I have LOADS of questions:
-do you have lots of friends in the local PD? Would any police detective friends ever allow you access to a crime scene (as in “CHINATOWN”?
-do you chain smoke?
-do you hang around bars to get info on people?
-do you wear sharp 3-piece suits (like Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe did)?
-do you have contacts in your local mafia/underworld?
-do the local cops pass you tips?
-finally, do you live in fogbound SF?
Translation: those who will do unethical but legal things will have no trouble also doing unethical and illegal things. Therefore we need more laws for those people to ignore.
Did I get that right?
Joe Blow has a crush on Ms. X. Maybe even a mild obsession with her. He wants to find out anything he can about her. He knows she has filed bankruptcy in the past few years, and that she got a divorce around the same time. Because, trustingly, she mentioned these things to him in casual conversation as acqaintances sometimes do.
Joe Blow goes to the courthouse, goes through the PUBLIC RECORDS, finds what he is looking for. The jackpot is Ms. X’s Soc. Sec. Number.
Now, the world is his oyster. With Ms. X’s SSN, he can access (on the internet) her employment records (he’s quite computer-savvy), her health records, her private e-mail. Everything he unearthes gives him more information to allow him access to even more information. I’m not talking about these (puzzlingly legal) internet services where you pay a fee and get all that stuff. I’m talking about playing around until he can, unauthorized and undetected, view much of Ms. X’s personal correspondence and history.
Where was the line from legal to illegal crossed? Was it crossed? Does Joe Blow know? Does the law itself know? It doesn’t, because these problems are so new that the laws, as I mentioned above, have failed to keep up with them. Meanwhile Ms. X knows what’s going on because he drops many hints, but she has no proof and absolutely no (legal) recourse.
There’s got to be a better way to protect the public. Anyone who would defend the present state of affairs strikes me as questionable.
As a ninth-grader, I had a major crush on my math teacher. Sometimes, I would circle his block many times in hopes to get a glimpse of him. The teacher noticed me walking past his house repeatedly and he felt harassed (which, in hindsight, I can’t blame him for).
My parents were called and I was told in no uncertain terms to quit walking past that man’s house. My protestations that it was a PUBLIC STREET and that I had done nothing ILLEGAL, although technically correct, did not fly. There was no room for loopholes, gray areas, and rationalizations. I was harassing that teacher, I was to quit it instantaneously, or else. The fact that it was a public street did not impress anyone.
This is the type of ETHICAL conduct we should follow when we “follow” people through information available on the internet and in courthouses. Just because it’s there does not necessarily make it okay to use. I do know that most DECENT human beings know this instinctively.
This is a total hijack of a very interesting thread. You really should open a relevant thread in a relevant forum, such as GD or the Pit. I’m sure many will be interested in commenting. Including me.
I wasn’t defending the present state of affairs, regurgit8, merely questioning your logic in calling for “more laws”. For the most part I agree with you that the law hasn’t kept up with technology, particularly in the arena of privacy. The advent of online databases makes it all too easy to share information that would, pre-digital, have required visits to various institutions such as the courthouse you mention, along with a lot of time at the photocopier. Certainly the private public needs protection in the digital age.
Do you think we need more laws all around, or just in areas, such as digital technology, which have changed recently? The one I’ll agree with, the other I wouldn’t. Though I’d choose a different word than “more”. More laws do not equal better legal protection.
Finally, I’m going to have to ask for cites on Joe Blow’s internet sources. I’m quite computer savvy myself, and I have no idea where I could find a person’s employment records, health records, or personal email, unless I had physical access to that person’s computer (covered at least by tresspassing laws and probably only useful for the email) or hacked into it (covered by existing laws? I don’t know but would assume so). Where, legally or illegally, would one find that information? (Do your best to answer without violating the board’s policy on facilitating illegal activity, please!)
I don’t think so. I’m awaiting a response from the P.I. to my questions. I’m sure he’ll get around to it. But if you want to open a topic on privacy and the internet, ethical concerns, don’t let me stop you.
The above was addressed to Bill H.
Sorry about the hijack, Bill. I was looking for discussion on some of regurgit8’s comments but you’re quite right that they’re a digression from the original point.
Back to your regularly scheduled thread…
Sorry, it’s a digression.
Of course. There were many times that I caould not prove that the person was doing anything wrong. I always assure clients that I will just gather information, I cannot make the subject be guilty. Some people get frustrated when you cannot prove what they think, but once again, I always say that if you are so unhappy with the person, why don’t you just walk away.
As for my job, I consider my responsibility to not only catch people doing wrong, but also clear those who are wrongly suspected. Always go for the truth.
The clients sometimes are relieved, others get angry. Once a guy refused to pay the balance of the bill. This is why I collected most of it up front. I always tried to maintain a professional attitude and tried not to let clients leave in a fit of anger or passion. I always tried to get them to talk about what they are going to do. My biggest fear was someone doing something rash.
“Mr. Lissa”
You make some very poignant statements about privacy. I will address those later. As for the ethics, I must say that there is a diversity of individuals who are PI’s and as I am sure you can understand, each one of them is different in their own way. I typically made the client explain the whole situation to me. You can usually determine whether or not there is a legitimate connection between the information and the need. Many PI’s will try to maintain a professional distance and just do their jobs, but I concur with your assertion that there must be caution exercised with the use of information. Information is power and with great power comes great responsibility. I never had a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. They had to tell me why they wanted the particular information. In other words, I just did not go out and “spy” on people without a particular mission. If in the hypthetical case you gave me, child support, they would have had to show me the papers and tell me how much they owe, where they think the money is, etc… I never just spied on people.
As for the question of helping out a stalker, I just don’t know the law on this. But, I will say, that any person, acting in a professional position who exercises deliberate indifference is, and should be held, liable by not only civil, but criminal courts. Stalking is a serious crime, IMHO, and I would have taken every step when I was a PI to avoid this. A don’t ask, don’t tell policy will eventually get you in trouble, which is why I did not practice it.
Now, your privacy points. You are correct in many assertions, but you fail to take into account one important fact: You are a member of a society. If you wish to move out into the hills and live an isolated life, then you have privacy. But, if we partake in the benefits of society, we must also partake in the follies of society. The very definition of “public records” is that they are open to the public. I cannot see how this can be construed as unethical in that context. Your quote “It’s public information, therefore I’m within my rights to dig around in another person’s private affairs.” is an oxymoron. In the first part of the sentence, you assert that the information is public, but then you call it a private affair. If it is public, it is public, you cannot switch the fundamental nature of the subject.
Furthermore, to infer that a person who follows the laws will eventually become a criminal
“This is proof that people will literally do anything they can legally get away with, rationalizing that it is “legal”. I have no doubt that some people who take this stance will have no trouble overstepping the increasingly blurry line between the simply unethical to the downright illegal.”
Is also a little shady in the logic department. So, that means if I obey the speed limit religiously, I am more likely to speed? As for your point about ethics in this same sentence, I most whole-heartedly agree. Just because something is legal, does not make it right. I argue this is the reason we have legislatures and from these lawful proceedings, laws can be passed. For example, with the advent of new technology, there were many things others could do that were perfectly legal because the laws had not “caught up to the times”. This did not change the fact that those actions may have harmed others. Basing your life on the notion that if it is not against the law, it is ok, is indeed a true reality for too many people in this world and it makes our entire existence less pleasant. However, it is truly the price of freedom. The sad reality in America is that it is not illegal to be a jerk. However, if we start regulating the “jerks” by enacting laws, we start to see the folly of this logic. In other words, who determines what is the behavior that makes someone a “jerk”. This is dangerous when you give government this power.
This part of your argument
"Sure, much information is public. But if you have to sneak around behind the subject’s (victim’s?) back to get it, that is a red flag. If your motives are entirely innocent, you can simply ask the subject whatever it is you want to know rather than spying on them behind their back, wouldn’t you all agree? And, if they don’t want to tell you, leave it at that. "
is really a bit naive. People are willing to lie about small things like their weight. Just imagine how much they will lie to protect the betrayal of their spouse or to evade criminal prosecution for a crime. Remember, is not the husband/wife who is being betrayed “behind their back” also a victim and do they not have some right to know the truth?
If people wanted to “keep their actions private” and “project a certain image to the world” they should not have committed the acts that would have made those deeds public or would have soiled that public image. What you are advocating is allowing people to committ a lifetime of fraud. In a society, you are accountable to others. This is the fundamental nature of a society and I would much rather live in a world of truth than fester in a world of deceit.
I concur with your final assertion that we must protect ourselves from hackers and stalkers. I think this point of yours brings out the most important fundamental fact about ethics. Motive is extremely important in determining whether or not an act is unethical. There should always be an ethical motive attached to any action. Just because you can legally do something, does not absolve you of the responsibility to be ethical.
I appreciate your comments and I would like you to know that many of your opinions I share. This is one of the primary reasons I am not a PI anymore. I firmly believe that my skills are better utilized protecting people and communities from individuals whose motives and actions are not only illegal, but unethical.
“Mr. Lissa”
regurgit8, in case you didn’t read the topic, it’s “Ask the Private Investigator”. Not “Tell the Private Investigator”. And certainly, it wasn’t “Tell the Private Investigator about my personal beef which has absolutely no relevance to anyone else who might actually be reading this thread and consuming 4 or 5 pages worth of screenspace in the process.”
Capice? It’s an interesting subject you propose. So go propose it elsewhere.
These are all answers from when I was a PI:
-
Yes I have lots of friend on the police force. But no, they would not let me onto a crime scene. Furthermore, that notion is wholly created by Hollywood and I am sure it almost never happens. I never have the stand off with the former boss who is chomping on a cigar and telling me to get the hell outta his crime scene.
-
No, smoking is bad. I use lollipops. Just kidding.
-
I go wherever the information is. If that means hanging in a bar for hours, I will.
-
No, I wear jeans and knit shirts.
-
No, no contacts in the mafia. But as for former criminal informants, absolutely. Their names were not “Izzy” and “Bear”, but they could point me in the right direction sometimes. Especially in regards to people using drugs. If you knew that a person had a problm with drugs, you would know where to find them.
-
You must understand that as a PI I never investigated a criminal action. One missing persons case was it. But I did get some info when i needed it from police contacts.
-
Nope. I live in a city where it is always raining and dark and sexy women walk into my office everyday.
“Mr. Lissa”
Bill, easy on the vitriol. regurgit8 and I layed off of the privacy debate after your penultimate post, and Mr. Lissa answered regurgit8’s questions well. regurgit8 declined your offer to open a new thread but hasn’t brought up the matter further in this one; I am of the same mind. Why is it still a problem?
…Back to the task at hand.
Ever make a mistake? Hand over incriminating evidence, then realize you misinterpreted or missed a crucial detail? Ever have to go back and change your story?
Thanks for all the great replies.
Absolutely. I have made mistakes, just like anyone else. However, I have always tried to verify information before I file a final report. I cannot tell you how many times, after a case is completed, new information comes in and I slap my head saying I cannot believe I missed that. Most of the time, this is extra data, that just added to the reality of my case. I remember one case where I went to arrest the suspect. He asked if he could put a ring on his finger and take it with him. At the time, I said “no”, and I seized it as potential evidence. What I did not do, however, was notice the ring already on his finger. I interrogated him and he appeared to cooperate by admitting to quite a few things, including an affair with a correctional employee (he was an inmate). He asked me for the ring back during the interview, after cooperating. He said it was his wedding ring and his wife was asking why he was not wearing it during the visits. Since he cooperated, I gave the ring back, because I had really no reason to keep it. After I fired the employee, I learned that the ring was actually given to him by the staff member. If I would have been more astute, I would have seen him wearing the ring when I took him into custody.
As for having to go back and change the actual conclusion of an investigation, I have been lucky enough to not be wrong yet about the “big picture”. Sure I missed some crucial data, but I have always been lucky enough to get the whole story right. This is not to say that I will not make a mistake at some point in my career. But, I realize the gravity of my actions. I am effecting peoples’ lives here and I must use great caution with the power given to me.
There are quite a few professionals (judges, lawyers, arbitrators) who trust me because I have established the fact that I base my conclusions upon evidence and good logic. If I ever fail, I will lose that trust. I would much rather allow guilty to go free than lose that credibility, so I exercise great caution when making my conclusions.
I am training a new investigator right now and I have taught him about an important philosophy I call the “slam dunk”. You do not make a move until you have the “slam dunk” AND, it is a lot better if you have the reverse, behind the back, between the back slam dunk. An investigator should not rest just because they have the slam dunk. You should follow every single lead and make sure you are totally ready to take someone down. You are not only taking their job, but you may also be placing them in prison. No man/woman should lose that much without being given the most thorough investigation possible by an individual who has enough integrity to claim it was objective.
This was especially true as a P.I. I NEVER gave the client a report that was full of “educated guesses”. I could not sleep at night if I knew that I helped perpetrate a fraud or broke up a good marriage over some circumstantial evidence.
BTW- I appreciate all of the inquiries and the nice comments. I am glad I could give some insight to the individuals on this board since I am consistently impressed by the knowledge espoused by many of my wife’s peers on this board.
“Mr. Lissa”
We’re glad you could too. Thanks again for the discussion.
I don’t know about this espoused knowledge, though. I’m an empty cup, a dribble glass if you will. Fill me with knowledge and I’ll leak some down the front of your shirt when you least expect it. Watch out, it might stain.
That metaphor turned out to have a lot more potential for symbolism than I anticipated.
The exchange of knowledge is the greatest expression of the evolutionary wonder that is mankind.
BTW- I am wondering if regurgit8 will respond. I was intrigued by some of her points and I would like to hear her insight.
“Mr. Lissa”
If you are familiar with the case, what are you feelings on the role of the investigation company in the Clara Harris case?
In a nutshell, Texan Clara Harris hires Blue Moon investigators to track her supposed cheating husband. The agency sights the husband and his mistress going into a local hotel. They call Clara Harris and report his location. Clara drives to the hotel to confront her husband, bringing along his 16 year old daughter. When the husband and the mistress emerge from the hotel, Clara guns her car and runs over the husband. She received 20 years.
Do you feel the investigators did the proper procedure in telling Clara where to locate her husband? What is standard procedure for disclosing unpleasant information to a client? Do you allow that extreme outcomes can result from an investigation?
Obviously, no one is responsible for killing Mr. Harris other than his wife. But could the agency have handled this in a different manner?