Background checks
 

There was a thread or a question in a thread about background checks and identity theft. Seems to me this could be much worse if it happens to you.

Yahoo News Story

Yeah, I'm not surprised. I have a cousin with the same first and last name, and I know he has a DUI in Wisconsin. I'd hate to have that count against me. Another person with my name happens to be an accomplished writer, having written a number of naval history books. Maybe that might work to my benefit?

Unfortunately, a couple of times, someone with a similarly-shaped middle initial got a few things on my credit report. And for some reason, my student loan agency decided to send things to HIS address and not mine for no apparent reason. Probably had my SSN on it, too. :eek:

The whole damn system is flawed. Terribly flawed. I normally wouldn't be a proponent of National IDs, but at this rate, something's gotta give.

And what makes you think those would not be vulnerable? What has caused this mess is the bleeding hearts and attorneys who have convinced cowardly judges who have turned what used to be a pretty decent country into a socialistic quagmire.

Of course, the moronic electorate is so gullible, I don't believe it will get better in my lifetime.

And AFA background checks are concerned, they are a feel-good joke that is an embarassment to any intelligent human being.

Well, one would hope that it would eliminate the confusion over whether which John William Smith. Speaking as someone who designs databases, giving someone a unique identifier is the only possible way to prevent confusion.

This all, of course, hinges upon the proper use of said identifier. If some systems circumvent it, then we're right back to square one.

Agreed. Background checks prevent nothing.

They don't prevent those with a shady past who have taken efforts to disguise that past from getting themselves into situations that they should be allowed in. They do, however, prevent those who are making NO effort to disguise their past (and thus probably don't pose any threat) from getting into those same situations. Ironic, really.

IOW, they only catch those who have already been caught and don't make any effort to hide it.

Speaking of ASA and the thread topic:

Is this a requirement for umpires in J.O. Championship play? I don't see it in the Code referencing umpires, only for dugout personnel. My Association makes this mandatory (actually the city does as well) however, others are not.

TIA

NO

An undesirable step. Sooner or later, someone will prove a City or State or other Government doing that is unconstitutional.

Our local association just started requiring it at the beginning of 2011, but only for those umpires who were going to call any kids' games. Umpires who would only call adults' games would not be subjected to a background check. I don't recall if this was specific to just our local association, or for NC ASA as a whole.

Fortunately, I'd had it in the back of my mind that I might want to make the switch from SP to FP, or at least make myself available to be a backup in case of emergency. So when the sheet came around to write our contact info down to get the background check information, I put my name down anyway.

BTW,
Texas UIL also requires a BC for HS games. I really don't see the problem with this, especially (for ASA) if there is the requirement for coaches to have them. (why would/should umpires receive a 'free pass'?)

and yes, I understand that this is no where close to fool proof. (the 'unconstitutional' dealio is something I am not aware of, would need more info)

Big difference in constant close contact of a coach, from 90 minutes as an umpire on the same field with minimal contact, none physical.

When I was AD for a Parish and the Diocese started that for coaches, I refused. I personally knew the coaches and vouched for them, being strong Christians with a youth influencing maner was a requirement.

Problem 1 is privacy, more personal information and more copies of identifying data in the hands of more people; making it more available to identity thieves.
Problem 2 is that it is not fool proof, can provide false confidence.
Problem 3 is misinterpretation and gossip, which can harm a person's position, reputation and acceptance; often unknown to the person.
Problem 4 is that it is an "unreasonable search"; investigating someone who is not suspected, much less indicted, of anything.
Problem 5 is that it is penalizing/punishing people for other people's crimes/sins; totally anathema in a just, free society.

:( :( :(

Catholic Diocese by any chance? irony alert :D

Oh no, now you did it!

Free pass? From what? Are you just assuming that anyone that has anything to do with youth sports has to prove innocence first?

[rant]

The umpire is the last, ABSOLUTE LAST person in question at a softball game. And the last person that should/would ever be alone with a player. So you ask who would be more likely to be alone or trusted by a child around softball?

Let's start with the parents. They are not subject to even the possibility of a BI. Then there are the park owners, ground crews, concession stand workers and the local curmudgeons that hang around the fields. And how about the teenage boys sniffing around the dugouts. Who are checking into all these peoples?

Go ahead, try going to a league, tournament or program meeting and suggest that. When you see them coming with a rail, run because it is for you. Yet, when it comes to whom a player would probably trust for a ride or escort home, all these folks would come before an umpire.

And what happens when BI are performed and someone still get "accused" (and that is all it takes to ruin one's life and family)? Same thing that happened when, in the opinion of those who think they are the keepers of EVERYONE'S moral high ground, .10 did not bring the number of arrests up to the anticipated level? The change the rules and bounced it to .08.

Well, ASA has already made that declaration. They have already stated they will now employ additional methods to dig deeper into everyone's past. And what happens when someone else who passed the more stringent BI is accused, dig even deeper? How long will it be before the point that you were caught with a beer at a HS football game when you were 18 and now you cannot come anywhere near the good children.

This sounds absolutely absurd and a few years ago, I would agree. But in today's world in this country, I no longer think it is as far-fetched as it sounds. IOW, I no longer trust people to do the just thing.

There's a constitution? Maybe you should point that out to everyone in political office and on the bench.

When it comes down to it, IMO, it is the parents' responsibility to vet anyone with whom they choose to trust their child's well being, not some softball association. If a parent is comfortable with their child being coached by a certain individual, I don't believe anyone else should have the right to judge otherwise.

BTW, this isn't about "fear" of something being found. I'm in a high-value business and had a top secret clearance in the service and have had the FBI, NIS, DIS, DOD and numerous police agencies digging through my life at one time or another. I've taken more polygraphs than there are oversize belt buckles on a Friday night at Chisolm's.

[/rant]

Now, even hospitals are jumping on the BI bandwagon.

Children's Hospital Screens Guests For Sex Crimes | Fox News