PRIME-BC has your number, and it may cost you a job
Monday, March 28, 2011 by David Eby
The media around the Association's revelation that as many as 85% of B.C.'s adult population may be in the PRIME-BC database, the same database used for "Part 4" of the criminal record check, led to a number of people contacting me to say they'd lost jobs and other opportunities as a result of this unaccountable system. See the great story in the National Post on the issue.
Among other weirdness on this story, the Solicitor General's office denied that Part 4 of the database existed at the last minute before the NP story was going to press, and suggested that somehow a prospective employee could refuse to provide a criminal record check to a prospective employer. I had to scramble to get the forms to the reporter to prove that, yes, it does exist. Below, from my 24 Hours column.
------------------
Cross your fingers that you’ll never need a criminal record check. If you’ve ever reported a crime to 911, been a witness to a crime, been stopped by police, or been named by someone who gave information to police, you’re in the PRIME-BC police database, along with 8 out of every 10 B.C. residents over the age of 15. What the police officer who put you in this database wrote about you can make a difference between your getting a job, getting into school, volunteering, or not.
Sold to the province as a tool to track career criminals, serial killers and sex offenders, PRIME-BC now has more than 4.4 million “master name records,” far in excess of the estimated 3.8 million British Columbians over the age of 15. In fact, PrimeCorp, the crown corporation that administers the database, acknowledges in their last annual report that the number of known criminal offenders represents just 5% names in the database. 95% of the people in this police database have never committed a crime.
This massive database mission creep, combined with ever-increasingly subjective “criminal record” checks, gives a single police officer the power to shut down countless opportunities for you. Forget about actually being convicted of a crime, an individual officer’s disparaging comments about you can result in your criminal record check advising a potential employer you have had “negative police contact.” Try explaining that one to your new boss.
The BC Civil Liberties Association, where I work, has taken complaints from people who have had “negative police contact” notations for: arguing with a paramedic, renting a room in a shared home where a roommate is arrested, being caught drinking as an 18 year old in a park, and being named in a 911 complaint about “harassing phone calls” that is never even investigated.
In all of these cases, the individuals involved had no idea that they had negative police contact until an employer or school asked them to complete a criminal record check, and their bad news box came back checked.
There is no way to get incorrect information corrected, short of finding a friendly supervising police officer, or suing police directly. Complaints to the Information and Privacy Commissioner are limited by special rules for law enforcement information gathering. Police can even refuse to tell you why you have “negative police contact,” simply by saying that providing the information could compromise an investigation.
With 4.4 million records, false allegations, incorrect information, and minor issues blown up into “negative contact” surely exist throughout PRIME-BC. You won’t even know there’s an issue until you have to explain to a new employer about why you are “known to police.” Often the time lag in proving these issues are minor, or are not even issues at all, or even understanding what the issue is, costs people opportunities.
BC’s Solicitor General has been asked to investigate this issue by the BCCLA. She could start by seeing what the police are saying about her.
Among other weirdness on this story, the Solicitor General's office denied that Part 4 of the database existed at the last minute before the NP story was going to press, and suggested that somehow a prospective employee could refuse to provide a criminal record check to a prospective employer. I had to scramble to get the forms to the reporter to prove that, yes, it does exist. Below, from my 24 Hours column.
------------------
Cross your fingers that you’ll never need a criminal record check. If you’ve ever reported a crime to 911, been a witness to a crime, been stopped by police, or been named by someone who gave information to police, you’re in the PRIME-BC police database, along with 8 out of every 10 B.C. residents over the age of 15. What the police officer who put you in this database wrote about you can make a difference between your getting a job, getting into school, volunteering, or not.
Sold to the province as a tool to track career criminals, serial killers and sex offenders, PRIME-BC now has more than 4.4 million “master name records,” far in excess of the estimated 3.8 million British Columbians over the age of 15. In fact, PrimeCorp, the crown corporation that administers the database, acknowledges in their last annual report that the number of known criminal offenders represents just 5% names in the database. 95% of the people in this police database have never committed a crime.
This massive database mission creep, combined with ever-increasingly subjective “criminal record” checks, gives a single police officer the power to shut down countless opportunities for you. Forget about actually being convicted of a crime, an individual officer’s disparaging comments about you can result in your criminal record check advising a potential employer you have had “negative police contact.” Try explaining that one to your new boss.
The BC Civil Liberties Association, where I work, has taken complaints from people who have had “negative police contact” notations for: arguing with a paramedic, renting a room in a shared home where a roommate is arrested, being caught drinking as an 18 year old in a park, and being named in a 911 complaint about “harassing phone calls” that is never even investigated.
In all of these cases, the individuals involved had no idea that they had negative police contact until an employer or school asked them to complete a criminal record check, and their bad news box came back checked.
There is no way to get incorrect information corrected, short of finding a friendly supervising police officer, or suing police directly. Complaints to the Information and Privacy Commissioner are limited by special rules for law enforcement information gathering. Police can even refuse to tell you why you have “negative police contact,” simply by saying that providing the information could compromise an investigation.
With 4.4 million records, false allegations, incorrect information, and minor issues blown up into “negative contact” surely exist throughout PRIME-BC. You won’t even know there’s an issue until you have to explain to a new employer about why you are “known to police.” Often the time lag in proving these issues are minor, or are not even issues at all, or even understanding what the issue is, costs people opportunities.
BC’s Solicitor General has been asked to investigate this issue by the BCCLA. She could start by seeing what the police are saying about her.
RSS
Email
Twitter
As a former volunteer manager part of my job was to screen potential volunteers using criminal record checks (CRC). We never received anything from the police to help us decipher what to think when the 'information is known to police' result box was ticked and so our agency was left to it's own devices to try to figure it out. When one of these checks would land on my desk I would begin by getting on the phone to the police (meaning first try to track down the right person to speak to, then leave messages, then play phone tag) and then try to figure out the right closed-ended questions to ask (they would only give yes or no answers). In one case the person I was on the phone with tried to help me out by saying, "Maybe you'd like to ask me if there's any other info I have on this person that you haven't asked me about." So I asked, "Do you have any other information on this person that I haven't yet asked about?" to which she replies "Yes." to which I naturally ask "Ok, so what is it?" to which she says she couldn't tell me - I'd have to go back to the applicant to find out what it is and then phone her back (and play more phone tag) and then play more 20 questions (Is it an animal? A mineral? A potential serial killer? It turned out to be a noise complaint). In another example the volunteer applicant was "known to police" because he phoned an ambulance (which also brought the police) to get help for his roommate who had attempted suicide (and subsequently died). The applicant was in no way implicated in the death and was therefore shocked to learn (from me!) this produced a CRC result. In another case it hadn't occurred to the applicant to tell me that years ago she was a witness to a bank robbery as she had no idea it would come up as a CRC result, "Aren't these just for the people who actually robbed the bank?" she asks me. As a busy volunteer manager responsible for screening dozens of volunteers working with vulnerable clients we are trained to decline an applicant who raises 'red flags' for us. Hearing something like "I didn't know the police had information on me!" from a potential volunteer would only raise suspicion, not build trust. And the ridiculously time consuming and convoluted process required of me to clarify each individual case could easily spook and frustrate even the most seasoned volunteer manager into indiscriminately passing over a perfectly appropriate applicant. If I were screening paid staff I don't see why the feeling wouldn't be the same.
Also, the whole experience made me personally stop and think twice about calling the police and reporting (in my case) a car I saw being broken into because I wondered will my next volunteer agency or employer pass me over because they don't want to take the time/or simply don't know how to clarify why the police have "information" on me?? Do I now have to 'declare' to potential employers every time I've ever had contact with the police out of fear they may inadvertently discriminate against me? And how will that make me appear to them?
This entire experience was shocking and very disturbing to me. I believe the system is gravely flawed and ripe for abuse.
Thanks for the amazing comment tangent...
This an interesting dichotomy for you Mr. Eby. As always you wish to undermine confidence in police. You seek to ensure the privacy rights of citizens are maintained (exactly what the police are doing by not simply sharing all details they know about someone with prospective employers). However, i'm sure under the correct set of circumstances you would find fault with the police for not finding out who made the call about the robbery, assault, murder, arson etc....
Lets be clear here. The police are tasked with investigating reports made to them. They are also bound by FOI laws. They are not the ones making the policies for criminal record checks for volunteer organizations. I would expect that you would be elated that they don't recklessly share information on people. Would you prefer that they do not document anything that they do?
Either way, they simply can't win in your books. I feel sorry for them and you. You need to move on to a different topic. I can't understand why anyone would want to be a police officer when there are people like you that insight public outrage based on half truths and massaged facts. Sure there are police officers that make terrible choices. But, to generalize the way you so often do and indict those police officers that make positive difference in our communities makes me sick. Have you ever considered they may actually be doing a great job?
Not voting for Eby