Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Shadowbrand wrote:Sweet! now im going to cut my fingers and finger paint pentagrams!

That's the spirit!

Hurm...

I agree with Orky. C'mon, it is a freaking laser. Unless she thinks the electronic effigy of her digit is the mark, in which case... Hurm...
Like I say in my sig, dig what you dig, but... Most jobs have rules and regulations, as well as requirements that the employee must follow.
You wouldn't want a stoned software engineer, an alcoholic truck driver, or a pedo kindergarten teacher.

Back when I was a tester monkey (as apposed to my present title of Quality Assurance Specialist) I refused to go back to Sega for ethical reasons. Being laid off two weeks before Christmas because of goddamn Sonic Team's incompetence adsj;l;lkfdj;l FUUUUUUUUUUUU... Sorry about that. It was the threats of a squat man that looked like Chris Farley and my last day being scheduled on fething Christmas Eve that made slip into that momentary nerdrage. That movie Grandma's Boy was way off...

My point: I was ethically imposed to work there, so I looked for employment elsewhere. She should do the same.

Platuan4th wrote:Because people can fake or steal identities, but you can't fake fingerprints.

It's purely a background check thing, just more extensive than many jobs are willing to take because teachers handle children.

Has there been a rash of people stealing the identities of qualified teachers, going through interview, gaining police clearance under their false identity, and then molesting children? That seems like a lot of work compared to buying a van and offering kids candy.

Thing is, if I was told to be a teacher I'd need to get fingerprinted I'd think it was silly but go through with it. But if I was on the budget sub-committee for the Education Dept and someone proposed spending money to fingerprint teachers I would begin to argue that money could be better spent on textbooks and stuff. Unless fingerprinting is a lot cheaper than I've assumed, but I'd think archiving and checking fingerprints would be a reasonably costly venture.

sebster wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Because people can fake or steal identities, but you can't fake fingerprints.

It's purely a background check thing, just more extensive than many jobs are willing to take because teachers handle children.

Has there been a rash of people stealing the identities of qualified teachers, going through interview, gaining police clearance under their false identity, and then molesting children? That seems like a lot of work compared to buying a van and offering kids candy.

Some ex-con stole the identity of a Louisiana man for 10-15 years so he could work in 5 different states, get married, and evade the IRS, so I wouldn't be surprised at the extent some people would do things.

Maybe this teacher is the metaphorical person in the van with the candy and is hiding behind religion to avoid being found out

Either way this story is kind of sad, I wonder what their class is like.

Platuan4th wrote:
Some ex-con stole the identity of a Louisiana man for 10-15 years so he could work in 5 different states, get married, and evade the IRS, so I wouldn't be surprised at the extent some people would do things.

Yeah, there's identity theft, but I'm not sure if there's a lot of identity theft out there for the purpose of getting a teaching job.

If it were the case the teaching job would be a cover.

sebster wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Because people can fake or steal identities, but you can't fake fingerprints.

It's purely a background check thing, just more extensive than many jobs are willing to take because teachers handle children.

Has there been a rash of people stealing the identities of qualified teachers, going through interview, gaining police clearance under their false identity, and then molesting children? That seems like a lot of work compared to buying a van and offering kids candy.

Thing is, if I was told to be a teacher I'd need to get fingerprinted I'd think it was silly but go through with it. But if I was on the budget sub-committee for the Education Dept and someone proposed spending money to fingerprint teachers I would begin to argue that money could be better spent on textbooks and stuff. Unless fingerprinting is a lot cheaper than I've assumed, but I'd think archiving and checking fingerprints would be a reasonably costly venture.

Its used for a criminal background check. Its state law.
If you argued against it you would be thrown out of office.

sebster wrote:The woman is obviously crazy............

No not crazy, but I would say she is either confused or trying to hide something.

GG

I 100% agree with the teacher, though not due to religious purposes. The fingerprints of law abiding citizens belong nowhere near government databases.

sebster wrote:Has there been a rash of people stealing the identities of qualified teachers, going through interview, gaining police clearance under their false identity, and then molesting children? That seems like a lot of work compared to buying a van and offering kids candy.

The one thing about the U.S.A. is that it is one of the few contries in which you can disappear completly and change your identity without leaving the country, in some cases the fugative didn't even need to change state.
while a background check allows for a check on a persons background and criminal records it does not know what they have done but haven't been caught for(obviously). With the U.S's IAFIS a persons fingerprint can be checked easily. from official reports 40% of murders every year let alone other crimes, any way becoming a teacher is a choice, if you work for the goverment you follow their rules they are the employer.

On the point of her defense, she seems to have fed the page to a dog then tried to put it back together once it passed through, a copy of her fingerprint is not a mark of the beast as it is not on her hand or head, and anyway a picture of yourself let alone your fingerprint is not sacraligous or blasphamy, she really is grasping at very thin straws

BluntmanDC wrote:The one thing about the U.S.A. is that it is one of the few contries in which you can disappear completly and change your identity without leaving the country, in some cases the fugative didn't even need to change state.

Really?...How?

GG

Lordhat wrote:I 100% agree with the teacher, though not due to religious purposes. The fingerprints of law abiding citizens belong nowhere near government databases.

Then if you were a teacher in Texas you should be terminated with extreme prejudice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:The one thing about the U.S.A. is that it is one of the few contries in which you can disappear completly and change your identity without leaving the country, in some cases the fugative didn't even need to change state.

Really?...How?

GG

fake id. they are easy to get.

Lordhat wrote:I 100% agree with the teacher, though not due to religious purposes. The fingerprints of law abiding citizens belong nowhere near government databases.

She is a government agent, though, and teacher is a fairly significant position as they have a lot of coercive power over the children in their class.

I don't know that it really necessitates a thumbprinting, but the overall idea seems fairly sound.

Lordhat wrote:I 100% agree with the teacher, though not due to religious purposes. The fingerprints of law abiding citizens belong nowhere near government databases

I agree with you, but still...

tblock1984 wrote:Most jobs have rules and regulations, as well as requirements that the employee must follow.

IMO law abiding anyones's fingerprints (citizen or not) don't belong in a government database, or DNA either.

Kilkrazy wrote:IMO law abiding anyones's fingerprints (citizen or not) don't belong in a government database, or DNA either.

However, they already are if she is a driver in Texas.
I understand your concern but the argument is that this is a full criminal background check. Its not just a generic background.

Polite response: I think the lady needs to STFU and either let the freaking beam of light bounce off of her fingertips, or seriously look for employment elsewhere.

Jaded response: What purpose is she fighting for? For God? I am down for respecting people's belief's, but our money says in God we trust...
If the government trusts God, and the fingerprints are for the government, then the finger prints are for God... Checkmate!

This is my whole issue with religious zealots, no offense to anyone. I am talking about a very small, but very annoying demographic. (See: Marguerite Perrin)
The sacrosanct attitude of entitlement, followed by a lot of screaming and arguing, and for what? Insert my thoughts on the Home Depot Button Controversy here.

If you don't want to comply with the rules of your workplace, or the fething state of Texas for that matter, then PROMOTIONS are in order!

for the people saying that law abiding citizens sould not be finger printed, criminals were law abiding before they committed a crime, if you already have their finger prints it makes it much easier to ctch them

So everyone should be finger-printed?

Orkeosaurus wrote:"Mark of the Beast"? That's supposed to be a mark on your right hand, not a mark of your right hand.

Right to Privacy, maybe, but not Freedom of Religion.

Actually its 'in' not 'on'.

When it comes to subdermal ID chips (which we already have for animals), then I will get concerned.

Some people think the RFID chips in cards like the Oyster card (London Transport ticketing system) or the proposed Japanese Alien ID cards will be used to track people.

Orlanth wrote:Actually its 'in' not 'on'.

Ah, good point.

When it comes to subdermal ID chips (which we already have for animals), then I will get concerned.

I'm not religious, but I would be as well.

Whether or not she submits, the government (and anyone else that looks hard enough) can find (probably has found) waaaay more info about her than a simple finger print would provide. Consider the provisions in the patriot and homeland security acts, they allowed for virtualy limitless access to surveilance of all your communications; phone,cell,email, etc... It is now widely known, that even though this was only going to be done to "suspected terrorists", our government was useing technology to "driftnet" information. They were (probably still are) essentialy monitoring all communications and filtering them through computers that would search for certain flagged words used in certain configureations, that would indicate whether or not you needed to be more closely observerd. This is Orwellian in it's scope; harkening back to Huxley's "brave new world", yet we let it go on under the pretense that, since we don't have anything to hide, it is somehow protecting us from "terrorists" to take away our right to privacy. The afore mentioned bills also included provisions so that "suspected terrorists" could be arrested without charge, held in secret, had their property confiscated, and be held without trial indefinitely. These flagged words are probably things like "jihad" or "AlQueaida" or "hijacking"; but could also be extended to unpopular political speach,socialist leanings, etc.. I am not a religious person at all, but if I were, this would have far more weight than fingerprinting. Also, anyone convicted of a crime in a federal court is not only fingerprinted, but must submit to haveing a blood sample taken and put into a national DNA registry. Some states also require this and some say that all children born in hospitals are put into the national registry as well, though that isn't confirmed. The bottom line here is that things done in the name of security are often cleverly disguised erosions on your right to privacy, but then the "right to privacy" is almost an outdated concept in the information age. Should she be forced to give up finger prints to have this job? Maybe it is to ensure the security of innocent children, maybe it is an invasion of the teachers privacy, dosn't realy matter when none of us has any real privacy anyway. I would be more concerned that she is an educator with what I would consider a fundamentalist religious leaning, which should be out-moded in the 21st century. In other words, I don't want someone teaching my kid from a carriculum that includes the book of revelations.

gil gerard wrote:Whether or not she submits, the government (and anyone else that looks hard enough) can find (probably has found) waaaay more info about her than a simple finger print would provide. Consider the provisions in the patriot and homeland security acts, they allowed for virtualy limitless access to surveilance of all your communications; phone,cell,email, etc... It is now widely known, that even though this was only going to be done to "suspected terrorists", our government was useing technology to "driftnet" information. They were (probably still are) essentialy monitoring all communications and filtering them through computers that would search for certain flagged words used in certain configureations, that would indicate whether or not you needed to be more closely observerd. This is Orwellian in it's scope; harkening back to Huxley's "brave new world", yet we let it go on under the pretense that, since we don't have anything to hide, it is somehow protecting us from "terrorists" to take away our right to privacy. The afore mentioned bills also included provisions so that "suspected terrorists" could be arrested without charge, held in secret, had their property confiscated, and be held without trial indefinitely. These flagged words are probably things like "jihad" or "AlQueaida" or "hijacking"; but could also be extended to unpopular political speach,socialist leanings, etc.. I am not a religious person at all, but if I were, this would have far more weight than fingerprinting.

I don't think there's some sort of conspiracy going on at the present; a lot the infrastructure for that kind of control is coming to place though, and that's not a good thing.

Also, anyone convicted of a crime in a federal court is not only fingerprinted, but must submit to haveing a blood sample taken and put into a national DNA registry. Some states also require this and some say that all children born in hospitals are put into the national registry as well, though that isn't confirmed. The bottom line here is that things done in the name of security are often cleverly disguised erosions on your right to privacy, but then the "right to privacy" is almost an outdated concept in the information age. Should she be forced to give up finger prints to have this job? Maybe it is to ensure the security of innocent children, maybe it is an invasion of the teachers privacy, dosn't realy matter when none of us has any real privacy anyway.

That's kind of a non-sequitur. There might be a lot of information available about her, but fingerprints are presumably not among them. There's no sense in saying "things are bad, so there's no point in trying to prevent things from getting worse".

I would be more concerned that she is an educator with what I would consider a fundamentalist religious leaning, which should be out-moded in the 21st century. In other words, I don't want someone teaching my kid from a carriculum that includes the book of revelations.

They should also stop Muslims from becoming bus drivers, because instead of going to their destination they'll always head towards Mecca.

gil gerard wrote:I would be more concerned that she is an educator with what I would consider a fundamentalist religious leaning, which should be out-moded in the 21st century. In other words, I don't want someone teaching my kid from a carriculum that includes the book of revelations.

So lets fire all the educators that have "fundamentalist religious leanings". Wwe could prolly eliminate 25% of all teachers in public schools that way.

GG

It's the curriculum that matters most. Honest and good teachers will teach the curriculum.

I don't think there's a conspiracy to enslave the human race through information technology however there can't be any fundamental privacy if it is a criminal offence not to give up your passwords on demand.

The thing is, any group of friends wanting to plan a big party will just use code words for beer, venue, snack foods and so on, so it's impossible to catch criminals by text trawling alone.

For a fundamentalist evangelical, she has quite a far-fetched interpretation of the quoted gospel. I thought such people took The Book literally. And if we get into interpretating words, she basically claims her own fingerprints are the Name/number of The Beast! She leaves her mark, not vice versa.

Maybe that's why Catholics and Muslims were not allowed to read the Books untill the late 1900's, most people just lack the brain capacity to make a reasonable interpretation of the texts (if they do not take it literal, that is).

It's probably more a result of some secondary book she has read, or some thing she saw on TV, that has influenced her.

GG

generalgrog wrote:It's probably more a result of some secondary book she has read, or some thing she saw on TV, that has influenced her.

GG

Probably, yes. I know there's a lot of that in the US, and by what I know of the culture, they appear rather gullible to ludicrous claims of self-proclaimed "theologists". You could state to her (and the others who agree with her) that it's just what the writer/filmmaker thinks, it's not Gospel, so not quite as much "Truth" as the original work. But then, it's mostly semantics. If she really thinks fingerprinting is getting the mark of the antichrist/satan, and holds on to that opinion at all cost, it's only right that she faces the concequences. Let her be that minor "martyr" if she wants to. Jezus would be dissapointed, "give onto Ceasar what is Caesar's"?

Maybe she should have a chat with my old Theology teacher from college. He could turn around Jehova's with some well-chosen quotes from the new testament.