Slashdot Mirror
Flawed Online Dating Bill Being Pushed in New Jersey
Billosaur writes "According to a report on Ars Technica, a committee of the New Jersey Assembly is trying to push an on-line dating bill even though it contains significant flaws. The Internet Dating Safety Act would require dating web sites that interact with customers in New Jersey to indicate whether they do criminal background checks and if people who fail such checks are still allowed to register with the site. 'The backers of the New Jersey Internet Dating Safety Act undoubtedly feel that the law provides at least a measure of protection despite its flaws. In this case, however, users of such sites are probably better off assuming that their personal safety remains a personal responsibility, rather than placing faith in a background check that has little chance of uncovering any information on a person attempting to hide it.'"
I recall a story a while ago on this same topic, except that a particular online dating site which did some form of background check was the primary backer -- they wanted all print and online personals sites to be required to display a warning if no background check was performed.
Another piece of New Jersey legislation requires business owners to disclose to the public whether or not they have ties to organized crime.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
1. Use common sense.
2. The website should tell you to use common sense. (i.e., chat online before speaking on the phone; speak a lot before agreeing to meet; meet somewhere public the first few times; meet their friends and family and see if they look normal. remember if you marry someone you're marrying their family, and if their family is psycho, chances are they are psycho too, even if they behave normal for a while).
3. The website should detail if background checks are done and if so, which ones.
4. It doesn't require a state law to deal with the problem of background checks.
I read a couple years back that True.com is pushing state legislatures to adopt such bills as a boost to their own business model (and a hindrance to their competitors). Anyone know if this is the case here?
Because that's how dating works in real life!
... Nice to meet you, Martha, now may I see your papers?
... wait, wtf is this? A filing for a restraining order against you! WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN UP TO! THIS DATE IS OVER!
Everything seems to be in order here
I think it's ridiculous that the Jersey gov is forcing their dating sites to do a mandatory background screening.
1. The Article states that it's not even a true background check (it's a name check only -- so, it's essentially worthless anyway)
2. Users should bare the responsibility of checking out their own dates, not the site
If anything, the state should only require the dating sites to offer a full background screening service for a reasonable price. That way, the user can check out their dates, plus the dating site isn't forced to do a background check on everyone, plus the site can still make a profit which is what the site is there for in the first place.
Health Insurance Quotes
"In Soviet Russia the state dates YOU!
That would probably be an improvement for most slashdotters, where you're more likely to be *ahem* "dating yourself ..."
Kevin Smith on Prince
When are they going to criminalize it when women post pictures that are five years and 100 pounds out of date? That's the real danger of internet dating sites.
I think you're cute. Background check me anytime and then maybe we'll get a cup of coffee.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
What the hell? Since when are we doing background checks on real people before we let them date? I am sick of this attempting to regulate the internet version of real life events. People go to match.com, true.com, iwantsomeactionfromanyone.com to find people. Its there fault if they agree to then meet them at the corner of 235th avenue and No-one-goes-here-ever road.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
Seriously, a lot of hook-ups, meeting new people for dating, etc. happen at bars, not online. This is one of those half-baked ideas by some clueless legislators who seem to think the Internet is a scarier place than a bar.
Requiring background checks for online dating is not a realistic safeguard. People who have something to hide will figure out how to hide it, face-to-face or on the Internet. If anything, this will cause clueless daters to fall into a false sense of security by assuring them that this safety net exists when it's merely a mirage.
This is simply true.com trying to legislate their business model. They pay a lot for background checks on their members and the public seems to think these background checks aren't important. By legislating this, they're hoping to a) force other companies to take on a huge financial burden or b) force other companies to look shady by having a disclaimer "warning: people on this site might be axe murders". What they should really be requiring is for everyone to do a background check on anyone they ever interact with. That clerk at the coffee shop? Who knows what s/he might be hiding!
Seriously, the more we alienate excons the more crime they will commit. THe only situation that requires notification are sex offenders. People need to start taking care of themselves. Meet a person, go slow, and figure them out.
If that is supposed to make me feel warm and fuzzy, you've done the very opposite. The people you talk about are the same ones who give you a deer-in-the-headlights look when you tell them that by putting up pictures of themselves and personal information such as where they go to school on Facebook, someone could figure out where they live.
They current crop of legislators aren't the only ones who have no idea about what the internet is.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
How would one do a background check on an avatar?
Ask him to bring you the Codex of Ultimate Wisdom?
A person goes to jail as punishment. Once out, that punishment should not continue, with society treating the person as a pariah. That leads to recidivism. Not all crimes make that person a danger to be avoided. There are some crimes, yes, that if the person committed them, might make you pause to trust them in that situation again. But, let us not treat the background check as a magic bullet.
Bearded Dragon
Heh, that was my reaction too: "Hold on -- are we flagging criminal convictions so that women can AVOID them, or so they can DATE them?"
Distance from North Pole to Equator along earth's surface: ~10,000 km.
Distance from Earth to Sun: 150 million km.
Distance from Sun to nearest other star: 42 trillion km.
Distance from what women say they want in a man, to what they really want: farther still.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Criminal background checks are often wrong if the person has had his case dismissed or expunged. There are so many data brokers who collect this information that its hard to change it. They pick up the initial arrest but then neglect to pick up whether the person had his case thrown out or expunged. Thats especially the case for DUII where people go through diversion and then have their record expunged. But they are never able to escape that history of DUII.
The Virginia Legislature considered this a couple of years ago. The day that the bill was considered by the House Committeee on Science and Technology, a pair of lobbyists (from a pretty high-power firm, at that) spent the day taking the head of True.com around meeting legislators. During the day, they met with a pretty good chunk of the committee, and most of the Leadership from both parties.
In the end though, the bill was very quickly, and very literally, laughed out of committee. I kind of felt bad for the True.com guy, because even though he was treated very politely, it was pretty clear that the agenda item was all about getting the bill killed in as little time as possible.
The sad thing was that before the bill made it to Sci-Tech, it was approved by the "Courts of Justice" committee, which considers general laws. CoJ is made up exclusively by attorneys, Sci-Tech has a pretty good number of engineers and technology people in its membership. Go figure.
goatse like link in parent.
... because from what I can gather, the law doesn't force dating sites to conduct background checks, just to indicate whether they conduct them or not. It's a big difference.
Seriously, have you any idea of how few people in a relationship met in bars compared to other means? Or how ubiquitous online dating services have become? This is particularly true for age ranges > 30.
Your point stands about a false sense of security. You'd think that maybe someone smart enough to go online to a dating site would be smart enough to do their own background check; the problem is that there is no assurance that the person they are checking on is actually who they say they are; the dating sites act as a vetting service -- this is what potential daters are paying for.
That said, I think the problem is that people too stupid to do their own background checks actually increase their chance of reproducing through these dating sites. This means that, from an evolutionary standpoint, they are getting some help in propagating their genes. I would like my legislator to propose legislation to ban all people too stupid to perform their own background checks from using dating sites. For the good of the species, please.
Won't someone think of the genome?
[1] Yes, I know, the 90s called, and they want their "The 80s called and want their $FOO back" joke back.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Okay, so assume you're running a corporation and you want your users to feel safe and use your site. What is more cost effective real methods, or empty marketing? Now as your business people go to your Web page and input personal information. You have no way of checking if the information they enter, even their name is correct. What kind of background check do you think you can perform that will be effective? You don't even know the person's real name if they decide to just make up an alias.
Okay now you're an individual who wants to meet someone. Should you abrogate your own personal responsibility and trust the company you're doing business with to keep you safe or should you assume that the company has neither the means nor the motivation to protect you and take personal responsibility for your own safety? Taking person responsibility does not mean you do or don't run your own background check, but just meeting someone in a public place puts you in a much better position to determine if a person is dangerous than the dating company. Hell, you can ask them for their driver's license and have a good shot at seeing if they are who they claim, then you can run a background check on them.
The point is, if this type of bill is used to create advertising for a few companies, many people will assume those companies are in a position to really provide some safety to them, when that is certainly not the case. In my mind it is better to be upfront and advocate responsibility on the part of customers and save a lot of grief.
""Dating"... doesn't that mean telling how old an object, like a fossil or something, is? Carbon dating, etc?"
I for one welcome dating our carbon-based overlords.
Kevin Smith on Prince
Background checks aren't a universal proposition. There is not an "International Background Check Association" that sets a standard. A background check is just that: A check in to a person's background. How intensive and what areas varies per check. A criminal record check just checks to see if there's a criminal record, Top Secret clearance requires a whole lot more. The pass/fail is then up to the person/business who is doing the check.
In the case of dating, it would be the individual you wish to date. They decide if what their search turns up is ok or not. You might think that a rape conviction is "no big deal" but someone you are trying to date might disagree, and that is their right. On the other hand maybe you have a shoplifting conviction that prevents your employment somewhere, but your date decides they don't give a shit.
I'm sure you think you are a great lover, but you don't get to make that call for people. The person you wish to date gets to decide and it is up to them what methods they wish to use. If they want to use a background check, that's their prerogative. It's basic freedom of association. My freedom to associate with whomever I want includes the freedom to NOT associate with people if I want, and I can set the conditions on that. Hell, I can decide to make you submit to a credit check if you want to be my friend. I'm not going to have many friends if I do that, but I don't have to associate with you if I don't want to.
The reason this is stupid is that online services should not have to incur the cost of background checks, it should be up to the individual.
When I signed up for the site wouldn't I have to consent to a background check, which would give me a good clue as to whether there is a background check or not, right?