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

Standard American response. The "I'd rather feel good" about something then actually doing something good Chicken Little attitude.

Background checks work differently depending on where you are. In New York, most officials have to be fingerprinted in order to work public high school games. In order to get fingerprinted, officials have to go to police stations or Dept of Ed offices that have "live scan" fingerprinting. Because it's based on fingerprints (not merely a name or date of birth), there is virtual no possibility of mistake. The Dept of Ed then gets a fingerprint response for the individual. Should the official be arrested, a response is automatically generated. Should the official choose to stop officiating, he/she can apply to have the fingerprints destroyed. Contrary to what many have argued, merely having a prior conviction doesn't bar officials from certification. The Dept of Ed takes into account the nature of the crime and when occurred. Aside from having to pay around $100 for this, there really haven't been any problems.

I wish we had an icon for COLOR ME SKEPTICAL. I would make it bold for all 4 comments.

It's been said before, but....
They are a waste of time. There's a local school district who's assistant AD was just arrested for inappropriate stuff. He was fully checked on his background check, passed all of the state's requirements for school employees, ... all of this while in a relationship with a student athlete.

You have conveniently missed the point.

If one's fingerprints are not in the system, then they are useless. Again, unless someone has previously been caught or volunteered information, they will not be prevented from any type of licensing, certification or anything else.

IOW, as has been so apparent in recent discoveries that a BI prevents absolutely nothing and is a waste of time and money.

OTH, not checking at all has the potential to stop no one, right? By conducting these 'worthless' checks, does it also detour some who have no business being there in the first place? I am not sure that is a bad thing.

So because not everyone who behaves inappropriately has a criminal conviction, background checks are entirely worthless? Yeah, that makes sense. I guess we should stop fingerprinting teachers, police officers, day care providers, prosecutors, child protective services employees, etc. If fingerprinting deters some from ever applying or results in someone being rejected, then it does work and it works 100% as it pertains to that person. No one said it was perfect, but it's better than nothing.

You clearly speak while having no experience with this. I know officials who have convictions, but based on the age or type of conviction, can still officiate. Fingerprints are regularly destroyed in NYS, such as when someone who was arrested gets acquitted. For officials (or teachers or anyone else fingerprinted for work), you simply fill out a form. The state is legally required to return your prints. No two people have the same fingerprints (unlike DNA with identical twins). With the 10,000 or so fingerprint responses I've dealt with, I've never had the wrong person.

How can the state "return" your prints if they're digitized? :confused::confused::confused:

In NC, they no longer "ink" your fingertips. It's all digitally scanned on-site.

"Return" is the old term that is still used. Even when they used ink to print you (many still do this), the prints were then scanned into a computer data system. So even then, they had to be removed from the database. In New York, the prints are removed from the system and you are given a certified confirmation of such.

Even if they say they've destroyed it, I have zero confidence that they absolutely do destroy it. There have been plenty of cases in which government agencies claim that they properly handled this or that, only to find out later that they were so backed up, they skipped a few dozen here or there.

Hell, we've even had mail carriers say, "I'm done with my route today," only to find out months later that they were keeping the mail at their own house.

Bottom line: I don't trust people I don't know, and I sure as hell do not trust bureaucracies to do what they say they'll do.

You know, they have this cute little function in the lower right-hand corner of a post that actually provides you the ability to cite the post to which you are referring.

Again, you can have all the fingerprints you want, it doesn't mean a thing and, yes, they are useless in prevention unless, as has been previously stated numerous times, the person had already been caught.

And, yes, I've been fingerprinted for many different reasons, from my security clearance to weapons permit, and it still doesn't make any difference, all they are good for is identifying me AFTER the fact.

To echo what Mike said, how are background checks preventing anything? Can they tell if someone may offend in the future? Schools have been doing background checks for ages, yet you still hear of the occaissional incident where teacher and student are involved in inappropriate relationships. Did the background checks prevent that???

All background checks do is mine data on innocent persons. They invade those peoples' rights, IMO, just so that a few misguided persons can feel good that "at least we are doing something to make our children safe." Quit looking to other groups to protect your children, and do it yourself.

The FBI and NICS checks being the perfect example. Those weren't even inadvertently retained either, they were intentionally retained.

Well, I kind of anticipated they'd retain mine, but that was a trade-off that I was willing to make to get my CCH.

"wouldn’t it be nice " if we all obeyed every law? Wouldn't it be nice if we all did what was right - all the time.
The fact is - we don't - so there are laws and consequences. When I am caught speeding, I get a ticket. I any of us are caught stealing, assaulting, killing, ... - we pay a price. No warnings, just pay the price. Laws do not prevent people from breaking them. Knowing the consequences of being caught may keep some of us from breaking them.

Mike and others are right - these checks are a waste of moneys that should be better spent elsewhere. They are a waste of the time involved. They are an unneeded invasion of non-criminal lives. AND they are proven not to work.

Ask yourself what would you do if your child was harmed by someone that did pass a BI? What would be your next step to protect the child?

Effectiveness is about the same as a security blanket that makes you feel comfortable in believing a "no fly" zone or the so-called additional security at airports actually protects people or that gun control prevents crime.

The company I work for runs prints, polygraphs, credit checks and BIs every propect and we still have issues with security among our employees on a regular basis.

If they are worth anything it is merely a deterent, but still the only people that get flagged are the ones who have already been caught.

and doing nothing will not 'deter' anyone who has previous issues.

Spent many a meetings with my city's park board concerning this very issue, and the consensus is pretty much what you say when it comes to 'preventing those who have not been caught'. Legally, there is little an organization can do to stop that for obvious reasons. However, the City's stance is that want to do everything in their power to prevent those who have been caught before (and yes, they understand that is not 100% effective)

Doing nothing, prevents nothing is their mantra. They are very careful to spell this out while also spelling out the flaws aswell to the parents and this is a continual educational process. These checks not only include coaches, but umpires, adult concession workers and board members. My only 'stipulation' that I had to fight for was the source of the check, and convinced them that ASA's ACE program would be the most secure and private. (at first they were willing to let some 'local yokel' perform the checks. and we all know the problems that could occur with that)

I simply have no problem with this. (and I give up much more 'privacy info', submitting a resume and applying online for a jobs these days ;)

Well, not even to that good of an extent as we are lucky to get 2 of 10 to pass. If we get 4 of 10, we think we hit the lottery. That means that nearly 80% of those caught still believe they can get by it.

And I will still stand on the point that if an umpire is alone with a child, something is wrong and no check of any type is going to prevent that.

BTW, I believe it should be pointed out that the entire episode which led to this heightened awareness this year had absolutely nothing to do with softball or players, ASA, HS or otherwise.

Then again, if we did BIs on everyone who is permitted a level of responsibility, there would be a very large, empty buildings between the D Streets in the center of DC

Mike,
Honest question here: You say your company runs a much stronger 'check(s)' yet you still have issues. If that is the case, why run those checks in the first place?

Because of the nature of the business; To satisfy the insurance companies, customers/banks and firearms laws and regulations.

And it still doesn't keep the bad guys out.

Background checks can never work. For all of the reasons already postulated. They cannot predict the future, or future behavior. The next step that people who support this type of thinking will want is for all potential umpires to undergo psychological evaluation before being allowed to take the field.

Oh, crap, I should have kept my mouth shut! :rolleyes:

Well, to be honest, there are a few umpires I know who could probably benefit from this. Some fellas have got some serious issues! :eek:

Here is the central issue.
A clean background check will never prevent someone from breaking the law.
BUT: If someone breaks the law and a background check wasn't done previously, there is hell to pay.

Yep, pretty much.

Let's move on, shall we?

You got it rite.