| Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
Background check has become too accessible today that one can simply check on another’s pasts by just drooling on Google or any internet search engine. All the more that background checking’s prominence is pushed to surface into the limelight many people have constantly opposing its accessibility though few uphold democracy on background check issues. However, background checks done over search engines are predominantly not to be trusted all the more that there are no factors or instruments to verify any result that search engine can give. Well for the part of the person being checked, Google or Yahoo in any case can only give the primary information of the said person which will not exceed to names and addresses.
The main problem here is not the accessibility if the process but the irresponsible usage of such process. The only thing that bothers people or anyone being checked is the publication of their names and other personal information that might lead to problems such as identity theft and other similar crimes. One concrete example of the irresponsible usage of background checking is the one done on Joe the Plumber. Joe the Plumber was a character that was animated during the height of the presidential campaigns this year. His real name is Joe Wurzelbacher. Joe was an average man and a plumber in profession. He was the one who questioned the then Senator Barrack Obama about certain economic policies. The noise that Joe has done has become a ray of hope for the Republicans to spill out the Democrats’ weaknesses. Joe later appeared in many of Sen. John McCain’s campaign appearances and has his own brand in the website of the GOP Presidential candidate.
On November 20, 2008, a report from The Star online version exposed a move to discredit Joe by means of conducting background check on him. According to the news report, the one who conducted a background check and personally search government records and archives is a director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. The findings of the investigative body headed by Insp. General Tom Charles, the culling out of Joe’s records from government archives is illegitimate and that it was conducted with no clear purpose whatsoever. The issue has become more intense when it is the department that conducted the search and that it was done amidst the national presidential campaign.
Said investigation fortunately explained that the search conducted and the information about Joe was not released to support or to mock any political activity. The only seen angle here is that there was no clear intention on the part of the Ohio Department on why it had made such check.
The head of the department was Helen Jones-Kelley. She was put into suspension for a month over diverse allegations including the use of government emails and other state own properties to advance her personal interests.
There were 18 background checks that were done to Joe and 8 of the reports are found to have no legal basis or purpose. The remaining 10 searches are done for job purposes and employment. According to Jones-Kelly in a letter to Senate President Bill Harris, her department did the checking on the hope to be sure that Joe has the capacity to buy a business despite the reported evaded taxes. But Charles disproves this explanation by saying that all Jones-Kelley’s statements were ambiguous, contradictory, and inconsistent. |
