Maybe the cops should come over to search your house and your hard drive for evidence of child pornography. What do you have to hide?

Left by Preston on January 17th, 2008 at 10:26 am

1) I don’t work with children

2) Are you really trying to conflate the privacy of my home with these teachers’ public teaching jobs?

3) If, as a condition of my employment to work with children, I was not only required to be fingerprinted, but to also allow the state to scan my hard drive for child porn, I’d bring my laptop with me to the fingerprinting. I don’t find it unreasonable at all.

4) As a condition of my job, in order to obtain my security clearance, I underwent much, much more background scrutiny than a simple fingerprinting. If I wasn’t willing to go through that, I could have sought employment elsewhere.

Left by Robbie on January 17th, 2008 at 10:42 am

1) Do you think that registered sex offenders should be allowed to teach or work in our schools with our children?

If the answer is yes, I’m beyond words or understanding.

If your answer is no, then…

2) Do you think that schools should be doing everything they can to ensure that registered sex offenders are not teaching our children?

3) Do you not think that running fingerprints against a database of known felons and sex offenders is a reasonable part of screening teachers. Or should we just take their word for it that they didn’t rape a kid back in the day?

Left by Robbie on January 17th, 2008 at 10:49 am

lets assume, preston, that police have probable cause to believe someone is involved in kiddie porn, they just get a warrant; they don’t need your permission, so what they “have to hide” would never be asked. your analogies are some of the worst i’ve ever seen.
in this case, the school system isn’t asking the teachers to allow anything; it’s saying these are the requirements to be a teacher. if you can’t meet them or don’t want to, then don’t. these morons should do exactly what candy is “considering”: skip the printing and get fired or resign. noone is forcing anything on anyone.

Left by adam on January 17th, 2008 at 10:58 am

amen to that, adam

Left by Anonymous on January 17th, 2008 at 11:38 am

I’m required to under an extensive background check each year, as I am in a regulated industry. Those are the rules, and I knew them going in. While it’s annoying to fill out all the paperwork, get photographed, and piss in a bottle, I could easily avoid that annoyance by doing something else.
So can they.
And if any come up as a positive hit as a sex offender, I hope they confiscate their hard drives and see what is on them.

Left by no2liberals on January 17th, 2008 at 11:51 am

What does hard drives have to do with this discussion? Some people do not even have computers. Grow up.

Left by Adolph Lunsford on January 17th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

It’s not just that teachers and youth activity directors work with children, it’s that pedophiles have sought out these jobs in order to abuse children.

Left by Anonymous on January 17th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

My wife and I had to go to the Texas DPS and get fingerprinted when we applied to the IRS to become licensed as ‘Enrolled Agents’, i.e. tax preparers who are allowed to represent taxpayers before the IRS.

If I want the license, I submit the prints. No prints, no hard feelings, but no license.

I agree with Preston that we have a right to be secure from unreasonable searches of our persons, property, and papers. “Nothing to hide” isn’t a factor. These teachers are NOT in that situation.

If one applies for a job that involves the granting of public trust then the public has a right to require the applicant to require the applicant to assist the hiring agency accomplish a reasonable background

The public has a right to ensure that persons who have abused the rights of others, such as convicted felons, are not hired by the public they abused.

Left by Jim Howard on January 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Adolph, you talking to me or Preston?

Left by no2liberals on January 17th, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Come on, this has to be a put on. Hey we are presumed innocent until proven guilty, right????? This is still america right? It would be offensive to be fingerprinted for no reason.
What’s next camera’s in our house to make sure we are good little sheep? All together now sheep Baaaahhhh. Give me a break, I as am conservative as they come trust me, but this is total garbage. This is a prime example of creeping incrimentalism at it’s finest. Hey it’s just teachers, then it’s anyone going for a job, then it’s to get a home loan, then it’s to go to the bathroom….please people.

No one with any love of freedom could possibly be for this. It is stupid how some people are so quick to throw out their freedoms out the window so we can catch a few scum bags…Hey try the internet, do a background check…damn this is the 2008, you can find out anything in 10 minutes by doing a quick search. What are we becoming, rats in a cage that are fingerprinted, scanned, drug tested, strip searched, DNA tested from birth to death??? No thanks.

That sounds like a science fiction world of horror to me. NO to this a stupid lazy idea. The teachers are right on this. Hey HERE is the solution, kill these scum bag sex offenders who are convicted. Or if that is too much for all the liberals, then lock these pigs up for life with NO parole. THAT is the solution, not making us all prisoners because we have weak leaders chained by political correctness who don’t have the balls to kill these scum bags.

Like I said, I am a hard core conservative and this fingerprinting is wrong in every way and if it is not offensive to you, then you have been brain washed for sure. I want the government out of my life not scrutinizing my every single breath from birth to death. Wake up people, please.

Left by marc on January 17th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Adam- the requirement of probable cause is exactly the teachers’ point.

If fact, I don’t have a total objection to the fingerprinting requirement- I do have a strong objection to the concept of that the innocent don’t need privacy implicit in Robbie’s comment: What are you hiding?

That comment runs counter to the spirit of at least two amendments in the Bill of Rights. For a website so concerned with patriotism- the attitude seems a little disconcerting.

Left by Preston on January 17th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

the teachers have no point; they’re whiney liberals, like you!

i’m sure he will correct me if i’m wrong but i don’t think robbie intended to replace innocent until proven guilty with “what are you hiding”. he wasn’t speaking from a legal persective at all. i took his comments to be more human nature as opposed to intended sanctioned legislation. you raised the issue of legality by suggesting that an employer screening it’s employees is somehow equivalent to cops illegally searching someones home with no justification other than “if you don’t let us you must be hiding something.”

i personally believe if they want to teach they should assist employers in background checks including fingerprints and drug testing too. as for how we should implement human nature into policy: we error on the side of caution and protect kids from folks unwilling to disclose information about their criminal histories.

Left by adam on January 17th, 2008 at 11:37 pm

the teachers have no point; they’re whiney liberals, like you!

The world must be very simple for you: the rational, righteous, and patriotic people who agree with you opposed to the irrational people who disagree with you.

Marc indeed holds what might be called the conservative position- remember when conservatives opposed ID cards because of the intrusion from the government? And he’s right, there has been a creeping growth in the information the government has been able to demand from Americans.

As for myself, I try to draw the line at what can be considered voluntary versus mandatory searches. Of course, someone’s livelihood is right on that line. I lean toward supporting the measure but I have reservations.

As for Robbie’s comment- sure I understand he wasn’t writing a legal doctrine- yet words matter and this has been a powerful argument in favor of coercing citizens to give up their rights. I don’t understand echoing that rhetoric.

Left by Preston on January 18th, 2008 at 7:58 am

there’s a lot you don’t understand.

“the requirement of probable cause is exactly the teachers’ point.”
proobable cause and/or permission are essential aspects of reasonable searches. these teachers aren’t being searched; they are seeking employment and being asked for background info.

“I don’t have a total objection to the fingerprinting requirement”
but you wanted to stand up for these victims anyway; we know.

Left by adam on January 19th, 2008 at 2:32 am

proobable cause and/or permission are essential aspects of reasonable searches. these teachers aren’t being searched; they are seeking employment and being asked for background info.

What is the probable cause that any one of those teachers is a pedophile?
The teachers are already employed- a choice between your pension and your privacy is hardly uncoerced.

Left by Preston on January 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am

Don’t you guys get the point of we have to suffer and jump thru hoops and have the gov all up in our private affairs when these child abusers should not be allowed back into society….THAT is the point here, the fundamental underlying point no one seems to be commenting on. If we lived in a sane world these people would be put to death or in jail for life…Normal people then would not have to be treated like criminals or sheep to be hearded and controlled. More government intrusion is NEVER the answer. It will only lead to more and more and more. How do people not see this.?? With california now wanting to control the temp in your house, where does this gov intrusion stop??? Fingerprinting every person is not the answer. It is putting these sick people away, never to return, Not making us all suffer and jump thru hoops because we have weak leaders who have NO will to do the hard work of protecting us by eliminating these people from our society. All this back and forth on someones beleives or what they think the teachers are hiding is crazy. Lets do the hard work of eliminating SICK people from out society. Another example of how we as a people can’t see the forest from the trees.

Left by marc on January 19th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Quit with the “What are you hiding.” I am hiding nothing and I am a conservative. America is conservative and what is conserves is the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution. I doubt any teacher begrudges a search for a sexual predator. But the AISD has already told teachers is that if they discover anything that was not reported (say for example a youthful indescretion like a DWI), they could suffer an adverse consequense. What does that have to do with sexual predation? Nothing. This is where government abuses it’s good citizenry. But in a larger sense, there are other concerns already touched upon.
Instead of securing the boarder, usher in the suvelience society. Instead locking up or killing the child molester, violate the citizens 4th amendment civil rights (and I don’t care what that damn supreme courts interpretation is). The 4th amendment is written very simply and clearly. If you are so stupid to have bought into this idea that a 15 or 20 year teacher needs fingerprinted, then the digital police state already here. You have embraced big brother and the superpaternalistic survielence society.

Left by Uncle Sam on January 21st, 2008 at 3:42 pm

This blog needs a good spell check. I spelled “surveillance” wrong. We can monitor teachers, but damn we can’t even monitor my spelling adequately. Needn’t worry. I am not a teacher.

Left by uncle sam on January 21st, 2008 at 4:12 pm

You also spelled “indiscretion” and “consequence” incorrectly. But I don’t care as much about spelling and grammar as I do coherent thought.

And once again, you don’t have a right to not be fingerprinted as a condition of employment.

Sadly, you’re understanding of the 4th Amendment is somewhat lacking.

First of all, fingerprinting ALL teachers to ensure that they are not felons or convicted sex offenders is not unreasonable.

Secondly,

“The amendment applies only to governmental actors; it does not guarantee to people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations. The Bill of Rights only restricts the power of the federal government”

Left by Robbie Cooper on January 21st, 2008 at 4:57 pm

“What is the probable cause that any one of those teachers is a pedophile?” what does it matter? probable cause isn’t a requirement of a background screening for employment. i’ve already told you it’s one of 2 allowable preconditions to reasonable searches. i thought it was implied that this was a search by a government sanctioned law enforcement agency, but as robbie just brought up, maybe you missed that.
“a choice between your pension and your privacy is hardly uncoerced”
when did americans acquire a reasonable expectation of privacy in the context of employment and criminal history .
a choice between the well being of children and not offending teachers’ misinformed perceived boundaries is not a choice at all.

uncle sam,
i appreciate that you want to protect the rights of citizens; me too. your police state assesment is a bit harsh though. if you feel your being abused by the government after some fingerprinting, then don’t be a teacher in austin. they don’t want people like you.

Left by adam on January 22nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm

I miss the good ole days when conservatives supported the Bill of Rights. Robbie, the fingerprints go into the FBI data base.
It’s hard to get more FEDERAL GOVERNMENT than the FBI.
So, that fact alone makes this fingerprinting of innocent people in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

I wish you weak conservatives would stop kowtowing to everything big business tells you to do, it makes it hard on the rest of us. Thank
God we still have the Second Amendment, I suspect we will all need automatic weapons before all is said and done.

Left by Glenna on January 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Dear Adam:

Don’t take it personally, but it is not about what the people of Austin want. It is all about conserving our civil liberties. No civil right has ever required the blessing, sanction, or approval of anyone - including you. It is an end unto itself. It is simply a RIGHT. If you don’t understand that, then do not be a teacher in the Free United States Of America. They don’t want people like you.

Dearest Glenna:

Keep your powder dry.

Left by uncle sam on February 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 am

Fingerprinting innocent people to put in a criminal database is not a background check. It is a preemptive measure, as bogus as this war we are in. This is a greater threat to our kids and their kids than any pedophile. Once our freedoms are gone, the govt. will have their way with all of us.

Left by james on June 24th, 2008 at 6:52 pm