"Joe the Plumber" Investigated

[Magiver]

@DrDeth

Thus, his right to privacy is considerably less than someone else.

Not by a government agency it isn’t.

[mlees]

Hypothetically, a case worker could use their official position/powers to pull all the files on opposition party citizens (who make the TV news) only, and ignore the ones from parties they are sympathetic to.

Isn’t that a bias? Definately, IMO.

Is that illegal? Probably not, as long as that official is doing only what their job authorises them to do.

Is that unethical? Humbly, IMO, yes. If I got investigated for supporting McCain, but wouldn’t have if I said nice things about Obama, then it seems to me that I got singled out (by someone using the power of the government job they hold) because of my political leanings.

Remember “file gate”? Supposedly, the Clintons were using FBI files to try and find dirt on political opponents. (The official findings (Ken Starr) ruled that there was no evidence that anybody higher than junior staffers saw the files, and that there was no evidence that the info contained therein was used against anyone.)

Some of the US Constitutional assumptions appears to be that the goverment (or rather, the people that run it) can hold great power when compared to a specific individual. The founders were worried about abuse of this power, and hoped to codify some restraints.

[Magiver]

@mlees

Hypothetically, a case worker could use their official position/powers to pull all the files on opposition party citizens (who make the TV news) only, and ignore the ones from parties they are sympathetic to.

Isn’t that a bias? Definately, IMO.

Is that illegal? Probably not, as long as that official is doing only what their job authorises them to do.

Is that unethical? Humbly, IMO, yes.

The unethical side of it is a given. Access to personal information is regulated by laws and or specific search guidelines. One can be a prosecutable offense and the other can be grounds for dismissal or suspension.

[MissTake]

@mlees

Hypothetically, a case worker could use their official position/powers to pull all the files on opposition party citizens (who make the TV news) only, and ignore the ones from parties they are sympathetic to.

Yes, we could. Hopefully we do not.

Isn’t that a bias? Definately, IMO.

Yes, it is. We have had issues in the past bringing people into court who believe we were biased against them due to their ‘name’. I have admitted in court that if the Obligor hadn’t made a splash in someway their case may have remained mouldering in a file cabinet. The court has always sided with me.

Is that illegal? Probably not, as long as that official is doing only what their job authorises them to do.

My job is to collect child support from whomever is court ordered to pay it, whether it’s the famous Joe the Plumber or not so famous Ali the Taxi Driver. I am allowed certain resources, including the internet, newspapers, MySpace/Facebook, and data sites to obtain information regarding clients. If the information can be utilized in bringing a case back into court for an increase, or for contempt, I am going my job.

If I got investigated for supporting McCain, but wouldn’t have if I said nice things about Obama, then it seems to me that I got singled out (by someone using the power of the government job they hold) because of my political leanings.

I agree. I know I have rabid Republicans on my caseload. I also have rabid Democrats and people who never have voted and people who are not allowed to vote. We don’t have a tickbox for political beliefs on our demographics screen.

All cases are not created equal, and they aren’t enforced equally. I speak for myself and I would guess the majority of my counterparts that political leanings would not drive a case as much as lottery winnings, newsmaking criminal matters, and idiots who brag on MySpace.

[toadspittle]

@MissTake

The only way the public would know is if someone opened his/her mouth. I don’t know whether she is the one who did make it public or not - you’re correct. However, standard procedure is to say “We cannot confirm whether Joe ever had or currently has a child support case in the State of Ohio”. Whoever leaked the search is at fault, as is Jones-Kelly for confirming the existance of a case.

You’re incorrect. Jones-Kelly never confirmed the existence of a case (nor has anyone else, AFAICT). She only confirmed that someone checked to see if he was in the system, period—she never said what the results of that check were, or if Joe was/wasn’t in the system:

Such information was not and cannot be publicly shared, she said. It is unclear if Wurzelbacher is involved in a child-support case. Reports state that he lives alone with a 13-year-old son.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/27/copy/joe28.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

[mlees]

Thanks for your thoughts, MissTake.

I was trying to speak in generalities, because I don’t have enough info to level an accusatory finger at anyone in any specific case.

Bricker was trying to hint that there are folks who only protest the misuse of governmental jobs (& databases) depending on whose ox is getting gored.

That power is a dangerous double-edged sword.

[MissTake]

@toadspittle

You’re incorrect. Jones-Kelly never confirmed the existence of a case (nor has anyone else, AFAICT). She only confirmed that someone checked to see if he was in the system, period—she never said what the results of that check were, or if Joe was/wasn’t in the system:

You are correct. I apologize for my erroneous comment.

However, the paragraph above what you quoted from the article states:

Jones-Kelley said she approved a check to determine if he was current on any ordered child-support payments.

That is a problematic sentence for me. Maybe it’s just the way it’s phrased.

[Measure_for_Measure]

I’m not sure whether privacy is the key concern here. It seems to me that these sorts of policies could have a chilling effect on free speech.

I find this anecdote troubling.

If a clerk in the Toledo police force has broken the law, they should be investigated. But I simply don’t know enough about the issue to state an opinion on what a proper law would entail.

And if Joe the Plummer wants to have a meeting with the ACLU, they should give him one.

[Sam_Stone]

Checks on ‘Joe the Plumber’ More Extensive than First Acknowledged

A state agency has revealed that its checks of computer systems for potential information on “Joe the Plumber” were more extensive than it first acknowledged.

Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, disclosed today that computer inquiries on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher were not restricted to a child-support system.

The agency also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote.

[Cervaise]

Per my earlier post, there is no evidence that this was partisan-minded activity, and lots of reason to think this was politically neutral bureaucratic ass-covering. Not a good thing, to be sure, but also not a reason for party adherents of whatever stripe to bust out the torches and pitchforks.

[gonzomax]

Become famous and a reporter will use the internet to investigate you looking for a story. It will happen. They have very complete access. Some use investigators. It is not about you or politics. It about a story and making a name for yourself as a reporter.

[Bricker]

@gonzomax

Become famous and a reporter will use the internet to investigate you looking for a story. It will happen. They have very complete access. Some use investigators. It is not about you or politics. It about a story and making a name for yourself as a reporter.

Correct, generally.

By the way, perhaps you could answer this while you’re here?

[magellan01]

@Bricker

Correct, generally.

By the way, perhaps you could answer this while you’re here?

I think you got your answer. Again. But maybe I’m wrong and this little bump will increase the odds of him seeing it.

[gonzomax]

@Bricker

Correct, generally.

By the way, perhaps you could answer this while you’re here?

Actually he ruled the opposite of what you claimed. He was appointed by Clinton who did not just appoint dems. I do not know if he is a dem. So how do I answer you. Because you say so is not good enough. I wasted a lot of time and have not found his party.

[Sam_Stone]

There’s more to the story:

State employee says she was ordered to check out Joe the Plumber

Vanessa Niekamp said that when she was asked to run a child-support check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16, she thought it routine. A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case.

Niekamp didn’t know she just had checked on “Joe the Plumber,” who was elevated the night before to presidential politics prominence as Republican John McCain’s example in a debate of an average American.

The senior manager would not learn about “Joe” for another week, when she said her boss informed her and directed her to write an e-mail stating her computer check was a legitimate inquiry.

Not sounding too good. The supervisor lied to her about the reason for the check, then later told her to write an E-mail claiming it was routine. But was it?

Director Helen Jones-Kelley said her agency checks people who are “thrust into the public spotlight,” amid suggestions they may have come into money, to see if they owe support or are receiving undeserved public assistance.

Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. “I’ve never done that before, I don’t know of anybody in my office who does that and I don’t remember anyone ever doing that,” she said today.

That, plus the fact that checks were run on his welfare status and tax status sure sounds like someone went to an awful lot of effort to dig up dirt on him.