NJCubScouter

jayfromcleveland says: You can bet that the BSA's enemies like the ACLU will try to paint us all with this brush. Here we go with the ACLU again. Actually I doubt that the ACLU (as an organization, I can't vouch for individuals) will have anything to say about this at all. (And I don't think they are an "enemy" of the BSA, but I don't expect anyone who believes otherwise to change their minds.)

It appears that this young man's mother is under the impression that you, as den leader, have the authority to change or "waive" advancement requirements for a particular Scout, which of course is not the case. The same would be true if the requirement in question was for the Outdoorsman or Readyman activity badge, or some other requirement. It just happens that in this case the religion requirement is involved. Hopefully in a meeting with both parents (which I think is called for in this case in order to avoid any "misunderstandings"), they will be able to accept this and make their choice. At least one poster seems to have inferred that the Scout himself is an "agnostic," but as far as I can see, Scoutndad has not said that. He has said that the Scout's mother is an agnostic, but Scoutndad does not actually know what the boy's beliefs are or aren't (because Mom won't let the boy say, at this point.) Even if the boy does think he is an "agnostic," that term is not necessarily self-defining. It may be that he believes that there is some higher power but does not know what the nature of that higher power is. Based on what I have read, that is good enough for the BSA. He would still be able to pass the Webelos requirements if he is able to discuss how whatever he does believe fits in with the wording of the requirements. I had occasion to study those requirements closely myself a few years ago, and while I see that some of the wording has changed in the new requirements, the "spirit" (if you will) has not changed. There were, and still appear to be, two choices that allow you to "pass" without being part of an organized religion, and you only have to choose two of the five or six choices, which I am pretty sure is not a coincidence in light of the BSA's statements that it "prefers" but does not require membership in a particular religion. Then, and I hesitate to bring this up, there is the issue of the mother being an assistant cubmaster. Is she is a registered leader now? One wonders if she has read the "Declaration of Religious Principles" that is printed on the application she signed (or will have to sign if she has not), and whether she is able to subscribe to that declaration. But again, that is not necessarily clear because the word "agnostic" does not necessarily close the door. The fact that the bsalegal.org web site (a public relations tool of the BSA) says that "agnostics" are not permitted does not necessarily answer the question.

I did a Google search on this guy ("douglas s. smith" "boy scouts") and the results are pretty distressing. He won various honors and awards and was very active as a representative of BSA National, and now this. And, guess who was the Chairman of the BSA's "Youth Protection Task Force?" And writing memos about it, probably using the same computer on which he was collecting child pornography? It's a bad scene, as they used to say. As for "lawsuits," if "all" this guy did was collect child pornography, it is difficult to see where any lawsuits would come from. Unless there are names attached to the persons in the photos it would be difficult for the police to identify any victims. That would not stop a criminal prosecution of course, but it would make a civil lawsuit difficult. And even if there were identifiable victims and a lawsuit were filed, if the plaintiffs chose to include the BSA in the suit, I don't see how the BSA would have any liability. If he did more than "just" collect child pornography, it might be a different story.

The only time I have ever seen a Scout salute another Scout is as part of "reports" during an opening ceremony. In my son's troop, immediately after the opening flag ceremony, the SPL calls on each patrol leader in turn, and the PL takes 1 step forward, says the number of members present, salutes the SPL, who returns the salute, and the PL steps back. The last "patrol" to report is the "Old Goat Patrol," at which time the SM reports to and salutes the SPL, which in my opinion is good "symbolism" for the SPL's role in the troop meeting. (When I was a Scout we did exactly the same thing, minus the "adult patrol.") When I was a Scout, some summer camps had the same thing during daily opening ceremonies, where the SPL's would "report" to the camp director on behalf of each troop, and my recollection is that saluting was done there as well. Like the traditions that BSAChaplain is talking about, there is nothing in the "book" that says you can't do it or that you must do it, it is just a matter of unit tradition. A local option, you might call it.

I agree with ScoutNut, the important thing is for this boy to join a Boy Scout troop, which he can do right now (being 11) without earning the Arrow of Light and even without a "crossover" ceremony. However, there is no reason why he cannot be part of the "crossover" ceremony, he just won't get the Arrow of Light. It would be nice if he could get the Arrow of Light (because it is the one Cub Scout award that goes on the Boy Scout uniform and is one of the two youth "ranks" that has a corresponding "knot" on the adult uniform, but that is getting a bit ahead of ourselves...) However, the Arrow of Light is not essential and is not worth "bending the rules" if it is going to get other people (including your son) up-in-arms, and is definitely not worth delaying his entry into a troop. On the other hand (what's that, about 3 hands now?) look closely at the "age" option for the "time" requirement, which is be active for 6 months since turning age 10, and see if he met it before becoming inactive. It may just be a matter of adding a few weeks now, in which case the boy and his parents need to be given the options and use their own judgment.

Assuming for the moment that I were inclined to "boycott" this photographer, it would be difficult to do because I have never heard of him or his work in the first place. Until, that is, I read your post telling me about him. I guess I just don't visit the kinds of web sites or art exhibits where I might see this sort of thing. I strongly suspect the same is true of the vast majority of participants in this forum. As a result, a whole lot of people who might never have heard of these photographs now have, because of you. You might want to think about that.

Eamonn, I agree with everything you say. (In this thread, anyway. ) All I am trying to do is determine what the boy's options are, within the rules. For example, he may already be 11 years old. (In a school district with an October 1 cutoff date, almost exactly half of all boys will be 11 by the end of March of their fifth-grade year.) If that is the case, he can "cross over" with his den-mates (meaning, he can join a Boy Scout troop) even if he does not earn the Arrow of Light. At the same time, just picking out a date here, if he turned 10 in December 2003 (which is within the "normal range" given that he is now in fifth grade), and was on the charter for at least 6 months after that (regardless of when he stopped coming to meetings), I think he makes the 6 months, can earn the Arrow of Light and join a troop with his friends. (In that case he would qualify to join a troop under 2 of the 3 "joining options" AND qualify for the Arrow of Light.) Remember that the Arrow of Light requirements say be active for 6 months after turning 10 OR finishing the fourth grade, and it has been argued by a number of people in the forum that "active" means "registered." While I have been "undecided" on that issue in the past, I am ready to agree in this particular case because it permits the boy to achieve the maximum amount of recognition AND join a Boy Scout troop at the earliest opportunity, without a lot of noise from the finger-wagging rulebook-thumpers among us. (And yes, that last little comment does imply that if there were no other way, and the boy would be extremely disappointed by not getting the Arrow of Light, I would give it to him and send him on to a troop with his friends. That would not be my attitude if he were missing Activity Badges, but his den leader states that he is one short and can earn it in time. But to my way of thinking, the important thing is that he join a Boy Scout troop and have the opportunity to go to summer camp, and do some weekend camping with the troop before that. If accomplishing that means to ignore the fact that he temporarily quit, that is what I would do. He's back and ready to do Scouting, I say let him do it.)

Well, wait a second. Before we all jump to conclusions here, I think we need an exact chronology of events, that is, in what MONTH AND YEAR did the following events occur: When the boy turned 10 years old; When he completed fourth grade (presumably this will be May or June 2004, just checking) When, from your perspective, he ceased to be "active" (and I ask it that way because the BSA's definition of "active" may not, and probably doesn't, match your definition; When (remember, month and year) the charter expired, so that he was no longer on the charter. I think this may be the most important question of all, in combination with his exact age. What I am getting at, in case you are wondering, is the possibility that he may actually qualify for the "6 months" despite the way it appears.

The following is based on my recollection from 30+ years ago so it may not be 100 percent accurate, but here is what I recall about the Leadership Corps. The Leadership Corps was introduced as part of the major changes of 1972-73, replacing something that was called either the Senior Patrol or Senior Scouts (or both.) Other changes in terminology at that time included changing Patrol Leaders Council to Troop Leaders Council, Junior Leader Training to Troop Leader Development (I have an old uniform with my TLD patch still on it), and "ranks" to "progress awards." (Notice how many of these changes have survived to today, if my calculations are correct, that would be: Zero. The patches are still round, though; before 72-73 the rank and position patches were generally rectangular, in 72-73 they became round (or oval) and colorful, now they are still round (or oval) but less colorful.) Anyway, as I recall (again) our troop did not actually have a Leadership Corps for the first couple years after it became an option. When I was SPL (late 74 and into 75) I appointed the first Leadership Corps, and that is what the book said to do: The SPL appoints the Leadership Corps along with other troop-wide positions such as ASPL, Scribe, etc. The LC did not "run the troop," they were there to assist the SPL and PL's, and the official description of their duties probably included a mixture of what today would be the duties of Instructor, Troop Guide, and maybe also ASPL. I believe the TLC (PLC) meetings were attended both by the Patrol Leaders and Leadership Corps members, but any arrangements regarding voting are beyond my recollection. I am not sure we even had "voting," it seems to me decisions were probably reached by "consensus." I also believe that the people I appointed to the LC were all former PL's so it was almost like a "Patrol Leader Emeritus" sort of thing. I also seem to recall that it was a bit difficult to figure out what they were actually supposed to do, and it probably served more as a "candidate pool" for SPL or a "waiting room" for JASM (in the case of former SPL's who were not yet 16) than anything else. As for what happened to the LC, all I know is that when I "graduated" from Boy Scouts in 1976, it was there, and when my son joined a troop in 2003, it wasn't, along with most of the other "new ideas" that had been introduced when I was a Scout. My son's troop does have a "senior patrol" that seems to include the SPL, ASPL and former SPLs/ASPLs who are not in a regular patrol. I suspect that this "senior patrol" is not actually sanctioned by any current BSA publications. (It is not a "Venture Patrol" which is a whole other issue in my troop.) It looks to me like a version of the Leadership Corps idea under a different name.

Lone says: The point hinges on being morally straight. An individual practicing homosexuality is not, has never been, and never will be morally straight. Well, not in your opinion, anyway.

Prairie Scouter says: But, if BSA is the non-denominational organization it says it is, it absolutely cannot make a religious argument about the exclusion of gays. Bingo. I have been saying the same thing in this forum for three years. (Has it been that long? Time flies, I guess.) And others have been saying it for longer than I have, but we don't hear much from them, or from me, on this subject anymore. It is good to see someone fairly new to the forum who has not been "burned out" on the issue as some of us have been. It does get kind of tedious saying the same thing over and over. But now, feeling slightly rejuvenated on this issue, I'll say it again: The Declaration of Religious Principles uses the expression "absolutely nonsectarian" which makes it clear that the BSA is not supposed to "take sides" in matters of religious belief. The BSA violates its own declaration by taking sides on the theological issues of whether homosexuality is immoral and whether gay people should be welcomed or shunned. The beliefs of some religions (or factions thereof) on this issue (such as the Roman Catholic Church, the LDS Church, Orthodox Jewry, some Methodists, some Presbyterians, etc.) are enforced as BSA policy, while the beliefs of others (such as Unitarians, non-Orthodox Jews, many Episcopalians, some Methodists, some Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, etc.) are rejected. How this can be acceptable in an organization that claims to be "absolutely nonsectarian" is beyond me.

He also said that groups like this and others might have agendas that do not mesh with the BSA. They may be using BSA issues to promote and fund raise for their groups. There's no doubt about that. Groups with an anti-gay agenda have been busily latching themselves onto the BSA for their own purposes for the past several years -- certainly since the Dale decision and maybe before that.

Hunt, thank you for posting the text. I am not so sure about your interpretation. If I were a BSA unit that had been chartered to a military unit before the Defense Department memo came out, or if I were the Department of Defense wanting "cover" to rescind or reinterpret that memo, I would point to section 2(b)(1) and basically make the following argument: The military unit sponsored Troop 5 for the past however-many years, more than 4. The military unit only stopped doing so when a directive was received from DOD, stating that BSA units are no longer to be chartered to military units. Chartering a unit is a "form of support." (It is interesting that subsection (b) defines "support" to "include" certain things, and chartering is not mentioned; but the word "include" means that other things might or might not be included.) Therefore, the DOD directive limited the military unit from providing "any form of support" to a group "officially affiliated with the BSA" (that is, Troop 5) that was provided "during each of the 4 preceding fiscal years." The statute overrides the directive, and therefore (it could be argued) the directive could not be "construed" to limit the military unit from chartering Troop 5, even though that's what the directive says. The end result here is that I think the statute can be interpreted (and not with a lot of stretching, either) to permit something that is, quite clearly, unconstitutional. Maybe the military would choose not to interpret it that way, but it certainly creates fresh new ground for lawsuits, if nothing else.

OGE said: Sometimes it better not to play into the hands of one who seeks to manipulate True enough, but in reading some of the subsequent posts, and noting my own reaction to that statement, I have this feeling that different people may see different other people as the "one" in question. Perhaps a different "one" than OGE himself had in mind, if indeed he only had one "one" in mind, about which I am not certain.

First of all, this article (like many others about this subject) does not distinguish between government entities being CO's and "merely" allowing use of their facilities, which are two different issues. This is not the first article posted about this legislation. The first one gave the impression that it requires that if a governmental entity gave a certain "level" of support to the BSA at some point in the past, it cannot reduce that level of support. I have not read the actual legislation, but if the language in the article is any indication, it sounds like it COULD be interpreted to mean that a government entity that was a CO must remain a CO, because to do otherwise would be a "reduction in support." If that is how it is interpreted, I do not see how it could be constitutional, for reasons I have explained in other posts. Second of all, if legislation is passed that is (arguably) unconstitutional, or is interpreted by the enforcing authority in a way that is (arguably) unconstitutional, I would expect someone to challenge it. That might be the ACLU or someone else, or both. The ACLU, as well as other groups, often file lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of both federal and state legislation, or administrative interpretations of that legislation. It has not proven to be their "undoing" yet (Ed.) They do not, as far as I know, "sue Congress." They sue the administrative official who is obligated by the legislation to carry it out. In this case that probably is the Secretary of Defense as far as military bases, possibly the Secretary of Interior as far as use of non-military federal land, etc., and then whoever is responsible for making sure the states do what they are supposed to do. Suing these government officials is not a big deal, they get sued for something almost every day.

I find all the bickering to be kind of amusing, because I actually would give a much simpler response to the statement by Ed that started all this. (I, for the record, being a non-atheist and an active Scouter, and I have taken some heat from Merlyn in the past, but that doesn't change the fact he is right about the constitution at least 90 percent of the time; not about the PTA thing I don't think, but I'll have to leave that for another thread.) Ed's statement was this: Yet Merlyn wants to say a public school chartering a BSA unit is the same as a public school having a rule of "No atheists allowed". Not even close to being the same! It is the same -- legally and constitutionally speaking, which I think is what we are doing in this thread, although the subject of the ACLU's letter to the BSA, and the BSA's response, was raised in a different thread. A public school cannot exclude atheists because that would constitute a government establishment of religion. (The First Amendment prohibits a governmental establishment of religion, not just the establishment of "a" religion, so nobody needs to ask me "what religion is being established" because that has nothing to do with it.) When a public school is the CO of a BSA unit, it is often said that the school "owns" the unit but actually the relationship is even closer than that. The BSA unit is not, legally, a separate entity. Instead, it represents the CO's "use" of the BSA program, according to the methods and rules of the BSA, which the CO is bound to follow by contract with the BSA. Since the rules of the BSA require the exclusion of atheists, the CO is required to exlude atheists from its BSA unit. That is fine if the CO is the type of entity that is permitted to exclude atheists. But if the CO is part of the government, following the BSA's rules requires the CO to do something unconstitutional. A public school is part of the government, and therefore if the public school were a CO, excluding atheists from the BSA unit would violate the constitutional rights of those excluded, the same as if they were denied enrollment in the school itself on the same basis. It sure seems the same to me. I don't know why some people need to make it so complicated.

Lynda, I agree that you shouldn't have card-playing at a troop meeting -- well, except a couple of times a year, just to mix things up, my son's troop has game night. The boys can bring chess, board games, and I guess they could bring a deck of cards although I am not sure whether they actually do. However, after dinner at a camping trip, when the boys are tired and day is winding down, what is wrong with a game of cards? As for chips, if not backed up by money or other things of value, it is not gambling, it is just keeping score. As a personal matter I'd probably find it a bit disconcerting to see boys playing poker with chips at a Scouting function, and I don't think I have seen it.

Ed, for about the, oh I don't know, fifth or sixth thousandth time, asks: So a public school is violating the 1st Amendment by chartering a BSA unit? In what way is that a violation of the 1st Amendment? OK, so the "thousandth" part may be an exaggeration. But Ed, I have answered this exact same question for you in the past. You just don't like the answer so you pretend it doesn't exist. I guess you'll just keep asking it in every thread on this subject, but I don't have to keep answering it. And how is this different from a public school chartering a Girl Scout unit? The question is based on a false premise; Girl Scouts has no "charter partners" or whatever the BSA-PC term is for them these days. GS units have "sponsors" but the "sponsor" does not own the unit. The "charter partner" of a BSA unit DOES own the unit. The BSA, by its own declaration, discriminates on the basis of religion, specifically it does not admit people who proclaim a non-belief in a higher power. A public school, by owning a unit that was required by BSA-national to practice religious discrimination, would therefore be practicing religious discrimination itself. I don't see how you could possibly interpret either the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment or the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to permit that. Even the BSA seems to have acknowledged this obvious fact. Why can't you? (Gee, I guess I answered the question again, after all...)

Lynda, I have a couple of questions about the background check you describe, which is performed by your CR, who is a police investigator. You may or may not know the answers, but if I were you, I think I'd make it my business to find out. First, is the CR gathering his information from "public record sources"? (The other option would be that he is using his "police connections" to obtain information that a member of the public could not obtain. This might be perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances (see the next question, for example), but I don't know if you have those circumstances.) Second, IF the CR is obtaining non-public information to do these background checks, is he (or the troop in general) obtaining advance written authorization from the prospective leader before doing so? The reason I ask these questions is that the current version of the BSA adult leader application has the following language on the front, in big capitalized red letters, in a box, as if to say "READ ME!": BY SUBMITTING THIS APPLICATION YOU ARE AUTHORIZING A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK OF YOURSELF. THIS CHECK WILL BE MADE FROM PUBLIC RECORD SOURCES. YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND CHALLENGE ANY ADVERSE INFORMATION DISCLOSED BY THE CHECK. My point is, the BSA is taking great pains to inform people that they are authorizing a background check and exactly what kind of background check they are authorizing. I would be concerned that if a "police background check" goes "deeper" than a "public record" check, and finds information that (for example) has been "expunged" from the public record but is still sitting in a computer somewhere, the person doing the check, or using the results, could be asking for trouble. Of course, if your CR is using only "public record sources," there shouldn't be any problem.

Ed says: The ACLU never seems to care about the freedom of religion ONLY the freedom FROM religion. Ed, you have made that statement in the past, despite the fact that examples have been cited of the ACLU defending the freedom of religion, even working with groups that would be considered part of the "religious right." Some of these examples are cited on www.aclu.org, as has also been mentioned in the past. Yet you keep on making the same statement over and over despite it having been proven false.

ITD, I am not sure what you mean either. Discussion of religious subjects by individuals in the "public area of discussion" is not only permitted, but the government is prohibited from prohibiting it, both by the "free speech" clause and by the "free exercise" clause. What is not permitted is when the government itself is engaging in a religious practice or religious speech -- with the exception (apparently, though the Supreme Court has never actually made this completely clear) of certain purely ceremonial acts or statements that have become so commonplace that they have lost most or all of their "religious" character. (Like putting "In God We Trust" on money, for example. There are some things, such as Congress opening its sessions with a prayer, that don't fall neatly into this category, and that quite frankly I can't explain, but the fact that there are a few loose threads doesn't mean you throw out the whole garment.) What I think has become increasingly troublesome in the past few years are individual units of government (like schools) prohibiting "religious" expressions by individuals apparently on the theory that permitting them would constitute a religious act by the school. I am not talking about the case with the prayer at the football game; the ultimate decision in that case was a good one, because the prayer in question was in effect an act by the government, not merely the individual students. I am talking about the schools that have done things like banning the singing of "Silent Night" (a religious song) or even "Jingle Bells" (a non-religious song) from a "holiday concert"; or who will not let a student draw a picture of Santa Claus; or who will not accept an essay from a student solely because it deals with a religious theme or mentions religious concepts. That is going too far, and I don't think it is required by the "establishment clause," and I don't think "the courts" have ever said otherwise. Whether some of these "bannings" may actually violate the "free exercise clause" is an interesting question that I don't think the courts have resolved. Merlyn, I am curious as to whether you would disagree with any of what I have said in this post.

I see nothing wrong with expecting governmental entitites to obey the Constitution. I completely agree with the ACLU on this issue; if the BSA is going to exclude people based on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), then BSA units cannot be owned by the government. So they will be chartered to private entities. It is no big deal. And even if the ACLU were out to "destroy" the BSA (which I do not believe is the case), their motivations are irrelevant. They are correct on the law, and it is fully consistent with their principles to address this issue. I think the BSA would be a lot stronger if its supporters would stop whining so much about things like this, that really make no difference. And by the way, it appears that BSA-national agrees with me since they have not put up much of a fight on the government-ownership-of-units issue. Believe me, if BSA-national thought this was important, they would not give in without much more of a fight.

Apologies in advance for the following, but this fragment of dialogue from "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" somehow suggested itself as being appropriate at this point. I tried to include enough so that the "punchline" might make some sense to those unfamiliar with the book, but not enough to get "NJCubScouter" sued by the Estate of Douglas Adams for copyright infringement. "So here we are," said Zaphod hesitantly, "lying dead ..." "Standing," Trillian corrected him. "Er, standing dead," continued Zaphod, "in this desolate ..." "Restaurant," said Arthur Dent who had got to his feet and could now, much to his surprise, see clearly. That is to say, the thing that surprised him was not that he could see, but what he could see. "Here we are," continued Zaphod doggedly, "standing dead in this desolate ..." "Five star ..." said Trillian. "Restaurant," concluded Zaphod. "Odd isn't it?" said Ford. "Er, yeah." "Nice chandeliers though," said Trillian. They looked about themselves in bemusement. "It's not so much an afterlife," said Arthur, "more a sort of apres vie."

My troop has no official rules regarding card games that use "valuable" cards, but I think the boys themselves generally refrain from bringing those items especially since an incident at summer camp two years ago. All I know about that incident is what my son (who was a brand new Scout at the time) relayed to me, but apparently one of the older Scouts was accused of stealing some cards from one of the younger boys (not my son.) The only consequence of this that I am aware of was exacted in the democratic process, meaning that before summer camp this young man was considered a shoo-in for SPL in the election in the fall, and after this incident another candidate emerged who won, with the support of the younger boys. Justice takes many forms. (Though I myself do not know whether the accused Scout actually did steal the cards.) Anyway, as I said, I haven't noticed any of those kinds of card games since then. The boys do play "regular" cards, and in fact my son's regular camping gear includes both a deck of cards and a small plastic chess set (one that would not cause any grief if it got lost, and in fact I think a couple of the pieces are gone by now, which is no problem as long as you remember that the pebble is the white pawn and the tiny stick is the black knight, or whatever.) My son has 3 or 4 chess opponents in his patrol, and you can't argue with chess. It has the benefit of keeping its own score. As for card games, I do not think they use chips or anything else, and I think they mostly stick to games where you keep score on a piece of paper. I don't have any problem with any of this. The chess and cards is usually done after dinner, after cleanup, when there is really no "program", it is dark or getting dark, and the boys are tired from the physical activity of the day. Scoutldr, I agree with everything you have said, but please tell me you are joking about the guy who picks the bacon off his bacon cheeseburger to make it "kosher." I speak as someone who has never observed the "kosher" rules myself, but I have been around enough people who do to know what the general rules are and how people interpret, bend, or otherwise get around them. However, I think you'd have to be pretty lax in the kosher area to think that a sandwich that had bacon on it in the first place was ok, and more to the point... do you know this and are just playing?... a CHEESEburger can never, ever, be kosher. It "violates" the rule against meat and dairy at the same meal -- and in quite a spectacular fashion, I'd say. (I love cheeseburgers myself.) The strictest kosher folks have separate dishes for meat and dairy, but even if you don't go that far, well, if you are going to have a cheeseburger, you might as well leave the bacon on it.

On the issue of "who gets sued" I think scoutldr is correct. (Before I give my hypothetical example, let me make clear, some of the events that follow have NOT happened as far as I know, it has not even been suggested that they have happened. This is just a hypothetical.) 1. I give personal information to the BSA with the understanding that it will be kept confidential and used for a particular purpose. (I said earlier that there was only one piece of confidential information on the adult leader app, the SSN, but that may not be the whole story. The fact is if you have that in combination with some of the other info on the adult leader app such as name, address, and date of birth, you can do damage to someone much easier than if you just had the SSN.) 2. The BSA hires a company to carry out that purpose. 3. The company gets ripped off and some bad guy/gal gets my information and uses it to injure me (and by the way, good luck proving all this unless the company admits it, since the sad truth is that the information on the adult leader app including your SSN is floating around all over the place anyway, regardless of how careful you are in giving it out. If someone showed up at my front door and told me my SSN, my date of birth, and even worse, facts that are used for verification such as my mother's maiden name, I'd have absolutely no way of knowing how he found out.) 4. Number 3 happened because the company acted negligently or worse. (Not to get too law-schoolish here, but if they just got ripped off after doing everything within reason and prudence to protect your information, you almost certainly have a losing case. In order for you to have a shot of winning, they at least have to have acted negligently, which again not to be too technical about it, is basically the same as "carelessly.") Based on all these facts, I am not sure you even have a winnable lawsuit against the company. You did not give them the information, you did not have a contract with them, they never promised you anything, in fact you do not even necessarily know they exist. (Which is in contrast to the case of say, buying a brand-name product from a retailer. You never entered into a financial transaction with Goodyear, but when their tire malfunctions and you are injured, you can still sue them, along with the retailer, and if I had to explain why, the simplest explanation is that you do know Goodyear exists, and that is why you bought the tire.) Anyway, in this hypothetical situation, I think your claim is against the BSA, and then the BSA has a claim against the company they hired. (In NJ you would file a complaint against the BSA and the BSA would then, in the same lawsuit, file a "crossclaim" against the company, and the procedure in most states is probably similar.) But you'd ("you" in this case being a lawyer) would probably sue both the BSA, and in this case ChoicePoint (and if you didn't know who they were, "XYZ, Inc.") just to be on the safe side.