Background Check Run On Obama

[lame54]

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/20225295/detail.html

DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. -- Two DeKalb police officers are being investigated for running a background check on President Obama.
On July 20, the President's name was typed into a DeKalb County police car computer.
The secret service was notified and immediately called the department.
CBS Atlanta learned officers Ryan White and C.M. Route have been placed on administrative leave while an investigation is being done.

“As Public Safety Director for DeKalb County, I want everyone to know that we take these allegations very seriously. This behavior will not be tolerated by DeKalb County government. We expect our officers to adhere to professional standards and departmental policy. Furthermore, we do not and will not condone the inappropriate use of county equipment or resources,” said Public Safety Director William “Wiz” Miller.
No charges have been filed, but running the background check is against the law.

[TransitJohn]

1. Well, at least

they're "taking it very seriously," the usual response.

[Xipe Totec]

2. Merriam Webster will need to update the definition of stupid

Stupid n: Two DeKalb police officers running a background check on President Obama.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deja Q]

3. BTW: They finished their background check and came up with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PqI12R8YNU

Yup, that's Obama.














:silly:

[backtoblue]

4. For the sake of my own stupidity... Why is a background check on the Pres . illegal?

:shrug: just wondering

[TheWraith]

7. Any misuse of the background check system is illegal.

It might seem harmless when it's the POTUS, but the same laws apply to him as to people looking up their sister's new boyfriend, or that guy they're thinking about buying a car from.

[KDFW]

10. What law, specifically, prohibits it?

I see it done all the time ...after all they're public records. Do we want to keep the backgrounds of certain people secret, and if so why?
\

[csziggy]

37. Links to the Federal Statutes covering personal privacy for EVERY citizen

Here are federal statutes limiting the use of criminal background checks:

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) (15 USC § 1681)(http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcradoc.pdf )

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 USC §§ 6801-6809)(http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glbsub1.htm )

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (18 USC §§2721-2725)(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2721.html )

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC §552a)(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/552a.html )

The most commonly-listed permissible purposes are pre-screening, consumer-driven transactions, fraud detection, and law enforcement. Personal curiosity is not a permissible use of the materials available to law enforcement officers, no matter who the individual it is they are researching.

[Lisa0825]

9. I run background checks for HR. LOTS of private and personal information in there,

even for just a regular citizen. I would get my ass fired for running a background check on ANYONE without a work-related need to do so. I would SURE AS HELL get canned for running it on anyone high-profile just for kicks!!!

[KDFW]

12. But you would be 'canned' for violating a workplace rule, not a 'law', right?

I'm trying to figure out how this isn't a complaint based on a double standard.

[whistler162]

48. Likely both since running a background check for

HR or in the case of my company Life Insurance agents require the okay, signature, of the checkee.

[Redbear]

11. I believe it is illegal for a law enforcement officer to use govt equipment

and databases to run a check on anyone unless it is for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

How the secret service found out I don't know.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lolly]

21. Similar case--

Remember the people who looked up "Joe the Plumber's" IRS records? I believe they got into some sort of trouble, but I don't know what the final outcome of the story was.

[KDFW]

27. I don't either.

I'm not defending those guys on what they did, I'm just wondering why all the outrage after years of encouraging people to dig into the background of Bushco, Inc. And no I am not a freeper.
:-)

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

28. I don't see a lot of outrage, really

I can tell you exactly what happened.

Two dopes, bored out of their minds at the station, start running names to see what comes up. I doubt it's anything nefarious like "racism". They probably ran Lindsay Lohan's name too.

But what it does prove is that some people are too immature to be handling confidential information. They should lose their jobs. Same as if they ran Bush's name.

[lolly]

29. Googled it

"Joe," that is.

It appears that the person involved was punished--suspended from work, and the case was "referred" to some sort of legal authority for review.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/20/ohio_ig_report_joe_the_plumber.html

[Xipe Totec]

46. I don't see YOU either....

:rofl:

[uppityperson]

41. OP says "No charges have been filed, but running the background check is against the law"

maybe you could contact the police dept directly, rather than asking anonymous posters on an internet board

[KDFW]

44. You mean there are actually persons who are more expert than DUers?

I cannot believe that!

[TheWraith]

16. There's probably a flag on any government files about Obama.

Any access is probably reported to the Secret Service straight away. At least, that's how I'd work it.

[Hansel]

43. The Secret Service likely has a monitor

that alerts them when anyone tries to access Obama's records. It's their job to protect him so it is likely that unauthorized background checks on him would certainly raise some red flags.

[TheWraith]

5. I'm of two minds on this.

I can certainly understand how some people would be curious and think it couldn't hurt. On the other hand, privacy laws are there for a reason. It's probably harmless when it's the president, but then you've got people doing stuff like looking up their sister's new boyfriend, etcetera.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

15. Like anything else, a BC requires a certain amount of probable cause

I've heard of officers "running" celebrity names for fun, but running the president's name is going to get you fucking nailed.

[KDFW]

20. Should someone doing it using ...say Limbaugh's name be fucking nailed too?

I'm just trying to figure out who's exempt from being checked out, and why. And I know I will be accused of all kinds of shit for asking...racism, freeperism and half a dozen other isms, I've been reading this forum long enough to realize this kind of thing doesn't work the same for everyone.
:-)

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

24. The fact is there is likely a flag on Obama's name

...as well as Bill Clinton's, or GW Bush's or Dick Cheney's. Anyone who runs that name, the Secret Service is going to know about it. You could probably run a check on Rush Limbaugh's name and get away with it, unless the department itself has a log of the names their officers are running and would obviously notice they are fooling around on the system.

[4lbs]

35. Someone did and they were nailed.

About 6 or 7 years ago, someone did a background check on Rush and got his medical records and displayed them. That's how we found out about him buying his Oxycontin with his housekeeper's help.

Guess who went to court on the side of Rush Limbaugh? No other than the ACLU argued that it was a crime, an invasion of his privacy. And they won!

Ever wonder why with all the blather that Rush does, he stays away from berating the ACLU? Because they protected him in court.

[Critters2]

17. Did you do it on government equipment, intended only for law enforcement purposes?

I didn't think so.

[KDFW]

22. I meant "we" as in "we Democrats" Do you really imagine no progressive official ever

looked through the NCIC records on Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz or any of the people who lied us into invading Iraq? If you do, I have a hell of a bridge bargain for you.
:shrug:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

25. If I recall correctly, someone did

And they got in trouble for it. Came out about the time of the election.

[Critters2]

26. Again, if they did it using LE equipment, they broke the law. nt

[KDFW]

32. And yet after half a dozen claims there is no citation of any such law.

I wonder why.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

34. Quick! Contact the person who went into Joe The Plumber's files and is facing legal action

and tell them they've been unfairly targeted!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Better tell CBS and Dekalb county, Georgia.

The former's the one reporting it's illegal, and the latter's the one running the investigation.

Apparently you missed that.

I wonder why.

[csziggy]

40. Most people are probably too bored with your obtuseness to bother

But I took about two minutes with Google to find the list of federal statutes, then a few more minutes to find direct links to the text of those statutes. And I am posting them repeatedly since you are obviously too slow to look farther than your nose for information.

Here are federal statutes limiting the use of criminal background checks:

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) (15 USC § 1681)(http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcradoc.pdf )

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 USC §§ 6801-6809)(http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glbsub1.htm )

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (18 USC §§2721-2725)(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2721.html )

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC §552a)(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/552a.html )

The most commonly-listed permissible purposes are pre-screening, consumer-driven transactions, fraud detection, and law enforcement. Personal curiosity is not a permissible use of the materials available to law enforcement officers, no matter who the individual it is they are researching.

[Jadk Deth]

47. This is the awareness statement everyone signs who has access to GCIC/NCIC

Access to Criminal Justice Information, as defined in GCIC
Council Rule 140-1-.02 (amended), and dissemination of such
information are governed by state and federal laws and GCIC
Council Rules.  Criminal Justice Information cannot be
accessed or disseminated by any employee except as directed by
superiors and as authorized by approved standard operating
procedures which are based on controlling state and federal
laws, relevant federal regulations, and the Rules of the GCIC
Council. 
 

            O.C.G.A. §35-3-38 establishes criminal penalties
for specific offenses involving obtaining, using, or
disseminating criminal history record information except as
permitted by law.  The same statute establishes criminal
penalties for disclosing or attempting to disclose techniques
or methods employed to ensure the security and privacy of
information or data contained in Georgia criminal justice
information systems.

 

            The Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act
(O.C.G.A. §16-9-90 et seq) provides for the protection of
public and private sector computer systems, including
communications links to such computer systems.  The Act
establishes four criminal offenses, all major felonies, for
violations of the Act::  Computer Theft, Computer Trespass,
Computer Invasion of Privacy, and Computer Forgery.  The
criminal penalties for each offense carries maximum sentences
of fifteen (15) years in prison and/or fines up to $50,000.00,
as well as possible civil ramifications.  The Act also
establishes Computer Password Disclosure as a criminal offense
with penalties of one (1) year in prison and/or a $5000.00
fine.

 

The Georgia Criminal Justice Information System Network is
operated by the Georgia Crime Information Center in compliance
with O.C.G.A. §35-3-31.  All data bases accessible via CJIS
Network terminals are protected by the Computer Systems
Protection Act.  Similar communications and computer systems
operated by municipal/county governments are also protected by
the Act.
              ------  ---- --- End of the Statement ---
---------
 
Everyone including Judicial, Law Enforcement, Public Defenders
Office, Prosecutors, who handle NCIC/GCIC have to sign this
form and it is kept on file, and checked by the respective
state auditors.  GCIC is required to investigate, any alleged
violations.  They will probably check all the Criminal
Histories those two have run in the last four months or longer
if they see violations.  They will make a recommendation to
the DA in DeKalb County as to prosecution.  The DA will decide
if the case warrants prosecution.  I believe that both the
officers are innocent unless proven guilty.

If they did commit the violation the minimum they are looking
at is a pretty hefty period of suspension, or being fired.  If
it is prosecuted, unless there is a malicious intent, most
cases I have seen are reduced to a misdemeanors, the person
fired, and his POST certification probably pulled.

Almost every president and powerful elected officials criminal
history has been run by someone who did not pay attention in
the Security Awareness class that they are required to take
every two years. When a criminal history is run without the
persons consent a case number must be entered so that it can
be audited to verify the reason.  Any law enforcement agency
responsible for the safety of higher ranking elected or
appointed officials, can put that persons info on a
subscription list and it will tell them if that persons info
was run, and by whom.  If the case number does not provide a
valid reason for running the history, you have a violation of
the law as described above.  
Subscription lists are also used to keep track of
probationers, parolees, and suspected criminals and
terrorists.  Every time that their info is run, the
supervising agency can contact the other agency for reports or
intelligence.

I hope this helps some people understand how and why Criminal
Histories are run

 

[csziggy]

38. If you do not have a legal reason, it is against the law; curiosity is NOT a permissible reason

Here are federal statutes limiting the use of criminal background checks:

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) (15 USC § 1681)(http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcradoc.pdf )

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 USC §§ 6801-6809)(http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glbsub1.htm )

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (18 USC §§2721-2725)(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2721.html )

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC §552a)(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/552a.html )

The most commonly-listed permissible purposes are pre-screening, consumer-driven transactions, fraud detection, and law enforcement. Personal curiosity is not a permissible use of the materials available to law enforcement officers, no matter who the individual it is they are researching.

[Xipe Totec]

45. I wish I could recommend a reply

:thumbsup:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

14. Morons

Like that wasn't going to be noticed.

[lolly]

18. Not enough info to know

The article doesn't really give us enough info to know how or why what they did was against the law.

It may be they were using a database available only to police depts, which might have info that would not be in the public record. Then, as others mentioned, doing this on a whim (or to "get" somebody) could be a problem. Kind of like the folks in the hospitals here in LA who looked up medical records on celebrities. It's legal for medical professionals to look up those records when they are treating someone, but not legal to do it to find dirt on a soap star.

[marmar]

19. He IS black, dontchaknow? Surely he's been arrested for something before.....

Angry :sarcasm:

[theoldman]

23. One thing they found out for sure was that Obama is the president of the US.

[Lisa0825]

33. LOL! nt

[BlooInBloo]

30. (shrug) That'll teach Obama for being tumultuous.

[Union Yes]

31. Dumbfucks. Fire their asses.

[TexasObserver]

36. More aggressively stupid wingers in law enforcement.

[AllenVanAllen]

42. What did they think they would find out about the president?

It goes to show you the emotional turmoil being suffered by xenophobic bigots in America has trumped their logic and reason.
America is changing and many refuse to accept it.