"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:22:48 -0600, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:


... snip
I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not with
the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and
its
corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far beyond
anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information, much
of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my
rights
seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the form is
"typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police state.


Actually, if you think about it, that's not quite true. In something
close to a police state, they would simply be asking you (police state --
they would be demanding) for the information and not worrying about
whether
you cared about how it was used or misused.

I did not say this was a police state. Taking your example, it IS something
close to a police state when the information is required in order to get the
job--that's coercion, however mild. Once again, I'll say that the
authorities are justified in conducting a background check for anyone in a
sensitive position. My concern is that they are asking for too much leeway
in seeking it and are asking me sign away my rights.

Bob