victim is never at fault.
That being said, there's an important question to ask.
Why is is that the other women present that night were not attacked?
Is it because they traveled in pairs? Is it because they never left their drinks unattended?
It's often something like the person or one of their friends realizes that the world crashing down on them, so they get the fuck out of there ASAP and wake up the next morning having no idea how they got home.
Yeah, about that. That's a symptom of acute alcohol intoxication too. As far as I know, I have never been date raped but in my younger days, there were many nights that I don't remember how I got home.
If he was black, the police would have just shot him.
You're welcome. You earned it.
The issue isn't that you disagreed with his assertion, he was obviously incorrect. The issue is that you were an obnoxious twat about it.
When he said "people like you", I read it as "obnoxious twats".
Ferber's boss would be seriously derelict in their duty if they didn't fire him for this.
There is almost no accountability for law enforcement. That's a part of what draws sociopaths into that field of work.
You don't know me, so you have no idea what "people like" me are about.
Would you be happy if he said "People who behave like you just did"?
I agree, that the only thing that's new is that the police are now treating middle and upper income white people they they have always treated poor whites and minorities.
The President is the head of the Executive branch of government, he is sometimes called the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer in The United States" but he has no authority to direct local police in any way.
He can instruct the FBI to carry out his directives because they are a part of the Department of Justice which is an Executive Branch agency.