Crap employers banned from enforcing backdoor crim records checks Employers who force potential workers to request a criminal record check on themselves face prosecution after a change in UK law that comes into effect on Tuesday, 10 March. New regulations – to be enforced by data privacy watchdogs at the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) – will outlaw so-called "back door" criminal …
I don't know about the illegality of asking, but surely you can say "what account", or "no"?
Yes, I know that perhaps you need the job etc.. but the principle of not giving just because some tw*t in a tie asks you , is a generally good thing.
Or possibly another reason not to use your real name on social media no matter what the advertising drones want.
It has a nasty habit of being associated with the real world, we have to live in...
P.
Which is fine until the government turns around and says "Oh, you were unemployed and turned down a perfectly good job offer? Your benefits will be sanctioned (ie. forfeited) for the next 3 months!".
Nowadays people don't always have free choice in accepting or rejecting jobs.
The way the wankers at DWP work, refusing an illegal request will also be counted as rejecting the job offer - and you can bet your bottom dollar that when it comes to your word against an employer, unless there's a written record or recording of the demand, it never happened.
I've never been asked this, but then I haven't been in the job market for a long time. But if I were, and I was asked to provide access to my private accounts at an interview, my response would be something along the lines of:
"Obviously I cannot give out that information. And in all honesty, what does it say of your company's attitude to IT security that you would even ask for such information and expect an answer? If I tell you, how could you trust that I wouldn't give out my login details to your company's systems in future if someone required it for whatever reason?"
.. are going to rat out their new employer? You usually get these done on the commencement of a new position. If a company (which has just offered you a job) asks you to do an SA request as opposed to doing a full CRB check themselves (which costs 5 times as much and takes longer), it puts you in a very difficult position.
Which is why it soon will be a criminal offence to put you in that difficult position. It may not deter all, but some, perhaps most, is better than none.
The other thing that those who force people to do SARs perhaps have not thought of is the potential for MITM attack on the material?
This post has been deleted by its author
This "enforced subject access" bypasses the legal criminal record check process, overriding safeguards that only allow for checks and disclosure of information appropriate to the role being applied for
In my spare time I do some voluntary work. The overseeing body for this voluntary work insists that you have to have a CRB/DBS disclosure, despite the law clearly showing that this body has no legal right/justification for their demand. We raised this with the CRB/DBS service and they said "Meh". No-one was interested in stopping this blatant abuse of the CRB/DBS system and the CRB/DBS continued to dish out the disclosures.
don't die even when they are expired by time.
There are two types of CR printouts, my friend told me, for immigration. One is good for some countries like the USA, Canada, etc. and the other is a regular one you obtain for personal use.
The former has codes that covertly indicate a criminal record and the 'personal' that shows everything in plain language.
If you are granted a 'clean sheet' in Canada, you get just that - no record, although a minister can order a recidivist record to be returned for serious offenses.
The USA doesn't do 'clean sheet's unless a politician gets involved. But they also have a crafty question - "Have you ever been arrested"? Lying, BTW, lying is a Federal offence. Remember the 5th Amendment, shuts Cops up.
I manage (as a volunteer) a community hall, and we ask/require the people who run childrens clubs in the hall to get CRB checks, which they essentially have to pay for themselves. We don't let people who don't have a CRB check run a club in our hall. Is it now illegal for us to make this a condition?
"I manage (as a volunteer) a community hall, and we ask/require the people who run childrens clubs in the hall to get CRB checks ..."
I'm not sure that you, as the manager of a facility, have any right to require that people merely renting the use of it have CRB checks.
its not a CRB any more the rules changed its a DBS check. I am a volunteer for a group and another organisation ask for us to all be DBS checked. but as we dont fall under the criteria for a check we cant get one.
I dont regularly work with children so no requirment for DBS. Even though now and then I may come in contact with a child. That being said the child would either be with a parent or responsible adult
I wonder why DBS Scotland does a roaring business with English companies?
Especially as disclosures via DBS Scotland are supposed to be proportional to country: IE, if the person is resident in England the disclosure is supposed to be under DBS Eng rules. But large s/mart chains get total disclosure from DBS Scot for even trolley stacking jobs.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
