In how many ways is this form Illegal, if any?

[dicion]

So today, I find a new form on my desk when I arrive at work.

It is a form, from one of our customers, requesting the authority to perform a background check on me.

I have a problem with this for quite a few reasons, but the main reason is that My Company has already run a complete criminal history check on me, once per year, for the past number of years.
I do not work for this customer, I work for my employer. My employer should be able to certify to the customer that I am, indeed, fully checked and good to go.

So, here's the form, obviously slightly modified. I have also emailed my lawyer, and as soon as they get in for the day, I'm going to have them review it as well.
Also, be advised, the customer requesting this information IS a Government Agency.



Main issues I have, in order of appearance on the form:
- They are requesting information on convictions Including Deferred Adjudications
- The obligation to disclose that signing this form would then hold me to. I would be required to inform of any arrest and/or conviction of any 'disqualifying criminal offense', without any mention of what these offenses are, or reference to where I can find these out.
- Request of Social Security Number without any Privacy Act Notification. IIRC This is specifically Illegal.
- No Privacy statements or guarantees at all. I have no guarantee that the information above will be kept confidential.

As of right now, I am refusing to sign this form, and am waiting on my lawyer to review it for their opinion.

I would like your thoughts and opinions on this.

[android]

- Request of Social Security Number without any Privacy Act Notification. IIRC This is specifically Illegal.

If it is a federal agency. From the cheesiness of the form, it looks like a state agency to me, so I don't think that notification is required, although many will put it on forms anyway.

[Purplehood]

Its purpose appears to be a background check that is required to admit YOU into THEIR facilities. If that is a correct interpretation, than I see no problem with it. If it is not, than I agree with you that it is intrusive.
After all, your employers background check might simply be looking over your shoulder to see if any Revenuers are chasing you.

[dicion]

Thanks for the replies.

Yes, this is not a Federal Agency, I've filled out enough SF-86's in my life to know what a proper background investigation form looks like

I just find the lack of privacy guarantees disconcerting. There is no notification on how this information will be protected, that is my main concern.

[joe817]

Does your employer know about this? If so, what is their reaction to this request?

Unless trade or industrial secrets are involved, or one effecting national security, I can't see why a customer would require one.

[dicion]

Does your employer know about this? If so, what is their reaction to this request?

Unless trade or industrial secrets are involved, or one effecting national security, I can't see why a customer would require one.

Yes, my employer is the one that passed it to me to complete.

As I said, the customer is a government agency, and this BG check is in regards to access to 'secure' areas of their facilities.

I have no problem with the background check itself, it is the method by which they are collecting the data, and the decided lack of privacy verbage that concerns me the most.
There is no statement along the lines that 'Information submitted on this form is Confidential, and for law enforcement use only' or similar. For all I know, anything I put on this form will be passed through 50 people who have no right knowing my drivers license #, my SS#, or my criminal background.

[dicion]

Aha! Found what I was looking for!!!

Privacy Act of 1974, Section 7(b)

(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose
his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is
mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited,
and what uses will be made of it.

So they are NOT Exempt from this requirement, as they are a 'local government agency'.
I've gotten my HR department involved with this now... We'll see where it goes.

[fickman]

I work in IT security governance and consulting. Every government agency (state or Federal) that we've dealt with has required all employees with access to their security data to undergo background checks. Most of the time, they actually contact the listed references. We also have a few major commercial customers with. . . ummm. . . political motivations to keep their data privacy protected that have required the background checks. They want the checks completed for auditors, admins, engineers, and analysts alike and often add residency restrictions for support of the accounts. It's all hammered out during contract negotiations, so by the time we find out about it, our company has already committed to it.

Nothing out of the ordinary.

Your company has a few options:
- Negotiate the terms out of the deal (unlikely)
- Reject the demanded terms and give up the business
- Allow you to opt out and support other customers without granting you access to this one
- Tell you that if you can't support this customer according to their terms, you don't have a job

It is reasonable for you to ask how the private data is handled, who sees it, and how it is maintained / destroyed along with which pieces are absolutely necessary (SSN may not be absolutely necessary, but it may be worth your while to provide it - just for the sake of time and headaches).

[dicion]

Like I said before, I have no problem with the actual BG Check.

It is the lack of anything privacy related being mentioned on the form. Also, they are clearly in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, that I quoted above.
If they would fix the form, making it privacy act compliant, with guarantees on confidentiality and such, then I would have no problem signing it.

It's not necessarily for me, as Obviously my BG is pretty clean if I have a CHL. But they're making everyone in my company who works with this customer sign this.
Please excuse me if I don't trust government agencies with my privacy, especially when they seem completely nonchalant about it.

[juggernaut]

Nancy Reagan said it best. JUST SAY NO.

I declined to give my social security number when I bought a hunting license. They said it's not mandatory but they won't give me a hunting license without it.

Whatever. I was willing to pay but they wouldn't take my money so I met my moral and ethical obligation.

[dicion]

Update:

My employer passed my concerns over to the Agency, complete with supporting documentation.
The agency is going to have their lawyers look over it (which apparently was NOT done before it went out ) and get back to us with a fully lawful (I'd assume, if their lawyers are going to go over it) version of the form.

Just goes to show you, if you know you're right, and have the information backing you up, don't back down, hold your position and demand they follow the law.

[Oldgringo]

After spending the month of September as VOLUNTEER Campground Hosts on Flathead Lake, MT for the Montana Fish, Wildlive and Parks department, we have decided that we want to be VOLUNTEER hosts in the mountain west again next summer. You may be surprised at how many state and federal agencies, including TEXAS, insist on a NCIS type background check and some even want your SS number on their application for a VOLUNTEER position.

Does the name George Orwell ring any bells?