CBS got it wrong. That's after AP got it wrong. Maybe There Ought To Be A Correction.
Regarding an artcle entitled, "AP IMPACT: When your criminal past isn't yours"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501366_162-57344346/ap-impact-when-your-criminal-past-isnt-yours/
I'm not sure who the source was, but the comment, "It hasn't helped that dozens of databases are now run by mom-and-pop businesses with limited resources to monitor the accuracy of the records," misses the point as well as BAD MOUTH hard working Americans in the background screening industry. Show me the proof.
LET"S LOOK AT THE ISSUE:
ALL records are kept in databases. The courts have one. The police have one.
What background checking company monitors the records of the original sources of records they acquire?
Why should they? Can't trust the government to keep the record straight?
Fact is, when it came to criminal records from the courts, everyone, BIG GUYS, and SMALL FRIES bought from the same sources more times than you imagined.
They had a runner (researcher) that searched the databases at a particular court and sent back a report to the company with a clear or found criminal (case) record.
Most counties only had a few (if any) runner/researchers. They were all well known. They were used by almost everyone.
The background check companies regularly check (audit) the researchers. They audit their work by sending work to them (knowing what the criminal case record should be - unless it has been expunged) and comparing it to their known results.
And if a discrepancy is found in a subject's record, to this day, researcher's are asked to do further investigation and find perhaps gather additional identifying information.
But background check companies sending researchers KNOWN CASES of IDENTITY THEFT cases or asking to IDENTIFY EXPUNGED CASES that aren't expunged from the records and asking researchers to sort that mess out?
NEVER.
Given there are improper USES of DATABASES, the Federal Government has made certain that we know that. It created the FCRA.
About a decade ago, The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) was formed. http://www.napbs.com/
The NAPBS gives MOM and POP's the opportunity to share and get information from the same sources (including the FCRA) as the BIG GUYS. And there are plenty of MOM and POP enterprises that are PAID members of the NAPBS.
As a sidebar, if it weren't for background checking companies, the issues of court clerical erors and identity theft might never have come up. Go back more to the late 90's and the identity theft issue started in Ohio with an identity theft, a background checking company, a Sheriff's Association, and a lawsuit.
Meanwhile, the background checking industry always relied on the small MOM and POP to gather the criminal records they needed for their reports.
The internet changed a lot (but not all) of that with online access to court records. Many small businesses were left without business as the 'big guys' dropped them faster than a hot potato preferring to do their own online searches instead of paying the few dollars per search that was the going rate at the time.
Then came scraping. This is not a new technology. Research would show that the U.S. Court records (PACER) have been scraped for more than a decade by many companies. The use of scraping as a competitive edge by the BIG COMPANIES anxious to please their customers with faster service has made this product what it is today. Smaller MOM and POP's buy their scraping from the BIG GUYS.
Scraping actually utilizes the live data provided by the source ( in most cases, by a court).
The databases themselves are the problem. There's errors in most all.
But it's the correction of inaccurate records where the lawsuits lie. The story even mentions a BIG LAWSUIT:
... "(A) settlement, which received tentative approval from a federal judge in Virginia last month, requires HireRight to pay $28.4 million to settle allegations that it didn't properly notify people about background checks and didn't properly respond to complaints about inaccurate files.
HIRERIGHT is by no means a SMALL MOM AND POP company. Except maybe by comparing them to Microsoft or Wal-Mart.
I have to consider then as false the assessment that the problem discussed in the article is databases run by MOM and POPS.
I take offense at knocking the MOM and POPS of this country.
I read the article as a 'correction of error' problem and not a 'scraping or database' issue.
Senastionalizing the story did not help protect the innocent person harmed by identity thieves or innacurate records kept at the originating source.
Let's look out for the MOM and POP businesses. I know of one LARGE pre-employment screening company that grew out of their garage. Maybe a software company, coffee company, and a newspaper or two had humble beginnings, too.
Regarding an artcle entitled, "AP IMPACT: When your criminal past isn't yours"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501366_162-57344346/ap-impact-when-your-criminal-past-isnt-yours/
I'm not sure who the source was, but the comment, "It hasn't helped that dozens of databases are now run by mom-and-pop businesses with limited resources to monitor the accuracy of the records," misses the point as well as BAD MOUTH hard working Americans in the background screening industry. Show me the proof.
LET"S LOOK AT THE ISSUE:
ALL records are kept in databases. The courts have one. The police have one.
What background checking company monitors the records of the original sources of records they acquire?
Why should they? Can't trust the government to keep the record straight?
Fact is, when it came to criminal records from the courts, everyone, BIG GUYS, and SMALL FRIES bought from the same sources more times than you imagined.
They had a runner (researcher) that searched the databases at a particular court and sent back a report to the company with a clear or found criminal (case) record.
Most counties only had a few (if any) runner/researchers. They were all well known. They were used by almost everyone.
The background check companies regularly check (audit) the researchers. They audit their work by sending work to them (knowing what the criminal case record should be - unless it has been expunged) and comparing it to their known results.
And if a discrepancy is found in a subject's record, to this day, researcher's are asked to do further investigation and find perhaps gather additional identifying information.
But background check companies sending researchers KNOWN CASES of IDENTITY THEFT cases or asking to IDENTIFY EXPUNGED CASES that aren't expunged from the records and asking researchers to sort that mess out?
NEVER.
Given there are improper USES of DATABASES, the Federal Government has made certain that we know that. It created the FCRA.
About a decade ago, The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) was formed. http://www.napbs.com/
The NAPBS gives MOM and POP's the opportunity to share and get information from the same sources (including the FCRA) as the BIG GUYS. And there are plenty of MOM and POP enterprises that are PAID members of the NAPBS.
As a sidebar, if it weren't for background checking companies, the issues of court clerical erors and identity theft might never have come up. Go back more to the late 90's and the identity theft issue started in Ohio with an identity theft, a background checking company, a Sheriff's Association, and a lawsuit.
Meanwhile, the background checking industry always relied on the small MOM and POP to gather the criminal records they needed for their reports.
The internet changed a lot (but not all) of that with online access to court records. Many small businesses were left without business as the 'big guys' dropped them faster than a hot potato preferring to do their own online searches instead of paying the few dollars per search that was the going rate at the time.
Then came scraping. This is not a new technology. Research would show that the U.S. Court records (PACER) have been scraped for more than a decade by many companies. The use of scraping as a competitive edge by the BIG COMPANIES anxious to please their customers with faster service has made this product what it is today. Smaller MOM and POP's buy their scraping from the BIG GUYS.
Scraping actually utilizes the live data provided by the source ( in most cases, by a court).
The databases themselves are the problem. There's errors in most all.
But it's the correction of inaccurate records where the lawsuits lie. The story even mentions a BIG LAWSUIT:
... "(A) settlement, which received tentative approval from a federal judge in Virginia last month, requires HireRight to pay $28.4 million to settle allegations that it didn't properly notify people about background checks and didn't properly respond to complaints about inaccurate files.
HIRERIGHT is by no means a SMALL MOM AND POP company. Except maybe by comparing them to Microsoft or Wal-Mart.
I have to consider then as false the assessment that the problem discussed in the article is databases run by MOM and POPS.
I take offense at knocking the MOM and POPS of this country.
I read the article as a 'correction of error' problem and not a 'scraping or database' issue.
Senastionalizing the story did not help protect the innocent person harmed by identity thieves or innacurate records kept at the originating source.
Let's look out for the MOM and POP businesses. I know of one LARGE pre-employment screening company that grew out of their garage. Maybe a software company, coffee company, and a newspaper or two had humble beginnings, too.
