Originally Posted by clairegoad
Okay, let's be practical... IF someone is in your home---and you are asleep....
Do you trust that they will not take a check from the back of your checkbook... or medication from your pill bottles... or help themselves to your jewelry or electronics? Maybe inventory your mutual fund portfolio?
Perhaps they could help themselves to your passwords and bank information online, by accessing your computer.
They would have access to your tax returns and....
If someone is alone in my house, I need to know that they are trustworthy.
and yes, it takes some time to get close to me... I've been burned. So I'm very careful. (and that was a remodeler, not a lover...who kicked in my door and stole everything he could.)
Until it reached the end, I thought you were arguing that doing a background check on someone behind their back was the same as all your examples (as in, just because it's there doesn't mean you should take it), but then I realised the were reasons why you think background checks should
Of course I also read your examples wrong for some reason, thinking the person was checking previous checks to see who you made them too, checking your medication to see what kind you took, checking your jewelry, getting your passwords to read your email, etc, in other words things that are comparable to a background check in that they're about gathering information about someone behind their back when they assume you're not doing that even though you have the means.
Actual thefts on the other hand are not in the same area as all, although quite honestly I think I'd forgive someone more easily for stealing something from me than gathering data behind my back, provided they didn't steal much and have a reason.