how else would you interpret admitting you don't think parents should have a right to know the backgrounds of the people with access to their children before making informed decisions on whether or not to allow it?

please, show me your good faith interpretation and i will take back my comment

Nobody gets to have unbounded information about others. It's weird that you think there should be no privacy constraints.

what if these “others” voluntarily apply to a position where they have regular contact and help take care of your children? is it ok then to be informed on whether or not they are a convicted child rapist?

Why are you saying unbounded when the discussion is about court proceedings and convictions? There is a clear and consistent boundary here, no one is asking for search logs and round the clock surveillance.