Category Web Services

Entries 79 Total

Some Background Check Companies Fail To Accurately Update Background Records, Leading To Much Headaches and Heartaches For The Innocents

Dec 20, 11 8:33 PM
Mistaken Identity

Image by tuchodi via Flickr

According to Associated Press article “AP IMPACT: When your criminal past isn’t yours” on Yahoo News, the irony of digitizing citizens’ records is the inaccuracy of such digital records have and had screwed some people’s lives big time.  The many purposes of turning background records and other sensitive information of citizens on papers into digital records are probably to speed things up, make things more accurate and easier to update, and to efficiently manage such records in ways that paper record filing system would not be able to compete against this modern filing system.  Unfortunately, as we find out that the advantages of having digital records store in sophisticated databases are sometimes fall short.  For an example of how our modern filing system has fell short, Associated Press reported a woman named Kathleen Ann Casey had a hard time of finding job as various background check companies had pulled up her digital background which filled with incorrect information.  It turned out that the criminal charges of the other Kathleen Ann Casey was filed onto the digital background record of the real Kathleen Ann Casey (i.e., real is a relative term in this case).  Data entry went badly?  Perhaps!  But could it be related to the carelessness of the background check companies?  Nobody would know for sure, but mistakes came from background check companies had real consequences to real people.

The whole idea of having digital records so the filing system could be more effective in ways that paper filing system could not offer, but it turns out humans are prone to make mistakes as always.  After all, it’s still the humans that have to convert or enter the information into the digital records, whether that be background records or other stuffs entirely.  What is more troubling is that the records that background check companies scour from public resources cannot not always be accurate, and the pile up of wrong information can digitally stack up, higher and higher.  So much for filing records digitally, right?

Perhaps we can always cruelly say to the people who are unlucky enough to have their background records file incorrectly by background check companies — “tough luck,” but what if you’re the one who have to go about correcting your background record?

I think background check companies do serve good purpose.  Companies do not want to hire criminals, and so background check companies provide a must needed service for companies that care about hiring clean employees as in without criminal records.  As background check companies become evermore crucial to the whole hiring process for most companies, I think someone must come up with a way to audit background records better.

We cannot ignore the damages that might be caused by mistaken identities.  Also, we cannot go back to old day where we would file records on papers, because the whole filing process which involves with digitizing records are way more efficient and faster.  With such efficiency and speed, I think there must be a way to double check and audit the background records so mistaken identity won’t be so easily occurred.

Of course, it’s easy to say so, but how to come up with a solution and implementing it?  I’m not a genius and not having any experience in the field of addressing something like this, therefore I won’t know if there is a solution to this current problem.  Nonetheless, I do feel it’s crucial that someone else must be the hero and steps up to provide a solution to address the errors while digitally filing background records.

Let not forget about implementing high computer security standard to prevent unauthorized access to such sensitive digital records.  It’s not because digital background records cannot be seen, but it’s more of preventing someone with hacking skill to be able to manipulate such digital records.  After all, these digital records such as background records are having real effects on people’s lives.

At a time when our economy is still struggling and job isn’t easy to find, people are not going to be very capable on carrying on with their lives, and bad luck such as having to be identified with wrong background information might just make the whole idea of surviving the hard time much worse.  To make matter worse, Associated Press reported few background check companies refused to update the correct information on certain background records.  Furthermore, Associated Press reported some states wanted to bring in more revenues by selling data of criminal files in bundles to several background check companies, and the worse part was that such data might have errors and therefore might lead to more problems.

In summary, I think background check companies are useful to corporations and small businesses, but these background check companies must work with a higher standard in auditing people’s background records to prevent background check mistaken identities.  The whole modern approach of digitizing records is here to stay, and I don’t see anything wrong with this.  Nonetheless, since digital records have made the update and search process much easier and faster, I think such efficiency should provide more than enough extra time for someone or an entity with the power to audit important digital records such as background records to actually prune through these records evermore carefully.  It’s great to actually know digital records aren’t always accurate, and in the case of wrong background record one can be reminded of the not always accurate digital records and look up their digital background information to see if their background is indeed their actual background.  The real question is, can one go about convincing background check companies that you are who you are and not who they claim you to be?

Source:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ap-impact-criminal-past-isnt-182335059.html

Related articles
Leave a Comment

How Much Klout Do You Have In The Digital World?

Dec 18, 11 2:26 PM
Klout logo.

Image via Wikipedia

PCWorld‘s article “What You Need to Know About Your Klout” introduces me to Klout, and I’ve to say I like Klout already.  Klout is unique!  Instead of copying Quantcast and Alexa, Klout isn’t aiming to gauge how popular a website has been, but it’s aiming to collect, analyze, and project how influential a person has been in the digital world.  Klout claims that it might even help an influential person in the digital world to be acknowledged by the real world, consequently such a person might be able to create a certain credibility in the real world such as in a new job.  Klout helps connect people who have high Klout scores with brands, and by doing this brands can give out perks to Klout participants such as trying out free products or getting invitations to events.

Like it or not, if you are participating the social network trend such as using Facebook, you probably have shared more things about you than you really would have loved to.  Yes, it’s a dangerous thing to share so much about yourself with strangers and friends you barely know on the web, but some people love it.  Some people might have more than one social network account, but others who only have one.  Some people use all sorts of nicknames for different social networks, but others who would just use one Internet identity for all of their social network accounts.  In my opinion, Klout might light a torch so it can shine on certain people who are being neglected by the majority of the social networks, and these people have to have the love and the will to share more of themselves to the digital world.

How might Klout help light a torch for some people?  Well, Klout is trying to analyze the social network data, connect the dots, and measure the social actions of the Klout participants; Klout tells the worlds (i.e., digital or not) who these people are.  By analyzing lot of social network data and connecting the social network graphs of Klout participants, Klout can get clearer pictures of certain people in regarding to their social network influences.  Perhaps, Klout will eventually become a standard measure of someone’s social network influences, and we know nowadays this often means something in the real world too.  People can get fire from their jobs for what they represent themselves on social networks.

Did you know that a person’s Klout score can shrink if he or she fails to influence their social networks in some ways over a period of time?  I don’t know what sorts of algorithms Klout uses to measure one’s true influence among the social networks, but it seems Klout is seriously going about doing it.  If Klout is sophisticated enough, I think Klout does have a chance to influence how people come to trust one another through Klout measurements.  Will this be a good thing if people begin to trust one another through Klout measurements?  I don’t know, but as long Klout isn’t easy to be gamed, then Klout should be a reference point for someone to make a rough assumption on the person he or she wants to share or follow or connect with.  Still, Klout itself has to carry out high standard for privacy and do no evil behavior in order for itself to be taken seriously by everyone.  So, Klout, you should do no evil, OK?

I read Klout Privacy, and it seems Klout won’t share your data with anyone unless you give a consent to do so.  Of course we can never be sure about an honest claim of any entity in regarding to do no harm but only good, but if you like you can take Klout at their word.  Klout claims that if a perk involves in delivering good, Klout will send such a good to your address but will not sell your address to anyone.  Klout won’t gather and analyze your private data unless you give a consent to do so.  Of course, without your consent to analyze and connect your private data, Klout won’t be able to be as accurate as it can be about your social network influences.  Still, I think Klout could be effective on measuring your social network influences without the need of accessing your private data.

I like Klout since it’s trying to do something unique as in measuring one’s social network influences.  Still, Klout might not be a good idea for people who loath social networks for obvious reasons.  Some people might depend on Klout to get somewhere in life if Klout earns real clout in both digital and real worlds.  This means Klout itself has to hold itself to a very high standard of trust.  Do you Klout?

Source:  http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/246435/
what_you_need_to_know_about_your_klout.html#tk.rss_news

Related articles
Leave a Comment

UK Mobile Network giffgaff Wants To Be Run By You; Competing For Bringing Down Costs So Mobile Users Can Save Money

Dec 16, 11 1:19 PM
GiffGaff

Image by AJC1 via Flickr

A small UK mobile network which is known as giffgaff sounds like heaven!  I have just only heard of it, and so I can’t really make head or tail of it.  Nonetheless, so far I understand that this is UK service only (for now), but if I’m wrong, please do correct me.  The mobile network giffgaff claims is that it hands over most mobile responsibilities and powers to the mobile users themselves.  As mobile users invite more users, they get more goodies from giffgaff such as free minutes, cash, and so on (correct me if I’m wrong on this).  No long term contract, and as giffgaff saves costs of not having to spend on hiring large staffs and maintaining several core business infrastructures, giffgaff can pass down the savings to giffgaff users in goodies such as free minutes, cash, and so on.

Before users can start using giffgaff, they need to have their smartphones unlocked and order a free SIM card from giffgaff.  On giffgaff official website, it shows the phone plans in £10 to £20 range.  Just take a look at its cheapest plan (£10) and get a rough idea why giffgaff can look very enticing to some mobile users.  For paying just £10 a month with giffgaff, mobile users get 250 UK minutes, unlimited UK texts, unlimited Internet, and free to giffgaff (I think this is about calling between giffgaff users is free).  After the inclusive minutes of £10 plan have been used up, extra minutes will cost somewhere 10 pences per minute.  Texting and surfing the Internet with giffgaff are truly unlimited, and so there will be no tariff on these two services for users who use £10 plan.  Voicemail per call will cost 8 pences after the inclusive minutes in the £10 plan have been used up.

In my opinion, giffgaff is still a company, therefore its main focus is still all about making profits.  Nonetheless, giffgaff is rather unique in a sense that it’s competing against other big mobile players in the arena of bringing down the costs for mobile users.  One big drawback I can see with giffgaff is that it’s somewhat depending on the members of giffgaff community to provide customer supports.  Customer supports provide by other members of giffgaff can sometimes be varied in helpful to non-helpful.  The standard for providing ultra good customer support isn’t existed.  This might prevent some people from having good customer/user experience with giffgaff.

If mobile network giffgaff continues to grow, I think some entrepreneurs in the United States might try to replicate the formula.  Bringing down the mobile monthly payment and costs are definitely two of the many priorities that mobile users in the United States have in mind.  With business model of giffgaff, I think mobile users in the United States might love it.  In fact, you never know that giffgaff model may thrive even healthier than how it’s in UK.  What do you think?

Related articles
Leave a Comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 135 other followers