[Artemisia] Re: Artemisia Digest, Vol 43, Issue 16

[Sue Clemenger]

Hear, hear...
I wish I could have put it so well!
--Maire

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeanine" <jeaninegrace at cableone.net>
To: <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 10:52 PM
Subject: [Artemisia] Re: Artemisia Digest, Vol 43, Issue 16


> I have to agree with Their Excellencies - Once again, while the intent is
laudable, the potential for abuse or even just the unforeseen consequences
of such a policy are rather frightening to consider.
>
>
>
> Ja'mala
>
>
> "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"
>
> CvZ wrote:
> I guess I just feel like this could unfairly label someone as something
they
> aren't based on the simple 'pass/fail' system.  And, not knowing the
> criteria, we won't know why someone failed.
>
> And Lady Ellisif Sleggja wrote:
> I share the concerns that this information has the potential to be used in
> ways that violate the rights of those involved, so I would also like to
know
> what convictions would constitute a "fail" rating.  Beyond that, the
> Seneschals and Youth Officers involved should be trusted to keep any
> information they get regarding any specific background check with the
> strictest confidence, with the exception of notifying their respective
> Kingdom officers of any 'fail' conditions.
> ......................................
>
> I totally agree with Conrad.  I have seen 'witchhunts' based on incorrect
> information occur in the SCA before.  And as far as the information being
> kept confidential, with no offence intended to anyone, I've been in the
SCA
> long enough to see *way* too much information 'leaked', to have any faith
in
> our ability to keep anything completely confidential.  (and it's not like
> those with access to such info don't change on a fairly frequent basis...)
>
> Having never been charged with or convicted of anything beyond a traffic
> violation, I have nothing to hide, but I have a negative gut level
reaction
> to the whole idea of background checks.  (perhaps a few 'libertarian'
> tendencies sneaking out?)   ;-)
>
> Gefjon