5 ms·

They can run background checks which include mental illness. That same gun report can be run by non-sellers. http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-ment

They can run background checks which include mental illness. That same gun report can be run by non-sellers. http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-records-in-background-check-system-tripled-since-release-of-fatal-gaps-report-pressed-states-to-submit-records-of-prohibited-gun-purchasers/ http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-...

tptacek 10y ago
That sounds incredibly illegal. Which tech companies have you heard about doing that? That would be a major news story, wouldn't it?
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  I applied to Intergraph once, and they wanted me to sign a release for a consumer profile report. I wrote onto the form that they had to give me a complete copy of the report, struck out a few objectionable lines, initialed the changes, and signed the form. They immediately ended the interview process. They could not give me a copy of any portion of the report due to "confidentiality agreements". I deciphered that as they were using information to discriminate between qualified candidates that is at best shocking to the conscience, and at worst blatantly illegal. You cannot know if the company is breaking the law if they rigorously suppress any evidence of it.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I have some experience with background checks, since I ran a consulting firm and had major financial firms as clients, all of which do this kind of background checking, and while I don't think it's at all unreasonable to withdraw from consideration over credit checking (I would too), I think you probably overreacted --- because it is in fact true that you're contractually not allowed to share background check reports with their subjects.
    - adrienne 10y ago
      That contractual requirement is unconscionable in and of itself, of course! But that's a different problem.
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      That seems like a convenient way to get away with libel. My real name is so common that every state likely has a person with the same name and surname with a criminal record. There was another person with my name at my high school. There is another person with my name at my current employer. In the past, there were three people with my name in the corporate email directory. With credit reporting, if a company gives you less than their best offer as a result of derogatory information on your credit report, they are obligated to furnish you with a copy of it at their expense. So you might understand why I might like to know if a company is passing me over for consideration because of information given them by a third party that I cannot see, verify, or rebut. I have zero faith that companies that perform background checks never make mistakes. That confidentiality clause for background check reports is ethically similar (but less vile) to a clause in a murder contract that requires the payer and the murderer to keep the existence of the contract secret from everyone, particularly the intended victim. You can't contract your way out of culpability for libel. Besides that, they were the ones that told me to go pound sand just because I wouldn't give them carte blanche permission to investigate me.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I'm not saying you should be OK with background checks. I'm saying that they're commonly used, especially in the financial industry (for regulatory reasons), and that the people who procure them really are (at least, often) prohibited from publishing the results. I was background checked almost a dozen times at Matasano and never once got to see a report. You're totally within your rights to be irritated by these checks. I'd refuse many of them too! But I think your argument about why you didn't get to see your report is overdetermined.
        logfromblammo 10y ago
JBReefer 10y ago
I promise you, that is a harmful and completely untrue conspiracy theory. Please, please do not discourage people from seeking help. The people I know that go on meds and get therapy have flourished, those afraid to - often because of half-truths like the above - have wasted their lives in emotional prisons.
- virmundi 10y ago
  I don't openly discourage people from seeking help. I do recommend anonymous groups and paying cash if possible. Try to keep things off the official rosters.
- psyc 10y ago
  The fact that you may wind up in the FBI's NICS database is completely true. In this era, I'm not sure why a person would be confident about how that database will be used, now or in the future.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    At this point you're pretty close to arguing that people should be cautious about getting medical help of any kind, because all medical interventions create medical records that could be abused. That's in fact a rational concern (for instance: seeking medical help for a variety of symptoms, even if nothing is diagnosed, can impact your ability to get health insurance in the future), but we don't generally dignify the logical conclusion that people should avoid doctors as a result.
    - psyc 10y ago
      I think it's a particularly troublesome loophole in the common expectation of medical privacy. A whole amendment in the bill of rights doesn't apply to you anymore, maybe because an ER doctor who doesn't know you wanted to play it safe. I think that's a lot to put at the discretion of a random doctor.
virmundi 10y ago
This is part of many government background checks. If you work directly as a contractor, or as a sub to the government, it is possible (likely) that this is pulled. Fun thing about discrimination: they don't tell you they're discriminating. Pretty much any company could access the same report for $300.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Can you point me in the direction of the $300 background check I can run that would disclose someone's mental health status? I'm an employer, I have a EIN, and I have friends who have diagnosed mental health conditions and thus would be flagged by a gun buying check, and we'd like to run the experiment.
smacktoward 10y ago
The article you linked isn't as dire as you make it out to be. It doesn't say that anyone treated for mental health issues is ineligible to own firearms, just the much narrower segment of "anyone involuntarily committed to a mental institution or found to be a danger to self or others." Which seems pretty reasonable to me. If you're holding back from seeking treatment for mental health issues because you're worried about losing your guns, don't. I can't speak for every jurisdiction, but I live in Virginia, I've suffered from and received treatment for depression, and I've had zero problems purchasing and owning firearms.
- tptacek 10y ago
  In a number of states, there's a short-term prohibition on firearms purchases by people who voluntarily admitted themselves to a mental health institution. On information and belief: pretty much anyone who goes to the hospital with a panic attack, a PTSD episode, or a concern about profound depression will end up "voluntarily admitted" to a mental health institution, so this is a lot of people. I believe one of the things that makes these prohibitions constitutional is that they expire pretty quickly.
- iamatworknow 10y ago
  I'm in New York, which probably has the toughest gun laws in the country outside of maybe California. I've had a pistol permit and a .380 for over 3 years. I also go to a psychologist monthly for CBT and a psychiatrist every 3 months for medication. I've never harmed myself or others and I don't intend to, but I do have depression and anxiety due to some traumatic events in my past. Nobody has come asking for my gun.
  - virmundi 10y ago
    Depends on where you are in NY. A cop sued for his guns back after he was wrongfully attacked by the State [1]. When the government takes away a person's pen as well as their right to self-defense, it will be interesting. 1- http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/04/retired-cop-sues-new-york-for-confiscating-guns-after-hospital-visit-for.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/04/retired-cop-sues-new-yo...

tptacek 10y ago

That sounds incredibly illegal. Which tech companies have you heard about doing that? That would be a major news story, wouldn't it?

logfromblammo 10y ago
I applied to Intergraph once, and they wanted me to sign a release for a consumer profile report. I wrote onto the form that they had to give me a complete copy of the report, struck out a few objectionable lines, initialed the changes, and signed the form. They immediately ended the interview process. They could not give me a copy of any portion of the report due to "confidentiality agreements". I deciphered that as they were using information to discriminate between qualified candidates that is at best shocking to the conscience, and at worst blatantly illegal. You cannot know if the company is breaking the law if they rigorously suppress any evidence of it.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I have some experience with background checks, since I ran a consulting firm and had major financial firms as clients, all of which do this kind of background checking, and while I don't think it's at all unreasonable to withdraw from consideration over credit checking (I would too), I think you probably overreacted --- because it is in fact true that you're contractually not allowed to share background check reports with their subjects.
  - adrienne 10y ago
    That contractual requirement is unconscionable in and of itself, of course! But that's a different problem.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    That seems like a convenient way to get away with libel. My real name is so common that every state likely has a person with the same name and surname with a criminal record. There was another person with my name at my high school. There is another person with my name at my current employer. In the past, there were three people with my name in the corporate email directory. With credit reporting, if a company gives you less than their best offer as a result of derogatory information on your credit report, they are obligated to furnish you with a copy of it at their expense. So you might understand why I might like to know if a company is passing me over for consideration because of information given them by a third party that I cannot see, verify, or rebut. I have zero faith that companies that perform background checks never make mistakes. That confidentiality clause for background check reports is ethically similar (but less vile) to a clause in a murder contract that requires the payer and the murderer to keep the existence of the contract secret from everyone, particularly the intended victim. You can't contract your way out of culpability for libel. Besides that, they were the ones that told me to go pound sand just because I wouldn't give them carte blanche permission to investigate me.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I'm not saying you should be OK with background checks. I'm saying that they're commonly used, especially in the financial industry (for regulatory reasons), and that the people who procure them really are (at least, often) prohibited from publishing the results. I was background checked almost a dozen times at Matasano and never once got to see a report. You're totally within your rights to be irritated by these checks. I'd refuse many of them too! But I think your argument about why you didn't get to see your report is overdetermined.
      - logfromblammo 10y ago

JBReefer 10y ago

I promise you, that is a harmful and completely untrue conspiracy theory. Please, please do not discourage people from seeking help. The people I know that go on meds and get therapy have flourished, those afraid to - often because of half-truths like the above - have wasted their lives in emotional prisons.

virmundi 10y ago
I don't openly discourage people from seeking help. I do recommend anonymous groups and paying cash if possible. Try to keep things off the official rosters.
psyc 10y ago
The fact that you may wind up in the FBI's NICS database is completely true. In this era, I'm not sure why a person would be confident about how that database will be used, now or in the future.
- tptacek 10y ago
  At this point you're pretty close to arguing that people should be cautious about getting medical help of any kind, because all medical interventions create medical records that could be abused. That's in fact a rational concern (for instance: seeking medical help for a variety of symptoms, even if nothing is diagnosed, can impact your ability to get health insurance in the future), but we don't generally dignify the logical conclusion that people should avoid doctors as a result.
  - psyc 10y ago
    I think it's a particularly troublesome loophole in the common expectation of medical privacy. A whole amendment in the bill of rights doesn't apply to you anymore, maybe because an ER doctor who doesn't know you wanted to play it safe. I think that's a lot to put at the discretion of a random doctor.

virmundi 10y ago

This is part of many government background checks. If you work directly as a contractor, or as a sub to the government, it is possible (likely) that this is pulled. Fun thing about discrimination: they don't tell you they're discriminating. Pretty much any company could access the same report for $300.

tptacek 10y ago
Can you point me in the direction of the $300 background check I can run that would disclose someone's mental health status? I'm an employer, I have a EIN, and I have friends who have diagnosed mental health conditions and thus would be flagged by a gun buying check, and we'd like to run the experiment.

smacktoward 10y ago

The article you linked isn't as dire as you make it out to be. It doesn't say that anyone treated for mental health issues is ineligible to own firearms, just the much narrower segment of "anyone involuntarily committed to a mental institution or found to be a danger to self or others." Which seems pretty reasonable to me. If you're holding back from seeking treatment for mental health issues because you're worried about losing your guns, don't. I can't speak for every jurisdiction, but I live in Virginia, I've suffered from and received treatment for depression, and I've had zero problems purchasing and owning firearms.

tptacek 10y ago
In a number of states, there's a short-term prohibition on firearms purchases by people who voluntarily admitted themselves to a mental health institution. On information and belief: pretty much anyone who goes to the hospital with a panic attack, a PTSD episode, or a concern about profound depression will end up "voluntarily admitted" to a mental health institution, so this is a lot of people. I believe one of the things that makes these prohibitions constitutional is that they expire pretty quickly.
iamatworknow 10y ago
I'm in New York, which probably has the toughest gun laws in the country outside of maybe California. I've had a pistol permit and a .380 for over 3 years. I also go to a psychologist monthly for CBT and a psychiatrist every 3 months for medication. I've never harmed myself or others and I don't intend to, but I do have depression and anxiety due to some traumatic events in my past. Nobody has come asking for my gun.
- virmundi 10y ago
  Depends on where you are in NY. A cop sued for his guns back after he was wrongfully attacked by the State [1]. When the government takes away a person's pen as well as their right to self-defense, it will be interesting. 1- http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/04/retired-cop-sues-new-york-for-confiscating-guns-after-hospital-visit-for.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/04/retired-cop-sues-new-yo...