Forum - View topic

The SPJA Needs to Change Its Youth Protection Policy

I can somewhat agree to the notion of doing a background check -- it is to be safe from any possible suspicion.

I'm surprised no one has called into question why the board members of the SPJA do not have to get background checks, or the employees of the convention center. I can name a few convention owners / board members who have been caught in sexual endeavors, or even some that have been convicted. Shouldn't these "leaders" be subject to the same

I actually feel safer when checks and searches are done to me, because I know they're being done to everyone. Even the idea of checks and searches being done is enough to scare off some people. I remember hearing on the radio an interview with a retired CIA agent who specialized in catching terrorists. He was asked why they're primarily targeting Europe now instead of North America; his response was that Europe as a whole is a lot less on guard and a lot less protected against terrorist attacks than the United States, Canada, or Mexico. In other words, they're easy targets, just like how a bicycle thief will try to look for a bicycle that's not locked or locked improperly.

That being said, I'll be coming as an attendee, and I'm certain if, on the very very slim chance a terrorist is going too, they'll most certainly be coming as an attendee too.

@MidoriUma:

If AX really wants to protect children, they should scrap this half-baked, ad hoc policy that may have been written by lawyers, and they come up with a plan at least six months before a convention.

The article points out the very real danger forcing cosplayers to display their real name on badges, and the potental lawsuits in A.) enabling stalkers and B.) possibly running afoul of California law in having employers run background checks on their employees. I also don't like the idea of suddenly forcing a de facto tax on vendors to be able to attend this convention when NO OTHER convention requires them to do this.

AbZeroNow wrote:

@MidoriUma: If AX really wants to protect children, they should scrap this half-baked, ad hoc policy that may have been written by lawyers, and they come up with a plan at least six months before a convention. The article points out the very real danger forcing cosplayers to display their real name on badges, and the potental lawsuits in A.) enabling stalkers and B.) possibly running afoul of California law in having employers run background checks on their employees. I also don't like the idea of suddenly forcing a de facto tax on vendors to be able to attend this convention when NO OTHER convention requires them to do this.

.
I agree with your first point, as for the other two:

A. I don't know how AX manages badges traditionally, but as I posted in this thread, both SDCC and NYCC use RFID badges that can be scanned to provide the scanner with full identification details of the badge holder. The holder's name isn't printed on the badge, and it doesn't have to be.

B) Not only are background checks legal for both employees and volunteers in California, it's legal to pass on the cost to them.

As for security checks only providing the illusion of security, any real proof of that? Because between 1968 and 1972, commercial airline flights were hijacked every other week on average. We can probably count on our fingers how many times flights were hijacked after the passage of universal passenger screenings in 1973. Coincidence?

As for security checks only providing the illusion of security, any real proof of that? Because between 1968 and 1972, commercial airline flights were hijacked every other week on average. We can probably count on our fingers how many times flights were hijacked after the passage of universal passenger screenings in 1973. Coincidence?