September 2008 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:17200] Re:RE: Red Cross Update
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

Mybackgroundcheck.com is part of Pre-employ.com, a privately held company founded in 1994. See http://www.pre-employ.com/ My google-stalking has not disclosed anything related to online dating. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 7:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17196] Re: Red Cross Update At 11:55 AM 9/9/2008, Andy Oppel wrote: > >We are in agreement that the Red Cross owns at least part of the overall problem. And I guess I wasn't clear enough in my note, but since the theme of the note to which I responded was basically trust, it was the trust problem that I specifically meant. Most of us generally trust the Red Cross to handle confidential data appropriately, and yes, maybe that is unwarranted. But we have no basis whatsoever for trusting <http://mybackgroundcheck.com>mybackgroundcheck.com. And having read the accounts of identity theft from some of the other companies that provide background checks, my I trust <http://mybackgroundcheck.com>mybackgroundcheck.com about as far as I could move Mt. Shasta. > >Having said that, I am highly suspicious of the statement (related to us by the Red Cross) that it is too difficult to have two consent forms, one for Red Cross volunteers, and another for their employees (and whomever else <http://mybackgroundcheck.com>mybackgroundcheck.com serves... if anyone). From an IT perspective, only the very naive would believe that claim. However, if <http://mybackgroundcheck.com>mybackgroundcheck.com was merely a paper company setup for the sole purpose of fulfilling the Red Cross contract (I've seen a lot of these in my travels with companies that held government contracts for various web-based services), and if they aren't actually doing the checks, but brokering for another company that has all the connections to do the actual checking, **then** it makes sense that they couldn't change the agreement -- if the 3rd party has only one way to do the checks, then you can't (at least legally) have people agree to one thing and do something else. ! Having come out of nowhere, I strongly suspect that this is the real situation. I think Andy and Bill have interesting points about the company used by the Red Cross for background checks. Early on in the discussions about background checks, a year or more ago, I thought we found that this same company had several web addresses serving multiple markets. I'm pretty sure they are also in the business, using a different name, of working with people-matching companies (online dating, etc) and that on request they provided background checks on the people that were matched... I would be interesting in knowing if it is a private or public company, and what their real corporate name is - what do we know about them? -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:17199] Re: Red Cross Update
by Joel Harrison 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

Jim, I'd like to suggest you actually wait and see the draft before you decide to vote against. As I stated yesterday, you will have that opportunity. Joel On Sep 9, 2008, at 11:15 PM, "JIM WEAVER, K8JE" <K8JE(a)arrl.org> wrote: > OM's & YL's of the Board Family, > > I have no intent at this moment consider voting in favor of > accepting a > SOU between RC and ARRL without first getting RC to word the > background > check agreement properly. We voted solidly not to approve a SOU > first, > background check resolution second path. Why should we even > consider at > this time making a change. RC hasn't begun to negotiate, yet, so > far as > I can see. Frankly, (Charlotte) I could care less if we ever ratify > an > ARRL-RC SOU if it requires us to lose faith with the stand we openly > took with our members. What, as a national organization or national > activity, have we really gotten in return for the thousands of hours > amateurs have devoted to RC over the years? How often does RC even > acknowledge hams are on site providing valuable service to RC and the > public? So now, they appear to want us to come on our knees, ready to > kiss their ring so they will let us have a piece of paper? Lord > Chamberlain came back from Munich a few decades ago with a piece of > paper and you will remember what it got him and Europe and the US. > > Dick, I understand your feelings about this issue; however, I do not > agree. The reasons I do not agree have been stated quite well by > other > writers in this string of messages. I believe none of us has disputed > the appropriateness of the RC (and RACES, etc.) as we have discussed > the > background check issue. At the same time, I don't recall any of us > who > thought it appropriate for RC to demand amateurs automatically give > authorize them to run credit checks and manner of living checks simply > so we can conduct radio message traffic. I also would like to point > out > that whether we have an SOU or not has absolutely nothing to do with > an > individual amateur's freedom of choice regarding agreeing to the > current > background check statement. I simply do not want to go on record as > putting the ARRL seal of approval on this faulty statement. > > As to RC's assurance they will not actually have credit checks and > manner of living checks run on simple communicators (vs. e.g. > volunteer > treasurers), we all know that an agreement put into writing virtually > always supersedes one that is spoken but not documented. If for no > other reason than the fact that we all will die someday (even RC upper > echelon officials), I believe we must have agreements we reach with > them > documented and preserved to protect against a new RC National > President > from changing the playing rules and doing credit and manner of living > checks done on everyone simply on a whim or because he/she is > unaware of > a gentlemen's agreement his predecessor had with us. > > One reason given that we should believe RC that they will do only > criminal checks on hams is cost. It costs considerably more to do > full > background checks than to do simple (criminal) checks. This is true; > however, all that is needed is for the gurus at RC National to decide > spending the money is the best thing they can do to protect their > derrieres. > > I fully recognize that in negotiating, one needs to understand the > points for which they will go to the mat and the points they will > arbitrate to gain more critical positions. There is also a problem > with > being the only side in a so-called negotiation that is willing to > engage > in trading off. The result of a true negotiation should be that both > sides end up winners. The result of a false negotiation is that the > side that is willing to negotiate always lose to the side that will > not > negotiate. > > I apologize for rambling so long. > > Jim Weaver, K8JE > Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ > Chairman, ARRL ad hoc Legislative Action Committee > 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 > Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org > ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! > MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is! > > > > >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17196] Re: Red Cross Update
by JIM WEAVER, K8JE 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

OM's & YL's of the Board Family, I have no intent at this moment consider voting in favor of accepting a SOU between RC and ARRL without first getting RC to word the background check agreement properly. We voted solidly not to approve a SOU first, background check resolution second path. Why should we even consider at this time making a change. RC hasn't begun to negotiate, yet, so far as I can see. Frankly, (Charlotte) I could care less if we ever ratify an ARRL-RC SOU if it requires us to lose faith with the stand we openly took with our members. What, as a national organization or national activity, have we really gotten in return for the thousands of hours amateurs have devoted to RC over the years? How often does RC even acknowledge hams are on site providing valuable service to RC and the public? So now, they appear to want us to come on our knees, ready to kiss their ring so they will let us have a piece of paper? Lord Chamberlain came back from Munich a few decades ago with a piece of paper and you will remember what it got him and Europe and the US. Dick, I understand your feelings about this issue; however, I do not agree. The reasons I do not agree have been stated quite well by other writers in this string of messages. I believe none of us has disputed the appropriateness of the RC (and RACES, etc.) as we have discussed the background check issue. At the same time, I don't recall any of us who thought it appropriate for RC to demand amateurs automatically give authorize them to run credit checks and manner of living checks simply so we can conduct radio message traffic. I also would like to point out that whether we have an SOU or not has absolutely nothing to do with an individual amateur's freedom of choice regarding agreeing to the current background check statement. I simply do not want to go on record as putting the ARRL seal of approval on this faulty statement. As to RC's assurance they will not actually have credit checks and manner of living checks run on simple communicators (vs. e.g. volunteer treasurers), we all know that an agreement put into writing virtually always supersedes one that is spoken but not documented. If for no other reason than the fact that we all will die someday (even RC upper echelon officials), I believe we must have agreements we reach with them documented and preserved to protect against a new RC National President from changing the playing rules and doing credit and manner of living checks done on everyone simply on a whim or because he/she is unaware of a gentlemen's agreement his predecessor had with us. One reason given that we should believe RC that they will do only criminal checks on hams is cost. It costs considerably more to do full background checks than to do simple (criminal) checks. This is true; however, all that is needed is for the gurus at RC National to decide spending the money is the best thing they can do to protect their derrieres. I fully recognize that in negotiating, one needs to understand the points for which they will go to the mat and the points they will arbitrate to gain more critical positions. There is also a problem with being the only side in a so-called negotiation that is willing to engage in trading off. The result of a true negotiation should be that both sides end up winners. The result of a false negotiation is that the side that is willing to negotiate always lose to the side that will not negotiate. I apologize for rambling so long. Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ Chairman, ARRL ad hoc Legislative Action Committee 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is!

1 0

[arrl-odv:17197] Re: FCC pays
by Bob Vallio 10 Sep '08

10 Sep '08

This is what our tax dollars bring us: atth instead of attn in the address line Newington DC instead of CT And, worst of all, they left off the leading digits 30 in the dollar block of the amount... Bob -- W6RGG On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org>wrote: > As you know, on July 9 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of > Columbia Circuit ordered the FCC to pay the ARRL $6096.18 toward the costs > of our successful appeal of the BPL rules. > > The check hit Barry Shelley's desk today. We thought you might like to see > it. > > Barry will cash it quickly. > > Dave K1ZZ > > <<check void.pdf>> >

1 0

[arrl-odv:17196] Re: Red Cross Update
by Tom Frenaye 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

At 11:55 AM 9/9/2008, Andy Oppel wrote: > >We are in agreement that the Red Cross owns at least part of the overall problem. And I guess I wasn't clear enough in my note, but since the theme of the note to which I responded was basically trust, it was the trust problem that I specifically meant. Most of us generally trust the Red Cross to handle confidential data appropriately, and yes, maybe that is unwarranted. But we have no basis whatsoever for trusting <http://mybackgroundcheck.com>mybackgroundcheck.com. And having read the accounts of identity theft from some of the other companies that provide background checks, my I trust <http://mybackgroundcheck.com>mybackgroundcheck.com about as far as I could move Mt. Shasta. > >Having said that, I am highly suspicious of the statement (related to us by the Red Cross) that it is too difficult to have two consent forms, one for Red Cross volunteers, and another for their employees (and whomever else <http://mybackgroundcheck.com>mybackgroundcheck.com serves... if anyone). From an IT perspective, only the very naive would believe that claim. However, if <http://mybackgroundcheck.com>mybackgroundcheck.com was merely a paper company setup for the sole purpose of fulfilling the Red Cross contract (I've seen a lot of these in my travels with companies that held government contracts for various web-based services), and if they aren't actually doing the checks, but brokering for another company that has all the connections to do the actual checking, **then** it makes sense that they couldn't change the agreement -- if the 3rd party has only one way to do the checks, then you can't (at least legally) have people agree to one thing and do something else. ! Having come out of nowhere, I strongly suspect that this is the real situation. I think Andy and Bill have interesting points about the company used by the Red Cross for background checks. Early on in the discussions about background checks, a year or more ago, I thought we found that this same company had several web addresses serving multiple markets. I'm pretty sure they are also in the business, using a different name, of working with people-matching companies (online dating, etc) and that on request they provided background checks on the people that were matched... I would be interesting in knowing if it is a private or public company, and what their real corporate name is - what do we know about them? -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:17195] Re: FW: QST Archive now available to Members
by Karl Bullock 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

1 0

[arrl-odv:17194] Re: Red Cross Update - Confidential
by Karl Bullock 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

1 0

[arrl-odv:17193] Re: FCC pays
by Karl Bullock 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

1 0

[arrl-odv:17192] Tokyo/Guam Trip Report
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

The attached report by Dave Patton will be of interest to the officers as well as to Bob Vallio and Andy Oppel, in whose division Guam is located, and may be of interest to others. Dave K1ZZ <<Ham Fair 2008 Trip report.doc>>

1 0

[arrl-odv:17191] FCC pays
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

As you know, on July 9 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the FCC to pay the ARRL $6096.18 toward the costs of our successful appeal of the BPL rules. The check hit Barry Shelley's desk today. We thought you might like to see it. Barry will cash it quickly. Dave K1ZZ <<check void.pdf>>

1 0