I would be diligent in looking up facts of the case, but not everyone is so tech savvy or willing to do the extra footwork. We're actually going through this now. A relative has been charged with a hazing crime. Even though he claims innocence, he was with a group of kids that did some not so innocent things. They are offering him probation, but his name has already been trampled through the mud and he not been able to obtain employment. After legal fees, I'm not sure how much he could really afford to pay each of these sites to remove the images.

If you deny employment because of finding a mug shot online, you would be exposing your company to an unaceptable (IMO) level of risk. There are pretty clear EEOC guidelines around using arrest vs. conviction in employment decisions; I think it would be a lazy employer who chose to make a decision based on the mug shot.

I think it would be more harmful to people who are already employed in a job with high visibility, where their actions are closely linked to the company's reputation.

You may not have seen one of these publications. Here you go.

I'd have to start thinking about it if the arrest was for something I hadn't done myself back in the day. I'd have to think pretty hard if it was something I just wouldn't do today.

But if a convicted felon has e.g. been caught with lobster tails in the wrong packaging, I have no problem with hiring him when he gets out of the Federal pen.

Over-criminalization of everything will create a ruling class of the exempted and expunged, based on family privilege. We shouldn't go there.

My sainted Mom was subjected to an embroidered wall hanging "Thou God Seest Me" in the Corner for Reflection. Unconscionable childhood brainwashing, I suppose. On the other hand the first person to tell her "No" was not a judge.

I'm unable to believe 6 ridiculous things before breakfast, so I can't use religion myself. Lots of people need some training wheels to develop a conscience that ties their self-worth to doing the right thing. That's what Sunday school was for.

To maintain a decent society, the peepul should have religion. How elitist is that? I denounce myself, although I'm in good company.

The stories one learned in Sunday school had been tumbled in history for a few thousand years, and had by continuous transmission demonstrated some cultural survival value. Common Core cannot make that claim. The Gaianic tripe that pervades toddler tv can't make that claim. We're messing with our cultural DNA, grey goo is a likely outcome.

If religion doesn't immunize children from despair and nihilism, and parents are confused about the whole thing, and the State has its own agenda, what is to be done? Damfino. Decline I guess.

/musings

Hmmm, hiring managers (and HR folks) who take such sites into consideration when hiring or doing background checks are forgetting one simple fact of the internet - not everything online is true. (except here at Advice Goddess Blog!)

And if the company does insist on using such internet "info" in their hiring decision then they are doing me a favor by NOT hiring me.

Somewhat related, a temp agency recently insisted that I take a drug test for a 6-month assignment. This assignment would not involve me using heavy equipment or otherwise involve public safety. They claimed that they did it for everyone. I told them that I didn't feel comfortable giving up my rights to privacy in exchange for work; especially since there was no reason to suspect me of illegal drug use. (hell, I do not even drink or smoke tobacco)

Their resonse was that I must have something to hide; I responded that if they were so willing to violate my rights before hiring me how do I know that they won't violate more rights after hiring me? Yes, it was something of my loss; but it was their loss too as they don't get my fantastic work. Fuck 'em.

And now, thanks to the NYT, more than a small handful of people know about this guy's arrest.

"If you deny employment and leave a nice paper trail."

True. I'm defaulting to the thought that most companies aren't going to blatantly engage in unethical hiring practices. But we all know it happens.

Charles, the agency you ran into could very well be using pre-employment drug screens as part of their drug-free workplace program, which can help reduce workers compensation insurance premiums.

Or it could simply be an easy way to screen for potential problems down the road. Fair or not, your response likely resulted in you being labeled as difficult and the agency decided they dodged a bullet.

tasha: "Charles . . . Fair or not, your response likely resulted in you being labeled as difficult and the agency decided they dodged a bullet."

No, I know that it didn't likely label me difficult - it most certainly did. And I, perhaps full of myself, think that it was *I* who dodged the bullet, not them.

Right now, they know that since I refused to give up my rights there are a dozen people behind me in line who will do so. When the job market turns around (not until Obama is gone in my opinion) companies won't pull this kind of crap as often as they do now.

But, thanks Tasha for some insight into why they think it is necessary to do this. It is also another reason to disengage health insurance from employment.

I haven't seen Mugshots, but if it's just mugshots without any description, that's a really stupid hiring criteria.

Innocent people get arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's unfortunate, but I don't say it's wrong. The police have a job to do, and if it appears you have some culpability, you're going to get arrested. Hopefully, you can clear yourself without too much fuss.

So, just because a website named Mugshots has posted your picture, it's no reason to assume that the person has done anything wrong.

Hopefully, you can clear yourself without too much fuss. -- Patrick at October 6, 2013 4:14 PM

The problem is that these are not government sites.

Say I go to the park seven days a week to walk for exercise. I was seen in the same park when the little girl is snatched. The cops then pick me up because I barely want to give them a name, as is my right.

I've been fingerprinted, had a mugshot and interrogated. That is posted by mugshot.com as a private company. So then I have to pay them off to get it taken down?

Very true, Jim P. Which is why I say that using Mugshots as a hiring criteria is stupid. As I understand it, they only post mugshots without a word of explanation as to what the arrest was for.

And as we both pointed out, you can be arrested even if you've done nothing wrong, simply by being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

And yes, it is unreasonable, particularly for an innocent person, to have to pay to have it taken down.

But, as I understand it, even a guilty person can pay to have their picture removed, so what kind of standard is this? Not everyone they post is guilty and they don't post everyone who is guilty.

"We can't hire you because your picture is on Mugshot."

"Yeah? Well, I can't work here, then, because you're an idiot."

I don't see how this extortion plan works.

1) screen shots are forever; and

2) there's nothing to prevent an endless number of
business entities from posting the same mugshot, so unless you're prepared to spend a lifetime as an ATM, is there a point in taking down only one online image?

...kind of like Wack-A-Mole.

2) there's nothing to prevent an endless number of business entities from posting the same mugshot, so unless you're prepared to spend a lifetime as an ATM, is there a point in taking down only one online image? -- Michelle at October 6, 2013 7:02 PM

That is the argument. Look at a google of richard jewell:

The google result comes up with:

Richard A. Jewell was an American police officer who, while working as a security guard for Piedmont College, became known in connection with the Centennial Olympic Park bombing at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, United States.

What are his choices? What about a guy that was primarily a normal person that had noticed the bomb? What would be his choices? I hate the idea of regulating private companies, but maybe a libel statute that would be more enforceable.

I think it would take a series of successful class action suits to dissuade other sites from popping up.

Ultimately I think we as a culture of Internet users will need to evolve to remember that the internet is an archive, that many people do shitty things without getting caught, and that those of us who do get caught, or get caught up at the wrong place and time, can change.

Ultimately I think we as a culture of Internet users will need to evolve to remember that the internet is an archive, that many people do shitty things without getting caught, and that those of us who do get caught, or get caught up at the wrong place and time, can change. -- Michelle at October 7, 2013 7:45 AM

The issue is that the richard jewell I posted above does not acquit him.

There was a period of time that if you googled my name, I could have been had a first page appearance on google for DUI manslaughter. The guy was a distant relative that I had never met. And I have an "odd" last name.

Why am I responsible for cleaning up his history with 100 websites, especially if I'm not him? But I want a professional job? Do I give them my SSN? Do I put a line in a resume that I'm not the DUI manslaughter search? What if my name is James Smith? Or James Simpson? or some other common name?

I never had to change. I just needed it to drop off the first few pages. But I live in the next state over. So how do I defend against the "google search"? I was the webmaster for a popular website for a while. My first lunch with a co-worker and she asked me about the former website.

Pragmatically speaking, there is no defense against the google search. There is only waiting for a tide change in media literacy - the time when people know that there's more than one "you" out there, and decide it's worthwhile to connect with you to find out who "you" are.

My ethnic mix is common in my home state, and my appearance is so familiar that I am often mistaken for someone else, even by other white people and at close range. I went to college with a woman who looked so much like me that my own family member mistook a photograph of her for me. We were in the same year at a small school. People I had never met would walk right up to me and talk to me about parties I had not been to. She was rumored to be a promiscuous party animal. It got awkward.

Online life is much easier, because I share my name with a neuroscientist and the news broadcaster who make me look good.