Flawed Online Dating Bill Being Pushed in New Jersey 192
Billosaur writes "According to a report on Ars Technica, a committee of the New Jersey Assembly is trying to push an on-line dating bill even though it contains significant flaws. The Internet Dating Safety Act would require dating web sites that interact with customers in New Jersey to indicate whether they do criminal background checks and if people who fail such checks are still allowed to register with the site. 'The backers of the New Jersey Internet Dating Safety Act undoubtedly feel that the law provides at least a measure of protection despite its flaws. In this case, however, users of such sites are probably better off assuming that their personal safety remains a personal responsibility, rather than placing faith in a background check that has little chance of uncovering any information on a person attempting to hide it.'"
Ridiculous Law (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The Article states that it's not even a true background check (it's a name check only -- so, it's essentially worthless anyway)
2. Users should bare the responsibility of checking out their own dates, not the site
If anything, the state should only require the dating sites to offer a full background screening service for a reasonable price. That way, the user can check out their dates, plus the dating site isn't forced to do a background check on everyone, plus the site can still make a profit which is what the site is there for in the first place.
What about the fatties? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's next, background checks to get into a bar? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, a lot of hook-ups, meeting new people for dating, etc. happen at bars, not online. This is one of those half-baked ideas by some clueless legislators who seem to think the Internet is a scarier place than a bar.
Requiring background checks for online dating is not a realistic safeguard. People who have something to hide will figure out how to hide it, face-to-face or on the Internet. If anything, this will cause clueless daters to fall into a false sense of security by assuring them that this safety net exists when it's merely a mirage.
Who cares!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What do you expect from the "tube" guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that is supposed to make me feel warm and fuzzy, you've done the very opposite. The people you talk about are the same ones who give you a deer-in-the-headlights look when you tell them that by putting up pictures of themselves and personal information such as where they go to school on Facebook, someone could figure out where they live.
They current crop of legislators aren't the only ones who have no idea about what the internet is.
Re:you always hear about (Score:5, Insightful)
Distance from North Pole to Equator along earth's surface: ~10,000 km.
Distance from Earth to Sun: 150 million km.
Distance from Sun to nearest other star: 42 trillion km.
Distance from what women say they want in a man, to what they really want: farther still.
Re:heh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Legislation pushed by True.com? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Backed by a online dating company? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean...what's the difference in where you meet and try to find people? What makes internet dating inherently more dangerous than dating in meatspace? Are we doing to be required to carry out background checks with us on our papers as well as our identifying information....oh wait...RealID....?
Seriously, I don't see the difference....no matter where you try to go to interact with people, you have to have some discretion in who you trust and go out with...
Re:What's next, background checks to get into a ba (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, have you any idea of how few people in a relationship met in bars compared to other means? Or how ubiquitous online dating services have become? This is particularly true for age ranges > 30.
Your point stands about a false sense of security. You'd think that maybe someone smart enough to go online to a dating site would be smart enough to do their own background check; the problem is that there is no assurance that the person they are checking on is actually who they say they are; the dating sites act as a vetting service -- this is what potential daters are paying for.
That said, I think the problem is that people too stupid to do their own background checks actually increase their chance of reproducing through these dating sites. This means that, from an evolutionary standpoint, they are getting some help in propagating their genes. I would like my legislator to propose legislation to ban all people too stupid to perform their own background checks from using dating sites. For the good of the species, please.
Won't someone think of the genome?
[1] Yes, I know, the 90s called, and they want their "The 80s called and want their $FOO back" joke back.
Re:Geez, how libertarian of you... (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, so assume you're running a corporation and you want your users to feel safe and use your site. What is more cost effective real methods, or empty marketing? Now as your business people go to your Web page and input personal information. You have no way of checking if the information they enter, even their name is correct. What kind of background check do you think you can perform that will be effective? You don't even know the person's real name if they decide to just make up an alias.
Okay now you're an individual who wants to meet someone. Should you abrogate your own personal responsibility and trust the company you're doing business with to keep you safe or should you assume that the company has neither the means nor the motivation to protect you and take personal responsibility for your own safety? Taking person responsibility does not mean you do or don't run your own background check, but just meeting someone in a public place puts you in a much better position to determine if a person is dangerous than the dating company. Hell, you can ask them for their driver's license and have a good shot at seeing if they are who they claim, then you can run a background check on them.
The point is, if this type of bill is used to create advertising for a few companies, many people will assume those companies are in a position to really provide some safety to them, when that is certainly not the case. In my mind it is better to be upfront and advocate responsibility on the part of customers and save a lot of grief.
Ummm, that makes no sense (Score:3, Insightful)
In the case of dating, it would be the individual you wish to date. They decide if what their search turns up is ok or not. You might think that a rape conviction is "no big deal" but someone you are trying to date might disagree, and that is their right. On the other hand maybe you have a shoplifting conviction that prevents your employment somewhere, but your date decides they don't give a shit.
I'm sure you think you are a great lover, but you don't get to make that call for people. The person you wish to date gets to decide and it is up to them what methods they wish to use. If they want to use a background check, that's their prerogative. It's basic freedom of association. My freedom to associate with whomever I want includes the freedom to NOT associate with people if I want, and I can set the conditions on that. Hell, I can decide to make you submit to a credit check if you want to be my friend. I'm not going to have many friends if I do that, but I don't have to associate with you if I don't want to.
The reason this is stupid is that online services should not have to incur the cost of background checks, it should be up to the individual.
Re:heh (Score:4, Insightful)
Common sense does not apply "online".
Everything is different, and there needs to be new laws when something is "online".
OK, enough with the sarcasm, but WTF is up with an online dating bill? Singles bars don't do background checks. Neither do the personals in the newspaper. I would assume that things like magazines that are dedicated to "alternate" lifestyles, swinging, wife-swapping, and every fetish you could imagine don't do background checks. Lots of people meet people at work and school, and most employers and schools don't do background checks.
So, why is this so important when the "online" keyword is added?
Re:Ummm, that makes no sense (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not up to me to decide if a girl will have me, but it's not up to some blacklist pushing hater to give her a distorted picture of who I am.
You clearly don't know what it is like to be on the blacklist.
The same people who force feed their children Adderal discriminate against me because I chose to take it and got caught.
The choicepoint (public records) blacklist system is discrimination of the worst kind and not only is it legal, but it is encouraged by the fascists in our government.
Re:Ummm, that makes no sense (Score:1, Insightful)
It may seem like haveing a criminal record is the end of the world but it isn't.
I have an awesome job, sweet apartment, and awesome car. All things considered I have a great life.
But I will never forgive or forget the people who have discriminated against me or why and how they did it. There are many people out there who are going out of there way to make my life a little worse, and the people pushing this bill are some of them.
backwards (Score:3, Insightful)