Post by Site Admin on Sept 13, 2005 5:53:27 GMT -5
Our View: Private info vs. public interest
[published on Sun, Jul 17, 2005]
We Americans covet our privacy, and most of us guard it zealously.
Although the Constitution does not specifically ensure individual privacy, civil laws offer us redress from invasions of our privacy – whether it be through trespass, misrepresentation, appropriation of our name and reputation, or disclosure of embarrassing personal information that we've sought to keep secret. So Americans generally regard privacy as a right.
But democracy is nothing if not a constant clash of rights – free press vs. fair trail, for example, or the public's right to know vs. the need to seal certain sensitive information.
Post-Sept. 11, 2001, America has experienced such a clash. While the right to know what is going on in our government is recognized as an auxiliary right of the First Amendment, the euphemistically labeled Patriot Act has made more government information secret under the promise of making us all safer from terrorism.
Accessibility of too much information can be dangerous to the public good, the argument goes.
The flip side, of course, is that accessibility of too little information can harm the public, too.
Our most recent local example is the hiring, two years ago, of a Marengo police officer who brought with him a troubled past from an earlier police job. But no one around here knew about it until this past week.
The evidence included a videotape of him, in the back of his patrol car, hitting and kicking a handcuffed man during a traffic stop in 2001.
Now, the officer faces a number of disciplinary actions by the Marengo Police and Fire Commission as the result of multiple allegations of improper conduct.
Had the officer's record been discovered during a routine background screening in the hiring process, Marengo would have been spared the pain of this proceeding. And maybe the damages that subsequent civil complaints could bring.
But employers, both public and private, routinely dispose of problem employees in the quickest, cleanest way possible: A "voluntary" resignation in exchange for not publicly pursuing disciplinary (or even criminal) proceedings.
Employers also are wary, under threat of a lawsuit, of divulging information (even if true) that would damage an ex-employee's ability to get a job and earn a living.
Unfortunately, the reticence of ex-employers can have devastating consequences.
An Indiana nurse dismissed amid mysterious deaths at one hospital later was convicted of administering fatal doses to six patients of another hospital – and was suspected in scores of other patients' deaths.
A California day-care worker who lost a job over allegations of sexual abuse moved to another center and committed more criminal acts for which he eventually was prosecuted.
Background checks of people in sensitive, especially life-and-death, jobs are essential to protecting the public from predators of all stripes.
So, how much privacy must we sacrifice to ensure the public's safety?
Depends on how much protection we want.
Published July 17, 2005
[published on Sun, Jul 17, 2005]
We Americans covet our privacy, and most of us guard it zealously.
Although the Constitution does not specifically ensure individual privacy, civil laws offer us redress from invasions of our privacy – whether it be through trespass, misrepresentation, appropriation of our name and reputation, or disclosure of embarrassing personal information that we've sought to keep secret. So Americans generally regard privacy as a right.
But democracy is nothing if not a constant clash of rights – free press vs. fair trail, for example, or the public's right to know vs. the need to seal certain sensitive information.
Post-Sept. 11, 2001, America has experienced such a clash. While the right to know what is going on in our government is recognized as an auxiliary right of the First Amendment, the euphemistically labeled Patriot Act has made more government information secret under the promise of making us all safer from terrorism.
Accessibility of too much information can be dangerous to the public good, the argument goes.
The flip side, of course, is that accessibility of too little information can harm the public, too.
Our most recent local example is the hiring, two years ago, of a Marengo police officer who brought with him a troubled past from an earlier police job. But no one around here knew about it until this past week.
The evidence included a videotape of him, in the back of his patrol car, hitting and kicking a handcuffed man during a traffic stop in 2001.
Now, the officer faces a number of disciplinary actions by the Marengo Police and Fire Commission as the result of multiple allegations of improper conduct.
Had the officer's record been discovered during a routine background screening in the hiring process, Marengo would have been spared the pain of this proceeding. And maybe the damages that subsequent civil complaints could bring.
But employers, both public and private, routinely dispose of problem employees in the quickest, cleanest way possible: A "voluntary" resignation in exchange for not publicly pursuing disciplinary (or even criminal) proceedings.
Employers also are wary, under threat of a lawsuit, of divulging information (even if true) that would damage an ex-employee's ability to get a job and earn a living.
Unfortunately, the reticence of ex-employers can have devastating consequences.
An Indiana nurse dismissed amid mysterious deaths at one hospital later was convicted of administering fatal doses to six patients of another hospital – and was suspected in scores of other patients' deaths.
A California day-care worker who lost a job over allegations of sexual abuse moved to another center and committed more criminal acts for which he eventually was prosecuted.
Background checks of people in sensitive, especially life-and-death, jobs are essential to protecting the public from predators of all stripes.
So, how much privacy must we sacrifice to ensure the public's safety?
Depends on how much protection we want.
Published July 17, 2005