Eric, have there been any further updates to the program in the last few weeks ?.
Printable View
Eric, have there been any further updates to the program in the last few weeks ?.
No there have not been any additional changes made in the last few weeks. I do not anticipate any further modifications going forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by vaflier
Thanks,
Eric
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cernjar
Eric, lets hope you are completely wrong..........there had better be major changes in the "authorization" statement on the background check page of the website.
This question was originally brought up on message 15 of the locked thread on January 20, 2016, and again on March 18 in this thread. We still don't have an answer.
It's been almost three weeks since the web seminar on this topic.
The web seminar had the question:
"Is it true that American Checked does not do the actual background check, but forwards the actual information to another entity? Who does the actual check?"
The answer to that question was:
"I do not believe that is the case, correct?
No. AmericanChecked does the background check.
Correct.
And I thought that was something that needed some clarification."
The background authorization and information web page goes to 8f7.com
The SSL security certificate for 8f7.com is owned by a company called BackChecked LLC.
Who is BackChecked LLC?
What is their relationship with AmericanChecked LLC?
If as Rick Larsen says, AmericanChecked LLC is doing the check, why is our information going to a web site owned by BackChecked LLC?
Is, as I suspect, AmericanChecked LLC just a reseller of BackChecked LLC services? If that's the case, then our information is being shared with a 3rd party company. Why is it taking so long to just say that?
The answer to this question is not something addressed in a policy that needs lots of discussion. It's just a fact that we need to know about where our personal information is going.
After almost four months, why don't we have an answer to this simple issue yet?
This has been answered a few times, and I'm directly pulling the verbiage we have in our FAQ. If you have any questions over and above this, I'd encourage you to contact us directly.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulDow
Thanks,
Eric
Who is the company doing the background check? Can I trust them?
AmericanChecked http://americanchecked.com/ is a nationally accredited background check company who provides secure screening services to a variety of industries. The U.S. Forest Service, as well as colleges, public school systems, and businesses of every size utilize its services. EAA went through an exhaustive process to find the right vendor that would providing outstanding service while treating our volunteers’ data with the utmost security and sensitivity.
How is my data protected once it’s submitted?
Your data is never shared with any outside vendor at any time. The highest levels of security are also maintained at all levels. If you’re technically oriented, that includes: All data transmission, including XML traffic, is encrypted using SSL certificates issued and monitored with 24/7 security. Servers are protected with multi-level firewall technology and intrusion detection software. Vulnerability scans are conducted on a regular basis by a PCI Approved Scanning Vendor, housed in a SAS 70 Type II audited data center with high-definition cameras. EAA demanded the highest levels of security for any company with access to our volunteers’ information.
Why is there an odd-looking URL address on the background check form’s web page?
That is a specialized URL created by AmericanChecked to encrypt and protect your personal information when you log in. It is an extra step taken by this company to prevent anyone from scanning websites for such information.
https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-...n-program-faqs
I've stayed out of this, 'til now, since lots of folks have done fine with their questions, but this last post of Eric's needs some additions. Presumably anyone interested has read the FAQ, so a repetition, in and of itself, isn't much good. And apparently no one has been on the forum who has the authority to actually answer the question, rather than either weasel-wording around it or quoting something already published. Or perhaps they don't want us to know. The FAQ is still a bit ambiguous, after all, about the answer to Paul's question (below).Quote:
...and I'm directly pulling the verbiage we have in our FAQ
I thought Paul's question was pretty straightforward, and could be answered "yes" or "no":
Quote:
Is, as I suspect, AmericanChecked LLC just a reseller of BackChecked LLC services? If that's the case, then our information is being shared with a 3rd party company. Why is it taking so long to just say that?
I called Eric this morning to discuss the 8F7 issue. He called AmericanChecked, and the answer he got from them is that they purchased and use BackChecked software to conduct the check, so that's why their certificate is on the web page. They claim it adds a layer of obfuscation to the process to prevent the hacking of the data.
It seems like an unusual way to handle the process to me, but it doesn't look to be a weak spot. I know my bank, stock broker, and even EAA have web sites where the domain names match the SSL certificate owners. That's the purpose of SSL certificates; to verify what we see on the screen belongs to the company we think it does.
So while I don't agree with what they're doing since it doesn't give the user the confidence that they're dealing with who they think they are, I guess it's not harmful as far as the threat of potentially stolen data.
[QUOTE=Janine Diana;54466]Every state has different criteria on what they include. Any convictions reverses or expunged do not show up.
No data is kept on file at HQ with a few exceptions.
I would suggest you call ahead of time as not everyone in the HR department has access.
This is documented in the disclosure notification when completing the background check. This is required by law.
[/QUOTE
I, among many others, would be very interested in knowing the progress you are making, in having the wording in the following "Authorization" statement, changed from the current "data mining" procedure, into a common sense data gathering authorization.
Data to be gathered - "public record information such as, but not limited to: my driving record, judgments, bankruptcy proceedings, evictions, criminal records, etc., from federal, state, and other agencies that maintain such records.
"Authorization
I hereby authorize procurement of consumer report(s) and investigative consumer report(s) by Company. If hired (or contracted), this authorization shall remain on file and shall serve as ongoing authorization for Company to procure such reports at any time during my employment, contract, or volunteer period. I authorize without reservation, any person, business or agency contacted by the consumer reporting agency to furnish the above-mentioned information."
Wouldnt it be better to address questions here where everyone can see the answers? The lack of information during this rollout is what has caused 90% of the pushback you are experiencing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cernjar
Yep and if the EAA had come clean when I first pointed this out back at the beginning of the other thread, I'd have felt a lot better about it. However, they chose to stonewall the answer with "we're the EAA you can trust us, yeah sure" and ignore the issues and an bunch of flacks chose to belittle me over the privacy concerns.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulDow
Simply stupid, Just spoke with our chapter YE coordinator about up coming flights. Told him I will not be doing the check and he said sorry. Our next flight was scheduled for the 9th but was rescheduled for the 30th because of weather. The event was for a Girl Scout troop. What is the diff between 1 day? Have been doing this for 20+ years but am now done. He did say there where 2 incidents last year but would not say what they where. If EAA does not want to come clean I am done and going to AOPA
Mike
Gee, I hope Harrison Ford, our former Young Eagles Chairman, will be able to pass his background check after this...
Revealed - how Harrison Ford was mistakenly given criminal record for battery: Actor's name was entered by rookie cop during training but he forgot to delete the data afterwards
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fterwards.html
The Collins Foundation is coming to our airport in May. They are asking for extra volunteers because of the 200 kids coming from our Middle and High schools not to mention the General public that will be there. These 200 kids will be escorted around the airport and airplanes by the volunteers. No mention of background checks. Since I am not doing YE any longer I will have free time to volunteer here..
Mike
Attachment 5443Get ready for a big crowd, Mike, the were here in Tucson last weekend, big turnout. Their P-51 taxied by me while I was in the run-up area.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvmike
What about EAA pilots who have been issued security badges at airports through the TSA? These are typically issued at air carrier (Part 139) airports. I take from your response that means I am all set; no background check needed. By the way... you typically have to update your airport security badge every year or two by filing a new application as TSA is not allowed to keep certain information beyond the initial check. They check for criminal, drug or firearm violations and citizenship, but do not check financial or employment records and other information that EAA allows AmericanChecked to gather and keep... How is it that EAA requires this information at all -- and do so perpetually?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine Diana
Tom Slater
President, EAA 506 Chapter
The TSA doesn't screen for child abuse or sexual offenses. It seems that they are entirely orthogonal to things like what the YPP would care about (https://www.tsa.gov/disqualifying-offenses-factors).
Amusingly between my DC-3 clearance, TSA PreChek, and my TWIC card it seems that the TSA doesn't even bother to realize they've already done the exact same background check. I got no better than the standard delay on the subsequent applcaitions.
Tom, I would have to add, how about Concealed Carry Permit as well as TSA security badge. CPL puts you through a pretty serious background check.
Bill L
Michigan indeed has a rather profound list of crimes that disqualify you from a CPL, but it's hardly universal. In Virginia, as long as you only have a single misdemeanor (shall issue) or two misdemeanors when only one is a class 1 (judges discretion).
Are you referring to a SIDA badge? I have a SIDA badge - it has nothing to do with TSA. It was issued by the airport police. TSA considers SIDA badge holders a security threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by tsslater
Just accessed the YPP via the EAA links. It appears the Feb 24th, 2016 version is still active. However, this version still has the language that states the background check includes an employment history report...which EAA has denied in this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cernjar
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
We may only proceed with a background check if you give us permission through a release.
The release we use complies with the high standards of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and is designed to inform you of your rights, for your protection (however, please note that this is not a credit report – it is a criminal and employment history report).
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
YPP, Pages 2 and 3 (emphasis added)
Is EAA is going to correct this? Or is EAA indeed performing employment history checks?
Ron Wanttaja
Hello All –
Bret Steffen is currently updating the language regarding the background check – this update will be posted to the website as soon as possible. To clarify, we are not using employment history within the background check.
Thanks,
Glory
Could you have Bret take as look at the elements on the blue side bar ( left) to see if they are worded as is current policy. Specific to "Other... activities"... http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-e...cy-and-program
Thanks,
BTW - You guys deserve a purple heart for this. Even if some of the wounds were unintentionally self inflicted.
The normal airport security badges are issed by the airport police or security office. SIDA stands for "Security Identification Display Area" which is a special security area designated by an airport operator in the US to comply with FAA's requirements directed by the Federal Aviation regulation (FAR) part 107.205. An identification system must be used in these special secure areas. Before allowing unescorted access within the SIDA area, all persons must be trained and their background investigated. These background checks are conducted by TSA from the information collected by the airport. Normally, the flight ramp and other sensitive operational areas of a US commercial airport are designated as a SIDA. You'll know if you are issued a SIDA badge because the airport will obtain your fingerprints along with other identity information including your SSN. Some airports may issue GA pilots access badges that allow them to enter hangar areas that are not deemed security critical. My post refers to a SIDA badges issued by a commercial airport.Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
Also in response to an earlier post by FlyingRon about TSA background checks -- refer to Part B offenses as noted below. They most certainly do check for sexual misconduct and rape. If convicted of a sexual offense, TSA will not approve your security application without a special hearing. See Below.
PART B
INTERIM DISQUALIFYING CRIMINAL OFFENSES
Conviction for one of the following felonies is disqualifying if the applicant was convicted, pled guilty (including ‘no contest’), or found not guilty by reason of insanity within seven years of the date of the application; OR if the applicant was released from prison after conviction within five years of the date of the application.
- Bribery.
- Smuggling.
- Immigration violations.
- Distribution, possession w/ intent to distribute, or importation of a controlled substance.
- Arson.
- Kidnapping or hostage taking.
- Rape or aggravated sexual abuse.
- Assault with intent to kill.
- Robbery.
Tom Slater
EAA 506th
While I'm not sure were we will end up our chapter (475) has forgone Young Eagle flights for the time being. One of our pilots is the pilot that flew the one millionth eagle, he is still flying them but he is the only one. So you/we lost about a dozen pilots. Pilots by nature are independent thinkers and do not take well to being lead by the nose on what is basically a non-issue, my opinion only, I know it is not a good thing at all! But with almost two million kids flown why toss out the baby with the bath water. I can't imagine another effort that got that many kids involved has had the quality of volunteers we've had. With that many people involved you are going to have a bad apple show up but all this hand wringing and "more regulation" won't change that fact one bit!
Back on March 17th I got an email from an EAA staff member asking me changing the blanket authorization language would get me to change my mind. I responded yes, it would. This same proposal -- and concern about the authorization language -- has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. However, there has been no further information about it and my emails to that particular staff member asking about it have gone unanswered. (It is one thing to say it is still being worked or that it couldn't be done. It is another thing to blow off any follow-up to an email that was was initiated by that staff member.)
Changing the open authorization statement to American Checked would not have solved all of the problems, but it would have given me the confidence that EAA was committed to making necessary corrections. I would have then done my part in turn. No movement and no response?
Our chapter is having a YE rally this Saturday. I will fly, but then it becomes May 1 and that ends it for me…unless something changes for the positive. It has really become a matter of principle. I guess that principled pilots are not wanted.
I also have had communications with a certain EAA staff member for some time now, and have been promised a positive solution to the "data mining" authority which is now in effect with the present wording of the authorization paragraph. If this is not resolved soon, there will hopefully be a severe and extremely harsh explosion, on this forum, against EAA management and staff. Considering the many negatives we have learned about the inter-workings at headquarters, including management, etc., we would be very happy to add to this response. Stand by as I have been requested, by this staff member, to "keep his feet to the fire" in response to this item.
Finally, the language has been updated.
The latest sign-off. Several things have changed, including the language that talks about bankruptcy and of course the on-going language.
Bret
Summary of Rights
DISCLOSURE AND AUTHORIZATION FOR CONSUMER REPORTS
In connection with my application for employment (including contract or volunteer services) or application to rent a dwelling, I understand consumer reports will be requested by you. These reports may include, as allowed by law, the following types of information, as applicable: Nationwide Criminal Database, Multi-State Sex and Violent Offender Report, Social Security Number Verification, Address Locator Report. I further understand that such reports may contain public record information such as, but not limited to: my driving record, criminal records, etc., from federal, state, and other agencies that maintain such records.
Authorization
I hereby authorize procurement of criminal background and sex offender report(s) by Company. I authorize without reservation, any person, business or agency contacted by the consumer reporting agency to furnish the above-mentioned information.
This authorization is conditioned upon the following representations of my rights:
I understand that I have the right to make a request to the Consumer Reporting Agency: AmericanChecked Inc., 4870 South Lewis Avenue, Suite 120, Tulsa, OK 74105; telephone: 800-975-9876 upon proper identification, to obtain copies of any reports furnished to Company by the Agency and to request the nature and substance of all information in its files on me at the time of my request, including the sources of information, and the Agency, on Company's behalf, will provide a complete and accurate disclosure of the nature and scope of the investigation covered by any investigative consumer report(s). The Agency will also disclose the recipients of any such reports on me which the Agency has previously furnished within the two year period for employment requests, and one year for other purposes preceding my request (California three years). I hereby consent to Company obtaining the above information from the Agency. I understand that I can dispute, at any time, any information that is inaccurate in any type of report with the Agency. I may view the Agency's privacy policy at their website: http://americanchecked.com/privacy-policy. I understand that if the Company is located in California, Minnesota or Oklahoma, that I have the right to request a copy of any report the Company receives on me at the time the report is provided to the Company.
I understand that I have rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and I acknowledge receipt of the Summary of Rights.
NOTE: If I wish a printed copy of this notice, I will print it now using the File / Print selection on my browser. Click on "I agree" and then click on "SUBMIT ORDER" to complete order.
End Quote
Many members have perceived irresponsible and devastating elements in the proposed Young Eagles Protection Program and particularly in the website, and in their concern for the Young Eagles Program and Young Eagles all across the country, took it on themselves to do something about it. From the time this program was announced, in January, members started petitioning headquarters to correct such absurdities, and these petitions continued, non-stop for the last 3 months, and rightful so.
I want to thank all members who constantly bombarded headquarters with emails, phone calls, and postings on the EAA Forums, because the mess was beginning to be cleaned up, and more needs to be done. First, there were responsible changes to the program itself, with the relaxing of some elements to the complete limitation of others. Second concerning the website, there was the extremely important adjustment of making the posting of ones SS number optional. Thirdly, and again concerning the website, there was the rewording of the Acknowledgement and Authorization, which originally gave American Checked your authorization to collect your data at any time and for as many times, whenever they saw fit.
Again I cannot thank you enough, and a special thanks to Bret Steffen for his work in securing this very important change. There are rewards, both seen and unseen, for all your efforts to improve this program.
None of this matters to me and thousands of others who formerly flew YE's, as we are done with the program in its entirety. No matter how you slice it, the program itself remains unnecessary, intrusive, and insulting.
Jkan,
How did you come by that information? I still have not received an answer to my inquiries to Bret about it. Where is that change posted?
I just got my sport aviation monthly mag and I did find any comment re the ypp. A bit strange.
Thousands??Quote:
Originally Posted by TomBush
It is not at all unusual for the EAA not to enter a conversation in public about that can be perceived as negative. I was at AirVenture several years ago when a pilot died during the airshow. I came out of an exhibit building and noted the expressions on the faces of people coming away from the show line. I knew immediately that something very bad had happened. The announcer's only comment was to admonish people not to run out to the crash site. At the Theater in the Woods that evening Tom Poberezny asked for a moment of silence for the pilot. That was all that I saw or heard from the EAA. The media was tasked with telling the public and EAA members about the crash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilfred
For some reason I am reminded of the fully automated airliner. At the start of the flight a recording is played that explains that the airplane is fully automated and, "Nothing can go wrong.....can go wrong..... can go wrong.....can go wrong."
I recently learned that the Boy Scouts will not allow scouts to ride in experimental or home built aircraft at Young Eagles Rallies.
I still question the "best practices" claim. Just who on this planet has the wisdom, insight and knowledge to determine what "best practices" really are. The phrase somehow suggests that following such "best practices" will eliminate the possibility of of any intentional or accidental misconduct during a Young Eagles Rally.
I just had a background check for employment. I passed. The check uncovered nothing as it only went back "minimum of seven years." The background company did claim they checked the federal records, the No Fly List and other sources. I seriously doubt the value of any background check by any company no matter how well vetted by EAA. (Does vetted mean that the company got a Corvette for their efforts?)
There are laws regarding sexual misconduct with youth yet it still happens. Are those laws "best practices"? Adding another layer of enforcement will not deter those bent on harming a child. The entire YPP is meant to cover the collective asses in Oshkosh. It will accomplish nothing more than that. It will make a good talking point in any court procedure. It may or may not sway a judge or jury.
What "best practices" were in place at Cessna when Jack Pelton was there?
In my experience "Best Practices" is corporate speak meaning "We wasted at least 6 months in Six Sigma meetings coming up with this process". Considering Cessna is one of the US corporations that has bought into the Six Sigma system hook, line, & sinker, well... I am going to stop there.Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleapgmc
You will need to talk to Bret....that is where I received the information. If the information is incorrect, then Bret is lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc
You have to remember that the magazine goes to print about 2-3 months prior to your receiving it. So anything it said would reflect the program status back in February or so...and as we all remember, there was a heck of a lot of change in that time period. Not surprising they didn't comment, when any policy statement they make may have been replaced a half-dozen times by the time the membership saw the magazine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilfred
Ron Wanttaja
The numbers won't be known until someone figures out a year from now how many memberships were not renewed, as well as those that were cancelled. Of course there won't be any proof of why people didn't renew. I doubt the EAA will add it up, and I'd bet $$ they will never publish a number, but I would guess the number will be significant. EAA will be happy to be rid of us unwashed former volunteers that refuse to prove we aren't perverts. After all, everyone is now a pervert until they prove otherwise. A number of us can't support a group with this kind of thinking at the top. :mad: There's a reason why this kind of policy didn't happen when Paul was still alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris In Marshfield
Cub Builder
Jkan,
I am not doubting you or Bret. My concern is that this is a significant change and very important to addressing a concern raised by many (former) YE pilots. One would think that this would have been provided some sort of official notice. I just checked and there is nothing about it on the YE Volunteers pages. The FAQ has not been updated since February and I cannot determine that any change was made in the text of the policy. That last we heard from officialdom on this was Glory posting that they were trying to get it changed. Nothing since then except in a personal email to you.
Where is this documented? (Jkan, I don't expect an answer from you, but from EAA staff.)
I really do try to think positively about EAA management, but this does not seem to be a best practices approach in information management/message control/keeping your members (stakeholders) informed, etc.
I'm with you Chris, somehow we must have this verified as soon as possible. There would be evidence if one would go onto the background page, but as of this time, I will not go near the site. If Bret is not telling the truth, I would hope that all h... would break loose.
Chris, I have been in contact with Bret, concerning this matter, for quite some time. We emailed about every couple of weeks concerning the progress. My post @ #107 is the complete email, and the last email which I have received from Bret. Lets hope someone can verify this for us.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's a stretch to say it'll be in the thousands, Chris. Heck, at my little airfield in Texas alone there are about 20 pilots who won't be participating in YE events anymore. Read the other threads if you haven't already, and you'll see that there are many, many chapters that have bowed out of the YE program in its entirety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris In Marshfield