snitching by checking employer's customer PI db against felon db: wrong?

[Roo]

In general, snitching is not wrong, but nobody likes a snitch.

In this case, the point where the guy went wrong is when he started doing it for personal gain, rather than society's benefit. He's using his employer's records for his own personal vendetta. He says himself that he's doing it for the money. If he weren't be paid, would he still take the time to do this? I doubt it.

There's one question I wanna ask you guys btw, see I told this story to a bunch of friends yesterday, and one of the guys didn't understand. He said well if these are wanted felons, aren't you playing judge by deciding to not help catch them? And even if there are innocent people on this list, they are on a wanted list, so if the police would find them they'd arrest them as well, and in both cases it's up to the police to handle it properly and determine whether someone is innocent or not. And I wasn't quite sure how to answer this. I mean yeah, the police makes mistakes, I don't agree with all the laws, some things shouldnt be felons, etc.

Playing judge by deciding to not help catch them? No. You aren't deciding if they're innocent or guilty. You're just not doing the cops' job for them. If anything, this guy is playing judge, by assuming that they're all guilty, and doing everything in his power to get them caught.

To me, it's not that snitching is wrong, or even that we're paying people to do it. If one person snitches on one other person, I doubt I'd even think twice. But when that person decides to make a job of it, and uses resources that he wouldn't have normally have access to (his employer's), he's abusing the system. The payment to snitch isn't meant to be a regular source of income. It's meant to be an occasional thing to 'encourage' people to tell on others.

I hope this guy gets a really good lawyer, because I think he's going to need one. He's got to be breaking some laws, using his employer's database like that. And now that it's become somewhat public knowledge, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those felons he's helped put behind bars find out and decide to take the law into their own hands, just like he did.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In general, snitching is not wrong, but nobody likes a snitch.

In this case, the point where the guy went wrong is when he started doing it for personal gain, rather than society's benefit.

He causes pain for cash.  Nuff said.

[Template]

In general, snitching is not wrong, but nobody likes a snitch.

In this case, the point where the guy went wrong is when he started doing it for personal gain, rather than society's benefit.

He causes pain for cash.  Nuff said.

Net human misery is increased, while money just changes hands?

I'm reminded of the trick where cops send fake "YOU WON THE PRIZE!" mail to the last known addresses of those with warrants, and arrest their asses once they show up.  That presumably costs much less per arrest, though.  And seems to use the same data mostly the same way.

[Golden Applesauce]

If the problem with his actions is the use of a private database, I understand the concern.  The police would need a warrant to search a database (or is that a pre-Patriot Act only thing?) so using the database to catch criminals has to be violating civil rights somewhere, if only because of the aforementioned laws about what you can do with other peoples' PI, and certainly a breach of contract if his employer is saying "We're only going to use this information for X and Y."

The "turning people in" objection makes less sense, though.  Given a generic wanted alleged felon, saying that someone with the ability to turn in the alleged felon shouldn't seems to imply that a police officer aware of the same information shouldn't arrest the alleged felon either.  If either has reason to believe that 1) the alleged felon is innocent, or 2) that the punishment would be disproportionate to the crime, or 3) the alleged felon is "guilty" but the law is wrong, I'd agree that either sending in a tip or making the arrest is morally questionable at best.  But for a generic stranger alleged felon, where the tipper has no idea whether the person is guilty or not beyond the knowledge that he was alleged by law enforcement to be guilty, it comes down to whether you believe that law enforcement tends to be right or tends to be wrong about alleged felons and whether courts are on average reasonable or not.  Since the informant in question does believe that the courts are usually trustworthy and that law enforcement, on the balance, tends to be right about felons, I think it would be hypocritical for him not to send in as many tips as possible.

If anything, the case highlights how bizarre it is that we let private corporations do things with our private data that we would object to a government having.

[Jenne]

Look, the guy's a pussed-out bountyhunter.  And he's breaking the law while doing it.  He's a fucking pussy and needs his ass thrown in jail to see how he likes THEM apples he's serving up cold and raw to the people he's been fucking in the ass through illegal means.  While boasting and making money off of it to boot.

LOO-ZER

[Triple Zero]

If the problem with his actions is the use of a private database, I understand the concern.  The police would need a warrant to search a database (or is that a pre-Patriot Act only thing?) so using the database to catch criminals has to be violating civil rights somewhere, if only because of the aforementioned laws about what you can do with other peoples' PI, and certainly a breach of contract if his employer is saying "We're only going to use this information for X and Y."

once again, conflating legality and morality, here.

i dont care if it's "really" illegal or not, privacy laws are arbitrary, im not familiar with the ones in the US, Rat said they vary from state to state and we don't even know what state this is in, and on top of that, there's the Patriot Act(s).

what I am interested in, is why this should be considered morally wrong, I feel nothing but contempt for this guy, but I'm having trouble precisely articulating why.


ok, Roger came with "He causes pain for cash.", sounds like a good reason, one I could agree with, but in that case, it follows that anyone acting on a financial incentive to turn someone in is morally wrong. regardless of whether they do it large scale by mining a database, or when it's an isolated incident of someone coming across a "hot tip" and phoning the "report a crime and make a dime hotline".

because this:

and uses resources that he wouldn't have normally have access to (his employer's)

is besides the point, screwing over your employer like this is wrong but it's a different wrong, ima assume he was self-employed.

The payment to snitch isn't meant to be a regular source of income. It's meant to be an occasional thing to 'encourage' people to tell on others.

it's this. i don't get it. how does "it's meant to be an occasional thing" make it right?

is it like nicking candy from a store thing, if you did it just once when you're a kid it's a petty theft but if you keep doing it and do it a lot on a large scale you're a filthy thief?

because then even snitching once is still a deplorable petty thing to do, if not "less bad" than doing it on a large scale using your employers database, "less bad" is stil bad, and doesn't magically attain a turning point where a tiny little of a bad thing suddenly becomes a good and commendable thing to do. because the thing about good things, is that you want to be able to encourage all people to do it, whenever they get the chance. which makes it large scale again, and therefore bad.

But for a generic stranger alleged felon, where the tipper has no idea whether the person is guilty or not beyond the knowledge that he was alleged by law enforcement to be guilty, it comes down to whether you believe that law enforcement tends to be right or tends to be wrong about alleged felons and whether courts are on average reasonable or not.  Since the informant in question does believe that the courts are usually trustworthy and that law enforcement, on the balance, tends to be right about felons, I think it would be hypocritical for him not to send in as many tips as possible.

So, let's assume you live in some utopian society where "the courts are usually trustworthy and law enforcement, on the balance, tends to be right about felons". you live there. you can get a hold of this database. do you feel obliged to use it? if not, why not? another, you live in this society, some guy uses this database to systematically snitch on all these trustable balanced righteous felony charges, makes a good buck with it, too. in this society, would you consider him a saint? a clever entrepeneur? or still a deplorable piece of trash that deserves to get kicked IN THE NADS?

If anything, the case highlights how bizarre it is that we let private corporations do things with our private data that we would object to a government having.

I don't think I understand what you're trying to say here?

It's actually not the government having this data, but the government using this data that I would object to.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

IMO it's unethical to use personal data collected by a business in ways other than how it was intended. He is violating a privacy ethic. Not only the privacy of the wanted felons, but the privacy of EVERYONE who submitted their information to that business. The innocent are as violated, in this case, as the guilty.

[Roo]

because this:

and uses resources that he wouldn't have normally have access to (his employer's)

is besides the point, screwing over your employer like this is wrong but it's a different wrong, ima assume he was self-employed.

The payment to snitch isn't meant to be a regular source of income. It's meant to be an occasional thing to 'encourage' people to tell on others.

it's this. i don't get it. how does "it's meant to be an occasional thing" make it right?

is it like nicking candy from a store thing, if you did it just once when you're a kid it's a petty theft but if you keep doing it and do it a lot on a large scale you're a filthy thief?

because then even snitching once is still a deplorable petty thing to do, if not "less bad" than doing it on a large scale using your employers database, "less bad" is stil bad, and doesn't magically attain a turning point where a tiny little of a bad thing suddenly becomes a good and commendable thing to do. because the thing about good things, is that you want to be able to encourage all people to do it, whenever they get the chance. which makes it large scale again, and therefore bad.

You're right, making it "an occasional thing" doesn't make it right. Not any more than nicking candy from the store is right. But like the kid stealing the candy, we'll often turn a blind eye to the small wrongs. It's not that it's truly right, it's just perceived as 'less wrong', and therefore more acceptable. Acceptable =/= right.

Snitching violates the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you), and by that measure, it's wrong. Unfortunately, our society doesn't really follow the golden rule, and snitching falls into that gray area where it's wrong, but not legally wrong, unless you break the law getting the information.

[Jenne]

If this guy was a bounty hunter, with a license, and was out in the open about what he did, not sneaking around catching people through his employer's connections without the employer's knowledge, then I wouldn't feel so strongly about what a tool he is.  But when you brag about what a kickass crimestopper you are when you do something like this, you're just a pissant snitching thief.

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

There's nothing wrong with helping law enforcement find people with felony warrants for their arrest, but what this guy is doing seems like it would be illegal too.