Dating Site Creates Profiles From Public Records

schliz writes "Online dating company Gotham Dating Partners has announced plans to create profiles for non-registered individuals based on publicly available information from social networking sites, e-mail registries, mailing lists, marketing surveys, government census records, real estate listings and business websites. Although the Australian Privacy Commissioner has warned that the automatic creation of identifiable profiles of individuals without their knowledge is 'not good privacy practice,' Gotham Dating Partners does not expect to face any privacy issues from the move, which is expected to boost its membership from 6.5 million to 340 million worldwide."

Comments

Easy

[sltd]

They'll just get everyone's info from Facebook!

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe *uckerberg can sue them and help pay off the Winklevoss brothers. What a serious bunch of poseurs and losers - including the Facebook's losers.

Re:Easy

[DavidRawling]

I don't see the point. 60%+ will be married / unavailable, at a guess, 20% will not want to be contacted and 20% will be like me (fat, ugly, mean and nasty - yes, I'm just pre-populating the database). Who are they going to match with "george421@gmail.com who has a Slashdot account and isn't on Facebook"? (Sorry, if you're george421@gmail.com).

As for the response from the operator, "We don't expect to have privacy issues" - the Australian privacy commissioner is probably the better informed spokesperson in this particular case. Let's not forget "the only way to not be in the database will be to log in, confirm all your details then delete them" - who here thinks they'll respect the deletion? Anyone? "You there in seat 23596DKL were you raising your hand or scratching ... oh OK scratching it is."

Re:Easy

[im_thatoneguy]

Which leads to the question: why not just use Facebook directly? (And the alternate question: why hasn't someone tied together Facebook and a dating service yet? Seems like an obvious connection.)

I can't see though why anyone would use a service where 95% of the members can't respond since they aren't registered. If the goal is to increase the signal to noise ratio by finding a good match and a successful pairing then you would want to remove idle users not add them.

Re:Easy

[rpresser]

Which leads to the question: why not just use Facebook directly? (And the alternate question: why hasn't someone tied together Facebook and a dating service yet? Seems like an obvious connection.)

http://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+dating
http://www.facebook.com/zooskdating

Re:Easy

[Alumoi]

Wait, you mean FailBook isn't a dating site? I could have sworn....

Re:Easy

[Psx29]

Don't forget the 10% who are gay/lesbian and have no interest in what is most likely a heterosexually oriented dating service.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Re:Easy

[Chrisq]

Don't forget the 10% who are gay/lesbian and have no interest in what is most likely a heterosexually oriented dating service.

I think your figure is too high, it roughly corresponds to the number of people who say they have had a homosexual experience, but far exceeds the percentage who are exclusively homosexual.

Re:Easy

[somersault]

What's the difference between a "heterosexually oriented" dating service and a gay one? The ones that I've seen always ask your sex and sexual preference.

I think this practice is pretty despicable unless they make it obvious which profiles were autogenerated. If they don't do that then it could spoil the trust in a lot of relationships if someone finds out their partner is on a dating site (best friend: hey I googled your gf's name for uh.. research.. never mind, and I saw she's totally got a live account on a dating site!).

Re:Easy

[the_womble]

Never used one, but I am pretty sure that most dating services, at least online ones, will match gays as well. Its just one extra piece of data needed.

Re:Easy

[Chrisq]

Which leads to the question: why not just use Facebook directly? (And the alternate question: why hasn't someone tied together Facebook and a dating service yet? Seems like an obvious connection.)

I can't see though why anyone would use a service where 95% of the members can't respond since they aren't registered. If the goal is to increase the signal to noise ratio by finding a good match and a successful pairing then you would want to remove idle users not add them.

I tried that, but it seems that 90% of the people are in the Mafia, farmers, or zombie hunters

Re:Easy

[somersault]

If the goal is to increase the signal to noise ratio by finding a good match

That's clearly not the goal, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. It's just so they can say "we have the largest membership of any dating site! Come find your match today!" type of thing. Then the poor suckers will pay for an account, or at the very least become another pair of eyes that may for some god forsaken reason want to click on an ad. Probably for a fleshlight.

Re:Easy

[pokerdad]

I think this practice is pretty despicable unless they make it obvious which profiles were autogenerated. If they don't do that then it could spoil the trust in a lot of relationships if someone finds out their partner is on a dating site (best friend: hey I googled your gf's name for uh.. research.. never mind, and I saw she's totally got a live account on a dating site!).

I think you have stumbled on what the entire point of this service would be - denyability. If say half the profiles on the site are auto generated and half are people cheating on their spouses, then the cheaters don't have to worry nearly so much about getting caught; they can always claim that they never used the site, their profile was just auto generated. Sure it would make it a little hard to hook up with a real person, but for some this would probably be worth it.

Re:Easy

[mrjb]

I am pretty sure most dating services are scams. The fact that they're populating their profile database with harvested data only confirms that. Remind me, they're charging for memberships, right? Do you reckon they'll advertise the service "We've got twenty million profiles on our dating site! Did we mention 99% of those profiles were harvested from the net and unavailable for dating?" Anyone willing to bet they'll just mention how many profiles they have?

Re:Easy

[SenseiLeNoir]

I hope it honours the "married" status......

There are SOME married people who use facebook, as a simple social network. I can imagine some poor married soul, who happens to have a "facebook profile" then gets sudden unsolicitated profile matches from this dating site, then has to explain to his/her partner....

Re:Easy

[Anne Thwacks]

I think they tried to hit me several times last week "We have someone interested in dating you, and they live nearby see map"

Map shows pin near the colo where my ISP is located, about 200 miles from my home.

Since its the "Gotham" dating service, I guess the privacy issues will be solved by Batman's Revenge ... na, na, na, na, na, na ...

Re:Easy

[AVryhof]

The Pirate Bay has - http://piratedate.com/zp/go.php?to=lobby

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

There is absolutely no connection to Pirate Bay and Pirate Date. Would you be interested in buying a bridge from Pirate Broker?

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook apparently considers anybody whose status isn't "Married" to be "Looking". Judging by the ads my girfriend and I both get, "In a Relationship" means nothing.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the reviews of the top two results from your search above, they seem to be 100% full of spammers and people who hate the app. Zoosk and Speed dating

I suspect one reason it hasn't worked all that well is that people want to control the persona the present on a dating site. Hide the bits they don't like, embellish the bits they do like.

A Facebook app also sticks around after you have a girlfriend in a much more obvious way than having a profile on a dating site does.

Apps seem to have a habit of announcing to all your friends that you are using them. I'm sure you've seen it in your profile: "Joe Blogs started using Useless Dating App." I imaging plenty of people would not like that but have no idea whether it will happen or not.

I can see many pitfalls in Facebook dating apps and the few that exist seem to have failed utterly. It's probably not such a good idea as it seems at first.

Re:Easy

[TeraCo]

It's not facebook targetting you - When people submit ads to facebook, they choose the demographic they want to hit.

Re:Easy

[sFurbo]

That isn't FB's fault, the people who pay for those adds have chosen to also have them shown to people who are listed as "in a relationship". Either they have overlooked that possibility, or there are money to be made from soliciting dating sites (or "dating sites", depending on the nature of the ads) to people in a relationship.

Re:Easy

[raicesrasta]

Well yes, you are clearly not seeing the point. This is not about dating. This is about creating a massive user base (as Facebook has) to sell ads or whatever comes into the mind of the company. I see two possible outcomes of this. Since Facebook is considering this data public (and now it will post your address and phone number like in a phonebook) they will not be able to do anything about it (and they will probably don't care). However, this is what gives Facebook the money so now you don't have to rely on just Facebook having this information (if you are a big company looking for the user base to spam or sell, doesn't matter how you call it).

Re:Easy

[AmiMoJo]

What about people it decides are gay but who aren't? Try explaining all the offers from gay men arriving in your inbox to your wife. You used to be able to be thrown out of the US military for being openly gay too, and in some parts of the world it is still a crime. Catholics would have issues too (not that they don't already).

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a clue that this is doomed to failure. Even if the data was 100% accurate (and I seed lies deliberate in my profiles, e.g. my Facebook page says I am approximately 100 years old... oh wait, does that mean I will get offers for dates with pensioners?) all the unwanted offers will quickly be marked as spam and filtered out by 95% of mail systems.

Just wait until the first date rape lawsuit is filed.

Re:Easy

[wvmarle]

Deniability stops as soon as they start publishing common statistics like latest login, times logged in, messages posted, etc. with the profile. Like most such dating/networking sites do. If only to show "look, person is active, good one to contact".

Re:Easy

[yomammamia]

I would have to say that they are probably idiots. I may be wrong but I have a strong suspicion if implemented incorrectly the result will be identity fraud leading to defamation on a large scale with people claiming ownership of profiles that aren't theirs.

A tenuous argument could be made that this is identity fraud because the information is being used to create activity under other people's identification credentials. Being in the public domain does not mean you can use it in anyway that you like.

The company is right to look for solutions to protect against fraudsters and scam artists. However this solution is dangerously close to crossing the line regarding what is an acceptable way to use public information. A better way to use this information would be to have it largely hidden and to instead use it to provide a set of questions to allow an individual to identify themselves. I suspect they may create an environment where it is easier for criminals to operate in.

One of the greatest risks is if they do what a variety of large dating sites do an automate accounts to feign interest. These bot accounts are usually made to look like a real user and will even use a real set of photos. If this happens using harvested data the potential for a defamation law suit is great. The company may automatically generate messages between users that look suited using the contact details in the harvested data. This would be doomed to eventually fail. Some guy will get eventually find himself embarrassed after a dating email or similar is automatically sent to his sister or his mother from the site and sue the site for identity theft.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Did we mention 99% of those profiles were harvested from the net and unavailable for dating?" "

But we'll help with the stalking, by giving you addresses where the target will likely be throughout the day.

Re:Easy

[TaoPhoenix]

In Facebook America, This Page Likes You!

Re:Easy

[jonbryce]

But if only 1/20 of the profiles are from people who actually registered with the site, and within that you have the usual mix of people who have abandoned their profile or aren't interested in you, your chances of getting a response become that much lower. It will be like trying to find your next date amongst a load of spam listings.

Re:Easy

[Nyder]

I think this practice is pretty despicable unless they make it obvious which profiles were autogenerated. If they don't do that then it could spoil the trust in a lot of relationships if someone finds out their partner is on a dating site (best friend: hey I googled your gf's name for uh.. research.. never mind, and I saw she's totally got a live account on a dating site!).

I think you have stumbled on what the entire point of this service would be - denyability.

If say half the profiles on the site are auto generated and half are people cheating on their spouses, then the cheaters don't have to worry nearly so much about getting caught; they can always claim that they never used the site, their profile was just auto generated.

Sure it would make it a little hard to hook up with a real person, but for some this would probably be worth it.

So it's just like craigslist personals?

Re:Easy

[Burnhard]

So why do they need real profiles to do that? Most dating sites use fakes to lure you in - err...... I mean to lure in their potential customers.

I'm sure you could generate 340,000,000 unique fake profiles using Perlin Noise and an appropriate seed.

Re:Easy

[NoSleepDemon]

That... was beautiful.

Re:Easy

[somersault]

Because then their claims could easily be proven false when it turns out that those people don't exist. Though I don't see how it's much better when those people haven't agreed to have a profile. It would also be funny to see how accurate it is about telling whether someone is gay/bi/straight.

Re:Easy

[tibit]

If one can't explain to one's wife what has happened in this case, then perhaps one chose a wrong wife? And here I was thinking that adults in a loving relationship can talk about pretty much anything, and trust each other. Bah.

Re:Easy

[tibit]

Hate to burst your bubble: good luck claiming "identity fraud" on a dating site.

Re:Easy

[whiteboy86]

Absolutely, this is a scam, fraud and identity theft. You can't f*** take my identity and place it on your shitty website! That wrong on so many levels.

Re:Easy

[tibit]

Poor married soul indeed: what kind of a relationship he/she is in that they can't explain simple things like that...

Re:Easy

[dkleinsc]

I think you have stumbled on what the entire point of this service would be - denyability.

I think it's something entirely different - artificially increasing their profile count for marketing purposes. The reason for this is that dating sites are subject to networking effects - the value of having a profile on a dating site depends heavily on how many other people of the appropriate sex have profiles on the site. A new attempt at a dating site will generally fail unless they can find a way to overcome that problem.

Re:Easy

[gstoddart]

I can imagine some poor married soul, who happens to have a "facebook profile" then gets sudden unsolicitated profile matches from this dating site, then has to explain to his/her partner....

Well, if I go to my spam folder I'm sure I'll discover several unsolicited "matches" from Russian women who want to chat with me.

Mark it for spam like it is, and let the messages disappear like they ought to into the bit bucket. Now, if you start responding to them, well, then you might have something to explain to your partner.

Re:Easy

[mysidia]

I'm not so sure even that will do it... do you have any idea how many dating site domain names Gotham dating partners runs? I suppose the more branded dating sites the more signups they'll get... hell, tomorrow they could have a million typo domains as separate "dating sites"

I suppose it's possible they all share one database, and if you register/ delete/opt out of one you opt out of them all.

The cynic in me suggests if you register and provide additional information, the additional info will show up in them all together with your public records info.

And that if you want to delete/opt-out, you'll have to manually delete from each site as it was completely different.

And they could add more web properties in the future that you'll have to opt out of separately

Re:Easy

[TheGratefulNet]

you're very young, aren't you?

sigh. yes, as you get older, you lose that idealism and that disney movie view of life.

enjoy the rose colored glasses while they last. seriously, the myth that love exists is far better than the reality.

Re:Easy

[TheGratefulNet]

mafia, you say?

steady job. probably good pay, too.

(compares notes and checks current economy)

hmmm. lets talk, youse and me.

Re:Easy

[tehcyder]

What's the difference between a "heterosexually oriented" dating service and a gay one?

A: What's the difference between a cucumber sandwich and unprotected anal sex?

B: I don't know.

A: In that case, would you like to come to tea tonight?

Re:Easy

[tehcyder]

If one can't explain to one's wife what has happened in this case, then perhaps one chose a wrong wife? And here I was thinking that adults in a loving relationship can talk about pretty much anything, and trust each other. Bah.

Wow, do you still believe in Santa Claus too?

Re:Easy

[Burnhard]

How can they be proven false? In any case I have a feeling this whole story is just to drum up some publicity for their site. I doubt they're actually going to go through with it.

Re:Easy

[Chapter80]

Cool, someone's going to create a profile for me on a dating site!

I hope they let me know if I get laid.

Re:Easy

[BrokenHalo]

I think your figure is too high...

Don't count on it. The statistic is very much dependent on location: in my street (inner city Perth, WA), my own household and those of a handful of older residents are very much in a hetero minority. It doesn't bother me in the slightest, since the gay/lesbian crowd tend to be perfectly considerate and congenenial.

Re:Easy

[tehcyder]

I think you have stumbled on what the entire point of this service would be - denyability.

I think it's something entirely different - artificially increasing their profile count for marketing purposes. The reason for this is that dating sites are subject to networking effects - the value of having a profile on a dating site depends heavily on how many other people of the appropriate sex have profiles on the site. A new attempt at a dating site will generally fail unless they can find a way to overcome that problem.

There was one dating site in the UK (can't remember the name) which seemed to alternate TV ads saying "this week thousands of attractive men have joined, special offer for women" with "this week thousands of attractive women have joined, special offer for men".

Re:Easy

[somersault]

How can they be proven false?

Wouldn't a court have the power to order a check their records, email addresses, names, photos and other details, etc? I'm sure it would be pretty easy to show that 99% were fake accounts. You could argue that people were using fake names and throwaway accounts, etc to register, but for them to have 340 million accounts would be pretty dubious when hardly anyone has even heard of them. I think even Facebook only has something like 700-800 million accounts right now?

I think you're right about the publicity thing.

Personally I say OKcupid ftw. It's free, and full of geeky women.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

No worries, no offense taken hulk@yahoo.com. sorry, if you're hulk@yahoo.com

Re:Easy

[Burnhard]

I think most people would cancel their account and put it down to experience, rather than take the site to court

Re:Easy

[BrokenHalo]

enjoy the rose colored glasses while they last. seriously, the myth that love exists is far better than the reality.

Well, I guess that depends on your perspective. My rose coloured glasses got stomped on decades ago, and I never did find a pair of those Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.

But I have been married for some 25 years, and the young lust has matured into a more sedate companionship, but that doesn't mean it's not love.

But getting back to the point, my wife might be kind of amused if I suddenly started getting offers from gay men, since there was a time when we were first dating (and I was a lot skinnier than I am now), when I quite frequently got my bum pinched by gay men.

Re:Easy

[hedwards]

It's despicable even if they do make it obvious which profiles were autogenerated. Given that a lot of those sources aren't opt in, I don't think that they should be allowed to exploit the data without expressed consent.

Additionally this makes the FB practices look almost benign rather than the typical extremely creepy.

Re:Easy

[phoenix321]

This is is a serious trust issue, on how much you trust your partner or your partner trusts you. There are many shades of gray there and speaking from recent experience, there can be a particular point in time, where past events, suspicions and violations of trust accumulate in a way that even the tiniest little doubt on top of them can be the final straw that breaks the camels back.

If your partner has lied to you on N previous times and you found out, how likely will you believe they are innocent *this* time?

Re:Easy

[Enigma23]

What's the difference between a "heterosexually oriented" dating service and a gay one? The ones that I've seen always ask your sex and sexual preference.

I think this practice is pretty despicable unless they make it obvious which profiles were autogenerated. If they don't do that then it could spoil the trust in a lot of relationships if someone finds out their partner is on a dating site (best friend: hey I googled your gf's name for uh.. research.. never mind, and I saw she's totally got a live account on a dating site!).

I hope that the 10% of the human population who are bisexual will totally b0rk the code for this website... ;p

Re:Easy

[AmiMoJo]

You are assuming that the person involved knows about this. I bet most people don't, all they would know is that they are getting emails from some gay dating site that seems to have their details (i.e. they registered and entered them).

Re:Easy

[mpeskett]

I remember that... they'd run one ad campaign about all their "hot new men", then a little later run a second one saying that the original campaign worked too well, and that they were now over-run with eligible ladies (then repeat the cycle after that, as if they were constantly swerving between excesses of alternating gender).

I think it was match.com, but I may be mistaken.

Re:Easy

[somejeff]

Who are they going to match with "george421@gmail.com who has a Slashdot account and isn't on Facebook"?

A good match from public records? Based on distance?
George's Mom @ compuserve

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

"For example, if you open a Facebook account and your setting are not set to private, all of that information is in the public domain, it is free for the taking," he told iTnews.

Really? Then what is that COPYRIGHT NOTICE on *every* facebook page for?

Re:Easy

[karlandtanya]

Ah, no, it doesn't.

First--remember that the human mind is an amazing device--it can rationalize ANYTHING. I have watched cheating husbands parade their chippies in front of the wife at family holiday meals, no less. No denial is necessary if she doesn't want to believe he's cheating. She does all the work.

Of academic interest to the problem you pose, note that the accounts are initially created using publicly available data.

Anybody with access to the same publicly available data would able to authenticate as the named person.

Again, it's plausible; prove it's impossible in every case. There--see--that's not me on that website. Now, don't wait up for me; I'll be coming home from work very late. Have to rebuild a server while everyone's out.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be wrong and an asshat move, but in fact they *can* "f*** take your identity".

The set of moral actions and the set of possible actions rarely coincide.

Re:Easy

[dchaffey]

If they make the mistake of claiming membership rather than something like 'the most profiles' then I can very easily see a lawyer crying class action for every person's likeness used.

But IANAL, so that's just my guess.

Re:Easy

[sumdumass]

I agree with you.. Besides, how many people in the US alone share the same names? Are there going to be ten different John Smith profiles? And which John Smith profile are they going to attach to John Smith of Seattle Washington who just moves there and now resides in a town along with 5 or more other john smiths already living there.

I can see it now, John Smith's profile would read like a jesus freak, necrophiliac, race car driver, drug user set out to kill cops, who was hurt in gym class yesterday playing dodge ball. Getting some of those things ascribed to me would pretty much piss me off- not to mention harm you in future job searches if they decide to make this information available to anyone concerned as the article mentions.

Re:Easy

[sumdumass]

It could get worse. Suppose someone is looking to get married and decide to do a check on who they are marrying.

The article claims "Gotham Dating Partners hoped to position itself as a dating service as well as a "public information source" for individuals and corporations needing accurate information on US citizens, Jordan said."

So what happens when their accurate information scraped from the web claims your wife to be- used to be a stripper in Las Vegas who has been married 5 times in 5 years to rich doctors who died of mysterious causes because her maiden name matches the maiden name of someone like that?

I can so a plethroa of problems arising from this. Not only because they will get things wrong, but because people like to provide fake information to remain anonymous on the interweb and there is no telling what is real or not.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you have stumbled on what the entire point of this service would be - denyability.

If say half the profiles on the site are auto generated and half are people cheating on their spouses, then the cheaters don't have to worry nearly so much about getting caught; they can always claim that they never used the site, their profile was just auto generated.

Sure it would make it a little hard to hook up with a real person, but for some this would probably be worth it.

Lol yeah right women are so jealous. Even though this wouldn't break us up, it would just join the long list of reasons why it's ok for my girlfriend to "innocently" ask me who just sent me a text message.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, facebook and zooskool have partnered for a dating service?

Re:Easy

[couchslug]

"Probably for a fleshlight."

You HAD to go there! :)

Re:Easy

[tibit]

It's all up to you. Don't blame it on passage of time. You have to work at it. Get lazy, and sure, you'll "lose" the "glasses". Sigh.

Re:Easy

[richlv]

"zooskdating"

ugh. zoological slovak dating ? there surely is everything on the internet...

Re:Easy

[taustin]

If you go to http://www.gothamdatingpartners.com/, you'll find it is a portal site to various, more specialized, dating sites. Like, for instance, PrisonHookup.com, UglyPeopleDate.com, and, I shit you not, WhitePeopleDate.com

Slashdot is promoting fraud so blatant it'd be obvious to a blind seeing eye dog on crack now?

Re:Easy

[crafty.munchkin]

i find the facebook ads hilarious. my profile says i'm married, yet i'm getting ads all the time for dating websites. if i look at a single, female friend's profile, i get an ad for "save your marriage now"...

Re:Easy

[formfeed]

What about people it decides are gay but who aren't?

They will be given the option to click on a box that says "heterosexual", and their profile will be updated with a note that they are still struggling with their sexual identity.
Computers don't make errors.

Re:Easy

[Thing 1]

Yeah, I don't ever want to hook up with a real person again. And yes, I am not a robot.

Re:Easy

[Rudolf]

but far exceeds the percentage who are exclusively homosexual.

If you're not "exclusively" homosexual, doesn't that make you bi-sexual?

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

If the discussion were about a dating website for your street, your comment would be right on topic.

Re:Easy

[AmiMoJo]

That raises an interesting point. Google got into trouble in Germany because the made Street View opt-out, i.e. by default your house/car/person is opted in without you ever signing up or even being notified.

I can also see this being a gold mine for spammers.

Re:Easy

[BrokenHalo]

OK troll, I'll bite. Name one, single Slashdot thread that has remained entirely on topic for for more than three posts.

It's part of the dynamics of an open forum, so live with it. Otherwise, just scroll down.

Re:Easy

[Coren22]

Catholics would have issues too (not that they don't already).

Why the need to slam Catholics? I think you meant to type Fundamentalist Christian. This is roughly equivalent to calling all Catholics child molesters even though the figures of child molesters in the priesthood show that it is lower then the general population. But go ahead and continue bashing a huge number of people due to your own delusions.

Re:Easy

[Coren22]

*Don't Like*

Re:Easy

[AmiMoJo]

Er, okay, calm down. Not sure where you got child molesters from.

I was merely pointing out that Catholics have a particular problem with homosexuality (C of E has some openly gay bishops for example). The other issues I was alluding to were their relatively strict attitudes around relationships and sexuality in general, as well as the massive amount of guilt.

Child molesting never came into my mind, at least not in the context of dating web sites.

Libel potential

[Khyber]

Better make sure your information is up-to-date, or you might find yourself hit with libel suit!

Re:Libel potential

[omfgnosis]

Why would anyone sue themselves for libel?

Re:Libel potential

[__aatirs3925]

You'd be surprised, this is America, and no one gives a f--k! I hope they use my latest picture and not that one picture when i was coming out of a car wearing a kilt. Seriously, I have enough problems removing my info from dozens of "know this person" spam sites, I don't want to have to deal with dating ones. Not to mention this is bad press for people who are married or dating and a site says that you're single with recent information and images.

Re:Libel potential

[Jeprey]

Not the non-member 3rd suing themselves - that's stupid. But rather by scraping from other sources and then claiming it represents a non-member 3rd party, if there are errors that cause damage it's most definitely actionable under common law libel/slander. The non-member 3rd can sue this firm. This firm has to be responsible for accuracy of their collated and created database. It's a derivative work on public information but they are adding to it by systematizing it into usable form for their members.

Re:Libel potential

[tehcyder]

Why would anyone sue themselves for libel?

Because it's their goddamned human right to do so!

Re:Libel potential

[hedwards]

More than that, this would definitely be fraud unless they're extremely careful. And that's assuming that the records are correct. In order to get around that they'd pretty much have to advertise specifically which records were scraped and I think at that point people would see that 99% of them were scraped and decide to go somewhere less creepy. Even if there is a person there that looks interesting, only an idiot would risk the restraining order to contact them.

Not quick enough.

[estitabarnak]

They'll aggregate all of the times that I've fallen just short of getting first post. Clearly I am a sloth-like creature with no dating potential.

Re:Not quick enough.

[davester666]

Actually, never getting first-post puts you in the dating pool with everybody that is even remotely desirable.

Re:Not quick enough.

[mosb1000]

What if you got it by accident, and didn't even acknowledge it in your post? I think this standard is unfair.

Re:Not quick enough.

[davester666]

> What if you got it by accident, and didn't even acknowledge it in your post?

Well, given the legions of /.ers all going for FP, this simply has never happened.

> I think this standard is unfair.

So it's unfair that you didn't know that getting FP removed yourself from the dating pool?
Welcome to life. Nobody gets a rulebook completely filled in.

Re:Not quick enough.

[mosb1000]

I have done it, I'm pretty sure i've seen other people do it too. I even RTFA first, I was really surprised by it. And I don't think that should count.

Re:Not quick enough.

[somersault]

Well, given the legions of /.ers all going for FP, this simply has never happened.

Actually, I've done that several times. Either there are not many other UK Slashdotters who post in the mornings (while most of the US ones are asleep), or I visit a little too often.

So it's unfair that you didn't know that getting FP removed yourself from the dating pool?
Welcome to life. Nobody gets a rulebook completely filled in.

F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

>(

Re:Not quick enough.

[tomhudson]

I've done it plenty of times.

Most of them were accidental.

Re:Not quick enough.

[GameboyRMH]

Aw damn I got at least 2 FPs on Slashdot so far...and those were just by accident - someone who literally sits on the site all day should have no problem getting at least a few per week.

Re:Not quick enough.

[GameboyRMH]

s/by accident/without trying/g

s/morning/sleep/g

Re:Not quick enough.

[realityimpaired]

As others who've replied, I've done it too. And not acknowledged that it was first post, either. And amazingly enough, had time to RTFA before repying, too. I don't even subscribe to see posts 15 minutes early.

If that removes me from the dating pool, you'd best tell my girlfriend. She'll be rather distressed to find out that her fiancée isn't dateable, and that her kids will have to find a new step-mom. *shrugs*

Ugly people date

[aronzak]

The company operates several dating sites, including: Dons and Divas, Faithful Lover, Marry Me First, Prison Hookup, and Ugly People Date

Say no more

Re:Ugly people date

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh really? You think so, do you? And exactly what is it you "think so" about? The parent made two comments; one listing a number of sites the company operates, the other just saying "say no more".

If you are "thinking so" about the first, I'd love to hear your deep, intimate thoughts on a company operating several sites. But it sounds like you're unsure if they do! Don't worry, just sit there and apply your staggering logic to the situation, and you'll either magically figure out whether or not they *really* have all those sites, or you'll die of dehydration. Win/win, right?

Or, you're *thinking so* about his second statements, which means the guy said there's nothing more to say, and you made a comment specifically to say you also think nothing has to be said, which I think is technically at the lowest intellectual level possible. I mean that no matter what stupid thing any person has ever done, it only technically required stupidity as high as yours, no higher.

In either case, it was a staggering waste on so many levels. You've wasted your own time, you've wasted a small amount of the sustenance granted from whatever you last managed to cram into your maw without choking, you've brought the mechnical failure of your keyboard forward a few seconds, you've wasted power to your home to drive your computer, power to dozens more to transmit your message, you've wasted the efforts of anyone who spent time reading your comment, not to mention the extra page rendering time for anyone visiting the page, you've wasted space on Slashdot's server which will carry your meaningless drivel forever more. In essence, through thousands of tiny interactions both direct and indirect, you've brought the heat-death of the universe forward just that tiny fraction so that you can take a simple, opinionless, uncontroversial statement and make a generic, none-specific, none-commital, information-empty reply to it.

And you know what? Looking at your comment history, where you've done nothing but this (apart from that one time you linked to your own shop), I'm led to think you're actually a spam bot who's idling and building up a comment count in preparation for a blitz, which means I'm probably being even more wasteful with this post. I can only hope that someone who was thinking of making such a useless statement reads this and realises how much of an idiot they are, leaving someone with an actual opinion to make an effort instead, giving some worth to my words.

Re:Ugly people date

[nitehawk214]

The company operates several dating sites, including: Dons and Divas, Faithful Lover, Marry Me First, Prison Hookup, and Ugly People Date

Say no more

I assumed you had made those humorous names up. A few searches later and... holy crap.

Re:Ugly people date

[ArsenneLupin]

For those too lazy to search: The Ugly Bug Ball - real dating for real people.

... and here's their rationale:

1. Half of daters aren't pretty so instead of fishing in a small pool of prettiness and getting nowhere dive into an ocean of uglies and have more choice
2. Ugly people are a better calibre of human - pretty people generally aren't very nice and tend to be a bit shallow
3. Ugly people have had a tougher life and therefore tend to be more considerate and more loyal. A recent TUBB survey also proved that they try harder in bed.
4. Once with an ugly partner it is unlikely that anyone will try and take them from you meaning you can let yourself go completely once you're together.
5. In these straightened times TUBB is cheaper as a) We don't charge much as the pretty sites and b) Ugly people have lower expectations - for a first date A Family Bucket will usually do the trick.

   Hehe, ... try harder in bed ... family bucket...

Re:Ugly people date

[JunkmanUK]

It's quite obviously a spam bot, which someone with privileges needs to report.

Now calm down and drink some hot milk...

Re:Ugly people date

[somersault]

In either case, it was a staggering waste on so many levels. You've wasted your own time

Haha :)

It was obvious from the comment it was probably bot generated. A quick look to the sig confirmed it was definitely for advertising purposes.. just learn to ignore this stuff or you'll die a very early and stress filled death!

Re:Ugly people date

[somersault]

What about for those that don't want to let themselves go? Urgh. Once I realised I was past the teenage "eat whatever the hell you want" phase and was heading towards being overweight, I corrected it by learning how to eat right, and getting more regular exercise, and now I'm in better shape than most guys. As someone who grew up feeling pretty ugly, it's nice to now feel at least average and get the occasional admiring look or compliment :p

Plus, I'd rather only date people that have a little self respect and care about being healthy. That makes a person more attractive to me.

Re:Ugly people date

[AmiMoJo]

This highlights one of the biggest problems with dating web site: too much emphasis on the photo.

Most of the people I have ever seriously liked have been fairly average looking. Not ugly, just average. I liked them because of who they were, not because their good looks made me horny and want to sleep with them. Anyway, I find I start to see the beauty in women as I get to know them and their mannerisms. You can't see that in a photo, and usually the resolution is so low you can't see if they have nice eyes or a really honest smile.

The descriptions people write never really tell you much and all read pretty much the same anyway, so you have nothing more to go on than the profile photo. At least with Facebook you can see what sort of friends they have, what sort of things they do for recreation, what types of movies and books they like etc. Facebook tends to be more honest too because people are just sharing with their friends who already know what they are like rather than trying to write a dating site profile that will get them an attractive and rich partner.

Re:Ugly people date

[RabbitWho]

I hope they don't also automatically categorize us under such headings too!

Re:Ugly people date

[Chemisor]

> Half of daters aren't pretty so instead of fishing in a small pool of prettiness and getting nowhere dive into an ocean of uglies and have more choice

If I wanted to lower my standards that much, I could visit the local bar. It is not hard to find single ugly women; no dating site is needed for that.

> Ugly people are a better calibre of human - pretty people generally aren't very nice and tend to be a bit shallow
> Ugly people have had a tougher life and therefore tend to be more considerate and more loyal.

In my experience ugly people are much worse caliber of human. They've had a tougher life and ended up mean and bitter. And while there are a very few ugly women out there who turned to learning things, most just mope around the house and complain to their ugly friends about how shallow men are.

> A recent TUBB survey also proved that they try harder in bed.

Anybody who hasn't been laid in years would try hard in bed. At least the first time.

> Once with an ugly partner it is unlikely that anyone will try and take them from you meaning you can let yourself go completely once you're together.

That's true. If you have something nobody wants, you can easily keep it. And then yourself become something nobody wants.

> In these straightened times TUBB is cheaper as a) We don't charge much as the pretty sites and

All dating sites worth visiting are free.

> b) Ugly people have lower expectations - for a first date

Fair enough. If you're ugly and have low expectation, TUBB is the site for you. The rest of us still have some self-respect left.

Re:Ugly people date

[JunkmanUK]

I've met a fair share of women who are very aware of their 'beauty' and all too often they've been absolutely appalling creatures. On the flip side, I've also met some trolls with chips on their shoulder who, if they shed their personal issues, wouldn't be that bad at all really.

I guess it's best to stick on the average and meet the happy people who really aren't too fussed about being seen without makeup, but aren't too lazy to walk down the road to the shop :)

Re:Ugly people date

[drinkypoo]

You forgot 6, the opportunity to be the cream of the crop by moving to a crappier crop.

Re:Ugly people date

[Anonymous Coward]

I just looked at the site. It's not just 'ugly'... it's ugly^ugly

Re:Ugly people date

[jsepeta]

just what i want, my personal info shared with a prison hookup.

NOT.

Re:Ugly people date

[AmiMoJo]

Exactly, 20 years down the line a pretty face isn't going to keep your relationship alive. Someone you can talk to and share your interests with will though.

Re:Ugly people date

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should date women who aren't likely to age much. If the mom is a duffer.. forget it... if they're good now but adding an inch a year to their waist.. fuck that.
I'm going to be a sexy dude in 20 years it's unrealistic to assume that I'm not going to be regretful if my girlfriend becomes obese

Re:Ugly people date

[couchslug]

"The rest of us still have some self-respect left."

We get properly drunk before lowering our standards!

Re:Ugly people date

[Anonymous Coward]

All dating sites worth visiting are free.

Which ones are these? Of particular interest would be ones that can be used in the UK.

Re:Ugly people date

[twosat]

I have some cousins who married pretty women and ended up regretting it. Having said that though, you might be right about ugly people too: Beauty is skin deep, but ugly goes to the bone - W.C. Fields

i lol'd

[Anonymous Coward]

Will anyone be surprised when they have weak passwords for these pseudo-members, and identity theft takes an interesting turn?

LOL.

Privacy

[TaoPhoenix]

How does a company "not expect to face privacy issues"?

Re:Privacy

[Tumbleweed]

How does a company "not expect to face privacy issues"?

If the information is truly only from public records, then the information is - you guessed it - already public. At least in general. I think a case could be made that conflating the disparate data sources into one personally identifiable profile could cross a line, but the problem with the law and privacy is - there's generally not much of a well-defined line for privacy. A good test case, though, if someone has the financial means to pursue it to a non-settlement conclusion.

Re:Privacy

[DavidRawling]

As per the article, the Australian Privacy Commissioner has suggested the company might be running afoul of the Australian NPP. Since even our government seems to have more money than this company, I'd bet there will be sufficient complaints reasonably quickly and the Govt will be initiating the lawsuits. Popcorn or similar snacks will be recommended :)

Re:Privacy

[Kilrah_il]

Nobody expects privacy issues! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Re:Privacy

[mcvos]

By ignoring them.

Re:Privacy

[thegarbz]

There's a world of difference between my Facebook profile being viewable and being associated and listed as single on a dating site. The difference is purpose of website and intent of visitors. If someone wants to trawl through thousands of public facebook accounts looking for single people then so be it. It's quite another to be expressly listed on a search engine designed for such a thing. An extreme example is where your phone number is publicly listed in the phone book may be of no concern to you. Would you feel the same way if it was posted on 4chan along with messages of "Let's make this guy's life hell?"

I'm waiting for the moment this company gets sued because without anyone's consent they built a profile which turned out to be not favorable based on automated / wrong information.

I know I know, public information is public information. However in my country a "reasonable expectation" rule applies to such things. An example is if you're in a restaurant (publicly accessible place), but you're sitting in the far corner alone not engaging anyone you have a legally granted reasonable expectation of privacy, and I don't think a reasonable person would expect their phone number to end up on a dating site without consent, even if it is listed in the phone book.

Re:Privacy

[Tumbleweed]

As per the article, the Australian Privacy Commissioner has suggested the company might be running afoul of the Australian NPP.

I don't care what the Australian anything says about anything in this instance. The title of the article says, "Non-registered individuals get dating profiles in the US". Unless Aussies are now using 'US' to mean something Australian, which would be annoying. They should just call whatever it is they're talking about 'Bruce' to save confusion. :)

Re:Privacy

[flimflammer]

There's a lot of public information out there, and a lot of it is wrong or misleading. Couldn't you have a case for libel if say for instance this company crafts a profile for an unknowing individual which suggests he's gay when he isn't?

Honestly, I think it's a tad shady that a company is crafting dating profiles for people who don't want them using random information from the internet of all places as a source. Can you imagine the shock some girlfriend or boyfriend might encounter stumbling across some profile for their significant other that suggests they're single or something when in reality they had nothing to do with that profile?

Re:Privacy

[Mashiki]

In places like Canada and Germany, even public information can't be used like that otherwise it breaches the privacy act(s). While I realize this is aussieland and all that, they could violate the laws of other countries by doing what they're planning to do.

Re:Privacy

[Tumbleweed]

There's a lot of public information out there, and a lot of it is wrong or misleading. Couldn't you have a case for libel if say for instance this company crafts a profile for an unknowing individual which suggests he's gay when he isn't?

Absolutely, but that's a pretty big assumption to make about what this company is going to do before they've done anything. We don't even know if they'll be marking unclaimed profiles as 'available' or 'looking' or anything like that.

Honestly, I think it's a tad shady that a company is crafting dating profiles for people who don't want them using random information from the internet of all places as a source.

I don't think they mentioned they'd be using 'random' sources, but yeah, the whole thing is definitely shady. I just don't know which particular U.S. laws, if any, are directly applicable to this, since they claim to be using public records. We'll see. We could definitely use some real laws on the books that actually talk about privacy. Aggregating public records into an individually, publicly-identifiable record, is something that has not yet been addressed in the U.S., at least not on the federal level. It's inevitable, I think, but who knows when. The GOP will certainly stop any attempt to do anything (about anything, not just this) for the next two years, so I wouldn't expect any action until 2013 at the soonest, if then.

Re:Privacy

[CitizenCain]

As per the article, the Australian Privacy Commissioner has suggested the company might be running afoul of the Australian NPP. Since even our government seems to have more money than this company, I'd bet there will be sufficient complaints reasonably quickly and the Govt will be initiating the lawsuits. Popcorn or similar snacks will be recommended :)

I don't see much of a show coming out of this. If they start getting hit with lawsuits they don't want, they can just reincorporate in a country or jurisdiction which doesn't have any privacy laws and/or strictly limits damages/class action status... or better yet, a jurisdiction where the judicial system is an entrepreneurial enterprise, and they can buy legal protection.

Re:Privacy

[HJED]

TFA says that it would include information about Australian's and the company appears to be operating in Australia. Thus I imagine even if it is legal in the US, which I doubt they could still be sued in Australia.
As the TFA says they will be collecting info from all Facebook accounts not set to private, I imagine they could face legal problems in many countries.

Re:Privacy

[HJED]

The company operates in the US, TFA is Australian so is looking at it from an Australian perspective. It is not saying that they are only planing to do this for Australian users in fact it actually implies most of the information sources will be from the US (plus all Facebook accounts with bad privacy settings).
They do however seem to operate world wide so they are probably open to legal proceedings in many countries (including Australia according to the TFA)

Re:Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

When you signed up for Facebook you agreed to give all the rights over any personal data uploaded to your profile to Mr. Zuckerberg and co.. They can and will sell it to third parties like this dating site. It's not the same as having a personal webpage with your info; if it's on Facebook servers, it's no longer yours.
This dating site won't be crawling the web for personal data, they will just buy already existing databases. It's perfectly legal.

Re:Privacy

[ais523]

It'd be illegal in the UK at least; there's a law against keeping databases of personally identifiable information without fulfilling several requirements (one of which is that it cannot be disclosed to third parties without the permission of the individual involved), and it's hard to see how a dating profile could be at all useful without personally identifying information. Although the existence of such a law isn't all that surprising, what perhaps is surprising is that the law in question is actually taught in schools, as a mandatory part of the curriculum. (It has a few other interesting features too, such as saying that only an explicit opt-in counts as sufficient consent, opt-out is not enough.)

Another interesting implication of the law is that it requires people holding such information to disclose the entire relevant part of their databases to the person it's about, although they're allowed to charge a reasonable fee for the service (currently capped at £10; I suspect in practice, most companies would demand the entire thing). If you live in the UK and don't mind paying a bit of money for the privilege, it might be interesting to contact a major company like Facebook or Google and ask for a copy of all the data they hold about you (where "you" is directed at Slashdotters in general here, not the parent in particular).

Re:Privacy

[Elky Elk]

The truth of 'It's perfectly legal' probably varies quite a lot with jurisdiction.

Re:Privacy

[wvmarle]

Probably they're looking at the legal side: they must have found a way to stay within the letter of the law.

You're probably thinking of the general feelings of the general public regarding privacy.

Unfortunately these two are not always the same. Hence the site has "no privacy issues" but you (and me, and probably most of /. and the rest of the thinking part of this world's population) will see it as a privacy issue.

Re:Privacy

[HJED]

I was wondering why Facebook added the option to download all your data (on the Account settings page). Maybe this is the reason. Google also has something similar here although it doesn't appear to include tracking data.
Both of these are relatively new additions though, is this a relatively new law or has it been around for a while?

Re:Privacy

[thegarbz]

That it is not my friend. The onus is on the buyer to ensure the legality. It's perfectly legal for facebook to sell my data provided I consented to it. But then let's look again at the reasonable person line. I find it perfectly reasonable to have my information sold to third parties for marketing purposes, after all I consented to it. I did not consent to signing up to a public dating service. The key difference here is my information used for internal purposes vs republished in a different (and in this case potentially damaging) light.

A real world example would be taking a photo of a person in public. Perfectly legal. Selling that photo of that person with neither their permission, consent or even against their wishes, also perfectly legal. The buyer of said photo then publishing it somewhere like on their website without consent of the original party, illegal. Commercial use of a lot of public information is illegal without the express permission of the original owner, unfortunately this often varies on a case by case basis.

Facebook is perfectly within their right to sell the data. I have consented to that. The Dating site is within their right to own the data they bought, they purchased it. They are NOT within their right to republish that data or even use my name or any of my details for commercial gain without my permission.

Re:Privacy

[jonbryce]

The Data Protection Directive has been around since 1995. Many EU countries had similar rules before that date, in the case of the UK, since 1984.

Re:Privacy

[hedwards]

True, however they would be committing fraud unless they were extremely careful about how they do it. As in posting prominently on every single page that the profile isn't for a member, but is comprised of information that was scraped.

And they'd also be liable for any stalking that occurs as a result. Sure they might have found all this information in publicly accessible ways, but it's not likely that there are many people trolling the internet putting together information from random sites to figure out who they want to stalk.

And lastly, there's the issue of copyright infringement. They don't have permission to redistribute those photos. People generally only assigning permission to a site to distribute them directly, not to the people that are viewing or possibly downloading them. Meaning that any photos on the site are almost certain to be infringing on somebody's copyright.

Re:Privacy

[realityimpaired]

Considering that Facebook itself has been smacked down repeatedly by the Canadian and German privacy commissioners, it wouldn't surprise me.

Do business in my country, abide by my laws. Why is it that people cry foul when it's China trying to enforce its laws, but it's altruistic when it's Canada doing it?

Re:Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

someone mod this up!!!

I saw Gotham and Commisioner and thought

[Ventriloquate]

Batman!

Re:I saw Gotham and Commisioner and thought

[omfgnosis]

He's probably single, you should go check that dating site.

Re:I saw Gotham and Commisioner and thought

[Anonymous Coward]

A fitting name for a company that is as shady as the city.

Not interested.

[dangitman]

Online dating company Gotham Dating Partners...

How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not interested in dating Batman? What a goddamn passive-aggressive slut.

Re:Not interested.

[antifoidulus]

Let me guess, your heart belongs to Bruce Wayne and only Bruce Wayne?

Re:Not interested.

[QuantumG]

That billionaire playboy. He's too busy socializing at cocktail parties and managing the affairs of the Wayne foundation!

Re:Not interested.

[pinkushun]

If the answer is Cock Robin, what is the question...?

Re:Not interested.

[couchslug]

"How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not interested in dating Batman? "

According to reliable slashfic he's quite attached to Robin.

New site name

[guyminuslife]

Stalk-my-true-love.com

Re:New site name

[tnk1]

Too late....

[chuck@ihop ~]$ nslookup stalk-my-true-love.com
Server: 10.10.1.25
Address: 10.10.1.25#53

stalk-my-true-love.com canonical name = facebook.com.
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: facebook.com
Address: 69.63.189.11
Name: facebook.com
Address: 69.63.189.16
Name: facebook.com
Address: 69.63.181.12

Membership?

[a.koepke]

Can they really claim someone is a "member" of the site if that person hasn't even heard of the site before?

If they decide to do this there should be some marker on that profile to say it has been created from public information obtained without that person's consent or knowledge.

There also needs to be some way to allow you to verify your identity and take ownership of the profile they have setup for you which should include the option to remove your profile.

Re:Membership?

[Musically_ut]

Can they really claim someone is a "member" of the site if that person hasn't even heard of the site before?

By the virtue of being born within the internationally recognized borders of the giant Republic of Internet, you are hereby granted membership of this dating site. It is a cross you have to bear.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Re:Membership?

[pinkushun]

Can they really claim someone is a "member" of the site if that person hasn't even heard of the site before?

Some are bot net members too, I bet they haven't heard of those either.

Re:Membership?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they really claim someone is a "member" of the site if that person hasn't even heard of the site before?

You mean like a jew that's forcibly been baptized as a mormon?

Heh, captcha: "owning"

Re:Membership?

[hedwards]

They can't, it's fraud. Technically they can do it without it being fraud, however they would have to post on every profile that was scraped that it was scraped and the amount of disclosure required in general would make it impossible to have a viable site.

the ultimate purpose of big brother fascism

[circletimessquare]

to make you go on bad blind dates

Wow,

[Tokerat]

Please tell me this is a parody.

Dating site scams

[Anonymous Coward]

Lonely men on these sites can now look forward to receiving more 'winks' from hot 19 year old co-eds (who aren't actually members or interested) urging them to 'upgrade their membership' (pay money) in order to reply to them.

Anyone signing up to these sites should check the Ts&Cs very carefully. My favourite is Ashley Madison's:

From time to time this service may include, offer, or initiate winks, collect messages or instant chat from Market Researchers (Online Hosts) simulating attached or single men or women. These efforts are conducted for market research and/or customer experience and/or quality control and/or compliance purposes. Market research information is used to provide analysis, feedback, trends, patterns, social commentary and information in the aggregate and aides in the process of monitoring our system for compliance of our operating standards and code of conduct. Accordingly, Market Researchers (Online Hosts) will NOT be conspicuously identified.

Any male signing up, can expect to be contacted by some impossibly hot young thing, within hours of sign-up.

Re:Dating site scams

[Fnkmaster]

Lately, that's not so far off from what Facebook has been like. I get a constant barrage of fake/fraudulent friend requests (in recent weeks, at least 1-2 a day) from clearly fake accounts set up solely for data phishing/market research/stealing my private information. At least I can only assume those are their motives, since they sure as hell don't want to be my friends.

Re:Dating site scams

[freaq]

cat $PREV_COMM | sed 's/hours/seconds/'

Re:Dating site scams

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning: Useless use of cat detected.

Dating sites with phony ads

[Animats]

These are the guys who run PrisonHookup.com.

Could be worse. It could be Friendfinder, which was so successful with phony ads and spam that they now own Penthouse. They just made a bid for Playboy Inc., but Hefner turned it down and is taking Playboy private.

Re:Dating sites with phony ads

[OverlordQ]

Could be worse. It could be Friendfinder, which was so successful with phony ads and spam that they now own Penthouse.

You got that backwards, Penthouse bought Friendfinder then changed their name.

a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

This might well be a good thing, besides the point if they are allowed to do it. Finally people will become aware that they should be careful with their online data!

Re:a good thing!

[Seumas]

Please, inform us all on how we can avoid being on mailing lists (where they gather your address and name and other data from any of a number of businesses, such as financial institutions), and census records and real-estate listings and company websites? Maybe you have some magic that I'm not aware of that renders you invisible in any public records.

Re:a good thing!

[jack2000]

How about people get off their asses and pass laws that make farming e-mail addresses of people from the internet a crime punishable by imprisonment? Further a host that sends spam is disconnected from the internet. How much spam needs to be sent can be determined by the large e-mail providers like Gmail, Yahoo,msn and what have you else. A national(international if you will) database of spammers can be made and the top X off the list get their ips disconnected.

Re:a good thing!

[Aeternitas827]

A national(international if you will) database of spammers can be made and the top X off the list get their ips disconnected.

And how much work do you put in to determine the legitimacy of an IP, before you block it? Advertising yourself as something or someone you're not, if only taken at first glance, is pretty lucrative; it's only under scrutiny that a doppelganger can truly be found. If you block at first glance, you're going to piss off a fair number of legit users. Dig deeper, and it takes too long to be truly effective.

Lower desperation concentration.

[Feinu]

At least now the ratio between desperate people and decent looking people on the site has a chance of dropping below six digits.

Boost membership?

[MavEtJu]

Now run this by me again...

How does
create profiles for non-registered individuals based on publicly available information

result into
which is expected to boost its membership from 6.5 million to 340 million worldwide.

?

Re:Boost membership?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, first you register everybody and then you send them an invoice for their membership fees

Re:Boost membership?

[ArsenneLupin]

No need to send an invoice. You just use your inflated number for promotional purposes, in order to attract more real members. You know, a dating site is more "interesting" to the public if it already has more members. So, even non-paying members are interesting.

Re:Boost membership?

[wvmarle]

All those profiles are considered "members" probably. It's just an easy way to boost your membership numbers.

Still I wonder what that will bring to the site: instead of 6.5 million people that are actively looking for a date, you add 333.5 million people that are presumably not actively looking for a date to the site.

Now I'm imagining using such a site, and browsing profiles. When looking at a profile of prospective dates, the chance that this individual is also in the market for a date is less than 2% instead of 100% (assuming for the sake of the argument that members that registered themselves are all looking for dates). Add to that the chance that she may be interested to go on a date with you (which is, say, 10%) it's getting pretty horrible. Not even 0.2% chance to actually get a date!

That would make the site useless. It means having to send out over 500 date requests to land a single date - on average. That's for all practical purposes a no-go. At a 10% chance it's very much hit and miss already, but that way the numbers still are manageable.

Re:Boost membership?

[Paradise Pete]

You just use your inflated number for promotional purposes, in order to attract more real members.

They would also get some of those "members" to sign up by sending them an email saying "this hot girl is interested in you. Upgrade to a 'platinum' account to view her profile and to respond."

Re:Boost membership?

[pinkushun]

There is a mystery phase, which accounts for the missing logic, and allows for reaching your goal:

1) Register profiles via public information
2) ?
3) Profit!

Re:Boost membership?

[Gaygirlie]

Now I'm imagining using such a site, and browsing profiles. When looking at a profile of prospective dates, the chance that this individual is also in the market for a date is less than 2% instead of 100% (assuming for the sake of the argument that members that registered themselves are all looking for dates). Add to that the chance that she may be interested to go on a date with you (which is, say, 10%) it's getting pretty horrible. Not even 0.2% chance to actually get a date!

Hey, that sounds like a good deal! At the moment I have a 0.0% chance of actually getting a date!

Re:Boost membership?

[pieterh]

... is expected to boost its "membership" from 6.5 million...

Hope that helps. The goal is not to sell dating services, the goal is to attract men with lonely penis syndrome, and sell them useless services. A larger "membership", which presumably will be principally profiles of women naive enough to leave their FB profiles open, will attract more LPS men, and generate more money.

Here's how it works. You have LPS, you go to this site, make a search. The site convincingly shows you dozens of matching profiles (with photos!) Now if you upgrade to a minimum membership you can message, wink, or chat with some of these lovelies.

Except they're not there.

Re:Boost membership?

[Farmer Tim]

Well, first you register everybody and then you send them an invoice for their membership fees

Not legal in Australia.

Re:Boost membership?

[Odinlake]

We assume that roughly 340 Mpeoples of the 2+ Gpeoples available will start subscribing to us, to remove the nasty BDSM references we sneak into their profile otherwise.

Re:Boost membership?

[knorthern knight]

> Well, first you register everybody and then you
> send them an invoice for their membership fees

But many people don't want to be members, and would be publically embarressed to be listed as members... wait, I have an idea...

1) Create a sleazy dating site that people would be embarressed to be listed on
2) Threaten to sign up everybody to it, unless...
2) ...people pay a $100/year "book-keeping fee" to keep themselves unlisted on request, just like telcos charge extra for unlisted numbers
3) Profit!!!

A familiar profile

[Anonymous Coward]

Job: Former President. Currently unemployed

Marital Status: Married but wife has put on a few pounds

Type: Prefers interns and former beauty queens

Location: New York City

E-mail: hornyexpresident@yahoo.com

Dating site or spying center?

[mcvos]

When I read the summary, I thought they were going to create the most useless dating site ever. Where many commercial dating sites already have the problem that the vast majority of your matches will be unable to respond, here the vast majority of your matches wouldn't even be interested in dating, and would consider your attempts to contact them spam.

TFA sounds more like they want to provide a service for people and companies to collect information on people (prospective employees?), while the official cover story is that they want to check the accuracy of their dating profiles (but then why would they need millions of other profiles too?).

Re:Dating site or spying center?

[Seumas]

Yeah, I don't get this, either. It would freak me the hell out if I got some email or something from someone (or from a website, on behalf of someone) flirting with me, because they saw that I was single based on census data or my linkedin profile. At best, this seems like an attempt to facilitate unwanted harassment. How this is any different than generating a massive mailing list that you can sell to businesses and scam artists, I have no idea.

Re:Dating site or spying center?

[ArsenneLupin]

It would freak me the hell out if I got some email or something from someone (or from a website, on behalf of someone) flirting with me

You mean, you don't already get such mails?

Re:Dating site or spying center?

[wvmarle]

It's getting better: they create a profile of, say, someone called "Donald Duck".

Then another person that happens to have the same name comes to that site, wants to become a member, and finds there is a profile of "him" that is full of incorrect information. Can Donald take ownership of this profile?

And then they create a profile of Daisy Duck. Now the actual Daisy Duck finds out and wants to take control. But how does she prove that she is the Daisy Duck the profile is about?

Either they have to create lots of orphaned profiles; or they're going to create the easiest entry for scammers possible.

Re:Dating site or spying center?

[mcvos]

Good point. I've been receiving quite a lot of such emails that manage to get around my spam filter. The text is always different, and there's always a different photo at the bottom (I think; I don't actually keep track of it). It could easily be explained by some unsolicited dating site.

I wonder how the shoe fits ...

[MartinSchou]

From the article:

[The company's marketing vice president Damon] Jordan did not expect to face any privacy issues by aggregating publicly available information, stating: "If the information is public, there are no privacy issues."

That's an interesting stance from such a public figure. I really hope no one will try to aggregate every piece of publicly available information about this particular person and post it in a single, easy to use post/thread.

Personally I'd consider it a rather large violation, but hey - to each their own, right?

Re:I wonder how the shoe fits ...

[jack2000]

And people wonder why i don't leave any personal information online anymore.

Re:I wonder how the shoe fits ...

[MareLooke]

Anymore? You know what they say: what goes on the net stays on the net...

Re:I wonder how the shoe fits ...

[TheRaven64]

It could be out of date. For example, there are a few places online that have my address details publicly visible, but it's a house that I haven't lived in for several years (someone who correlates that with times when I'm out in order to burgle me could be in for a nasty surprise...)

Re:I wonder how the shoe fits ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I'd consider it a rather large violation, but hey - to each their own, right?

Not if you're in the EU (EC/95/46, aka the Data Protection Directive):

1. Notice—data subjects should be given notice when their data is being collected;
2. Purpose—data should only be used for the purpose stated and not for any other purposes;
3. Consent—data should not be disclosed without the data subject’s consent;
4. Security—collected data should be kept secure from any potential abuses;
5. Disclosure—data subjects should be informed as to who is collecting their data;
6. Access—data subjects should be allowed to access their data and make corrections to any inaccurate data; and
7. Accountability—data subjects should have a method available to them to hold data collectors accountable for following the above principles.

This little scheme fails items 1,2,3,4,5,7...

dear slashdot, don't post professional trolls

[Nyall]

How about we not give these clowns free publicity for spouting nonsense ?

This isn't any different than the ryan airlines CEO make press releases about only needing one pilot.

Re:dear slashdot, don't post professional trolls

[data2]

Hey, nothing against Ryan Air. At least they are thinking about offering free blow jobs on long haul flights. :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfIY24BErBE

(Even funnier when the German translator admits that there is no German word/noun for blow job)

Trashy stuff

[WGFCrafty]

These dating site ideas are getting pathetic. I saw a commercial ON TELEVISION for a website aimed at connecting married partners who want to have an affair. This is possibly one of the most tasteless ideas/commercials I have ever witnessed.

Re:Trashy stuff

[IronSight]

I'm waiting for a story of a husband using that site, then finding his wife as his local cheating wife he should hook up with.

Re:Trashy stuff

[Bill Dog]

"If you like pina coladas..."

libel and slander

[epine]

It's not just a matter of privacy. Repeating false information about a person runs foul of libel and slander.

The credit rating agencies have some kind of weird exemption under law from being sued under libel or slander. So if a creditor gives a credit agency false information about your payment history, it's a huge ordeal to get this expunged, and meanwhile you can't sue the credit rating agency for broadcasting what would be a libellous falsehood in any other context.

These people, not so lucky.

I don't think the credit rating agencies want to see big issues surrounding libel and slander challenged in court. They have it good. Hardly anyone ever points out their cozy loophole. Either they'll choose to prop up the legitimacy of these fringe collators, or they'll be distributing severed horse heads to make them go away.

Re:libel and slander

[Anonymous Coward]

if the "system" is really rigged against the populace in favor of corporations, maybe it's time for a new movement like wikileaks or anonymous, wherein this movement will work together to also expose the real identities of the executives behind this corporations together with their friends and families on the Internet with all their personal information posted too. have them taste their own medicine. if this is done enough times maybe these sociopath corporate executives who thinks they are above everyone else will change their ways if they see that their privacy can be equally violated as much as they violated the privacy of the people. after all, we equally have just one life, rich or poor.

Home wrecking?

[Chewbacon]

So say a woman browsing that site contacts a guy she went to highschool with. I think it is safe to assume the site knows how to contact the guy with: "You have a message from date.com!" The guy happens to be married and his wife sees the email. See where that could be going? Would certainly cause damages for some people.

What with their 50p fares, etc....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ryanair shot themselves in the foot with this approach - they're pretty much a joke nowadays.

Fascinating Aida - Cheap Flights

And one of their little scams has been ruled illegal in Spain

(People still fly by them, bu the customer dissatisfaction levels grow daily)

EULA

[supernes]

As a means of protecting unwitting people from all sorts of damaging misappropriation of their public records, I propose social networking sites put into place a mandatory 42-page EULA that you must scroll through and agree to in order to view pictures of said someone and their cats.

Customary XKCD.

[VortexCortex]

http://xkcd.com/713/

I felt obliged to post an XKCD link -- as it is our custom.

Re:Customary XKCD.

[GameboyRMH]

You can get "meet local girls" ads just as funny right here on Earth. When I first saw that comic, it just seemed like a slightly funnier/more absurd version of something I'd already experienced.

Re:Customary XKCD.

[kevingolding2001]

Given the definition of Low Earth Orbit and the size of Australia (the country in which I live), I regularly get more bizarre 'local' contacts than this.

Lawyers love this

[Anonymous Coward]

The lawyers will be all over this. It should be easy money for them. The company isn't thinking this through. Even if they aren't breaking the law, their lawsuit costs will be huge.

Re:Lawyers love this

[Chrisq]

The lawyers will be all over this. It should be easy money for them. The company isn't thinking this through. Even if they aren't breaking the law, their lawsuit costs will be huge.

Yes, if my wife finds that I am registered on a dating site they will be accessory to murder!

Legality?

[HJED]

Is there anyone here who can comment on the legality of what they are doing?
Also did Google Street view set a legal president for this, as what Google did seems to be similar (but less invasive).

Re:Legality?

[Aeternitas827]

Silly poster, Google Street View can't set a president for anything; a precedent, perhaps...but I think we're getting a bit into apples and oranges here (or, at least, Red Delicious and Granny Smith). While Google went about collecting (wittingly or unwittingly) anything they could get, they weren't out to identify specific people, nor does it seem their intent was to collect the (personal) data for specific use in their site/marketing/etc. These blokes, however, are crawling for whatever personally identifiable data they can get with the express intent of marketing these people for the purposes of making their site more attractive to potential users/clients--their marketing ploy, really.

In the end, it could really backfire, as it seems pretty certain that they're going to run into users who (to themselves) inexplicably already exist on the site, without having registered previously, and start to smell that something's up.

Re:Legality?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but to the best of my understanding this violates the EU's Data Protection Directive (EC/95/46) so hard, it is neigh-on unbelievable.

Re:Legality?

[gstrickler]

From TFA: "For example, if you open a Facebook account and your setting [sic] are not set to private, all of that information is in the public domain, it is free for the taking."

This guy needs to read up on copyright and public domain. I own all the information, photos, etc. I post on Facebook. It is NOT public domain. It's publicly accessible, i.e. it's published, but it absolutely is not public domain or free for the taking.

They'll have a dating profile for Charles Manson

[tomhudson]

After all, his info is on the web.

And the goatse guy and tubgirl.

And LOTS of dead people. Anyone want to date a zombie?

fraud?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they call me a member, just because they make a profile, they are probably committing fraud, both on their customers and their investors.

And if they call me a member, that's certainly false and misleading, and might be actionable (if only idiots join the site, which sounds probable).

why tagged australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a US company. The only connection to Australia is that it was reported on a com.au web site.

We have enough stupid of our own, we don't need to be blamed for other countries stupid.

Re:why tagged australia?

[Aeternitas827]

As an American, let me apologise for our idiocy being lumped in with you foiks. I'm ashamed of some of the stuff our country comes up with, does, and so on...to have it attributed elsewhere, saddens me.

Re:why tagged australia?

[NotAGoodNickname]

Americans spell it "apologize" not "apologise"! You must be a deep-cover terrorist! Quick, to the Batmobile!

Awesome

[Silpher]

Dating sites who rape our privacy.. can I see some irony in there?

This is an excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I plan to create a website entitled 'Dating for people who enjoy fun with animals and pee and poo, but anyone else can also join'. I will create profiles based on the public information of persons, and the information will naturally be made public. I intend to start with an exclusive clientele made up of employees of dating organisations in Australia and may not expand after that.

*Dating* site ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We, the Gotham Dating Partners, allways give you, our valued customer, what you want.

Your choosen parner may not expect you, but in that case just do not take 'no' for an answer.

If all else fails you have all the data you need to stalk your future wife/husband."

Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're centralizing publicly available information. The beautiful thing is it's an individual company. And offshore. So anyone who wants to prosecute has to go thru that country's legal system. They just happen to target another country- I'm sorry, add to their membership base from that country... So if it's more than just facebook- you guys do realize there's a whole lot of different kinds of publicly available info out there right? Pretty much every government agency that couldn't get funding for it, just got permission to aggregate everything and take it. By the time any laws are passed, these guys will have sold to the highest bidder and be chillin in some country that isn't being mined for information.

Pretty sure the only reason noone's done it yet is the shear amount of disparate data out there that needs to be parsed just to make sense of it all. Oh and the programming for that will be paid for by all the advertisers wanting to jump on the 340 million member bandwagon. Will end up in many people hands before it's all over... I'd say it's guaranteed to make money, who can't make money from a list of everyone in a country and their fucking profile? Not even counting the "big brother" angle. Heck every hackers dream is access to the "movie type government super database" of crazyness. whoops, just made one. Better hope government/cops/criminals/mafia/script kiddies don't ever want to know anything about you.

Automatic profiles

[Anonymous Coward]

And what happens when they create thousands of profiles for minors?

Re:Automatic profiles

[GameboyRMH]

They get the Pedobear seal of approval!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/170/456474931_0356ba4a8d.jpg

Hmm...

[Aeternitas827]

Has anyone considered finding some way to put some sufficiently believable yet false information out in the public view that could really muck up their business plan? Maybe a Jimmy L. Brohlin, or a Bard S. Pittson...I'm sure someone out there has some sufficiently attractive nephews to pop out a few headshots...

Maybe they will end up like Match

[Anonymous Coward]

Sued for having and using inactive and false profiles to trick people into renewing.

Re:Maybe they will end up like Match

[Anonymous Coward]

They were sued for sleazy behavior years ago:
Online daters sue Match.com, Yahoo for fraud
I don't know what happened to that lawsuit, but I think it's safe to say that it hasn't caused them to improve any.

In other news:

[denzacar]

Thousands of divorce lawyers were hospitalized in USA's greatest epidemic of continuous orgasms.

Re: In other news:

[TubeSteak]

Without an explicit declaration that a profile is auto-generated, I fail to see how this isn't identity theft.

Or can I just go setup dating profiles for anyone I please?

Re: In other news:

[tehcyder]

Or can I just go setup dating profiles for anyone I please?

Haven't we all set up fake accounts as The RealJustinBieber or ThatGuyFromThoseVampireFilmsIsMyBrother on Facebook and dating sites and waited for the pix of scantily clad gullible girls to flood in?

Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just the thing that the (i'll be nice) older ladies and gentlemen that run most nations are not equipped to handle. It is why wiki leaks makes them all look like fools. Here in the U.S. many politicians are clueless about tech (just look at our patent system for the absolute lack of understanding). So this will go through while politicians debate about privacy and not the real question.

Assumming aggregating data (google news, rss feeds from other sources, etc) is an example of fair use of publicly available information and I think that it is. Is there a difference of aggregating information for a specific purpose without consent for the express purpose of profit? I think that there is a difference. If my contact information winds up on yellow book or something well that is part of public record. However, what if Facebook makes an account for me? The difference, I feel, is that the purpose is no longer passive (searching for a number) versus having a Facebook profile where people can post on my auto-generated wall, etc. The first instance is information only and does not personally affect me or alter my perceived personality.

Now with a dating site, I am married, and I know if someone finds my profile on a dating site that it would be a problem. The presence of my profile on a dating site has now altered my actual standing without my consent. Again this is not a passive use of public information. It was created with the express purpose of giving me intent. I.E. I am single and/or I am looking to date. Neither of these are true. Additionally, it creates the illusion of activity on my part where others can expressly interact with my auto-generated me. Also, this profile may show up in search engines which again shows intent to potential employers, etc who may search my name all without my consent. I don't think libel or slander really fits the bill here. It is something else where true data is used to create fake profiles. The information is correct, but used in a context that is damaging to me. It, to me, is not just a he said / she said situation like libel or slander, but more of an act of impersonation. So I would argue this is not a privacy issue, but rather a false impersonation issue:

'In New York, giving only a fictitious name does not constitute false impersonation. Under New York law, criminal impersonation is committed when an individual "[i]mpersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another"' - from http://www.answers.com/topic/impersonation

In this case the dating site is trying to benefit (more members, use our site) by impersonating me. Further, this may indeed injure me (divorce as a possible outcome which has both personal (emotional) impact and financial impact (divorce settlement)). So hopefully someone in the political world has a bit of sense and logic and can apply the law correctly and not go after privacy as it would probably stand up as they are using public information. I have sent an alert to a NY state senator on this issue and hope it gets addressed for what it truly happening.

Government moves slowly

[way2trivial]

DADT is still in effect.

So, Being openly homosexual is currently still grounds for expulsion.

Re:They'll have a dating profile for Charles Manso

[gstoddart]

And LOTS of dead people. Anyone want to date a zombie?

Well, it would mean that someone is dating me for my BRAINZ!!

Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one. ;-)

TOS?

[mr100percent]

There's no way they can do this without violating the Terms of Service. Facebook may post profiles to the public but they don't let you run a scraper on them without permission

Census data?

[BrokenHalo]

But if only 1/20 of the profiles are from people who actually registered with the site...

Sure, populating such a database from scraped data from facebook etc is tacky and unethical. But my attention is drawn to a mention in the submission of census data.

Last time I looked, the Australian Bureau of Statistics didn't release data collected about identifiable individuals. Have they suddenly changed that policy, and if so, why?

Re:Census data?

[Culture20]

But if only 1/20 of the profiles are from people who actually registered with the site... Sure, populating such a database from scraped data from facebook etc is tacky and unethical. But my attention is drawn to a mention in the submission of census data. Last time I looked, the Australian Bureau of Statistics didn't release data collected about identifiable individuals. Have they suddenly changed that policy, and if so, why?

My guess is that when taken into account with everything else they're scraping, the non-identifiable info from a census becomes identifiable.

Facebook says Bobby Tim lives at 1234 Fake Street. The Census says two people live at 1234 Fake street, both black. Ergo, Bobby Tim is black.

Facebook says FakeBobby Tim lives at 1234 FakeFake Street. The Census says no one lives at 1234 FakeFake street. It's a residential zone, but probably an abandoned house. FakeBobby Tim's address data from Facebook is potentially Fake.

Re:Census data?

[jonbryce]

Does the public census data give that level of detail?

In England, the data is grouped by council ward. A ward is an area represented by one or three councillors on the city, district or borough council. For example, in the ward I live in, it says there are 8228 residents, of which 72.2% are English, 2.6% Scottish, 2.2% Pakistani and so on.

Re:Census data?

[Culture20]

I have no idea of the level of data, but if you can verify the 2.2% Pakistani and Scottish in the neighborhood by other means (not hard since minority populations tend to be more vocal about their heritage, and might post such on Facebook), then you know that anyone else is English.

Re:Census data?

[Thing 1]

What's really neat about this is I just watched "The Social Network", and the facemash.com project he ran before TheFacebook.com was pretty much the same level of "scraping". Good to see karma, and stuff.

Re:Census data?

[BrokenHalo]

Does the public census data give that level of detail?

That's sort of my point. The census bods collect all sorts of information about residents, but they aren't supposed to make it accessible to commercial concerns.

Recommend a cheap abercormibe & fitch store

[Anonymous Coward]

Abercrombie & Fitch

A&F

Hollister

Abercrombie Fitch

cheap abercrombie and fitch clothing

2011 Abercrombie & Fitch new style online sales!Abercrombie Fitch,cheap Abercrombie and Fitch,Buy discount Abercrombie&Fitch clothing from (AbercrombieFitchAF.com) Online Store. 63% OFF,Please Come order now! More surprises waiting for you!

They better NEVER make business in europe

[aepervius]

The privacy law are quite strict here, and you can't nilly willy gather private data without the consent of the people. If they do any business in europe expect the law to come up with as ton of brick on them, as well anybody buying the database for commercial purpose. And if they don't do business in europe, why bother gathering the profile ?

Why?

[denzacar]

Why would an auto-generated use of your personal data without your explicit permission be any different from your "regular" identity theft just because it is done "wholesale" by a corporation?
Explicit declaration on their part or not.

Shouting "Stand and deliver!" or "Your money or your life!" doesn't turn a robbery into a donation.

Re:Why?

[John Hasler]

Why would an auto-generated use of your personal data without your explicit permission be any different from your "regular" identity theft...

Where is the fraud? Are they claiming to be you? Are they taking out loans in your name? How is collecting a bunch of public information about you in one place any kind of "theft"?

Re:Why?

[GumphMaster]

The fraud is using that collated information falsely imply that you and Gotham Dating Partners have a business relationship in order to extract money from some other person. Gotham Dating Partners cannot deliver on any promise to provide an introduction based on that profile.

Re:Why?

[denzacar]

Since when is there a "usage clause" for theft of personal information?
At the very least, they are guilty of stalking. Me. And millions of other people.

Also, when their bot opens an account in my name, using my data, my photo, my address etc. - that bot is pretending to be me.
And unless they've made some great advancements in AI - that bot was specifically programmed to do that by THEM.

Fuckin' A they are claiming to be me.

Also, they are using the "pretend me" in order to get more investments based on "millions of users" they have - without any kind or reimbursement for the use of my name, photo etc.

At the same time, should the "pretend me" become a close friend of several convicted murderers - I am the one who will suffer the negative rep.
Bonus points if I get into any kind of problems with the law. Like trying to contest a speeding ticket in court.

And that is just off the top of my head. Mix in some child pornography into that scenario for "real fun".

What sort of "profile" do I really have?

[mark-t]

I've actually often wondered about this... that is, what sort of general conclusions could one come to about me based on publicly available information? I've googled myself before and most of what I've found reflects some of my interests, but I really don't know what sort of generalization one could make about me based on that.

All I can see, in general that one could conclude about me is that I like Lego, programming, role playing games, and appear to take an active interest in the issues surrounding copyright law and copyright reform. What would that *really* tell anybody about me, however?

I am inclined to conclude that the publicly available information probably amounts to considerably more than a google search, because I certainly don't see how what I find with google would really tell anybody anything that's actually useful for people I do not know to know about me unless they actually wanted to engage me in a conversation.

Re:What sort of "profile" do I really have?

[Anonymous Coward]

information from any source can be had for a fraction of a cent to a couple dollars per thousand records. It's harder to just get information about a specific person from one source, so aggregators buy data wholesale and resell access to the data.

anyway, i am aware that aggregator companies have data on almost everyone in the US regarding:

full name, address, phone number(s), driver's license, past residences, roommates and immediate family member names, marriages, divorces, social security number, age, income, owned real properties, employment, professional degrees and certifications, organizational memberships, car/boat/airplane ownership, magazine subscriptions, legal trusts, charitable donations, political donations, high school/college classmates, credit score (and sometimes the specific purchases on your credit debit card), civil judgements, lottery winnings, bankruptcy, foreclosures (incl. just a few missed payments, pre-foreclosure), recent childbirth, gun ownership, major appliance purchases, criminal record, and of course a detailed demographic/marketing description of you and your lifestyle.

[And if you were foolish enough to participate in a phone survey, they'll know your household income within 5% and have your answers to questions like "do you plan to buy a new fridge in the next six months" etc.]

And not only do they have all that data, they have a complete history of most of that data, going back 20+ years in many cases, taking full account of name changes.

While we're on the subject, the new thing is to add "social" to a database and to make inferences about your interest in something by analyzing the interests of all your spouse, friends, and relatives. This kind of data tends to be "partnered" out rather than sold so facebook is keeping a little tighter grasp on it for now, at least until it figures out how to monetize it better.

What is still secret and not for sale? Medical/dental history is revealed to your insurance company, but HIPAA makes it stop there. Your driver's license data may be protected by certain state laws. Your social security contribution history and IRS tax data is still private. Your specific account balances and equity positions are usually private, although you may be classified into an income, debt, or asset level group and placed on a list.

For now, the data is mostly just used for marketing. If you buy a car, someone will try to sell you car insurance. If you get a divorce, someone might try to sell you a boat. If you have a baby, you'll be inundated with diaper coupons.

Upcoming is more of a "predictive" model where they'll assess the likelihood that you will get a new car (e.g. based on how old your current car is), and combine that with the social stuff to know in advance exactly what kind of car you'll get and when. Eventually, people will just show up in your driveway with exactly what you would have bought anyway.

Re:They'll have a dating profile for Charles Manso

[Walt Dismal]

"Dear Mr. Dahmer;

We see you like fine dining and quiet evenings at home. We found a great match for you. Her name is Lizzie Borden. She has interests in metal chopping collectibles and is an orphan looking for new friends. Although you live in Milwaukee, Lizzie is not far away, on a small farm. Our information indicates you might be a celebrity. Lizzie could be dying to meet you, please respond soon!"

You all have the "trust" thing backwards

[karlandtanya]

This provides deniability to the cheaters.

Just like dating spam. Gee, honey, I have no IDEA who "Lance.Goodthrust69@gmail.com" is. Don't try that email; you'll probably get a virus!. You know how much spam is out there.

As opposed to what?

[Moraelin]

As opposed to the current kind of population on some of those sites, which has ridiculous numbers of accounts that are anywhere between those of people who've been inactive for ages and just plain old bogus accounts created by staff members, and (as in the lawsuit against Match.com) even periodically use romantic come-ons from such accounts to make lonely people stick around?

I think my biggest LOL moment was when one ad for some site showed me a picture of porn actress Gianna Michaels as one of the girls looking for sex in my area. I mean, somehow I wish I could believe that she moved to Germany and is actually looking for a random fuck on the Internet in addition to what she gets during her job, but I somehow doubt that.

For some sites out there actually having 20% people who _can_ be contacted and actually answer, even if they're fat, ugly and mean, would actually be an improvement.

Re:They'll have a dating profile for Charles Manso

[sumdumass]

If only I had mod points...

However, I think your whit might be lost on the younger crowd who probably weren't alive when Jeffrey Dahmner and Lizzie Borden were central figures in the news.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Here's to hoping I am.

advice to Gotham Dating Partners

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Gotham Dating partners, here's advice in terms you might understand:

FUCK OFF.

Owned and operated by Skynet!

[xclr8r]

Knock Knock!

Sarah Connor: Who's There?

Ahnuld: Da Terminator. Are you Sarah Connor?

I think we all know how this ends.

Big Brother Love Connections

[Drakkenmensch]

Your profile built and created without your knowledge, posted without your consent and used to hook you up with people you wouldn't want to know you exist - just the thing for the busy creepy stalker who's constantly on the go!

tomhudson, answer a question for us, won't you?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1952834&cid=34915292 , and answer the question there at the url where it was asked of you, tomhudson. I get the feeling that tomhudson is talking out of his ass again, as is his usual, on things he has no experience or clue in (such as actually having a CSC or CIS degree to his name).

tomhudson a question was asked of you. Answer it.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1952834&cid=34915292 , so, answer the question there at the url where it was asked of you, tomhudson. I get the feeling that tomhudson is talking out of his ass again as is his usual, on things he has no experience or clue in (such as actually having a CSC or CIS degree to his name).

Why bother -- low response rate?

[kabloom]

The response rate when people send messages to people they're interested in will be pretty close to zero. I can't see why anyone would find such a dating site useful.

Re:They'll have a dating profile for Charles Manso

[Anonymous Coward]

And LOTS of dead people. Anyone want to date a zombie?

Many women would be happy with that arrangement. They would finally have someone who dated them for their brain.