Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : PanAmerican BanCorp (PABN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Coop who wrote (37380)	6/2/1999 4:14:00 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 43774

Well son, you are arguing the wrong point here. The distinct in the connotations of the two words is not worth a doodle. The point once again is that they are not even doing a background check on an application that has not yet been made. Even you have said that background checks occur late in the process. Before they file is hardly late in the process. How do you explain that?

To: Coop who wrote (37380)	6/2/1999 4:53:00 PM
From: Russ Howard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43774

Hafta step in a moment here... An investigation is not the same as a background check. Understand yet??? I'm afraid you are mistaken in that, Mr. Coop. Your profile identifies you as being in the software industry. I do not know if you have a history of law enforcement behind you. Having said that, let me explain the semantics of the issue here.. "Background investigators" is the correct term for a person, such as myself, that has been trained in the process. A "background check" is simply a euphemism for the same thing (guess it makes it sound less ominous). The investigative techniques are virtually identical...both are looking for "evidence" of wrongdoing. An important distinction, however, is that a great deal of what is done in investigations is limited by the Constitution and our rights to privacy. In criminal cases, "probable cause" must be established, and, lacking any exigent circumstances, a search warrant is usually required to dig into certain areas. In backgrounds, there must be an established relationship between the object of the investigation and the agency performing it, in order to obtain the same level of "probable cause" that justifies going past the Constitutionally provided rights of privacy. Most often, this takes the form of a "conditional" job offer from a law enforcement or government agency. In the PABN case, this would take the form of the thrift filing (PABN et al saying, "here we are...we want this, so dig away...). The question jhild raised is legitimate. If there is no filing, then, short of other questionable circumstances, why would there be an investigation (or call it a "check", if that makes you more comfortable..). Good question. Backgrounds are not entered into arbitrarily. We can't have law enforcement agencies just "look into" us for the hell of it. Unless we live in Iraq, perhaps....