Slashdot Mirror
Googling For Dates?
JAK writes "The New York Times' down-to-earth ethicist Randy Cohen writes on the moral implications of searching for a date's past on Google. He suggests that the practice is ok (even admitting to doing it himself) but warns against jumping to conclusions based on a quick search or confusing someone for others with the same name. He also writes that "the verb ''to Google'' is now a familiar neologism" (neologism: a new word, usage, or expression, I looked it up).
You can read about it The Times (free reg blah blah)"
I am sure everytime I apply for a job, employers scan through Google searching for my name. After all, it was what this article was about.
But then again, whether for dating purposes, or otherwise, why would I put up a page saying something that I may regret later? I am aware that search engines will pick up these pages. I suppose I would be a bit worried if something was out there against me that I had no full control over.
You never know when something as innocuous as a screen name can reveal some interesting facts about people.
Sometimes the people you associate with may even have entire second lives or hidden secrets online. Background checking people is a smart and healthy thing to do, in my opinion.
// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ --
Of a more general principle. It's not per se a bad thing to check up on people who you plan to share intimate time/contact/etc with. Just be careful that you don't let your imagination run away with you, or believe everything you hear. I'm sure I've seen the concept played out in many a movie/television show/etc.
It's just a general principle of being wary, both of walking blindly into relationships and blindly following the words of others. Google simply provides a new path to doing background research on people.
you can take the road that takes you to the stars...
This can be a new way of screwing with some one. Just imagine faking their names and then posting or doing business with some questionable sights. This Google report would seem to hold as much weight as an Equifax report, probably as damaging too!
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
This really does sound like one of those "In Soviet Russia" jokes: First stalk her, THEN date her.
Seriously, is it going to become necessary for women to get preemptive restraining orders against guys they haven't dated yet, to keep from being stalked on line "as a precautionary measure?" And on the gripping hand, how can we condemn the Feds for doing this kind of thing wholesale, when we aren't above doing it on a piecemeal basis, with no oversight or regulatory structure to govern our actions?
Just a thought or two...
there's a child molester in a neighboring state with the same name as me.
... just not against the 'victims' of it. the internet can be a useful tool, and a horrible device.
there was a warrent out for his arrest, long story short, the cop didn't believe that i wasn't him. fun night.
anyway, if someone was to look me up on google, they would find a sexual predator? great. gotta love free information.
i'm all for megan's law
Runnin' On Empty
Why not trust the other person to tell you about themselves and their past? Seems to me this is a way to look for any faults you can find in someone. Sounds like a sure fire way to end a relationship to me.
You: "Honey, I was just on google. Says on there that you once did (insert stupid mistake or whatever).
SO:"Oh really? So, how long have you been checking up on me?"
You: "Oh, I just wanted to see..."
SO: "Well, how about you see the door as it hits your butt on the way out?"
Sent from your iPad.
I ask, once again, for a google icon. fourth story in less than a week.
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
He suggests the practice is ok?
Does that mean its like maybe sort of alright?
Also, I would recommend against it. Finding out things about your girlfriend that she din't want to tell you is liek opening up old wounds. Somethings are best left in the past. It also indicates a lack of trust in a relationship taht you feel you have to go behind the other persons back.
Then there is the age old porno problem: You will start thinking about your girlfriend differently after you see her amateur nude photos on the web. It's like discovering your girlfriend posed for playboy: the moment she finds out you know, your relationship will fall apart.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
As far as I'm concerned, assuming you are reasonably suspicious of the information, this is no different than asking around, as Mr. Cohen says. If all the government does is google for me, well, I still don't think the whole statism deal is a good idea, in a perfect world, but in this one I'm willing to live with that. On the other hand, intercepting my email is inappropriate for a government, and intercepting your date's email... Well, do I need to say it?
That's very interesting. The other day a less computer saavy buddy of mine came over looking for some techincal assistence, gleaming over the new PC he'd just purchased and hooked up to the internet. Since he's not very "connected", I decided to play around with his head a little, telling him that you could find out anything about a person through this magical search engine called "Google". To prove this to him I ran his name (not a common one) through it, not really expecting anything. Low and behold it came up in the form of a .txt file from a job he hadn't held in about a year. Along with his own name came his father's name and email address (who is a Labor Relations manager, a field that can get heated), his mother's name and where she went to high school, and countless other miscellaneous tidbits of information about him and his family.
What surprised me most, however, was the information that didn't surface. While all of this trivial information found it's way to my monitor, the information I would have expected to appear didn't. A few years ago, during a low point in his life, he'd manage to amass quite a criminal record: a few semi-violent crimes (bar fights constitute assult) and an attempted felony, he had even been associated with a large hate group. None of that surfaced in my googling.
I guess the moral of the story is googling your date isn't exactly the most acurate way of checking his or her background if you're into that type of thing. I'm glad this information didn't surface in his case, as he's put his past behind him and started a new life. I don't think "ex-neo nazi skinhead" sends potential dates the right message on a first date. He's told his current girlfriend, but only when the relationship was a point where he felt okay in doing so, and she accepted it.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
"In a Democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve." -Winston Churchill
And how do you expect to find me?
"At what point does snooping around for information on others cross the line into stalking?"
My personal litmus test: When you start to spend money.
A search on what a particular person had searched for could be far more incriminating than most things you can find in a regular Google search.
Oh yeah. Myself, I never settled for anything less than an FBI background check and polygraph examination.
What an unfortunate way to start off a relationship, with subterfuge.
Good thing I haven't dated for 5 years.
Hmm. Could they be Google'ing you?
First of all, how many available, attractive women actually go to the trouble of putting up their own sites or publishing their info? Unless they're in the news somehow, there aren't going to be that many references to the really desirable women because they don't need to use the internet to meet people. This is nothing new. Even if there were some questionable info on someone on the net, do you really care? Is it true or is it a satire or hoax like the onion? It's like reading a person's diary or setting up a surveillance camera inside their house. They present themselves to the world how they want to, and if you try to find out about someone online you're just asking for a skewed perspective. "Uh, honey, I found those hardcore pictures you did online 10 years ago, I wanted to let you know I still love you." Turns out it was her twin sister and she's offended that you actually *looked* for something bad about her. If you do find something online and allow that into your relationship with someone, you may find out how little you really know of yourself and each other. I mean sure, I'm as fond as the next guy of searching for news articles on women I'm interested in to see if they have any hobbies so I can ask them what they do in their spare time, but for example searching the local recorder's office to see if they own property to see if they live in a nice area is just out of line. Why don't you just ask, it will look better if they ever find out. This reminds me of that device in Japan that tells people whether there's a "match" in the immediate vicinity, like while walking on the sidewalk. Seriously, people.
the impossibilty of seperating the 'victims' of Megan's law from its intended 'perps.'
I rather suspect that you weren't exactly treated in a real 'innocent until proven guilty' manner either. As you say, "fun night."
*All* laws that seek to 'preempt' crime create a class of innocent vitims. Some of them have their lives ruined beyond repair. Be greatful it was only your night that was 'fun.'
I'd go so far as to state that preemptive laws create many, many more innocent 'victims' of law than they save actual vitims of crime.
Have you read the so called "Patriot" Act? Hell, from now on it doesn't even necessarily *matter* if you're innocent or guilty.
KFG
Doesn't "Google" use as a verb dilute its trademark value? (Something like that happened to Xerox).
I just refer girls I date to The Labyrinth (my writings) found at my web-site. They either come away thinking I'm one fucked up individual or find me interesting.
I'm religious but I'm not afraid to poke fun of my religion. Any like minded girl that can read "Justification for It's Existance" and not get offended at the line "Jesus tells the funniest stories when he's drunk" or "Dinner Party" and laugh at "Resurrected Jesus cookies" is a girl I want to get to know.
Researching someone on Google is lame. These days everyone and their dog and its chew toy has a web-site. If they don't have a personal site then stick to the old fashion "conversation."
Finding random spats of information someone wrote is an excellent way to get the wrong idea about them. Who knows when it was written, what they've gone through since then, ect. If someone wants others to know about them on-line, they'll put up a homepage and point you to it if you ever meet them.
I'd rather get to know someone before digging through their history and judging them without giving them a chance to explain. People change. They make mistakes. They move on.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
You seem to have that "privacy" concept down. There is no privacy in small towns... there is someone that knows everyones business. As more people grew up in larger cities, then there was more anonymity. Most people are comforatable with putting about 100 names to faces. Most geeks seems to be lower than average and some people have no problem with over a thousand names to faces. If the people who can keep track of a large number of people happen to be gossips, then the amount of info they have is mind boggling. I figure that my ability to use a computer effectively helps me keep up with them. These computer privacy laws as simply discriminating aginst me because I have lower than average "people skills."
Pick two. This old principle applies to information as well as it applies to other goods and services. Sure Google is fast and it's free, but the quality of the information you get is low. You don't necessarily know if the information you're getting is really about the person or if it's someone else with the same name. The information generally lacks context. Was it posted in jest, but you just don't happen to be in on the joke? Is the language ambiguous such that it could be misinterpreted as something else (an unintended double entendre)? The true authorship of the information is unknown so you don't really know if it comes from someone with an axe to grind.
e -Found-Bad-Things-On-Google-Associated-With-His-Na me really did/said those things before I turned him down for a job because of it.
Sure, it sounds like it might be a useful technique for someone who is an intelligent, discriminating reader and doesn't take anything at face value, but rather carefully evaluates sources for quality, context, and bias. But, frankly, that sounds like an awful lot of work and, let's face it, most people do have a tendency to take things at face value without scrutinizing the accuracy and bias of the source. Observed behavior is far more valuable information than what Google can offer regarding what a person is really like. What's their body language saying? What are their friends like? How do they treat friends, strangers, and family? What is their family of origin like? If you need help recognizing behavioral cues, pick up a good psychology/sociology/self-help book written by a credible expert.
As for employers making hiring decisions based on info from a Google search, that sounds like a lawsuit just waiting to happen. I'd want to be certain that Mr. Otherwise-Exceptionally-Qualified-Applicant-But-W