Jump to content

Are Reviewers Legal?


mollyjak

Recommended Posts

This is Tony of Mollyjak.

 

I want to straight away state this is not a negative post nor a dig at Reviewers, who I respect, nor any attempt to start long hate driven repeats of old gripes. It may be simply answered but feel this is a good place to ask

 

It was after a discussion with a Reviewer regarding anonymity of reviewers at the Mega that started me thinking about this topic.

 

My questions are simply this

 

Reviewers no doubt have access to hundreds if not thousands of Geocaching accounts. A certain percentage of these have to be young people. Therefore should Reviewers having this access, be CRB checked by law?(or perhaps they are?)

 

Is there any monitoring of Reviewers by Groundspeak with this regard?

 

I’m only asking this because I know how clever some people can be and have worked with the sharp end of lives destroyed by these individuals.

 

Again this is not any kind of slur on anyone but rather an attempt to gain understanding and something I think the Volunteer reviewers should also think carefully about

 

Thank you for your time reading this

 

Kind Regards

 

Tony

Link to comment

Reviewers no doubt have access to hundreds if not thousands of Geocaching accounts. A certain percentage of these have to be young people. Therefore should Reviewers having this access, be CRB checked by law?(or perhaps they are?)

 

I don't see that this is any different in that regard to say, working in the accounts department at Toys R Us, or on the switchboard for Blue peter.

 

Unless there's unsupervised direct contact with children or other vulnerable individuals, why would there be any need for a CRB check?

 

Incidentally, I'm not aware of any legal requirement for an employer to insist on a CRB check other than in education.

Edited by keehotee
Link to comment

I wonder whether the reviewers have more access to our details than regular cachers?

 

I think all GS know about me (that isn't publicly available) is:

  1. My Email address
  2. My real name (I think I had to enter that when I signed up years ago but not sure)
  3. The IP addresses I use to access their site
  4. MY Paypal account (but only because I pay PM fees that way)
  5. The home co-ords input on my profile (which aren't at my home anyway)

 

So I hope the reviewers don't have access to 4, but do they have access to the others? Perhaps a passing reviewer can confirm.

Link to comment

This is Tony of Mollyjak.

 

I want to straight away state this is not a negative post nor a dig at Reviewers, who I respect, nor any attempt to start long hate driven repeats of old gripes. It may be simply answered but feel this is a good place to ask

 

It was after a discussion with a Reviewer regarding anonymity of reviewers at the Mega that started me thinking about this topic.

 

My questions are simply this

 

Reviewers no doubt have access to hundreds if not thousands of Geocaching accounts. A certain percentage of these have to be young people. Therefore should Reviewers having this access, be CRB checked by law?(or perhaps they are?)

 

Is there any monitoring of Reviewers by Groundspeak with this regard?

 

I’m only asking this because I know how clever some people can be and have worked with the sharp end of lives destroyed by these individuals.

 

Again this is not any kind of slur on anyone but rather an attempt to gain understanding and something I think the Volunteer reviewers should also think carefully about

 

Thank you for your time reading this

 

Kind Regards

 

Tony

Due to the seriousness of these questions concerning CRB checks, working with young children they would be best answered by Groundspeak. Same would apply to another query in a later post about what reviewers can access. May I suggest you email Groundspeak and post the reply here. The email address is contact@geocaching.com

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website - www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

Link to comment

I wonder whether the reviewers have more access to our details than regular cachers?

 

I think all GS know about me (that isn't publicly available) is:

  1. My Email address
  2. My real name (I think I had to enter that when I signed up years ago but not sure)
  3. The IP addresses I use to access their site
  4. MY Paypal account (but only because I pay PM fees that way)
  5. The home co-ords input on my profile (which aren't at my home anyway)

 

So I hope the reviewers don't have access to 4, but do they have access to the others? Perhaps a passing reviewer can confirm.

 

[*]My Email address

Not unless you choose to share it (via your profilepage

 

My real name (I think I had to enter that when I signed up years ago but not sure)

Nope, reviewers can not access this information

 

The IP addresses I use to access their site

Nope, this info can only be accessed by the GS Lackys (employed at GS HQ)

 

MY Paypal account (but only because I pay PM fees that way)

Again nope, (but if you want to send them to me [:D] )

 

The home co-ords input on my profile (which aren't at my home anyway)

Once again nope. All can see is the distance from your "home" co-ords to the co-ords of any cache you submit for publication

 

To sum up, - reviewers (to the best of my knowledge) have no access to any personal information

Edited by castagnari
Link to comment

I wonder whether the reviewers have more access to our details than regular cachers?

 

I think all GS know about me (that isn't publicly available) is:

  1. My Email address
  2. My real name (I think I had to enter that when I signed up years ago but not sure)
  3. The IP addresses I use to access their site
  4. MY Paypal account (but only because I pay PM fees that way)
  5. The home co-ords input on my profile (which aren't at my home anyway)

 

So I hope the reviewers don't have access to 4, but do they have access to the others? Perhaps a passing reviewer can confirm.

Groundspeak don't know the details of your Paypal account. That's the whole point of Paypal, your details are kept secret from the third party. All they need to know is that you have paid them and Paypal do that on your behalf after taking the money from your account.

Link to comment

I don't want this to be viewed as bashing either as I too respect the reviewers that I have met and dealt with. However, I am going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, sorry.

 

Due to the seriousness of these questions concerning CRB checks, working with young children they would be best answered by Groundspeak. Same would apply to another query in a later post about what reviewers can access. May I suggest you email Groundspeak and post the reply here. The email address is contact@geocaching.com

 

Chris

Graculus

Here is a reply that 'suggests' that reviewers do have certain access to accounts and Chris is unsure how much info should be openly relayed to the community therefore believes you should ask Groundspeak directly. If I am wrong in that assumption then I can't understand why a simple answer of 'Don't worry we don't have that sort of access' reply couldn't have been made.

 

 

[*]My Email address

Not unless you choose to share it (via your profilepage

 

My real name (I think I had to enter that when I signed up years ago but not sure)

Nope, reviewers can not access this information

 

The IP addresses I use to access their site

Nope, this info can only be accessed by the GS Lackys (employed at GS HQ)

 

MY Paypal account (but only because I pay PM fees that way)

Again nope, (but if you want to send them to me [:D] )

 

The home co-ords input on my profile (which aren't at my home anyway)

Once again nope. All can see is the distance from your "home" co-ords to the co-ords of any cache you submit for publication

 

To sum up, - reviewers (to the best of my knowledge) have no access to any personal information

Then we have castagnari, whom was obviously typing his post as Graculus was submitting his saying that they don't have any access (to the best of his knowledge) (taking note his post was edited). I appreciate that castagnari is the forum mod, but his account does state that he is a reviewer.

 

So my question is, if it is as clean cut as castagnari says, why has Graculus felt the need to refer the question to Groundspeak? Either something is being hidden or castagnari hasn't got a clue what he is talking about?

Link to comment

Reviewers no doubt have access to hundreds if not thousands of Geocaching accounts. A certain percentage of these have to be young people. Therefore should Reviewers having this access, be CRB checked by law?(or perhaps they are?)

 

I don't see that this is any different in that regard to say, working in the accounts department at Toys R Us, or on the switchboard for Blue peter.

 

Unless there's unsupervised direct contact with children or other vulnerable individuals, why would there be any need for a CRB check?

 

Incidentally, I'm not aware of any legal requirement for an employer to insist on a CRB check other than in education.

 

But working in any kind of position of trust usually results in signing agreements before accpeting the job (non diclosure, honor codes, etc.). Because the process of becoming a reviewer seems to be as secretive as selecting a Pope, I guess we will never know.

Link to comment

Thanks Chris I will fire an email off to them later. Just thought someone would know the answer on here,

I know it is a delicate subject mater but I am a great believer in asking dificult questions when needed, other wise I have seen some really sad outcomes from lack of questions and apathy.

 

I have found this on a CRB site

 

"For the purposes of obtaining a Disclosure the CRB define a volunteer as:

 

"A person who is engaged in any activity which involves spending time, unpaid (except for travelling and other approved out-of-pocket expenses), doing something which aims to benefit someone (individuals or groups) other than, or, in addition to close relatives".

 

I will investigate a little further

 

 

Kind Regards

 

Tony

Link to comment
So my question is, if it is as clean cut as castagnari says, why has Graculus felt the need to refer the question to Groundspeak? Either something is being hidden or castagnari hasn't got a clue what he is talking about?

There are two separate questions from Mollyjack and MartyBartFast. Graculus recommended one be passed to GSP to answer due to the seriousness of the question being posed and the sensitivity of the topic. Castagnari answered the second which is much more general.

 

As a reviewer I really don't want to get drawn into a discussion about child protection. This is way outside our pay grade and needs to be resolved by GSP who own and manage the site as the ultimate responsibility lies with them.

Edited by dino-irl
Link to comment

I don't want this to be viewed as bashing either as I too respect the reviewers that I have met and dealt with. However, I am going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, sorry.

 

Due to the seriousness of these questions concerning CRB checks, working with young children they would be best answered by Groundspeak. Same would apply to another query in a later post about what reviewers can access. May I suggest you email Groundspeak and post the reply here. The email address is contact@geocaching.com

 

Chris

Graculus

Here is a reply that 'suggests' that reviewers do have certain access to accounts and Chris is unsure how much info should be openly relayed to the community therefore believes you should ask Groundspeak directly. If I am wrong in that assumption then I can't understand why a simple answer of 'Don't worry we don't have that sort of access' reply couldn't have been made.

 

[*]My Email address

Not unless you choose to share it (via your profilepage

 

My real name (I think I had to enter that when I signed up years ago but not sure)

Nope, reviewers can not access this information

 

The IP addresses I use to access their site

Nope, this info can only be accessed by the GS Lackys (employed at GS HQ)

 

MY Paypal account (but only because I pay PM fees that way)

Again nope, (but if you want to send them to me [:D] )

 

The home co-ords input on my profile (which aren't at my home anyway)

Once again nope. All can see is the distance from your "home" co-ords to the co-ords of any cache you submit for publication

 

To sum up, - reviewers (to the best of my knowledge) have no access to any personal information

Then we have castagnari, whom was obviously typing his post as Graculus was submitting his saying that they don't have any access (to the best of his knowledge) (taking note his post was edited). I appreciate that castagnari is the forum mod, but his account does state that he is a reviewer.

 

So my question is, if it is as clean cut as castagnari says, why has Graculus felt the need to refer the question to Groundspeak? Either something is being hidden or castagnari hasn't got a clue what he is talking about?

 

Without dragging up the recent mud slinging, which is now hopefully on the road to a resolution, due to the serious nature of the Query. Graculus felt it would be best asked directly to Groundspeak. Given that Geocaching.com is one of their businesses, and the query is of a Legal Nature.

 

And yes castagnari has joined the Reviewer Community as a Reviewer, on top of his/her Moderating duties. And yes what he/she posted is correct, about the level of access Reviewers have.

 

Experience teaches Reviewers, how to spot Sock Accounts submitting Listings for Review. No special access to personal details. But if needed Groundspeak can be queried, who will just give a YES/No back to Reviewers, so again no personal details is provided to Reviewers.

 

Also any child under the age of 13 years old, should only have created a account under their parents supervision. Because that is the cut off age for creating accounts, as GC is subject to US laws. On creating a Account, everyone agrees that the Laws applicable in the State of Washington USA, will apply in all legal issues.

 

And Sorry! But the process of selecting New Reviewers has been posted in this forum in the past, a search would throw that up. But once again to dispel claims of secrecy about the process, here is a Template I use to reply to queries, which shows the process is in the public domain. In forum posts and peoples In Box's

 

The local Reviewers decide that the workload justifies the need for another colleague to share the workload. They Identify possible candidates, looking for someone who has shown a good knowledge and understanding of the Guidelines. Who has shown the ability to work with others, has a good track record on both cache placements and finds [not necessarily in the thousands but not someone with a very low No of finds]. Has not made posts in any of the geocaching forums which could be of concern.

 

Once a person is identified, the local Reviewers will then submit the persons name to Groundspeak for their consideration. if Groundspeak decide that the person is suitable, They are then taken to the Reviewer Community for their opinion of the person. If this stage is passed successfully, Groundspeak will then make a final consideration, before providing either a yes or a no. If it's a yes, it's at this point that one of the local Reviewers will make contact with the selected person. And ask them to join the Reviewer Team. Not everyone accepts when asked, for variety of reasons.

 

Deceangi

 

At the end of the day Reviewers are answerable to Groundspeak, who have a series of Sanctions that they can apply. The most severe being to remove the person as a Site Volunteer. So Reviewers are held to a high standard by them.

 

Now I've clarified everything, if any one wishes to take this further. Please take it up directly with Groundspeak. Because to be honest, this is starting to develop into a Reviewer Bashing.

 

Deci

Link to comment

Reviewers no doubt have access to hundreds if not thousands of Geocaching accounts. A certain percentage of these have to be young people. Therefore should Reviewers having this access, be CRB checked by law?(or perhaps they are?)

 

I don't see that this is any different in that regard to say, working in the accounts department at Toys R Us, or on the switchboard for Blue peter.

 

Unless there's unsupervised direct contact with children or other vulnerable individuals, why would there be any need for a CRB check?

 

Incidentally, I'm not aware of any legal requirement for an employer to insist on a CRB check other than in education.

 

 

I nwould agree with Tim on this:

 

"Can any voluntary organisation make CRB checks on their staff and volunteers?

 

Only voluntary organisations that work with children or vulnerable adults can ask for Standard and Enhanced Disclosures. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 prevents other categories of voluntary organisations from obtaining this level of information.

 

What does ‘working with children’ mean?

 

The definition of working with children is based on the concept of the ‘regulated position’ contained in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. If a job (paid or unpaid) falls within one of the categories of regulated position then it is classed as working with children. Regulated positions include:

 

Any employment in schools, childrens’ homes, day care premises where children are presentCaring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of childrenUnsupervised contact with children

Other positions which give the kind of access or influence which could put children at risk if held by a disqualified person (eg management committee members)

 

Organisations are likely to fall into the definition of working with children include those which:

 

Run youth clubsOrganise or arrange facilities or activities for childrenOffer counselling to childrenRun out of school play clubs

Run play groups

 

What does working with vulnerable adults mean?

 

Disclosures are available for any paid or unpaid work which is concerned with the provision of health care services to vulnerable adults: eg

 

Accommodation and nursing or personal care in a homePersonal care, nursing or support for a person living independentlySocial care services

Any services provided in an establishment catering for a person with learning difficulties

 

Vulnerable adult means a person aged 18 or over who has one or more of the following conditions:

 

A substantial learning or physical difficultyA physical or mental illness/mental disorder, including alcohol or drug addiction

Significant reduction in mental capacity

 

There is no definitive list of positions for which criminal records checks are required or recommended but the CRB provides a range of helpful information. " (ref here)

 

I can visualise no part of a Reviewers' direct responsibilities falling in any of the above categories.

 

This being so there would be no need for a Reviewer to be CRB checked.

 

Mind you if a Reviewer chose to host an event to introduce geocaching to a group of children/young people that could be another matter.......

Link to comment

Thank you Deci as usual a very clear answer. My intentions were not to raise any doubt, blame or Criticism regarding reviewers and I personally think you do a very good job and have a thankless task at the best of times. Your selection process is not a problem to me as such although I have stated to you my concerns on anonymity. Coming from a social work background, the thought of a person having any access to young or vulnerable minds in complete anonymity rings warning bells, and fail to see the need for this (again I’m sure there is a reason and it of course is only my opinion).I will however dig a little further in to this for my own satisfaction and fire off an email to Groundspeak if I need further clarification on anything.

 

kind Regards

 

Tony

Link to comment

Tony,

Perhaps it would help if you detailed what is driving you down this line of inquiry? On the face of it your question has been answered, and reviewers clearly have no access to young or vulnerable people, over and above the access anyone else has if they possess a geocaching account (or a Facebook account or whatever).

Dodgydaved's reply seems to detail the criteria and it seems obvious that reviewers don't fall anywhere near this definition. So I don't know why you intend to continue.

Link to comment

Thank you HH nothing is driving me it is a question that I had been curious about. This is the type of thing that can be openly discuseed and should be reguarly, There is no ulterior motive for the questions other than that stated. I'm sure you would agree it is far better to ask these questions sensibly and openly than just let things slide and then end up saying "if only". Again I have stated that I have a great respect and friendship with most Reviewers and trusted them to take and answer the questions in a Professional and Sensible maner.

 

Unfortunatly the reply by dodgydaved came seconds after I replied to Deci and I find the information most informative. It would be a persoanl choice (as stated)to continue with investigating this and don't see the need for permission or approval from anyone.

 

Kind Regards

 

Tony

Link to comment
So my question is, if it is as clean cut as castagnari says, why has Graculus felt the need to refer the question to Groundspeak? Either something is being hidden or castagnari hasn't got a clue what he is talking about?

There are two separate questions from Mollyjack and MartyBartFast. Graculus recommended one be passed to GSP to answer due to the seriousness of the question being posed and the sensitivity of the topic. Castagnari answered the second which is much more general.

 

As a reviewer I really don't want to get drawn into a discussion about child protection. This is way outside our pay grade and needs to be resolved by GSP who own and manage the site as the ultimate responsibility lies with them.

My apologies, I missed the distinction between the two different answers.

 

Without dragging up the recent mud slinging, which is now hopefully on the road to a resolution, due to the serious nature of the Query. Graculus felt it would be best asked directly to Groundspeak. Given that Geocaching.com is one of their businesses, and the query is of a Legal Nature.

 

And yes castagnari has joined the Reviewer Community as a Reviewer, on top of his/her Moderating duties. And yes what he/she posted is correct, about the level of access Reviewers have.

The above has also answered my query, so thank you.

 

............ although I have stated to you my concerns on anonymity. Coming from a social work background, the thought of a person having any access to young or vulnerable minds in complete anonymity rings warning bells, and fail to see the need for this (again I’m sure there is a reason and it of course is only my opinion)..........................

I can fully understand your concerns. However, there is so much nastiness in the Geocaching community that I personally don't blame reviewers for keeping anonymity.

 

I have to say that my daughter has an account, and when she submitted her cache, I put a reviewer note asking for any queries to be sent to me and not directly to my daughter. In this case the responsibility really does start with the parents.

Link to comment

Absolutely agree with you Haggis Hunter and that is a very responsible approach to it and I hope all parents follow that example.

 

I just wanted to point out that my concerns were not only for the Young and vulnerable but it also it covered the reviewers. I know only too well from people I have worked with how unfounded accusations can ruin people’s lives.

The thing pointed out in the previous post however, goes to show that there is interaction or can be interaction between Reviewers and People (possible young) and it was this very communication I centred my questions on.

Enough said now and may I say how happy I am that you can have a

grown up conversation on here for a change without it going astray. Thanks everyone for taking part.

 

Regards

 

Tony

Link to comment

One other point, as reviewers we have no idea the age of a cacher, unless of course, we've met them at an event etc. We don't know if we are dealing with a 13 year old or a 67 year old cacher. I had, for instance assumed a cacher with very poor spelling was a young cacher - Wrong, he was a slightly dyslexic 34 year old. The point is that we know as much as communicating with someone on Facebook without looking at their profile.

Link to comment

I'm a very dyslexic 53 year old so I fully understand what your saying.

 

Again I feel the need to say there are so many bad people out there that could easily look at profiles and find people ages. My fear is that after seeing and knowing people penetrate various inert organisations and seemingly being very nice people they turn out not to be. Perhaps I should have been more direct in the question, by saying is there any communication oportunities and is there the possability to exploit this for evil intentions or the possibility to leave the reviewer open for false accusations.

 

Regards

 

Tony

Link to comment

Again I feel the need to say there are so many bad people out there that could easily look at profiles and find people ages.

 

Having just had a quick look at my own public profile, my age isn't stated anywhere on it. OK... it does say that I'm a retired engineer and there is a photo of me with one of my motorcycles so it's pretty obvious that I'm just a wee bit older than 13. I chose to put that information on my public profile page so again, it's fairly obvious that I have no problem with anybody looking at/reading it. A lot of other cacher's public profiles contain no information at all so I can't see how "bad people out there could easily look at profiles and find people ages."

Link to comment

Possibly a good time to point this out:

 

Groundspeak Terms of Use Agreement (point 3, paragraph 5)

By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 18 years of age or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian.

 

and this:

 

Forum Guidelines (point 1)

To post in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian.
Link to comment

............ although I have stated to you my concerns on anonymity. Coming from a social work background, the thought of a person having any access to young or vulnerable minds in complete anonymity rings warning bells, and fail to see the need for this (again I’m sure there is a reason and it of course is only my opinion)..........................

I can fully understand your concerns. However, there is so much nastiness in the Geocaching community that I personally don't blame reviewers for keeping anonymity.

We're not in complete anonymity. Each reviewer is first of all known to all the other reviewers (both within our regional team and within the global reviewer community) and is of course known and ultimately responsible to Groundspeak lackeys.

 

Many reviewers are anonymous as they want to be given space and freedom to make decisions based on the guidelines without being accused of impartiality (either for or against anyone) and unfortunately also for the reason given by Dave above. This applies in this region but also on a global basis.

 

It's interesting that in the recent discussion on FB that one person suggested that all reviewers should be anonymous as otherwise it looked like we enjoyed the limelight that comes with our role and now someone else is criticising those who choose to do so.

 

Back on topic you may be interested to know that if we suspect that we are dealing with a minor we always attempt to either involve a parent/guardian to ensure they are aware of what the minor is doing or contact GSP to attempt to make that contact. As geohatter pointed out though it's not always easy to make that conclusion and often we are wrong.

Link to comment

Thank you dino-iri

 

I don't think I criticised your anonymity rather I said that I had concerns, I respect your choice and anyone else’s to do so and reserve my right to have concerns over things, I try not to make judgment on anyone or anything unless I have both sides of the story some unfortunately don't do this and condemn after just hearing one side. I have had very little involvement in posting in this forum but follow some threads and from the venom in some arguments fully understand the desire to remain anonymous. The reason I have concerns are stated in the passage you copied and that is just my opinion you can agree with it or not but surely I am allowed to express my opinion and concerns as long as I am neither offensive nor critical of anyone. My initial post was intended to get answers using a free and open discussion on a forum of my peers. I think this has been achieved, although I do sense some residual defensive hostility that I think may be a leftover of some heated discussion in the past. It’s a little sad that post are looked on with suspicion and scanned for alternate meaning instead of being exactly what they are, but again after witnessing some of the heated exchanges on here I fully understand

 

Regards

 

 

Tony

.

 

For me the topic has run its course and has been very enlightening and again thanks to everyone for their contributions

 

Regards

 

 

Tony

Edited by mollyjak
Link to comment

This is Tony of Mollyjak.

 

I want to straight away state this is not a negative post nor a dig at Reviewers, who I respect, nor any attempt to start long hate driven repeats of old gripes. It may be simply answered but feel this is a good place to ask

 

It was after a discussion with a Reviewer regarding anonymity of reviewers at the Mega that started me thinking about this topic.

 

My questions are simply this

 

Reviewers no doubt have access to hundreds if not thousands of Geocaching accounts. A certain percentage of these have to be young people. Therefore should Reviewers having this access, be CRB checked by law?(or perhaps they are?)

 

Is there any monitoring of Reviewers by Groundspeak with this regard?

 

I’m only asking this because I know how clever some people can be and have worked with the sharp end of lives destroyed by these individuals.

 

Again this is not any kind of slur on anyone but rather an attempt to gain understanding and something I think the Volunteer reviewers should also think carefully about

 

Thank you for your time reading this

 

Kind Regards

 

Tony

 

I think your concerns are misplaced Tony.

 

If the Groundspeak reviewers needed to be CRB checked then by extension anyone using Facebook would also need to be CRB checked, anyone with an email account would need to be checked, and so on.

 

People who work closely with children and vulnerable adults need to be checked but reviewers don't have access to children or vulnerable adults in the course of reviewing geocaches. Even when someone hides a cache on behalf of a child (I'm sure we've all seen caches called something like "Hidden by Jimmy, age 6") all the reviewer can tell is that there's probably a child called Jimmy within a few miles of where the cache is hidden. And, truth be told, that's probably a safe bet even without the cache.

 

It's easy to see why someone with unmentionable intentions towards children would seek out a position as a youth club leader, choirmaster, teacher, school caretaker etc. In such a position with physical access to children, regular interaction with children, hopefully being trusted by the children etc, it is easy to see how they could abuse that position. If a reviewer wanted to take advantage of children, how would his position as a reviewer give him any facility to do so over and above any other member?

 

Anyone could hide a cache intended to lure children to a particular area, but it's silly to suggest everybody is CRB checked before being allowed to place a cache.

Link to comment
I do sense some residual defensive hostility that I think may be a leftover of some heated discussion in the past. It’s a little sad that post are looked on with suspicion and scanned for alternate meaning instead of being exactly what they are, but again after witnessing some of the heated exchanges on here I fully understand

Not from me or at least not intentionally. However, the subject of child protection and potential child abuse is probably one of the most serious and sensitive that anyone can be dragged in to and I for one am very focused on making sure that the queries raised here are dealt with completely. It is not a shadow I want sitting over what we do in any shape or form.

Link to comment

No Dino-irl I was not suggesting you in any way Its an observation in general about posts.

 

Again yes it is a very emotive topic and one I have said should be discussed and people be aware of, and thats why I asked the questions.

 

I have said in nearly all my posts from the beginging that It was simple a queery and not a slur,moan or nag at anyone it was simply an equiry and nothing else and not intended to offend or cast a shadow over anyone. And I'm very glad to say that the reasoned arguement and information has been helpful and informative as I would expect.

 

Regards

 

Tony

Link to comment

I would say that the only danger could exist if a reviewer messaged privately a child. This is no more dangerous than any other user doing the exact same thing except possibly their position giving more weight to the message.

I would presume that all communicating done by reviewers is recorded for evidence anyway and as long as its done in a manner that the reviewer cannot delete it then any wrong doing would be traceable.

Link to comment

Again yes it is a very emotive topic and one I have said should be discussed and people be aware of, and thats why I asked the questions.

I think we're scratching around for any reason to discuss this as it seems a mystery, and far from emotive. I've not seen any reason to worry about it at all and the only thing it's brought up is an uneasy feeling that you know something we don't. Perhaps it would have been better just to e-mail Groundspeak about it, as there seems nothing to discuss here without further information from you.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

Many reviewers are anonymous as they want to be given space and freedom to make decisions based on the guidelines without being accused of impartiality (either for or against anyone)

I imagine that most reviewers would be delighted to be accused of impartiality :lol: .

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited by Amberel
Link to comment

Again yes it is a very emotive topic and one I have said should be discussed and people be aware of, and thats why I asked the questions.

I think we're scratching around for any reason to discuss this as it seems a mystery, and far from emotive. I've not seen any reason to worry about it at all and the only thing it's brought up is an uneasy feeling that you know something we don't. Perhaps it would have been better just to e-mail Groundspeak about it, as there seems nothing to discuss here without further information from you.

 

Pretty much my thoughts. Is there a specific reason why a reviewer should need to be vetted? It seems to me that expecting reviewers to be vetted is a bit like expecting people who mark school exam papers to be vetted, despite never seeing the children who wrote them. Unless someone is in actual contact with children or vulnerable adults where's the problem?

Link to comment

When I first read this post I had to think hard as to why it could be a concern. Only three points came to me (please read child as any vulnerable person):

 

1. Being able to identify a child where others on the site could not.

2. Knowing where a child lived.

3. Having contact with a child with influence.

 

1. I can't remember having to put my date of birth, just confirmation that I was over 18 or under supervision. It's reassuring to know that most information isn't made available even to reviewers. To me, the risk would be greater with a vulnerable person rather than child.

2. It's reassuring to know that this is not necessarily known though of course could be calculated if the cacher is honest about their home coordinates and has placed a couple of caches.

3. I believe you could quite easily argue one way or another regarding the influence. A reviewer would have greater influence over another cacher making private contact.

 

This discussion should very much be open and I applaud Tony for bringing it to everyone's attention. There may be (please read probably) no cause for concern, no harm in a discussion that makes people think and then if appropriate alleviates any concerns. Groundspeak are the right people to answer the question as they are the legal operator of the website, this discussion doesn't have to supply the answer but other opinions are insightful.

 

I’ve certainly got one take away point and that’s the great advice from Haggis Hunter to place a reviewer note when a minor is setting caches asking for communication to be sent through the responsible adult.

Link to comment

 

This discussion should very much be open and I applaud Tony for bringing it to everyone's attention. ................................................................................................................................ Groundspeak are the right people to answer the question as they are the legal operator of the website, this discussion doesn't have to supply the answer but other opinions are insightful.

 

 

Yes, and no. Somewhere Deci has said that GSP operate the site under the laws governing Seattle/USA: fair enough, and somewhere I am sure GSP say that cache placement should be governed, as well as this/instead of this, by local laws etc.

 

However a CP issue in this country is governed by UK law - and as I, superficially, understand it a Reviewer, unless operating in a way that brings him into direct contact with a young person/vulnerable adult, would in no way require CRB or Enhanced CRB checking.

 

Yes, GSP are the right people to answer the question - to a certain extent - but only if they have had specialist advice from someone well-versed in UK (English and Scottish*) CP Law.

 

 

 

*I believe N Ireland operates largely under English Law, but there are areas where Scottish Law differs.

Link to comment

When I first read this post I had to think hard as to why it could be a concern. Only three points came to me (please read child as any vulnerable person):

 

1. Being able to identify a child where others on the site could not.

2. Knowing where a child lived.

3. Having contact with a child with influence.

 

1. I can't remember having to put my date of birth, just confirmation that I was over 18 or under supervision. It's reassuring to know that most information isn't made available even to reviewers. To me, the risk would be greater with a vulnerable person rather than child.

2. It's reassuring to know that this is not necessarily known though of course could be calculated if the cacher is honest about their home coordinates and has placed a couple of caches.

3. I believe you could quite easily argue one way or another regarding the influence. A reviewer would have greater influence over another cacher making private contact.

 

 

I don't ever remember entering my date of birth so it wouldn't necessarily be obvious whether I'm an adult or not. A child might put their precise home coordinates into the site but even with precise coordinates it's not immediately clear which of a few houses is the right one, and it's even more vague if they live in or near a block of flats. Deriving their location from the caches they have found is also something very vague, you might get the general area but not enough to be of any concern.

 

A reviewer might, in theory, wield some kind of influence of a child with a question like "why don't you show me that nice secluded spot you found to hide your cache?". At the same time any other cacher could easily enough visit the area and then ask "I couldn't find your cache, any chance of meeting me there to help me look for it?"

 

I’ve certainly got one take away point and that’s the great advice from Haggis Hunter to place a reviewer note when a minor is setting caches asking for communication to be sent through the responsible adult.

 

This is a good point although if a reviewer can't tell who is a child and who is an adult it's hard to see how it would work in practise.

 

For what it's worth on the child protection front I helped at a youth club (working with 11-16 year olds, although never being alone with any of them) a number of times on a one-off basis without needing to be CRB checked. Only when I agreed to help regularly did I need to be checked. I'm not legally qualified but I still can't see any reason to justify reviewers being vetted.

Link to comment

Many reviewers are anonymous as they want to be given space and freedom to make decisions based on the guidelines without being accused of impartiality (either for or against anyone)

I imagine that most reviewers would be delighted to be accused of impartiality :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment

Sorry, I'm not a parent (And I know that statement alone will make some parents think I'm unqualified to hold any opinion! "Oh, you wouldn't understand!") and may be speaking out of turn, and I've tried to understand as best I can from this the problem. It's a fair question to ask but a CRB is not a free thing (It's supposed to be for volunteers, but I've yet to find an umbrella agency that'll do it without an admin charge almost equal to the full fee :( ), so there would be a cost passed onto Groundspeak and then to us if it was adopted. Where does this approach stop? All members of this forum, for example, having to be CRB'd in case an unsupervised child reads it, or posts in it and is approached by private message?

 

It's been mentioned as a risk that a reviewer "may" contact a child privately. Isn't this a risk from all communications on the internet (and IRL) and shouldn't a parent be monitoring all such contacts as a matter of course?

 

The internet is an amazing thing, but it's taught me some very negative things about human nature and I can't imagine letting a young or even early teen child have unfettered access or their own private email address. It must be quite scary to be a parent but if internet access wasn't controlled for a vulnerable child, I would imagine geocaching to be the least of the potential problems. :(

Edited by dartymoor
Link to comment

You may not be a parent dartymoor, but I think you make very valid points. I am a parent, kids between 2 and 17 and I agree with you.

 

Responsibility for kids does rest with the parents, too much is passed off elsewhere or blaming others when things go wrong. I think CRB checks are needed for youth groups and people/places where kids are in the care of others who are not family, but other than that it is going too far and getting ridiculous when threads like this appear, it is unnecessary.

 

I don't think a CRB check is a guarantee that someone is safe anyway, isn't it just a check on whether someone has been caught? They could just have been careful/lucky in the past?

Link to comment
Responsibility for kids does rest with the parents, too much is passed off elsewhere or blaming others when things go wrong. I think CRB checks are needed for youth groups and people/places where kids are in the care of others who are not family, but other than that it is going too far and getting ridiculous when threads like this appear, it is unnecessary.

 

Truth be told even a CRB check on youth workers etc is only worth so much. I tend to lean away from too many government certification schemes simply because they inevitably end up encouraging people to suspend their own judgment in favour of a piece of paper.

 

I don't think a CRB check is a guarantee that someone is safe anyway, isn't it just a check on whether someone has been caught? They could just have been careful/lucky in the past?

 

I volunteer with a couple of groups for young people and help with children aged from about 3 upwards in various capacities, so I've been CRB checked. As I understand it, the piece of paper is worth virtually nothing. It says I'm not known to have offended in the past, and that's about it. It doesn't give any guarantee I won't offend in the future, it doesn't even guarantee I haven't offended in the past. All it does is say that I'm not known to have offended in the past.

 

Another issue with CRB checking is that it is so incomplete where risk is concerned. As part of standard procedures to protect everyone (i.e. protect children from abuse and protect adults from false accusation) we take every possible precaution to avoid situations where one adult is alone with one child. The assumption is that family members are safe, but what are the relative incidents of children being abused by youth club leaders compared to Uncle Bill telling them that he's going to show them a special game that they have to keep secret?

Link to comment

I've been working with vulnerable children and families for 20+ years, and I know first-hand that those in my field sometimes develop a skewed sense of the world. We know bad things sometimes happen and because we see a lot of bad things, we can begin to believe they are inevitable. Then we try to protect - against possible danger everywhere. That's just what we do.

 

I was impressed with the well written responses - I'm seldom tactful so I admire that in others.

 

Geocaching reviewers have never crossed my mind when considering the issue of child luring. I have little actual knowledge about what they do - I assume they get the submitted cache info, plug it into Google Earth, check proximity to other caches; make sure general guidelines are being followed, and respond to cache complaints and such. They don't work on the business side and I am comfortable they don't have a clue who I am. Except for my reviewers, who probably remember me from events as that mouthy bitchy woman who has an opinion on everything. ;)

 

When my work induced paranoia does hit, I point the finger at Average Joe Geocacher. The psycho with the fake account who lurks at events, and maybe one day leaves a little surprise in a new cache to watch the FTF go bang. Now that's a creepy thought. Our reviewers are from a different geographical area - Average Joe could be anywhere, but odds are he lives closer, and he might know what I look like. I might have rubbed him the wrong way in the forums. That is very possible. You have to especially beware of the quiet ones. "He seemed like such a nice man. He was quiet, and pretty much kept to himself" ;)

 

We are part of a cyber community, and we open ourselves to the world. Protecting ourselves is our responsibility, but keep it practical. Every community is a random sampling of the general population. Some people aren't good people. That doesn't mean we request child welfare or criminal checks from our neighbours, unless we're wanting them to babysit. Even then, we're usually pacified by character references, and reviewers do seem to be screened in that way. Average Joe is not. I applaud the parents who keep an eye on what their kids are doing - they are doing the best job of child protection.

 

Meanwhile, I'll book a counselling appt with my employee assistance provider - I haven't gone for a FTF in over a year!!

 

Peace

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...