Slashdot Mirror
True.com Wants Warnings On Personal Ads
An anonymous reader submits "News.com.com is reporting that personals company True.com is behind a push in several state legislatures to require everyone but them to include scary looking warnings above personals ads. I'm sure they're not the first, but this looks like a particularly slimy way to corner a market. And the unintended consequences look big, too: by my read of the proposed law, even Slashdot would need to include the warnings above user profile pages." In just a few weeks, this would sound like an April Fool's joke. I hope every legislator to whom this is being shopped is sent a copy of Declan's counter-example.
err, Declan is the author of the article. So I presume it's a copy of the article, unless he's written comething deeper on the topic.
This is not the sig you are looking for...
He is suggesting that if the bill is passed that true.com be required to post a similar "truth in advertising" notice.
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
In case anyone else is wondering, like I was, how this can be done in only a few states... the basic idea is that services that don't comply with the law would be fined for only the members belonging to those states.
./ editors. The proposed bills are different in all 4 states, and I couldn't find much information on them. If the poster really did manage to read them it might have been nice to provide links. Anyway from what I can decipher from TFA it in no way seems as if slashdot would need to include warnings in the profile pages.
./ editors... grow up a little bit.
This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Regardless of that, I think this is another strong case of FUD spreading
It clearly states that it applies to social referral services. I admit that what the poster suggested could be true depending on the definition, however it really seems like nothing but sensationalism. The article itself points out that the law is meant to apply to companies like friendster.com, and orkut.com.
Please
I believe that what's being referred to is Declan McCullagh's (the author of the above article) counter example:
- It would be just as easy to argue that True.com should be required to post labels on each page: "WARNING: TRUE.COM'S BACKGROUND SEARCHES WILL NOT IDENTIFY CRIMINALS USING FAKE NAMES. AND THE COST TO RUN THEM MAY BE PASSED ON TO YOU."
in response to True.com CEO Herb Vest's proposal:Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
If you are in Virginia and have any opinions about this bill, its sponsor is trying to run for Lieutenant Governor. Let him know what you think about it and whether that's what you want in a future Governor of your state.
California Sponsor: Asm. Fran Pavley (assemblymember.pavley@assembly.ca.gov)
Michigan Sponsor: Rep. Jim Howell (jhowell@house.mi.gov)
Texas Sponsor: Sen. John Corona (john.carona@senate.state.tx.us)
Virginia Sponsor: Rep. Joe T. May (Del_May@house.state.va.us)
Let your voices be heard!
Imposed liablity in a contract would only be for costs incurred (such as the dating service, itself) and can not usually be punitive in nature.
They only claim to carry-out background checks. Not that they will screen users out because of the results, but that they have made the backgroudn check.
Now, if they fail to do the check or do it in a shoddy way you could argue breach of contract, but then again, the liability would be limited to the amount of the contract and nothing more.
To argue that they committed a tort because their background check failed and then you got harmed because of that?
I'm sure in reality they would settle the lawsuit, but it would be on shaky legal ground to take it to trial...
5215 N. O'Connor, Suite 1600 Irving, TX 75039 1.866-583-TRUE
I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
Verified the claimed income bracket
The income bracket thing on Match.com is interesting. Is it primarily used so that people can make sure they're dating the same financial class as them, or for girls or guys to make sure they'll be provided for?
I have always underestimated my income because I didn't want to attract the wrong type of girl. Plus if I say too high a number, my dates might expect fancy dinners when I'm just as content getting Indian food at a hole-in-the-wall.
Have any guys here overestimated? Did you get any extra attention?
I never actually met anyone from match.com in real life. I even subscribed for 3 months and emailed probably 20 different girls. Most didn't reply, and the closest I got to a date was a phone call with a girl who thought the world revolved around her. So if you're thinking about subscribing... don't expect miracles! I think only tall, dark and handsome guys do well online, but they don't really need dating sites anyway!
my blog
> Even if some of the states listed passed
> True.com's desired bills, anyone(probably the
> owner of a rival site) could sue them.
No. Someone would have to violate the law, be convicted, and appeal the conviction.
> If it reached the supreme court, the supreme
> court would clearly have the power to overturn
> the law...
Yes, of _course_ they have the power to overturn it. They "have the power" to overturn any law.
> states can't regulate interstate commerce,
> etc.
However, it is not at all clear that the proposed law would violate the interstate commerce clause or be overturned for any other reason.
Are you prepared to create the test case and pay the fines if you lose? How about the legal costs?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I saw this one close up. True.com's hired a professional lobbyist to try to push a bill through in Virginia, and it resulted in this: The Online Dating Safety Act, HB2467
I was bird-dogging the House Science and Technology Committee meeting the day they dealt with it, and had a front-row seat on the results. Even among the most socially conservative legislators, it was seen as a company trying to legislate their business model for competitive purposes. Gotta hand it to the lobbyist, he took the True.com reps to all the right people. But in the end, it didn't really matter. When the bill came up, there was lots of snickering, and the bill died a quick and painless death.
That a law must be violated, before it can be tried and struck is false. Laws can be overturned without violating the law. All you have to do is be is a party with a stake in the law's outcome and file as a civil matter against the enforcement official. Arguments, vis-a-vis this proposed law, could include violations under the UCC, restraint of trade or interstate commerce, or even the State Constitution as a violation of Free Speech or Commercial Speech. The law falls if the court agrees with the argument, of course, but first the court must agree that you are an interested party; basically, they have to give you permission to bring suit.
That permission clause is why violating the law is the most effective way of bringing suit: once a violation occurs, the court is forced then to try the offender and follow the appeals process.
Case in point: did Eldred violate copyright laws to sue Ashcroft? Heck no, he was merely an interested party. The question is not whether you want to pay fines and be a test case, but rather are you an interested party with resources to fund a suit?
The companies whom these laws would damage probably do and should the laws pass they will no doubt explore all avenues of overturning it.
you can find your way to the news.com article?
yes?
you can find the links to the proposed laws in that article, state-by-state?
no?
State-By-Friendly-State.
Yes, the state's names showing up in colors means something. You can click on them. Even in lynx, you can click on them.
True partnered with a company called Rapsheets to provide the background checks for its members. Rapsheets has information about their data sources here.
I'm not circumcised. What's wrong with being uncircumcised?
This is absoloutely true and I get tired of pointing this out to people that act like every single person online is a psychopath that wants nothing more than to skin them alive and wear their internal organs. There are still people who react with horror when I mention that all of my contact information (real name, address, phone number) is avaliable to pretty much anyone that wants it. They ask me if I'm afraid of being raped, murdered, and left somewhere to rot in this smug matter-of-fact voice. Some of these people are half my age and have none of the experience meeting the people I've met online in real life, yet they're talking to me like I'm the uninformed idiot. Gaah!
And of course it's entirely incomprehensible for any "normal" person to grasp that the geekly aquaintences I have online are no more strange or dangerous (or are indeed far less so) than your average drunken jerk at a local bar. Bleh.
"He does look a bit Oompa like, even if his Loompa is a bit off-kilter."
If I saw that warning above a classified ad, yahoo personal, slashdot member page, or blogger.com listing I would simply say "No sh1t! Why would [my local newspaper/yahoo/slashdot/blogger] waste money performing a criminal background check?"
The key word in that sentence is the repeated "I". Your error is that you are holding yourself, apparently a person with a 3-digit IQ, up as a standard. You don't need to be reminded to breathe by Homeland Security officer, your corporate masters, or Regis.
In short, you're not representative of the average asshat surfing the internet.
Here in Sweden I've seen plenty of ketchup-bottles that have the "warning: may contain tomato-extract" on them.
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
Only the ones with low enough UID's