(this may be the wrong forum, but so would the others)
Anyway, wow.
Is [snitching on people by checking my employer's customer PI database against a felon database] unethical or somehow wrong?
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9pb1v/is_this_unethical_or_somehow_wrong
About six years ago, and periodically ever since, I've obtained a full CD disc of database information using my State's open government records laws. This database listing is of all current open felony arrest warrants in the various counties in my state. The information is freely available to anyone who asks as long as they are willing to pay the nominal fee.
Anyway, it so happens that my employer is in the business of collecting basic personal information in order to service various warranty accounts. Starting about six years ago, I began checking just the name and birth dates of all our clients against the felony warrants data.
Whenever I spot an exact match in both name and birth date, I've been calling in anonymous tips to the local CrimeStoppers hotline and collecting rewards anonymously whenever local law enforcement arrests the fugitive.
I spotted a "Support Law Enforcement" bumper sticker the other day, and I casually mentioned to a friend in the car with me that I have been doing this for several years now. I make a pretty good income from it in fact, about $1200 a month on a good month, and never less than about $500 a month.
My friend insists that what I'm doing is very, very wrong. I admit that I'd probably get fired if my employer found out, but that's just an issue between me and my employer. I'm not collecting any information other than name and birth date and bouncing it against my database. And only if there is an EXACT match, then I pass the current address for the wanted person on to CrimeStoppers.
My friend seems to think that this is wrong on many levels beyond me using information from my workplace. I just don't see it. Why? These are all FELONY warrants, and most of them are several years old. I've helped law enforcement capture several dozen fugitives that had warrants over 20 years old! Until my friend got so upset, I was pretty darn proud of myself. Now, I'm wondering if I'm just being a douchebag. Reddit, what do you think?
EDIT
As I type this, there are 560 comments. Wow! I wanted to address some concerns that I agree are very relevant. I haven't read every comment, but I think the main concerns are: 1. That I'm making money on this, 2. that potentially there are drug-war victims being arrested, and 3. that I may be violating some kind of privacy agreement. Oh, and 4. there may be some question as to legality.
Yes, I'm making money on this. I purposely set out to make money on this. I mainly do it for the money. I essentially admitted this in my original post I thought, but perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. I'm under no false pretenses that I'm doing it for anything other than the money, however yes, I do get satisfaction from putting scumbags away as well.
Yes, a relatively small batch of fugitives had charges relating to drug trafficking in particular, mainly cocaine. The State database does show the charges in every instance and I know most of the codes by heart now. Yes, I do agree that the drug war is an unnecessary war on our citizens and I don't agree with the harsh treatment doled out at times. However, I trust the justice system to sort all that out, and I do my part to lobby my representatives for changes to our system as regards drug related crimes. The only data the State gives me is for fugitive warrants. I don't know why and I don't care since it's thousands of names long and dozens more are added every month. I wouldn't waste time on anything other than a felony warrant anyway since those pay the best rewards.
I've been in my current job since graduation from college 10 years ago. It's the only job I've ever held other than part time jobs in high school. I've looked through my papers and I can say with just about 95% certainty that I have never signed any type of contract or agreement of any kind regarding privacy of the information that I come into contact with every work day. It may have been an oversight. However, I think because people are mailing us this information voluntarily, (it's only name, address, DOB and a survey), I don't think it falls under privacy expectations. Yes, they're registering for a warranty, but they're also entering a drawing by filling out the marketing survey. Privacy violation simply never entered my mind as a concern. Perhaps it should have. I did mention in my original post that I will most likely be fired if my boss ever finds out. I'm ok with that.
As to legality. Again, this concern never even entered my mind. If the law says I can't turn in a fugitive to law enforcement, then why the hell are they rewarding me in cash for doing just that? I'm not trying to rationalize anything here. I'm very clear on what I'm doing and why. I just don't believe that it's unlawful in any way. However, I'm know good advice when I see it and I'm going to see a lawyer immediately to get a professional opinion.
Surprised by the quality of the comments on reddit, btw. Apparently there are still a significant amount of people that actually value freedom.
best comment ever:
On the plus side, if we wrap George Orwell in coils of wire, and strap magnets to his coffin, we can harness the rotational energy of his disgust and use it to power the globe.
And it'd be doubleplusgreen.
So this guy is basically a part time illegal private dick/wistleblower.
Sleezy way to make a living. His results don't justify his means though so this is completely inexcusable.
So...he's making money off of those who've broken the law...by breaking the law?
Someone needs to turn his ass in to his employer.
Quote from: Douchebag
However, I trust the justice system to sort all that out,
:lulz:
If he is dealing with anyone that is a citizen of MA or CA, he's breaking multiple laws . Actually, I think there are about 12 States with laws about PII (Personally Identifiable Information) and how it must be handled. I think his employer could probably be slapped with a civil lawsuit from the victims as well in those states.
So when he goes to jail... I wonder if everyone inside will know why he's there?
The information age is a creepy age, no?
Not only is he breaking the law, but he's endangering his employer's business. It is profoundly illegal for a business to use customer information for anything that is not business-related.
I'm sure I can't be the only one who's thinking of the delicious comedy in snitching on the guy who is breaking the law by snitching.
Quote from: LMNO on October 14, 2009, 07:20:46 PM
I'm sure I can't be the only one who's thinking of the delicious comedy in snitching on the guy who is breaking the law by snitching.
You certainly aren't. :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on October 14, 2009, 07:32:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 14, 2009, 07:20:46 PM
I'm sure I can't be the only one who's thinking of the delicious comedy in snitching on the guy who is breaking the law by snitching.
You certainly aren't. :lulz:
:lulz:
Not alone there nope!
I think this is just plain grimey.
Quote from: LMNO on October 14, 2009, 07:20:46 PM
I'm sure I can't be the only one who's thinking of the delicious comedy in snitching on the guy who is breaking the law by snitching.
Fuck that little bastard. Fuck him in his ear.
What a fucking pig.
In the EAR! :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on October 14, 2009, 07:19:02 PM
Not only is he breaking the law, but he's endangering his employer's business. It is profoundly illegal for a business to use customer information for anything that is not business-related.
The thing is, with me, I don't even care about all the reasons why this could be illegal or not (privacy legislation in Europe works slightly different anyhow, but this would most definitely be illegal), I just think it's a really shitty dickish sneaky crap thing to do (and therefore glad it is illegal, of course).
Because the worst part (IMO) is, this guy genuinely thought he was doing society a service (even though he did feel the need to keep it secret so his conscience wasnt entirely clean, funny how the smell of money facilitates the ease of doublethink), and was generally surprised when his friend was all like "WTF man, that's not right".
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on October 14, 2009, 03:39:06 PMIf he is dealing with anyone that is a citizen of MA or CA, he's breaking multiple laws . Actually, I think there are about 12 States with laws about PII (Personally Identifiable Information) and how it must be handled. I think his employer could probably be slapped with a civil lawsuit from the victims as well in those states.
So when he goes to jail... I wonder if everyone inside will know why he's there?
I understand it must be very gratifying to come up with these kinds of revenge and justice scenarios, but I don't think the guy will get caught, he is gonna be more careful now, and will ask a lawyer. However, he doesn't even believe he is doing anything wrong! He seems to in fact almost believe it is his civil duty to perform this kind of datamining, afterall, he's got the means, and he's helping catch felons, right?
It really scares me that there are people that really think this way.
It would even be different if the guy knew and understood he is being a dirty stasi snitch, but did it anyway because of money and greed. It would of course be just as bad, the result would be mostly the same, but there's something really scary about someone that blindly fucks over people while believing he is doing it for the good of society. It kind of reminds me of that stupidity quadrant, in one square the "crook" that fucks over people for his personal gain, and in the last square the "stupid person" that fucks over people while also fucking over himself.
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.
But even if that wasnt the case, even if we had perfect honest cops everywhere and the laws would be clear, fair and just right for everyone, I still feel deep inside that this kind of snitching would be wrong. However, when I try to figure out for myself why I think this is so, all I can come up with is that it would make no difference whether he had used datamining of personal information, or done it differently, because at the root of the problem lies the fact that a (financial) reward is being offered for snitching and turning people in.
But if that is so, then why is snitching on people for a reward legal and actively promoted, and why do we even bother with the privacy laws? How does that work? Snitching is okay, as long as you "just happen to know that person" (but just not enough to actually care about them), but do not actively go out of your way to find them? I'm confused.
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Roo on October 15, 2009, 05:40:31 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 15, 2009, 05:47:56 PM
Quote from: Roo on October 15, 2009, 05:40:31 PM
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.
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.
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
Quote from: GA on October 15, 2009, 05:57:58 PM
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:
Quote from: Roo on October 15, 2009, 05:40:31 PMand 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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: GABut 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?
QuoteIf 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.
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.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 16, 2009, 12:07:03 PM
because this:
Quote from: Roo on October 15, 2009, 05:40:31 PMand 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.
QuoteThe 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.
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.
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.