What the FUCK?
Here are your exact words:
Yes, and again, it was a general GROUP WIDE question. And again, it did NOT ask what you appear to think it does in your post above. Your answer to that question was “No I wouldn’t lie” (paraphrased). My question does NOT say "would you lie’? It asks the opposite. YOU as in collective you, not YOU as in Jsgoddess. Get it?
As much as I hate to say this to someone who would apparently have no qualms misusing it, not every type of background check is illegal. I’ve already pointed that out upthread, explained searches that aren’t illegal, and explained how I would know. Also, the emphasized portions here:
and here:
strike me as being a serious backpedaling from your opening salvo here:
At any rate, to reiterate, the point is NOT moot. A credit report? Yes. But there’s lots of other information out there that can be had without breaking the law, if one is willing to dig and/or pay for it. And it’s still not clear to me whether you would do so, and whether you consider it dishonest or creepy to do so without your date’s knowledge. The only moot point here is whether your motivation for doing so is related to trying to protect yourself. I think everyone here gets that.
Yes, I say “full-on background check”. Please note I ALSO say in the posts you quote “in today’s society”. And that is one of my first posts. The gist of my posts above haven’t changed from that. I continue to talk about this day and age when I reference the Craig’s list killer. I am still saying the same thing.
A background check is NOT equal to an illegal credit check. And I have said several times, FROM the beginning that I haven’t even done so much as a background check, nor would I do an illegal credit search. What part of what I say above leads you to believe that I would do an illegal credit check? I am well aware that there is a difference between the two, are you?
Do I think it is an appealing idea? Yes, but again, as I’ve said MANY times, it’s far too late for me anyway, so THAT point is also moot. IF it were legal, yes, knowing NOW what I didn’t know then, if I had it to do over again, I would consider it. CONSIDER isn’t the same as doing. Are you simple?
But since it is NOT legal, and I am not dating, yes, the point is moot. It can’t be done. So in my case there’s no “protection” to be had. Since I’ve made NO secret of the fact that I find the possibility very appealing and would have liked to have that sort of protection, there is no so-called “backpedaling”.
Hoo, boy. OK.
Well…
In other words, yes, yes I am.
It sounds like your participation in this thread is moot. And I don’t mean that as an insult – you’ve said repeatedly that the points made in the OP and by others arguing in this thread have nothing to do with your reality. So…what was your point again?
Oh, right. I probably wouldn’t be able to understand your point, anyway. :rolleyes:
Oh for pete sake! No, I actually have not said that others’ arguments had nothing to do with my reality.
My points are simple, and have not changed, though as people generally do, yes I’ve added to them and further explained things.
I have not ever done either a background check or an illegal credit search. Since they’re (credit searches, not background checks) not possible, I’m pretty sure NO ONE has. I thought that the idea behind the thread was “would you if you could”?
My answer to that was “maybe, and the idea is appealing to me, due to what happened to me when I did NOT have that option”. Which is, of course different from what my answers are regarding background checks (which ARE legal), that is a safety issue, based on the fact that a person does NOT know a blind date beforehand.
This is why I asked you if you were simple, in your posts, you seem to be making them one and the same, and claiming that I am doing the same thing. In addition, you seem to be of the opinion that this is something a person does to their prospective date over a period of months or years, rather than a pre-screening process which may prevent them from even dating that person at all.
I apologize. It did not seem as if you were getting the distinction and it wasn’t fair of me to say that.
You never did answer the comment on who gets to avoid the “oh no, it’s three months down the line and I’m in love with you” issue. Both sides are trapped in that depending upon what they do or don’t do. How is that “fair”?
When I made that comment, it was in the context of the suggestion that if you don’t look into your prospective date, you could end up in this horrible situation where you don’t find out there’s something wrong with this person until it’s far too late. And this is, again, where I tried to say that there’s nothing wrong with looking into your prospective date’s situation beforehand. Just don’t do it without asking. That’s all. To more directly answer your question, though, I don’t know that either side is ever truly trapped. Being in love is a wonderful thing, but there should never be a point where you aren’t willing to back out if a fatal flaw is discovered. My ex and I were together for thirteen years before we came to the realization that there were some issues between us that simply could not be resolved (issues that would not have come up during any sort of background check, incidentally). Going our separate ways has been really, really difficult. But trying to pretend like the issues didn’t exist would have been a lot harder.
I equate them solely for the purpose of saying that – regardless of the legality issue – they’re both unethical if done without the knowledge of the person you’re doing it to. I am not trying to say that a credit check is the same thing as looking at a person’s real estate holdings for the purposes of legality.
I recall someone upthread mentioning background checks over a period of months or throughout the relationship, but I don’t think that was me. I was under the impression from the beginning that this was about a pre-date screening process. Although I don’t think it would be an appropriate thing to do without someone’s knowledge before the first date for the fiftieth date.
The theme here for me, again, is about the knowledge of the other person.
Okay, well I think the crux of my disagreement with this is that a person is not in a position during the first date, to be able to ask the sorts of questions that would satisfactorily answer their questions.
My second problem is that those on the “this is ethically wrong” side are saying “it’s okay as long as they TELL me they’re going to do it first, otherwise they’re lying and that’s it for them” but then in the same breath they say “but if someone wants to do a background check on me, I’m already going to think they’re creepy and that will be it anyway” (paraphrased). So the person who would like to find out information pre FIRST date, are stuck in a “damned if you do…” position.
The only way they come out ahead is if a prospective background check did turn up a Craig’s list psycho or the like.
I don’t think it’s it’s so much a matter of “not willing to back out” as how painful it is, or worse how much TIME you’ve wasted before you found out the crucial flaw.
And as I asked above of another poster, sure you can ask, but to put it simply ASKING isn’t a very …what’s the word?..timely, successful, or polite way of getting the information you need.
As that poster said, “people lie” and there are a rare few instances in which a person will be more likely to “color things pretty” than when you’re on a date for the first time. Asking doesn’t solve that problem.
Sucks to be them.
Other than a Google check (which is perfectly legal and ethical) what else would you do as part of a “full-on background check” that would *not *include an illegal credit check? 
Note that a check for criminal background is mostly just as illegal as a credit check. You also need a dob and/or a ssn.
Now, there are some services where you can check names for something like a Interpol or FBI Most Wanted list, and do so legally.
Aren’t background checks like a criminal check that you purchase through a private investigator or other similar service? Not only do a lot of companies perform them on their employees pre-employment, I’ve seen them online and I’ve used them to search for WWII veterans (research for one of my projects at my job).
Of course all I was doing during that was to find out their numbers so that I could call them and request interviews, and I did already have their SS#s from NARA (national archives) documents, but the sites advertise other services such as a criminal background check.
Now, I’m confused, if they don’t mean criminal check as in “finding out if the person is some sort of criminal” what do they mean, and which ones are legal and which ones aren’t? I mean, what I’m hearing you say is that a person can NOT find out if their prospective date is the next Craig’s list killer?
Well, you see, when a company does it as part of a pre-employment check, they have signed permission, and legal access to ssns & Dobs.
You can only have a real criminal check with legal permission or by doing so illegally. (Unless you’re in Law enforcement as part of a investigation).
No, not legally. Unless their arrest is on Google or similar.
Good lord, can no one be arsed to spend one lousy hour at a coffeeshop to find out if you even like the person before you drop 50 bucks digging up their complete personal history from birth to now?
In any case, I’ve had a couple clients/potential employers ask me to submit to a background check. These have included some combination of:
[ul]
[li]criminal history[/li][li]DMV records[/li][li]credit history[/li][li]medical history[/li][li]employment history[/li][/ul]
Note that they couldn’t get any of those without a signed piece of paper from me. I have, on occasion, refused to sign (no employer needs my medical history, I’m sorry). I have also successfully argued that the client didn’t need access to any financial records, since my position didn’t allow me access to any company or customer financial info. They insisted, I refused, they insisted, I refused, they acquiesced and settled for the criminal check only. So I struck all mentions of financials from the release form; and also ordered my own copy of the report, so I could be sure that they didn’t go where they weren’t invited (they didn’t).
Which is all to say, it’s really damn hard to get a “full background check” without permission. I’m not sure that it’s actually a crime; my sense is that the investigation agency’s policy requires the release to protect themselves from a lawsuit (that’s essentially what the release forms have said).
(Aside from medical history, of course. Violating medical privacy is a crime under HIPAA.)
Honestly, a PRE-first-date background check is like telling your date “Let’s not worry about dinner, just tell me where you live so I can get the U-Haul over there.” It presumes an awful lot when you don’t even know if you like each other yet.
The only way I could see this being even remotely relevant would be if you are in the same circles where a prenup is okay, and not a declaration that you just don’t trust the person you’re planning to spend the rest of your life with.
I could maybe see checking to see if someone had a criminal history (though a few tweaks on Google are sufficient there) if you’d never met them. But credit? What would knowing someone’s credit tell you about someone that was so important you needed to know before a first date? And, if it’s past that early period, just ask how well they handle money.
Actually they can’t, assuming that, like the Craigslist killer, their next prospective date has no criminal record. A background check wouldn’t have saved those girls.
I just wanted to point out that, unlike everything else on this list, your criminal history is a matter of public record. Granted, you can’t go somewhere and pull up a “rap sheet” the way a law enforcement agency can that easily compiles your record from anywhere and everywhere. But I can, for example, go on to the LA County Superior Court’s website, pay them $4.75, and search for your name in the criminal records. If your name comes up, I can see how many cases there were against you, what the charges were, and what the disposition of each case was (whether or not you were convicted).
Other things – such as any civil lawsuits you’ve been involved in, bankruptcy proceedings, real estate transactions, and even traffic tickets – are also matters of public record. The person being looked into is not subject to any kind of notification that they’ve been checked out.
But that’s per County, there’s thousands of Counties, and not all allow that sort of access. And, some old Arrest only records are long gone. Convictions (especially Felonies) are not that hard to secure, mind you.
And, in general, a “name search” is useless unless the name is very unique. I know, I do them just about every single fucking workday. I have access to other search tools, those that the public do not have, and trust me, “Bob Johnson” is going to get you nowhere.
“Snively Alphonse Whiplash”, otoh…
No, nooo, it’s only me who is opposed to that. Everyone else thinks it’s “fun”. Personally I have a lot more fun arguing with all of you 
, than wasting time on a blind date who turns out to be a complete weirdo (including one where the guy did SUCH weird stuff, I was halfway convinced I was going to end up being murdered and buried in the back yard. Maybe someone should start a “worst dates ever” thread).
Back in the day I have gone on blind dates and set-ups. Not a single one was anything less than a complete waste of time, where I could have spent my time in way more constructive ways, like washing my dishes.
The best relationship that I’ve had, EVER!, was my last (and LAST) boyfriend from about 5 years ago. We were friends and dance partners for about 2 and a half years before we ever dated (so yes guys you can move out of the “friend zone”). Any other successful relationship I’ve had was due to chance meetings of people, (come to think of it, typically when I’ve been dancing) not some sort of set up or blind date. So yeah, I’ve got a really bad prejudice against blind dates, and am a huge proponent of knowing someone at least somewhat prior to even considering going out.
Thanks to DrDeth for explaining the actual background check. I’ve been assuming that a background check was simple and widely available. It sure seems so based on what I’ve seen online and on forensics shows, stuff like that. The way they talk about it, it’s as if it’s a common thing, easily done.
Sorry off-topic here. In my industry, the employer does need medical history. If a person doesn’t pass the basic medical monitoring history, they won’t be getting a job, or at least not certain jobs. I’ve been doing this for nearly 20 years, so just out of curiosity what would be the legality of them refusing to hire a person who refused to provide that info?
Not that I’ve ever seen it happen, your comment just piqued my curiosity.