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.'"
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.
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!
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
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.
I mean...what's the difference in where you meet and try to find people? What makes internet dating inherently more dangerous than dating in meatspace? Are we doing to be required to carry out background checks with us on our papers as well as our identifying information....oh wait...RealID....?
Seriously, I don't see the difference....no matter where you try to go to interact with people, you have to have some discretion in who you trust and go out with...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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