in an uncomfortable position

[Celtic_Emperor]

Great post man, I'm glad to see there are at least a few people in here who "get" it.

Thank you. I thought it was common sense really. When looking at these situations from a third party/outside perspective it's best to not let your personal feelings get in the way and handle the situation soley by it's technicalities, merits, or lack thereof.

Plus, it seems only now people are realizing that you don't even need to do an actual background check to find out usernames and identities on the internet. All you need to do is type it in a search engine and bingo, you've got access. I thought everyone knew that. So these parents aren't/weren't as necessarily premeditated and paranoid as they were made out to be.

I already knew a simple search function like this could be done, which is why I didn't bash the parents or judge them or access the entire sitution prematurely. How deep and premediated this really is is really called into question given the simplicity and ease at which this type of information can be readily accessed by anyone who may just be curious. They aren't stalkers or anything as the devotion necessary to be made one is not present in my opinion, from what I can tell. They're concerned parents, and even if they could be proven to be overzealous by this single act alone, I do not hold it against them.

I think others have judged the parents too harshly.

 

[oceanhead]

i'm just glad i'm not Neutron's daughter.

 

[SyDemon1]

I'm sure any parent who's worried about their daughter would want to know if the can trust their boyfriend, especially if a decision to marry is considered. Though I agree that it is rude to just dig on you without your consent, as an outsider that doesn't have to deal with the emotional stress of being in your situation, I say they do it because they wanted to be sure. I agree with the advice on taking on the responsibility of having such a background and letting them know who you really are.

You've made it known that you love her very much, it must have been hard to hear about "getting out of the relationship". My advice is to let her parents know that you are not what they think. Let them know that you understand yourself and know what you're doing. Present your stand in their perspective and obtain their trust, then see what they say.

 

[alchemy1]

Grrrrr

I'm actually surprised with what appears to be the complacency of what I view as an invasion of privacy issue. There are rights (what you can do) and then there is what is right! Doing a background check on a b/f is not right, even if you suspect something is up. I mean where is people's respect for other people. If you (or these parents) think there is something fishy about this guy then ask him. Or just dump him, two of the things people seem not to do enough of is communicate and trust their instincts. And instincts are not "spidey sense", they are observations fed through the sub-conscious. The other thing is I think this is very disrespectful of the daughter, I as a parent would want to have the faith in myself that I taught my children how to make good decisions, because there comes a time when they will have to make their own. This is just as much a maturity issue.

As for being able to do background checks on people on the web, that opens a whole can of worms. I think of that tool as more of a potential for wrong than right. Do you want guys doing background checks on your daughter who just went off to college? My opinion is that privacy is a right and it should be protected more often than surrendered.

Don't know if we're helping your cause here V, but I felt a response was in order.

Hell Yeah!!! How did we arrive in an age where people do background checks on others at the drop of a hat? Whatever happened to respect? Whatever happened to privacy (last time I check, we had a right to privacy in this country)? Whatever happened to behaving like independent, responsible, mature adults? Hmm? How did we become of society of scared, paranoid, childish, sheep-like assholes? Background checks should only be ok in extreme cases...and then only few and far between. You people scare me. Seriously, what happened "land of the free"? Huh? What happened to it? It was here a minute ago. Oh, that's right, a gaggle of spoiled, pampered, suv-driving, soccer mom cretins decided that the world was just too big and scary a place for silly ideas like freedom and privacy. They need our wonderful, saint-like politicians to protect them...to protect their Starbucks swigging children. Why they have a RIGHT to know everything about you if they so desire. You, on the other hand, have NO RIGHT to deny them this information. How dare you even think of such a thing?! Say...just what have you got to hide anyway...
You see my point people? This is scary shit.

Those who willingly trade their freedom for the promise of greater security deserve neither freedom nor security. - Benjamin Franklin

Now see what you did? You made me get all politcal...I hate politics

 

[Neutron]

Sigh

Hell Yeah!!! How did we arrive in an age where people do background checks on others at the drop of a hat? Whatever happened to respect? Whatever happened to privacy (last time I check, we had a right to privacy in this country)? Whatever happened to behaving like independent, responsible, mature adults? Hmm? How did we become of society of scared, paranoid, childish, sheep-like assholes? Background checks should only be ok in extreme cases...and then only few and far between. You people scare me. Seriously, what happened "land of the free"? Huh? What happened to it? It was here a minute ago. Oh, that's right, a gaggle of spoiled, pampered, suv-driving, soccer mom cretins decided that the world was just too big and scary a place for silly ideas like freedom and privacy. They need our wonderful, saint-like politicians to protect them...to protect their Starbucks swigging children. Why they have a RIGHT to know everything about you if they so desire. You, on the other hand, have NO RIGHT to deny them this information. How dare you even think of such a thing?! Say...just what have you got to hide anyway...
You see my point people? This is scary shit.

Those who willingly trade their freedom for the promise of greater security deserve neither freedom nor security. - Benjamin Franklin

Now see what you did? You made me get all politcal...I hate politics

Sigh, you have no idea what FRanklin really meant, not surprising given you ignorance of what the Constitution Right to Privacy Means. Your "right" simply prevents the federal government from invading your home to check on what you are doing. It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INDIVIDUALS DOING PRIVACY CHACKS ON OTHERS!! The CONSTITUTION dictates the GOVERNMENTS dealings with Citizens, NOT a citizens dealing with another citizen.


It's perfectly acceptable for parents to do a background check. It's legal both from a Constitutional and a civil aspect.

By your definition I couldn't look up your phone number in a phone book.

And before you lecture me on liberty son, I spent years in the military defending your right to know absolutely nothing about the Constitution, a right it seems you enjoy exercising.

 

[alchemy1]

Sigh, you have no idea what FRanklin really meant, not surprising given you ignorance of what the Constitution Right to Privacy Means. Your "right" simply prevents the federal government from invading your home to check on what you are doing. It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INDIVIDUALS DOING PRIVACY CHACKS ON OTHERS!! The CONSTITUTION dictates the GOVERNMENTS dealings with Citizens, NOT a citizens dealing with another citizen.


It's perfectly acceptable for parents to do a background check. It's legal both from a Constitutional and a civil aspect.

By your definition I couldn't look up your phone number in a phone book.

And before you lecture me on liberty son, I spent years in the military defending your right to know absolutely nothing about the Constitution, a right it seems you enjoy exercising.

Neutron, you're an absolute delight man. Oh, this is going to be fun.

Perfectly acceptable huh? I see. Ok, so where does it end? Hmmm? Where does perfectly acceptable turn into invasive? Where is that great elusive line?
Oh, it's gotta be somewhere around here....maybe if we look hard enough we can see it. No, I've got it, maybe if we clap our hands really loudly, our wonderful federal goverment will show it to us. Come on Neutron! Try it with me now! Clap your hands! Clap damn you CLAP!

There is a big difference between looking up a phone number and doing a freaking background check... You see, that little thing called reason keeps eluding you my friend. I know it's hard to grasp sometimes...you just keep at it, you'll get it eventually.

First of all SON, I was not speaking to you. Secondly, you serving in the military does not make your opinions or your thoughts on a subject more valid than mine...and from the way you seem to want to insult the intelligence of anyone that doesn't agree with you, I would say that your opinions are actually less valid.
You know, I hate it when people use their service in the military as an excuse to loudly pontificate any theory or opinion they they might have. OH, and heaven forbid somebody disagree with them. Why that just can't be. How dare they. "I served in the military so I know more than you, and in fact, I am better than you". Bullshit.
Now, I have infinite respect for anyone who has served in the military...but that just pisses me off.

Liberty is liberty. Period. As soon as you start dividing it up and saying "Well, you're protected from this, but not so much this" or "People only really have certain kinds of freedom" or whatever, it muddies the water. The right to privacy is just that. A right to privacy...period. Who the fuck cares if it is from the government, from other citizens or from the fucking planet Mars...who cares. You either have a right to privacy or you don't. All that other shit is just a shell game played by the wonderful politicians in this country to fool the sheep-like people into thinking they're safe. And by the way Neutron old chap, you CAN get an unlisted number. Therefore, you will NOT be in the phonebook.

Not trying to insult you or anything man, but holy hell....
you people scare me.

 

[Dade]

Anyone has a right to do a background check on anyone else at anytime. There are limits, such as contacting employers and that even depends.
Internet use is definitely open for a background check, it's public info.

Ever hear of a PI?

Quite correct. I do this for a living. I work with different agencies that track down internet stalkers, predators and general nuisances (which believe it or not is against the law). I track those that harrass others.

Any time one posts something or emails someone or uses Aim or any messanger, they leave a trail behind that can be easily followed when you know how. It is all public information that anyone has the "right" to investigate.

Anyone who does not wish his/her "preferences" to become public knowledge should not post on forums such as this. There is no "privacy" on the internet. Anything you do here is fair game from a legal standpoint.

 

[Big_Dogg85]

I think we can all easily go full till into the "is this ethical?" debate, where I don't believe there is a need to.

I think it's wrong morally but, as cliched as this is, the law is the law and the internet is, for the most part anyway, public domain. My suggestion is that if everyone here still wants to let loose on this debate, make a new thread and have at it

Anyways, that's my last take here, frankly this debate causes needless tension in a community where the only tension should be when your muscles tense up from all of the tickling!

 

[MistressValerie1]

I agree with Big Dogg 100%. If this continues to be an endless, pointless argument, this thread too will be closed.

 

[Faramir]

I think we can all easily go full till into the "is this ethical?" debate, where I don't believe there is a need to.

I think it's wrong morally but, as cliched as this is, the law is the law and the internet is, for the most part anyway, public domain. My suggestion is that if everyone here still wants to let loose on this debate, make a new thread and have at it

Anyways, that's my last take here, frankly this debate causes needless tension in a community where the only tension should be when your muscles tense up from all of the tickling!

well said...this is the reason I stay out of threads like this (well, ...except for this reply😀).

 

[Neutron]

Thank You

Quite correct. I do this for a living. I work with different agencies that track down internet stalkers, predators and general nuisances (which believe it or not is against the law). I track those that harrass others.

Any time one posts something or emails someone or uses Aim or any messanger, they leave a trail behind that can be easily followed when you know how. It is all public information that anyone has the "right" to investigate.

Anyone who does not wish his/her "preferences" to become public knowledge should not post on forums such as this. There is no "privacy" on the internet. Anything you do here is fair game from a legal standpoint.

Well said, AND an ethical standpoint too. This is not an issue of liberty.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Also, the majority of those angry seem to be forgetting how easily this information is attained. Even hearing of his username is enough to aqquire this information. It doesn't require stalking or premeditated behavior or thinking. It is entirely possible they wanted to merely check up on him and ended up getting more information than they wanted or cared for. It doesn't mean they went out of their way to get it or intentionally wanted to know everything about him, but obviously became concerned with the information they were confronted with.

Premeditated behavior is quite different from stumbling into something. It's likely they didn't even want this much information, but just wanted to see how he comports himself online, as how one comports themself online can say alot about their off-line character.

Them attaining this much information may have been completely unintentional. And if thats the case, then many of you are enraged for nothing and assuming a great deal. The fact is you and he don't know.

I think once they found this information they had a duty to their daughter to at least look at it. Any parent in their right mind would do this. This all goes back to the daughter, their little girl and wanting to make sure she's in safe company.

Finding the information, even unwillingly, and ignoring it is highly irresponsible and reckless of the parents actually, even if it is in the name of privacy. Sure, he may just be what he and you all says he is, theres no arguments there, but they can't be expected to just assume that.

This is one of those double-sided quagmires where someone gets more information than they wanted and ends up looking like the bad guy for it when really they're the good guys and trying to do the right thing. No one will give them the benefit of the doubt though, because they have the information, and that alone makes them guilty in the eyes of the flustered.

I think that both the parents and him should give eachother the benefit of the doubt (and maybe you guys should give them the benefit of the doubt too so this isn't an argument). It will help things out a great deal, as at least there is a basic trust in all of this, even if it is superficial at first (it's like that at first in any relationship anyway). It is ultimately up to this guy however, regardless of this information being out in the open, to reenforce that trust to both her and the parents. In fact, now that it is out and the open, the burden of proof lies on him to prove his character.

Played correctly, this could be a postive thing for him in several ways, if he can get passed the embarassement that is.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

"The game is afoot, sugar! This is the case of the stolen rent money, and I, Sherlock Holmes, will solve it! Lets go Watson!"- Kitsune

"Jolly good sir!"- Kaolla

(Love Hina) 😀

In fact, I can think of any number of hypothetical situations that would remove nearly any guilt on the part of the parents. Here's just one of them:

The girl is going on and on about her boyfriend, perhaps at dinner. The parents jokingly ask for his SN because they'd like to talk to him and see what the interest is since they may not be getting any or enough opportunities to talk to him personally.

The daughter willingly, without being forced or pressured to, or perhaps not even being asked, gives them the the SN.

Sometime later, perhaps weeks later, the father or mother, decide to see if they can chat with him too. Upon learning that they lack the necessary IM programs to do so, they do a search for his name in the hopes of finding a place they may be able to aqquire a stable contact with him.

Then thats where things go downhill. Because when they put in the search, they are confronted with this site, most likely on the first page of the search engine, and even more likely the first several link results provided.

The parents, still blameless at this point, decide to just click on one of them, as, afterall, the link description for a search result is often pruned, limited, and vague.

What happens after that is still not their fault, nor is being on the site, nor is seeing a post by him, which that link most likely directed them straight to.

It's at this point they either decided they saw enough and stopped, or scanned the site a little to get an honest view of just what kind of site it is, out of curiousity.

Either one of these decisions still makes them innocent, because whose to say it is any more about him than wanting to see the site. Are you saying they have no right to be here? They were brought here, indirectly, via a random result, ala a random search function. They weren't intentionally looking for anything incriminating, it just fell into their lap, so to speak.

In the end we're left with these conclusions:

1.) They got information they weren't even looking for, which means they are not as accountable for this information becoming knowledge as they are being made to be.

2.) Upon entering the site or just the main page, they concluded that was enough and that they didn't need to go any farther (which would absolve them even more).

3.) The daughter is the one who told them about his online presense, and perhaps, out of wanting the relationship to work and be in good with her folks, suggested the internet as an alternative to talking with him. This is the technological age afterall, so it's not odd or uncommon to do or suggest this.


This situation is just as plausable as the assumptions being made about these people. Afterall, you are just taking his word for it, perhaps even biasly.

For some of you, having this information makes them guilty as in your opinion, it means they went out of their way to aqquire it. But the same information can be used to both justify their concerns and prove that they only have the information because of the forthcoming and non-discreit nature of the internet.

In the end, it is not having the information thats important here, it's what they do with it. And none of us can assume to say what that is, if anything. Only they know what they're thinking. Not the daughter, not him, and certainly not any of you.

If this is all they did, then its not right to call it a background check, as background checks consist of far more prying and premeditated thought patterns. Either he's lying/exagerating/telling a half-truth about how far they went and what they saw or did (perhaps he doesn't like her parents and is taking a stab at them, or he just wants some sympathy, or maybe he is worrying about this so much that he's not thinking clearly anymore), or this is nothing more than an elaborately pieced together troll thread meant to prey on your sensitivity to your privacy as tickling fetishists. And if thats true, then he's made quite the fool of you.

This messege has been brought to you and sponsored by the friends of Count Dracula! 😛 😀

 

[LonelyKimiko]

I could post a lengthy comment here, but I dont feel inclined to get flamed or insulted pointlessly by any above. Personally, I think its wrong that the parents did a background check. I know nothing of the legality or any of that, but as far as I'm concerned, if someones parens start checking up on me, and then telling other people things like that, I've just lost interest.
By the way, Alchemy, I frikkin love your posts 😀 .

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

"The amount of information included on a background check depends to a large degree on the sensitivity of the reason for which it is conducted—e.g., somebody seeking employment at a minimum wage job would be subject to far fewer background check requirements then somebody applying to work for the FBI.

* Criminal and incarceration records.
* Litigation records. Employers are always terrified of employees who routinely file discrimination lawsuits even if a firing was clearly for cause. Also, in the U.S., employers that do work for the government do not like to hire whistleblowers who have a history of filing qui tam suits.
* Driving and vehicle records. Employers in the transportation sector keep insurance premiums down by hiring those with a clean driving record--eg, those without a history of accidents or traffic tickets.
* Drug tests are used for a variety of reasons--corporate ethics, measuring potential employee performance, and keeping workers' compensation premiums down.
* Education records. These are used primarily to see if the potential employee had in fact received a college degree. There are reports of SAT scores being requested by employers as well.
* Employment records. These usually range from simple verbal confirmations of past employment and timeframe to deeper, such as discussions about performance, activities and accomplisments, and relations with others.
* Financial information: Individuals with poor credit scores, liens, civil judgments, or those who have filed for bankruptcy may be at an additional risk of stealing from the company.
* Licensing records. A government authority that has some oversight over professional conduct of its licensees will also maintain records regarding the licensee, such as personal information, education, complaints, investigations, and disciplinary actions.
* Military records. Although not as common today as it was in the past fifty years, employers frequently requested the specifics of one's military discharge.
* Social Security Number (or equivalent outside the US). A fraudulent SSN may be indicative of identity theft, insufficient citizenship, or concealment of a "past life".
* Other interpersonal interviews. Employers will usually wish to speak with potential employees' references to gauge employability. More intensive background checks can involve interviews with anybody that knew or previously knew the applicant--such as teachers, friends, coworkers, and family members."


Funny then how, of all the things that are far worse than them finding out about his fetish, that he isn't showing his outrage over these other, far more circumstancial and critical information, and how he is instead focusing on the fetish as if that's the most critical, damning, and damaging thing they could possibly know.

They wouldn't need a background check just for this, which makes me believe it wasn't one.

How certain is he that they even performed a background check? Maybe he's just calling it that because he feels so encroached upon and embarassed that he's likening it to an actual background check. Did they actually aqquire this other, substancial information as well? He will not say whether they found just one thing, or everything else, or, whether or not they got his rap sheet.

And until he does, the parents are clean for the reasons I stated in my last post.

Calling something a background check, just because it bares a superficial resemblance to one does not make it so.

 

[LonelyKimiko]

He did say background check, but it was other people that assumed he meant that kind of check. I think he's talking just about the parents discovering something on the computer, or doing a google search on him. Either way, I dont think its the "right" thing to do.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I could post a lengthy comment here, but I dont feel inclined to get flamed or insulted pointlessly by any above.

I think to assume that it would happen is a shame, especially from me, since it's not in my character and I deserve more credit than that. 🙂

 

[LonelyKimiko]

I wasnt referring to you really, dont worry 🙂 . I was thinking more of Neutron, especially after seeing some of his posts in other threads. But like I say, I'm not gonna get into an arguement over things 🙂 .

 

[Sockstickler]

I think Vlad is making the best case. In the end, part of a parent's job is to protect their child from being hurt, Lord knows I'd probably check any guy out who went out with my daughter (when I get married and have kids that is) and it's pretty obvious that this guy's record raises some eyebrows with the parents. I think the best idea is for everyone to get together there and talk things out, so that all can state their cases and hear what each person has to say.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

He did say background check, but it was other people that assumed he meant that kind of check. I think he's talking just about the parents discovering something on the computer, or doing a google search on him. Either way, I dont think its the "right" thing to do.

From a parent's perspective, sometimes its not about doing the "the right (as in the popular one)" thing, but the "safe" one. I'm sure that this is all they wanted.

Going from parent to renegade over this doesn't make sense, and it's not very fair how some people are really trying to dim the line between excellent parenting (which is largely unpopular, especially by the children) and prying, nosy, and paranoid behavior.

Has he even given them a reason to be wary of him? He hasn't stated that either. Unless there was a reason for them to be suspicious in the first place, this "background check" is not only less likely, but impractical.

And again, how do we even know this transpired at all. He could be lying. Topics like this are the perfect bait. Wounded little fawn cries for help and the benevolent forest protectors come to it's aid only to be laughed at for the energy, time, and effort they wasted. It's also a bonus if these people argue amongst themselves, and the icing on the cake is if they do it on their own.

I am proud to not be one of those people. Posting doesn't mean I'm arguing, so even if I'm wasting my time as well, I am not enraged, befouled, or made the fool as I otherwise would be.

This is like crying wolf, and the parents are the wolves.

But are they really? I've all but lost interest in this. I just post because this side of the topic hasn't been properly represented by anyone other than Neutron and myself.

I think to have a well-meaning discussion, we must embrace a larger view of the situation and be open to other possibilities beyond our own opinion. In fact, we have to since he's leaving us to talk about it on our own. He seems pretty quiet for someone whose rights and privacy were supposedly violated with the presumably the upmost predjudice.

The fact he has very little to say however makes me question this thread. When someone performs a background check on you, you sure as hell are not calm about it unless they have a right to or are right to and for all we know they were. Some things are not adding up here.

 

[LonelyKimiko]

In reply to socks:

I'll agree that that would be a good idea yes 🙂 . Talking things over and sorting them out is probably the best option in this case. My above points still stand though.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Vlad is correct. A conventional "background check" conducted by a private investigator or information broker would NOT include Internet usage history. That information could only be obtained from the user's ISP, which would require a subpoena, or from the user's browser history stored on a computer.

I agree partially with Kimiko that if the parents were poking around on someone else's computer without permission, that would be an invasion of privacy. On the other hand, if they stumbled onto the information from looking up Vman's screen name on a search engine, no invasion occurred because the information was publicly available to anyone.

 

[MistressValerie1]

I could post a lengthy comment here, but I dont feel inclined to get flamed or insulted pointlessly by any above.

Regarding flaming in this or other threads, we strongly encourage all members to report bad posts as soon as possible and not to respond to trolling. Deleting a post is much less effective if many members have already replied to it, quoted it, and argued over it.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I think Vlad is making the best case. In the end, part of a parent's job is to protect their child from being hurt, Lord knows I'd probably check any guy out who went out with my daughter (when I get married and have kids that is) and it's pretty obvious that this guy's record raises some eyebrows with the parents. I think the best idea is for everyone to get together there and talk things out, so that all can state their cases and hear what each person has to say.

Lets assume for a moment that it was an actual background check, with all the details I quoted in my other post and lets assume he had a bad rap sheet.

Wouldn't it be better then for them and the girl to know these things eventually, even at the cost of his privacy, than for her to wind up in a relationship with a man who doesn't have his life together?

This is why background checks exist to begin with. To measure and counter liability.

The only difference here is instead of business interests, they're protecting their daughter's interests- something that is a hell of a lot more important.

It may not seem right or fair, but it is and not only that, but they will have done their daughter a huge favor and saved her from a possible disaster waiting to happen. And if she's angry with them, I'm sure that when she comes to her senses she'll realize how much they love her.

Thats if it was a background check. If it wasn't, which I don't think it was, then its all the more laughable.

His dirty laundry being exposed is surely embarassing. But if thats all it was, and especially if they came upon this information completely by accident (as I stated before), then this has been blown up to be something it is not and more thinking needs to be done by everyone.

 

[LonelyKimiko]

Its just kinda annoying, cause sometimes I want to make my point of view heard, but I know that my post will draw negative and unwanted attention from others, and so I just decide not to post it.