No Longer Any Doubt Big Brother Has Arrived

[lligrd]

You can now check for criminal histories of anyone or any neighborhood for free. This database even contains traffic tickets. I find this reprehensible and the information is not necessarily even correct.

http://criminalsearches.com

[spanone]

1. i put in friends who had dui's and none of their names appeared. even in advanced search

[Occulus]

3. It didn't find a convicted felon I know, either

This site is bunk. Don't trust it.

[bunnies]

4. It didnt find one I know either. Its crap. nt

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

24. it's not crap - i found my husband, date of birth and everything,

for a traffic offense he got in 1991.

This site is scary -

[timtom]

25. I had a DUI in 1981 -- Deferred Adjudication

and it showed up!!!

[mmonk]

2. No secrets allowed unless you're the government.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. It's public record...why shouldn't it be available to the public?

:shrug:

Indeed, it already is available. These engines just organize the search for you.

I see no problem with any of this. Prosecution is by the state (i.e., the people). The people should have access to the information on whom they prosecute.

[lligrd]

7. Why Not Just Tattoo Their Crimes On Their Forehead

Traffic tickets, are you kidding me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Let me say this again slowly

It is public record.

Here's a little deal that we have. It's called society. We all agree to follow the rules. We don't have anybody special to enforce that; rather, we agree to enforce it all together. That means that we have to do so transparently: we all have to know how the rules are being enforced. That means, in turn, that any given enforcement of the rules has to be known by all, theoretically. THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE, except in special circumstances (i.e., sealing of a juvenile record, etc.). These engines make it EASIER to get information that has ALWAYS been available to you.

It is not the onset of some new and terrible regime in which your precious little privacy has been infringed upon. If you are convicted of any infraction, that conviction is available as information to ANYBODY in a democratic society. Moreover, it damn well should be. Part of being convicted - yes, for traffic infractions as well - is the publication of that conviction in the public record. That's just basic civics, not some scary new development.

[lligrd]

11. Let Me Say This Again Slowly For You

Some of these people haven't even been convicted! In addition, the database is not accurate. It is good for nothing but snooping. I for one don't think that peoples entire lives should be available at a simple search. It is called privacy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Really?

Who hasn't been convicted? Where is the database inaccurate? Find one.

We're not talking about people's "entire lives." We're talking about their PUBLIC CRIMINAL ACTS, and I shouldn't even have to add "public," since any criminal act is public by definition. One of the de facto "penalties" of criminal conviction (even at the level of a violation) is that anyone who wants to know CAN know, and that is just the way it is and always has been. Moreover, it is the correct approach. We are much better off with public record of convictions than we are with secret convictions. Welcome to democratic society.

[lligrd]

16. The Site Itself Puts Up A Disclaimer

I heard about it on the news which claimed it put in the name of someone at the news service and it cam up with inaccurate information. As mentioned above, it does not include information on everybody - try George Bush or Scooter Libby. That makes it unfair.

I have nothing against public information but this makes it too easy to simply snoop on friends and neighbors.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. There are always going to be some errors in information gathering

They retrieve the listings from the actual public agencies (New York State DOC, for instance). But I'd still like to see an inaccuracy.

That the database is not complete is hardly a defense for your position! If you're arguing about privacy and "snooping," then you can't turn around and say "it's still incomplete!" Well, yeah. It's in beta, but aren't you also admitting that it would be better if it were complete? Moreover, its incompleteness doesn't seem to be intentional. It's an accident of information gathering. Since EVERYBODY's criminal convictions are PUBLIC RECORD, there is no difference between the names that appear on this particular collection of data and names that don't. Both George Bush and Scooter Libby's criminal convictions are public record as well, as you well know.

I don't get your obsession with "snooping." When it comes to public record, it doesn't matter whether the person looking at the public record is doing high level academic research or simply indulging a curiosity. There is no distinction in motives. That's what it costs you to be convicted of any crime, violation, or infraction in a democratic society.

[high density]

20. The database is inaccurate given its omissions

Yes, it's public information, but I don't think our society needs a system to enable vigilante background checks.

That said, if we are going to have a system like this, then it should list everything, not just what some private company has got its hands on and decided to release. The database should not be censored in this way.

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. I see that position

But I don't think it's a serious defense of the OP's inflammatory title. In a perfect world, the database would be absolutely complete, correct? If that's the case, then you have no objection based on privacy at all, which is the OP's objection.

Unless it is with your initial point: "I don't think our society needs a system to enable vigilante background checks."

The background checks would only qualify as "vigilante" if the checker harassed or otherwise interfered with the checkee in ways that were illegitimate. In that case, the checker would be violating the law. But simply "snooping," as the OP put it, is not "vigilante" in any way. Anybody in a democratic society has the right to "snoop" on public records. And it is better that way. I believe in democracy and transparency. That means if you commit a criminal act, the record of that criminal act becomes public, and it doesn't matter a whit why any member of the public looks at it. That's what happens when you violate our public rules. Your name goes up as somebody who has violated our rules. It's the cost of doing business.

[lligrd]

36. The Reason For Making It Public Information

was originally to ensure fair trials not to harass individuals for life. I really don't think it is any of my business if my neighbor got a traffic ticket 10 years ago.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. No, it is precisely your neighbors' business if you violate the laws

The laws belong to us all, not to some abstract entity or bureaucratic apparatus.

It is precisely your neighbors' business. Yes, plural.

If an individual is being harassed, he or she should contact law enforcement, and the harasser should be held accountable for any illegal actions.

[alarimer]

41. That's pretty totalitarian of you.

I don't want my neighbors spying on me, nor am I going to spy on them.

Who are you, Mrs. Kravitz?

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. No, it's pure democracy

Criminal acts are public acts, period. They are public record and it is precisely the business of everybody in the polity.

That's not "spying," because there is nothing private about a criminal record. It is public record, not a private possession of the individual.

[lligrd]

53. Why Not Just Go Back To Scarlet Letters

I fail to see much difference.

[alcibiades_mystery]

55. So you equate public criminal records with The Scarlett Letter?

Would you rather have criminal records be private? An affair between the state bureaucracy and the individual? Is that your claim here, because that's extremely disturbing.

[lligrd]

56. After One Has Served One's Time

it should only be accessible to those that need to know. If the crime would intefer or be a liability for a company then they have the right to know otherwise I don't really think it is any of your friggen business. And you failed to say why it is any different than having people wear scarlet letters.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. Extremely dangerous position

The "ones that need to know" is the most dangerous category you can devise in a democratic state. It tends toward secret government.

You are also wrong wrong wrong in principle, since you consider a crime to be some private affair. That's incorrect, and one of the big conceptual problems eating at our democratic polity (largely an invention of the awful victim's rights crusade).

Why is it not like the Scarlett Letter? The Scarlett Letter is devised for the purpose of socially shaming people. It operates as a very specific signifier within its social formation (Puritanism). A public record has no value judgment whatsoever. It is public because the act was a public act, and because actions by the state require maximum transparency in a democratic society. There is no implicit or explicit moral judgment attached to the publicity. The publicity is a defense against secret government, period. Why should I, as an equal member of our polity, NOT have access to state sanctions conducted in public? On what basis could you possibly deny me access to any reasonable state action?

[Trillo]

46. Perhaps you can help me.

I posted down below, made some intuitive guesses about the system, then after writing my thoughts out, decided to test them at the database. Unfortunately, I was stumped right off the bat. While it's not my only question, here's just one: What is the first name and last name of Boeing?

The Corporate Crime Reporter asserts Boeing was convicted criminally. Right off the bat, the interface presents a form designed for human name entry instead of corporate name entry. So I can't check whether Boeing is listed, unless I start madly typing in various permutations, in what may end up being a fruitless effort. Consequently, I haven't actually tried to enter anything yet, so perhaps Boeing is listed there, hopefully their subsidiaries (of other names but still under the same Boeing corporate umbrella) as well.

I've read some of your posts, and see that you are quite insistent in your defense that public records of crimes should be and remain available to everyone. Can you explain why the public is given an interface that is more friendly to human names than corporate ones?

It's okay if you don't know the why the programmers actually programmed the interface as they did, in that case, why might they design it that way?

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. I appreciate your approach

The whole Columbo thing is amusing, but I have not attempted to defend the database at all in this thread, nor the specific program, nor the programmers, nor their particular ideological commitments, or whatever. However, since you seem rather desperate for me to reply to you, I will.

Corporate crime is public record, just as individual crime is. In a perfect world, your search would have shown up something. It doesn't. That's a black mark against the database, as you point out, but it's neither here nor there for my point. I responded to the OP's ridiculous claim that this was all Big Brither blah blah blah. It's not. It's public record that this particular company has collected in a rather haphazard way, which is their bad, but does not affect the general principle that such records MUST be public in a democratic society. Your objection, it seems, is that this particular database is not public enough. I agree.

As for why the thing works the way it does, there are a number of explanations:

1) The way the company designed its information request
2) The goal of the database is largely to aid employers in screening employees, and other inquiries concerning individuals
3) We live in a society that is in a perpetual class war, and this database can serve as an element in that class war against individuals; we are ideologically prepared to accept corporations as legal entities when it's to their benefit, and ignoring that status when it comes to wrongdoing.

I suspect all of these are true. I will say this: if my colleagues knew that I was being coyly upbraided about ignoring corporate wrongdoing, they would split their sides laughing, since research onm corporate malfeasance and criminality is kinda what I do.

Cheers.

[Trillo]

50. Okay, thanks, but....

my point was not necessarily that the database is not public enough, but would be more closely paraphrased by a permutation of your 3rd rationale. Since we have a system of perpetual class war, and the Intenet, while it started out as very open, now seems to have much less openness, without appearing to have less openness, by creating a lie of greater openness, therefore, I'd suggest that we're going down a well worn road of old ways of deception, then perhaps the better tactic would be to purge the poor folks records, since that appears to be what is happening to the rich and or powerful's records (regardless of why it is happening).

I guess I'm in agreement with the characterization of this as Big Brotherish.

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. There isn't any purge

That's silly.

And unsupported.

The records are and should be public. More transparency, not less.

[Trillo]

52. If one cannot easily obtain such records,

while another groups' records are easily obtainable, then your observation of unsupported objection appears a distinction without substantial public difference.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. There's two solutions to the problem you pose

And I'll suppose it is a problem for the sake of argument (I'm not convinced that you can make any actual demographic claims about the content of the database):

Solution #1: Nobody's records are easily obtainable.
Solution #2: Everybody's records are easily obtainable.

I'll go with solution #2 every time, because it comports with two principles: first, that criminal acts are acts perpetrated not merely against the "victim," but against society as a whole (and are therefore public by definition); second, government should have the maximum transparency.

Now, you might say "Well, I agree in theory, but until such time that..." I'll go with the pragmatic "We have to start somewhere," followed up by "The other solution is too dangerous, and actually tends toward the ability of the powerful to completely hide their records."

Ciao.

[Trillo]

59. 'message force multipliers'

perhaps the ease of obtaining records should be relative the cash flow running through that entity, whether human or corporate.

Have a lot of cash flow? Then your records should be easily available in many places.
Have a little cash flow? Who really cares anyway?

This is how our corporatist works. Money rules. Money can't vote, but they can buy legislators always looking to boost the political warchest.

---

One problem with your thinking is that 2 is never achieved. 1 probably can't be achieved, either. So then we end up with deciding where the middle ground is.

This is a problem that, unfortunately, needs a solution. Complete disclosure solves it effectively. Complete concealment also solves it. Both undoubtedly have different consequences.

However, we already know the consequences of disclosure for those without resources versus concealment for those with resources -- just look around your world.

[alcibiades_mystery]

61. I'll stick with transparency

And the attempt to reach maximum transparency. The consequences for partial and full concealment of government sanctions are too dangerous for everybody, including those you've built up into being severely hurt by a current system you claim exists.

While this database is severely limited at this time, it need not be, and probably does not have the demographic bias you claim it does. We certainly don't know whether it does, in any case. But you're using the weakness of this particular database to make a general point. I'm not convinced that the information you claim is concealed IS actually difficult to obtain. This is just a crappy version of the product which doesn't seem - incidentally - to cover federal criminal cases.

[Trillo]

64. Perhaps.

Is Inslaw-PROMIS as "crappy"? It was only after the Lictenstien whistleblower acted, that all of a sudden there's billions of dollars of tax dollars available for the IRS to obtain, prior to that, if we're to believe the public story, "nobody" in government knew.

We still don't have all the names. No convictions yet, I reckon. But I'm reminded of my position, that those names likely won't show up in convictions, they'll have their high caliber attorneys, that poor folks can't afford to hire, settle in anyway they can to avoid the creation of a "criminal" record. Wesley Snipes wasn't so lucky, he was made an example of.

Remember the case of Carol Lamb? She was investigating corporate crime, apparently, and got hammered by her bosses. Afterward, she was sent to a cushy hospital to recover, and paying her monthly bills probably isn't in danger. But, things are different as far as those corps she may have been investigating. Concealment.

I think the idea of higher disclosure standards for those with money has some merit.

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. Look, my argument is pretty limited

It goes like this: There's nothing wrong with engines that provide wider access to existing criminal records. I'd add, existing court records.

You've moved far beyond that to critique the current state of the criminal justice system as a whole. I agree with your critique. Yes, wealthy people have a better shot at slipping away from their actions than do poor people. The criminal justice system is monstrously inequitable; I'd put that in the category of the obvious. But I don't think we scrap either full disclosure of public records or engines that make that full disclosure more available simply on that basis. And I certainly don't think access to public records is some scary technology that indicates we've entered some kind of fascistic dystopia. The fascism we face is quite real, and all around us. But this isn't it.

[Trillo]

70. You're welcome to believe whatever makes you happiest.

Hopefully, it will be just as obvious to others that your position ends up resulting in a lifetime of various punishments only limited by the number of others around them. In this case, I'd state that all jails should henceforth be torn down and their staffs disbanded, except one or two for the most heinous of crimes (but how to determine those is a problem -- sure murderers -- but not mass-murderers running nations?), and leave the varying lifetime punishments to all the others around each of those convicted of more minor offenses.

Under your proposition, all crimes, no matter how minor, become lifetime sentences.

[alcibiades_mystery]

72. You were being serious up until that point

How you translate public record into a "lifetime sentence" is a complete mystery. Public record is forever. That's why we have archives, and damn lucky for that.

But that does not in any way constitute a "sentence." A sentence is a strictly defined punishment imposed by the state on behalf of the people. You're talking about social and life consequences. But there have always been social and life consequences that exceed and last beyond the legal sentence. That's nothing new, and is certainly not a reason to scrap a system of public documentation.

I'll just address the elephant in the room at this point: the angry mob ostracizing or otherwise harassing the sex offender. Yes, it's unfortunate, and if the harassment violates the law, those people should themselves be arrested. But what gives us this romantic notion that we should be able to completely erase our prior bad acts for the purpose of social ties? I don't see any basis for that at all. If I abandon my wife and child, some friends may never speak to me again. That's a lifetime social consequence for a decision.

There's no "restart" button for life. That's just a fantasy.

[Trillo]

73. But you're not being serious at all.

At least that's my take on your acting. If you are (being serious), you're not just limiting your view, you have special blinders on.

Sleep well.

[alcibiades_mystery]

75. We were having a nice discussion

I don't see why it has to devolve into this sort of thing.

Rest assured that I believe everything I've said in this thread. You can refute it, and I'll discuss with you openly and squarely. But simply insulting me is not very productive, nor does it speak well to your position.

I'll repeat: we must distinguish between sentences, which are legal sanctions, and social/life consequences, which are usually not (an exception would be internal securities industry regulations that prevent employment of people with felony convictions, for example - this is a legal regulation that serves as a de facto sanction, but is not intrinsically connected to a specific crime).

The larger point remains the same: we cannot strip away the fundamental protection of public records simply to ameliorate social/life consequences for former offenders. The principle is too important, and the consequences, as far as I can tell, have not been demonstrated to be sufficiently severe. No doubt they have been individually severe in some cases. But using limit cases to make a general point is flawed argument. In any case, there are better ways for former offenders to ameliorate the social consequences of their records: become good and upstanding members of the community as much as possible, and live a good life that others will admire, regardless of the previous offense. Indeed, millions of people do this very thing every day.

Concealing public records is definitely a step in a very dangerous direction. I'm more concerned with ex parte in camera government claims than I am with the various traffic offenses of Neighbor X. Arguments for MORE concealment of government actions simply doesn't make sense in our political ecology.

[Trillo]

76. Good Morning. Sleep well?

"But simply insulting me is not very productive, nor does it speak well to your position."

You started the insults in your first reply to me, and continued it: "...since you seem rather desperate for me to reply to you..."

No, alcibiades_mystery, I wasn't "desparate". I was trying to answer your questions, "Who hasn't been convicted? Where is the database inaccurate? Find one perhaps in a round about way", so I found a whole string of Corporate Criminal convicts, and it doesn't matter to your position: it appears your challenge was a fraud, an in-your-face deception. Perhaps you were deceiving yourself, in a form of denial, perhaps you were stylistically arguing with an empty Socratic approach, but the outcome of its impact on your "position" was null. Therefore, it was an empty challenge, that when answered directly and on point, the evidence is your dismissal, "it's neither here nor there for my point." Baloney. That's not a "nice" conversation, it's playing mean and unfairly.

Later you assert: "There isn't any purge ... That's silly. ...And unsupported." in reference to my usage of the word "purge". Heck, the rich and powerful seem to flaunt the law routinely, and don't even get to court, so, lets call that a "preemptive purge" when they break laws, regardless of what the law literally calls it.

No, it most certainly isn't silly at all, it's quite serious, a serious issue for the entire citizenry, both little people's crime, and big people's crime, how we act toward each other as a single group, and the hypocrisy in how we, as that single group, work at dismissing and concealing Big People's crimes, while maximizing punishment for 'little people's' crimes. This most definitely is not a "silly" problem, though why you seem to project that it is, a projection that I simply disagree with, is unknown, and I'm not asking. I would hope most other progressives would not characterize this as a "silly" issue, as well.

Later, you say, "You've moved far beyond that to critique the current state of the criminal justice system as a whole. I agree with your critique", so while it appears you agree, you still dismiss it out of hand by saying essentially this is a small, specific situation, so my characterization of your argument as having "blinders on" (to the bigger picture, i.e., 'narrowed focus' which you earlier admitted to) is turning this into a "We were having a nice discussion ... I don't see why it has to devolve into this sort of thing." I'm certain that I haven't done anything negative by accurately characterizing the conversation.

This is perhaps the biggest mischaracterization of my argument that you have made, "Arguments for MORE concealment of government actions simply doesn't make sense in our political ecology."

It's not "nice" to mischaracterize an opponent's argument simply because you disagree with it, but I believe the record above shows who is being nice and who is being deceptive. That's why I used the word "acting", in context as a 'possibility', to characterize your argument. I made no absolute statement that you were acting, or were not acting.

Show me once where I have argued in favor of concealment of Big People's crimes. What I have argued, and that you have misconstrued, is that since Big People's crimes are already well concealed in various ways, including their absence in this "crappy" database (one of your characterizations I agree with BTW, though I'm not sure why I'm trying to be nice and balanced with you), is to grant equivalent concealment to "little people". So, do you see your most recent mischaracterization, or are you still in denial?

If I were to have to summarize my argument here, with you, using one word, it would be "equitable". I'm arguing that all people, big or small or in-between, be treated the same when it comes to the sacredness of criminal records and with the administration of justice.

Your argument, ultimately, appears to be that it's okay for there to be inequity, that someday in a far off future of fantasy, we will eventually reach total disclosure for all. Maybe, maybe not. In fact, I'd suggest that history shows the answer is more likely that we never will, than we will.

While you may consider this next summarization as insulting, I'm simply trying to reflect your own argument back on you by saying that it appears your argument is that poor, dirty folks deserve to have their crimes broadcast with 'message force multipliers', while rich people's gentrified crimes and crimes in high places, lacking similar multiplication of broadcast, i.e. concealment to some degree or another, is okay. You know, it's those "dirty poor people" argument again. Oh, sure, you did say it was a "blackmark" in assent that there's a valid issue here that corporate criminals are not listed, but it moves your overall debate position not a fraction of an inch.

My argument is that we've "Been there, done that": time to move on to new ways of treating people, in treating big and small alike, equitably. I want to know if the business I'm giving my money to has, in the past, been convicted of crimes. So far, I give our vast public record-keeping of "high" crimes, and the "high"ly educated sorts designing and running them, a big, fat, "F", at least in regards to this specific and long-term issue.

That's what I object to. That's all.

[alcibiades_mystery]

77. Is it harder to find out whether a corporation has been convicted of a crime?

Really?

[Joe Fields]

62. people like you make me sick.

I could list at least a dozen reasons why this is reprehensible, but all you can say is that it is "public record." So I'll just say this slowly, so that you can understand; BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS, YOU FUCKING FREEPER!!!

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. Good argument!

Why don't you go ahead and list your reasons so that people can take you seriously. Your little temper tantrum, in addition to making you look like my two year old, is less than persuasive.

[Joe Fields]

67. First of all, it wasn't intended to be an argument.

I wouldn't waste my time trying to make you see the obvious. You're too far gone.

Secondly, I don't throw little temper tantrums. I'm just voicing my extreme displeasure at your sad outlook on what you consider a democracy. I can plainly see that eight years of the Bush regime has transformed a lot of people here. You are a prime example.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. More with the wah wah wah

I'm starting to think that you fail (utterly) to list your supposed "dozen reasons" because you a) could barely come up with three, really OR b) know that they are easily sliced-and-diced, OR c) don't have the chops to present them coherently.

I'd guess it's a mixture of the three, given your current performance.

Either bring it or get off the pot. The insults without argument strategy is just childish and cowardly.

[yella_dawg]

6. Woah!

Put in my name, pulled up a DWI on my grandfather from the sixties.

Fucked up.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. Why is it fucked up: you don't have a"right to privacy" over your public criminal acts

The reactions on this thread are completely confusing to me. Can somebody explain why this is supposed to be bad?

[yella_dawg]

40. Actually, the idea is that once one pays "his debt to society" he regains

full citizens rights, including privacy. That used to be a bedrock principle of our justice system, that people got a second chance afterwards. Now justice is synonymous with revenge, but whatever.

The point is that three entries popped up with my exact name, first, middle, and last. None of them are me. There is potential for problems in this, particularly where those who don't stop to think are concerned.

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. That's absolutely false

If you believe that a criminal record is automatically expunged when somebody's completed a sentence then you simply don't know what you're talking about, at which point it's not worthwhile trying to debate you, since you don't even have the basic facts together. Your ACT is always public record. There is nothing private about having committed a crime. That's why you are prosecuted by The People (i.e., all of us), and not some bureaucratic entity.

The same "mistake" could be made with anybody who bothered to do a background check on your name. And forgive me if I'm not surprised that some other persons in these United States at some point had your exact same name. I hope you didn't think otherwise, because that would just be weird.

[callous taoboy]

8. Found 3 old friends

One is in the joint in AZ-
One is perpetually fucking up in old home town-
The last assaulted someone with a deadly weapon in '04.

[Lady Effingbroke]

21. Yup. My brother is listed there.

:(

[anonymous171]

12. I thought criminal records were public?

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. They are public...apparently, the OP doesn't want them to be public

:wow:

[onethatcares]

28. I'd like to check your record out, would you

please post your name and address?

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

29. it's not even the address, just a name and birthdate that is even

remotely close to the correct date. In about a nano second.

My husband went to court over the ticket that is showing up, and the caption is something like Failure to Show Financial Responsibility. From 1991.


Funny because my husband has had the most stable job and credit history of just about anyone I know. He is just an average middle age working stiff and at first glance this data base makes him look like a fly by nighter.

And I found alot more people i know in this thing.

This scares me.

On edit - I have not shown my husband that he is in this database, this type of stuff just gives him bad heartburn.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. You say your husband went to court

Was he convicted of an actual offense? If so, and the offense has a particular name, then he has to live with his actions.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

33. no it was a traffic ticket, and quite frankly

I can't remember him even getting a traffic ticket in 1991. Of course, I had just had a baby in 1991, so my attention wasn't on hubby's driving at the time. :-)

on edit, i do remember (paying) a speeding ticket he got in 1995, I wonder why one is showing up and the other is not. It must be because he challenged the first (according to the database) and the fact that this one is the only one showing up is weird and slightly sickening to me as well.

No other tickets for my hubby since. :D

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. A traffic ticket is still on record

Why wouldn't it be?

Obviously, it doesn't cast a bad light on you or your husband to say that, either.

I don't take the record to imply anything about the person today, but I think the principle of having public records, and our general access to public records, is crucial to the functioning of democracy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. No, I won't

But anybody who knows me or comes across my name is perfectly free to check all public records on me should they so choose.

Nice try, though.

[asthmaticeog]

15. They are. People are flipping out over *nothing* on this thread. nt

[petronius]

23. It's not that criminal records should or shouldn't be public

(For the record, I agree they should be.) My problem with this website is that it's another example of the culture of fear/culture of surveillance that is becoming so prevalent in our society - it furthers the notion that it is normal or advisable to pry into the personal details of, for example, "neighbors, your children's friends, activist shareholders."

[Radical Activist]

18. Found an ex girlfriend.

I knew she had a record but it was more extensive than I realized.

[Radical Activist]

19. It says George W Bush of Texas was convicted of fraud.

No kidding! hahaha

[Edweird]

26. eh. Our county clerk website gives out the same info.

The site in your op doesn't have all records anyway. I checked names familiar to me and they weren't listed.

Edited to add:
Furthermore our clerks site includes info on civil matters as well: name changes, lawsuits, foreclosures, everything.

These guys aren't doing anything that you can't do better and more accurately.

[onethatcares]

27. just suppose a name matches a name and

someone loses their job, thier wife, thier future because someone made a mistake in an input. What happens then? Of course that would never happen, that's why the no fly list is so accurate.

[LWolf]

32. I did not find

my grandson's mother, and abuser, despite her numerous arrests and convictions. Of course, every time she was charged with a felony, and there were multiple events, she pled them down to misdemeanors.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. They would still be on record as misdemeanors

The database is in beta, and seems pretty spotty right now in terms of complete information.

[Dreamer Tatum]

38. You call that Big Brother?

That data has been publicly available for years, and generally reflects crimes against society.

Sorry.

[Sanctified]

39. Cool, I can look up some of my old High School friends.

Thanks for sharing, too bad the one who owes me money looks like he is probably doing time in AZ for a crime he did a year ago.

[Trillo]

42. Nothing is particularly wrong with this beyond more than one realism of life.

Are the wealthy who escape justice through various techniques on it? Does it become mostly a record of poor folks who've not had the privilege of wealth?

It seems that realism is a rather large loophole.

According to The Corporate Crime Reporter (commondreams.org/news2005/0620-24.htm), there are 9 "Dow" companies that have criminal convictions: 3M, Alcoa, Boeing, Exxon, General Electric, General Motors, Merck, Pfizer, and United Technologies.

Does this database include them, as well as their subsidiaries, or is it simply one of those beat the little citizens down by keeping them divided amongst themselves tools?

If that's the case, then perhaps these "public records" also need to be purged for poor folks.

[Trillo]

43. What are those corporations first and last names? nt

[704wipes]

47. it didn't have anything for Spiro Agnew or Oliver North

What was the first name of that Keating guy that McCain was so chummy with back during the 80's Savings & Loan scandals?

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. John?

[EFerrari]

54. Welcome to DU, 704wipes.

:)

[burythehatchet]

60. One's instinct always seems to send the correct signal. I put in a couple of names

checked my neighborhood, and within a few clicks my stomach was turning and I had a headache. This is just plain wrong.

[minerva50]

66. Creepy

I checked my neighborhood in Maryland. Chock full of people (myself included) with speeding violations from North Carolina, mostly pled down to equipment violations. Maryland traffic violations don't show up. On the other hand my relative's NC traffic tickets showed up, but not his NC drugs conviction.

[alcibiades_mystery]

69. Apparently, NC gave full access to its database, while other entitites did not

I also saw a guy in NYC whose information comes from NC.

[LiberalPersona]

71. How long have we had to ability to do criminal background checks?

Businesses have been doing it for ages for interview purposes.
All this site does is make it easier for the average person to do it.

[readmoreoften]

74. WOW. A lot of criminals have my name: first, middle, and last. Some even my birth month.

Holy shit.

Great. Really looking forward to my upcoming job searches considering someone who has the same first, middle, and last name as me (first and middle fairly uncommon) with her birth month the same as mine and only a 5 year difference in age has gone before grand juries for drug dealing, violent crimes, and gun theft.

[callous taoboy]

78. Oh, crap, I'm on there: Solicitation of a he/she. That was years ago, folks.

[Duppers]

79. I like knowing if there are any sex or violent criminals in my neighborhood

Anyone with children should know this.