Volunter Verification

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

The cost is a non-issue for me. It is FIRST's failure to explain how they use it or apparently relate important details to volunteers. In fact I accepted the whole cost for the check and fast pass because it was that unimportant to me. That cost may be a factor for someone, but not me. So a valid but somewhat not relevant to the OP point.

I let FIRST pay because I figure if I'm going to do at least 3 regionals and 2 championship events they can cover the $8 to find out that my criminal record is spotless.

Sure, it concerns me that FIRST feels they need to do this, but they do, so I can go with it. I don't need the details of how there was a level 38 child sex offender (or whatever) working some event.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Sure, it concerns me that FIRST feels they need to do this, but they do, so I can go with it. I don't need the details of how there was a level 38 child sex offender (or whatever) working some event.

There are serial killers that could walk right through this control. There are also people found innocent of crimes that might fail this because of the credit report criminal background part which can be wrong.

It is hardly a situation that insures beyond all doubt the safety of anyone.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

There are serial killers that could walk right through this control. There are also people found innocent of crimes that might fail this because of the credit report criminal background part which can be wrong.

It is hardly a situation that insures beyond all doubt the safety of anyone.

Wow you really can't fault FIRST for being unable to detect serial killers... Some are totally normal, some are publicly crazy, some have delusions of grandeur, etc...

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

There are serial killers that could walk right through this control. There are also people found innocent of crimes that might fail this because of the credit report criminal background part which can be wrong.

It is hardly a situation that insures beyond all doubt the safety of anyone.

In my experience with the companies that I have hired to do background and credit checks they will only report criminal convictions. So you are correct it will not catch the serial killer or sex offender that has not been convicted of the crime, they will also not show pending or dismissed cases. VV may go further and find those pending cases but that may not be allowed by law since in the US you are considered innocent until proven guilty. So it should in theory not cause a problem for a person wrongly accused of a crime and not convicted.

So yes it does not in any way insure safety beyond all doubt, but I feel it is much better than doing nothing which is what FIRST did for many years.

[GaryVoshol]

I hate to be cynical about it, but background checks do more to protect the host organization than the participants.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I hate to be cynical about it, but background checks do more to protect the host organization than the participants.

Background checks only filters those that already been caught. But. It would stupid to have volunteers on the various offender registries because you didn't bother to look. 😃

[Jpatterson1710]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I hate to be cynical about it, but background checks do more to protect the host organization than the participants.

That may be true, but can you blame any organization for trying to protect themselves, regardless of what the organization is intended to do? All it takes is one issue to snowball into lawsuits and more. I know I surely would rather go through a background check, before i'd watch FIRST go through a potentially massive lawsuit.

[Tem1514 Mentor]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I hate to be cynical about it, but background checks do more to protect the host organization than the participants.

I feel the same way as you one this.

My guess would be that some legal eagle informed FIRST to limit their liability to have the checks performed.

Is it a good idea to protect our children, sure is but FIRST has not fully disclosed who sees what or where the information ends up to protect our rights.

Before you ask, as a Canadian I have gone through the 'vulnerable sector' screening that included having my finger prints sent to the RCMP to have my 'cleared' status confirmed.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Thank you for starting this thread and to the person who posted the link to the PDF where it says you don't have to give it. It is important to speak up about privacy and security. If nobody pushes back, anything can be done under the name of security.

I just filled out the form and chose "No SSN." I understand why they want a criminal background check. I'm not a criminal. I have no problem with that. I don't have a common name so they can easily do that without my SSN. They haven't made a case for why they need my SSN so I'm not providing it.

I have a "real" security clearance for my job. For that I had no problem with providing my social. I understand why they needed it. And why they ask a whole slew of other personal questions. But even the United States government (Office of Personal Management) had a data breach in that space.

I'm a co-volunteer coordinator for the NYC FRC regional. I plan to publicize the "No SSN" option to our volunteers.

As an aside, my state charges $65 for a criminal check on top of the $8 national one.

[Trying to Help]

I'll chime in here too on this topic. As someone who has collected an impressive number of "we're very sorry that your personal information has been exposed, here have two years of free credit monitoring" forms, I'd really rather not give out anymore information. All of the organizations that were breached promised to be diligent and current on their protections. As the original poster could tell you, every organization at a certain level is being tested constantly. As someone said, you're going to be getting the testing done, it's just whether or not Brian Krebs writes the report.

It's not that I have anything to hide. And certainly other organizations have probably have more data on me. But for me, the question is "Does the benefit to the requesting organization (or myself via that org) outweigh the risks to me?" It's something that you should ask yourself every time you're asked for that data.

Trying to Help

Originally Posted by Jeanne Boyarsky

Thank you for starting this thread and to the person who posted the link to the PDF where it says you don't have to give it. It is important to speak up about privacy and security. If nobody pushes back, anything can be done under the name of security.

I just filled out the form and chose "No SSN." I understand why they want a criminal background check. I'm not a criminal. I have no problem with that. I don't have a common name so they can easily do that without my SSN. They haven't made a case for why they need my SSN so I'm not providing it.

I have a "real" security clearance for my job. For that I had no problem with providing my social. I understand why they needed it. And why they ask a whole slew of other personal questions. But even the United States government (Office of Personal Management) had a data breach in that space.

I'm a co-volunteer coordinator for the NYC FRC regional. I plan to publicize the "No SSN" option to our volunteers.

As an aside, my state charges $65 for a criminal check on top of the $8 national one.

[Conor Ryan]

I highly recommend watching the John Oliver bit on Credit Reporting

Short story, credit reports are being used for things that aren't credit related and this is bad. FIRST (or a volunteer background checking organization) has no reason to review a document that describes my propensity to pay under the guise of a background check. We have a fundamentally bad system here and constitutionally no protections to prohibit the practice.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Conor Ryan

I highly recommend watching the John Oliver bit on Credit Reporting

Short story, credit reports are being used for things that aren't credit related and this is bad. FIRST (or a volunteer background checking organization) has no reason to review a document that describes my propensity to pay under the guise of a background check. We have a fundamentally bad system here and constitutionally no protections to prohibit the practice.

But FIRST, nor their background check company is not reviewing your credit report because they aren't pulling one. The reason that they want your SSN is to try and make sure you aren't confused with another Conor Ryan, or maybe Connor Ryan. Sure that other Conor Ryan's arrest may have been several states away but they have no way of knowing it wasn't you when you happened to be visiting there.

Note I'm not saying that you should give your SSN just that there is a good reason they would want it to confirm whether the data is actually about the person who they are checking and not someone with the same or similar name.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Note I'm not saying that you should give your SSN just that there is a good reason they would want it to confirm whether the data is actually about the person who they are checking and not someone with the same or similar name.

Acknowledging this potential issue: when the background check company contacts you back with the background results they could always request the SSN as additional information in the event the findings are negative. That company could also make clear what information they return to their customers with an example (with fake information of course).

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

Acknowledging this potential issue: when the background check company contacts you back with the background results they could always request the SSN as additional information in the event the findings are negative. That company could also make clear what information they return to their customers with an example (with fake information of course).

And the reality is that the last 4 digits would probably be more than enough to verify whether or not it is the same person. It seems highly unlikely that two people would share the same name and last 4 digits of their SSN.

[MooreteP]

I don't like this either.

However, my love for FIRST trumps my misgivings.

Lawyers.

Go figure.