It is from an individual asking a question from the community regarding the ethical and legal nature of his or her actions. It is a perfect example of what happens in society when personal data becomes readily available.
I have also included four replies from other users to the question. There were over eleven hundred replies, and I chose the ones that I agreed with. There are other points of view.
As for my personal take on this issue, I believe the person is a piece of shit, and as one of the comments pointed out, nothing more than a kapo.
About six years ago, and periodically ever since, I've obtained a full CD disc of database information using my State's open government records laws. This database listing is of all current open felony arrest warrants in the various counties in my state. The information is freely available to anyone who asks as long as they are willing to pay the nominal fee.
Anyway, it so happens that my employer is in the business of collecting basic personal information in order to service various warranty accounts. Starting about six years ago, I began checking just the name and birth dates of all our clients against the felony warrants data.
Whenever I spot an exact match in both name and birth date, I've been calling in anonymous tips to the local CrimeStoppers hotline and collecting rewards anonymously whenever local law enforcement arrests the fugitive.
I spotted a "Support Law Enforcement" bumper sticker the other day, and I casually mentioned to a friend in the car with me that I have been doing this for several years now. I make a pretty good income from it in fact, about $1200 a month on a good month, and never less than about $500 a month.
My friend insists that what I'm doing is very, very wrong. I admit that I'd probably get fired if my employer found out, but that's just an issue between me and my employer. I'm not collecting any information other than name and birth date and bouncing it against my database. And only if there is an EXACT match, then I pass the current address for the wanted person on to CrimeStoppers.
My friend seems to think that this is wrong on many levels beyond me using information from my workplace. I just don't see it. Why? These are all FELONY warrants, and most of them are several years old. I've helped law enforcement capture several dozen fugitives that had warrants over 20 years old! Until my friend got so upset, I was pretty darn proud of myself. Now, I'm wondering if I'm just being a douchebag. Reddit, what do you think?
EDIT
As I type this, there are 560 comments. Wow! I wanted to address some concerns that I agree are very relevant. I haven't read every comment, but I think the main concerns are: 1. That I'm making money on this, 2. that potentially there are drug-war victims being arrested, and 3. that I may be violating some kind of privacy agreement. Oh, and 4. there may be some question as to legality.
1. Yes, I'm making money on this. I purposely set out to make money on this. I mainly do it for the money. I essentially admitted this in my original post I thought, but perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. I'm under no false pretenses that I'm doing it for anything other than the money, however yes, I do get satisfaction from putting scumbags away as well.
2. Yes, a relatively small batch of fugitives had charges relating to drug trafficking in particular, mainly cocaine. The State database does show the charges in every instance and I know most of the codes by heart now. Yes, I do agree that the drug war is an unnecessary war on our citizens and I don't agree with the harsh treatment doled out at times. However, I trust the justice system to sort all that out, and I do my part to lobby my representatives for changes to our system as regards drug related crimes. The only data the State gives me is for fugitive warrants. I don't know why and I don't care since it's thousands of names long and dozens more are added every month. I wouldn't waste time on anything other than a felony warrant anyway since those pay the best rewards.
3. I've been in my current job since graduation from college 10 years ago. It's the only job I've ever held other than part time jobs in high school. I've looked through my papers and I can say with just about 95% certainty that I have never signed any type of contract or agreement of any kind regarding privacy of the information that I come into contact with every work day. It may have been an oversight. However, I think because people are mailing us this information voluntarily, (it's only name, address, DOB and a survey), I don't think it falls under privacy expectations. Yes, they're registering for a warranty, but they're also entering a drawing by filling out the marketing survey. Privacy violation simply never entered my mind as a concern. Perhaps it should have. I did mention in my original post that I will most likely be fired if my boss ever finds out. I'm ok with that.
4. As to legality. Again, this concern never even entered my mind. If the law says I can't turn in a fugitive to law enforcement, then why the hell are they rewarding me in cash for doing just that? I'm not trying to rationalize anything here. I'm very clear on what I'm doing and why. I just don't believe that it's unlawful in any way. However, I'm know good advice when I see it and I'm going to see a lawyer immediately to get a professional opinion.
I have worked in the criminal justice system for a long time. I will address just your final question.
First, you are only matching name and birthdate. The number of false positives is going to be quite large. Funny thing too, we often don't have the correct birthdates on real criminals. Sometimes they lie.
Given current police tactics, someone who is unfortunate enough to have a common name may well face a SWAT squad crashing into their house, shooting their dogs and tasing their grandmother. This does not help society. This is not speculation. Even without your assistance this happens.
Second, you appear to think an arrest warrant is the same as a conviction. It isn't. A reasonable number of warrants are quashed long before any criminal proceeding, not on a technicality, but either because the evidence was insufficient or there was a glitch in either the police or court computer systems resulting in the issuance of a warrant in error.
This means we re-arrest people who are actually out on bail, have already dealt with their charges, or whose warrants were withdrawn after realizing a mistake had been made, usually as a result of identity theft by a member of their family. The inaccuracies in a number of justice system databases is significant. Programs are often ill-designed and the data is put in by fallible human beings.
Third, just because you're accused of a crime doesn't mean you're guilty. Believe it or not, many people who are acquitted of crimes are acquitted because they are actually innocent. (Just like many innocent people are convicted of crimes.) This is why we don't just have two possible verdicts; guilty and guilty-but-the-State-can't-prove it-today. We try to remember that the police might just be fallible and arrest the wrong person.
Fourth, you appear to think "felony" is a word that means "scourge of society". It does not. At any given point in time, in different jurisdictions it will cover a wide range of offences. Quite apart from the pot possession, it usually includes some fairly minor crimes. Today it also includes a number of political crimes. Congratulations on contributing to the arrest of a peaceful protestor who got roughed up by the police and, as per standard protocol in both the US and Canada, was charged with either resist arrest, obstruct p.o., or assault p.o.
Fifth, as other people point out, unless an old arrest warrant is for something serious, people do turn their lives around and become productive members of society. This is good for society. Taking a former hippie or former stupid kid away from his family and his job, humiliating him in his community, stigmatizing him with a criminal record, opening up the possibility of violence at the hands of other inmates or police isn't actually making society safer.
In conclusion, no you are not a douchebag. You are a perfect subject for a totalitarian state. A willing and eager informer, able to convince yourself that any betrayal is not only justified, but a public service, and thrilled to get a chance to profit from informing on your fellow citizens. People like you have been the backbone of oppressive regimes all over the world.
You're right, the word for this kind of behavior isn't douchebag; rather, it's a little more like Kapo.
As a fellow member of middle-class society, it could very well be said that you are a prisoner to the country's elite. They buy out the other companies you might've worked for, they lobby for laws that keep the poor where they are and keep you in a situation where you're just comfortable enough not to fight for better, and just like real prisons, the very fact that you're there is something they'll laugh about all the way to the bank.
But here, in this one case, you've been given the opportunity to get what you consider to be a leg up in society by selling the very people who trust you out to the authorities. The ladder of social classes stretches upward for miles and miles, and despite stepping on the heads of possibly hundreds of people who likely posed no real threat to society, you only managed to climb a single rung. Yet here you are, asking us whether or not we think it was worth it, when you should very well already know the answer to that.
Just like a kapo, though, what you probably fail to realize is that no matter how many people you hand over to them, they still think nothing of you, and as long as you're a part of this society, your fate might be exactly the same as the people you're reporting. No matter how many people you sell out, you have done nothing to reduce the possibility that one day, one of your enemies could find something you did that was technically a felony and have you locked up right beside them.
Please, seriously think about what the parent poster said. As much as you want to sleep well at night thinking that you've done something that protects society and managed to profit at the same time, it's far more likely that all you have done is throw a monstrous monkey wrench into the stable lives of too many people and their families, accomplishing next to nothing for society's advancement and getting nothing but dirty money in return.
As normal people just trying to make it through our adult lives, we spend far too much time fighting forces far beyond our control already. The last thing any of us need is you violating our implicit trust and working against us.
Please, for our sake, try to spend more time just being a decent human being, and spend less time straddling the line of ethical behavior for a quick buck. You'll make much greater strides for society if you try to "be the change you wish to see in the world" than you will trying to change society around you by helping to lock up everyone who someone in some position of authority says might be bad.
What if a relative's name came up would you turn them in?
1. You are betraying the trust of your company's customers. Moreover, I doubt this is in your company's privacy policy.
2. Your are personally profiting from the company info (others have said this)
3. You are further cheating your company by spending work time running queries on the databases. If it were important enough for the state to disrupt your company, it would get a court order.
4. If a lawyer ever finds out about this (spots a trend), your company's is in for a beating.
You are betraying your customers and your company at the very least. You are also a Patriot Act on two legs. You make George Orwell toss and turn in his grave. You are the fucking antichrist.
In case I wasn't clear; I disagree with your practices and believe your mother is obese.
On the plus side, if we wrap George Orwell in coils of wire, and strap magnets to his coffin, we can harness the rotational energy of his disgust and use it to power the globe.
Considering that our stupid so-called "leaders" continue to bang the war drums, I thought it would be appropriate to re-post Carl Sagan's Cosmos.
In the 1980’s the Cold War entered its final stage and one of its most dangerous and important periods. It was a time when the rhetoric of nuclear Armageddon with its biblical implications had begun to consume the Western World.
During this period there were many unrelenting voices pounding the war drums, just like today. However, there were also many benevolent voices trying to educate us by showing us the beauty of life and our part in it. One of those working relentlessly towards the betterment of our society was Carl Sagan, and his masterpiece was the Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, “a thirteen-part television series written by Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan, and Steven Soter, with Sagan as global presenter.”
“The series was first broadcast by the Public Broadcasting Service in 1980, and was the most widely watched series in the history of American public television until 1990's … It covered a wide range of scientific subjects including the origin of life and a perspective of our place in the universe.”
I first came across this series when it was finally released on DVD in 2000. I was hooked after watching part 1 and for the next few days I became a Cosmos addict and a serious Carl Sagan fan, especially after I found out that he was also a marijuana advocate. “Under the pseudonym 'Mr. X', he wrote an essay concerning cannabis smoking in the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered, written by Sagan's close friend Lester Grinspoon. In his essay, Sagan wrote how marijuana use had helped to inspire some of his works and enhance sensual and intellectual experiences. After Sagan's death, Grinspoon disclosed this to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson. The publishing of this biography, Carl Sagan: A Life, in 1999, brought much media attention to the issue of the use and legalization of marijuana.”
Considering our present geopolitical situation I thought it would be a good idea to send out Sagan’s message, so I combed the 'cosmos' and found the whole series on the Net. I’m not sure how long these videos will remain available so if you have not had the pleasure of watching this work yet, this might be a great time to do so.
Hope you enjoy.
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 1: The Shores of the cosmic ocean (1:00:24)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 2: One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue (1:00:11)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 3: Harmony of The Worlds (58:22)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 4: Heaven and Hell (1:01:10)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 5: Blues for a Red Planet (1:01:15)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 6: Travellers' Tales (1:01:96)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 7: The Backbone of Night (59:43)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 8: Journeys in Space and Time (1:01:39)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 9: The Lives of the Stars (59:06)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 10: The Edge of Forever (1:02:33)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 11: The Persistence of Memory (58:24)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 12: Encyclopaedia Galactica (1:00:54)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 13: Who Speaks for Earth? (1:01:38)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos Part 14: Ted Turner Interviews Dr. Sagan (44:28)
What I personally got from reading this book was how articulate Timothy McVeigh was in expressing his opinion and forming an argument - Vidal shared many of their dispatches. This was surprising to me since Western Mainstream Media (AKA the government ) portrayed McVeigh as an illiterate lunatic. Gore Vidal proved otherwise. But this post is not about Timothy McVeigh or Gore Vidal, it’s about truth and the consequences of American apathy.
“‘The real story is what's missing,’ said Jesse Trentadue, a Salt Lake City attorney who obtained the recordings through the federal Freedom of Information Act as part of an unofficial inquiry he is conducting into the April 19, 1995, bombing that killed 168 people and injured hundreds more…
“The tapes turned over by the FBI came from security cameras various companies had mounted outside office buildings near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. They are blank at points before 9:02 a.m., when a truck bomb carrying a 4,000 pound fertilizer-and-fuel-oil bomb detonated in front of the building, Trentadue said.
“‘Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence,’ Trentadue said. He said government officials claim the security cameras did not record the minutes before the bombing because ‘they had run out of tape’ or ‘the tape was being replaced.’
“‘The interesting thing is they spring back on after 9:02,’ he said. ‘The absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn't want anybody to see.’”
“Mr Coulson spent 31 years in the FBI. Between 1991 and 1997 he was the deputy assistant director of the Criminal Division of the FBI in Washington, responsible for all violent crime cases in the United States…
“Mr Coulson said a federal grand jury is now needed to find out what really happened: ‘We have victims here and we have victims' families and we don't even know the answers. And the answer is frankly for a federal grand jury.’
“He argues this is the only way to prove whether other people were involved in the bombing in a wider conspiracy beyond Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who was also convicted of manslaughter and conspiracy and sentenced to life in jail…
“Mr Coulson also says that FBI headquarters closed down part of their own investigation into a white separatist community called Elohim City, which conspiracy theorists believe was involved in the attack, with government knowledge.”
If you would like further information on the Oklahoma City bombing then consider watching the following two documentaries. The first is “Murder in the Heartland”, a 1995 independent production with a tremendous amount of information, news footage, and many in-depth interviews. The second is a 2007 BBC production which raises many of the same questions, albeit, it is sugar coated for mass consumption.
I had an American friend tell me that she was fascinated with Iran, and wanted to know my opinion regarding Iran’s nuclear program, especially since a so-called new plant was just announced, or “revealed”, depending on your perspective and source of information.
Below you will find my reply to her question, and a re-post of the first article. Please note that these articles were written over the last few years so there is some repetition between them. Facts do not disappear over time, so I believe it’s always a good idea to repeat some of the important points.
Here is a piece I wrote last year regarding Iran's nuclear program. This is going to apply no matter how many nuclear enrichment facilities are found, in Iran or anywhere else.
As for Iran, your fascination is justified, it is probably one of the top 5 most important countries in the world, and if Western governments continue their stupid bully tactics, Iran will become the most important country in the world... i.e. the shit will hit the fan.
Happy reading and let me know what you think.
chycho
ps. The following pieces are also good to help put things into perspective. After reading them you will probably know more about Iran than 99.99% of Americans. It's good to have this information to help filter out the noise.
The principal lesson taught in school regarding personal finance is that everyone should have at least a five-year business plan. Creating such a plan forces us to take inventory of what we have, allowing us to figure out what we need to do to be able to prepare for what our needs may be for the future.
This concept is also applied to collectives, such as corporations, communities and countries. The larger the collective the further into the future the business plan should foresee.
This is where Iran’s nuclear program comes in. You see, even though we may be under the assumption that an oil well will produce oil indefinitely, reality is much different. One of the most important observed properties of oil wells is that they follow Hubbert’s peak theory postulate, “that for any given geographical area, from an individual oil-producing region to the planet as a whole, the rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve.”
“Early in the curve (pre-peak), the production rate increases due to the discovery rate and the addition of infrastructure. Late in the curve (post-peak), production declines due to resource depletion. The Hubbert peak theory is based on the observation that the amount of oil under the ground in any region is finite, therefore the rate of discovery which initially increases quickly must reach a maximum and decline.”
According to a 2007 report (PDF) by German based Energy Watch Group, many countries have already gone past peak oil.
We don’t know where on the peak oil curve Iran is right now, but even if they have not reached peak oil production yet, it is safe to assume that they will shortly. This means that Iran must begin to look for other sources of energy for its future, just like many other countries. At present, the primary choices available for power production are very limited. They are hydro, gas, coal and nuclear – with nuclear giving the biggest bang for the buck.
“At the moment there are more than 400 nuclear power plants all over the world, which produce about 17% of the world's electricity. The share can range from just few percent in some countries up and to 75% as in France.”
Iran has a population of over 71 million and it must have a plan in place to supply energy to its citizens in the future. Their oil and gas are non-renewable resources, which means that they will be running out at some point. The implications of this are beyond what our politicians and the Western mainstream media present.
Iran has a nuclear program because their government has done the calculations and realizes that if they are to survive they will need alternate sources of energy. Considering that nuclear power is the least problematic based on certain global warming hypotheses, they are pursuing the only and best choice available to them.
What makes those countries that already have nuclear power think for one second that they have the right to deny others the same privilege? If Iran is denied the right to develop nuclear power then other energy-starved countries will also be denied.
Do we actually believe that we have the right to do this? And even if we think that we do, do we actually believe that people living in countries that have yet to develop nuclear power will refrain from developing the technology just because we say so, especially when they see us enjoying all the benefits that come with access to almost unlimited energy?
If we try to deny Iran the right to develop this technology, then we are essentially telling them that they should remain a developing nation indefinitely, while they watch their lifestyle deteriorate as their oil and gas supplies slowly dwindle.
The conflict between Iran, the US, and Israel is about the survival of a tribe, of a culture, of a country. Iranians and the peoples of other countries that find themselves being denied energy will fight for their right to develop a reliable energy source, after all, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they have the 'Inalienable Right' to Nuclear Energy. Are we really ready to start a war to deny them their rights? Do we actually believe that we have the means to do so?
I think the best way to resolve this crisis is to ask ourselves what we would do if another nation threatened us for developing technology that could supply the energy requirements of our country.
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
