Posted on 03/29/2005 5:19:01 AM PST by freepatriot32
March 28, 2005
How safe is online romance?Lawmakers want dating sites to disclose background check informationBy DAVID EGGERT Associated Press Writer
LANSING -- Sandie Cornillie did a double take when she first heard about a bill that would force online dating sites to say whether criminal background checks have been conducted on their members. The 46-year-old divorcee from Portage prefers finding dates on the Internet over visiting the local bar or relying on a friend to play matchmaker. The Web is less intimidating, more convenient and arguably safer, she said. "It's a very safe way of getting to know someone before we meet face to face," said Cornillie, who has tried online dating for five years. "I haven't met any rapists or any crazy people. It's kind of up to you to be careful." Some lawmakers, though, say that as online dating becomes more popular, users need better protection from predators. Twenty-six million people visited dating sites in January, according to the Internet research firm Nielsen/NetRatings. The Senate is considering legislation that would require an Internet dating company serving Michigan residents to disclose on its Web site whether it has conducted criminal background checks on users, based solely on the names provided. A provider also would have to disclose the limitations of background checks and urge members to adhere to safe dating practices. Republican Sen. Alan Cropsey of DeWitt is sponsoring the bill. "There are inherent dangers in the whole area of the Internet," he said. "Something needs to be done." The measure has divided the Senate, and the split is not solely along party lines. A Senate panel voted 4-3 to ship the bill to the full chamber, with one Democrat joining three Republicans in support. Two Democrats and one Republicans voted "no." Backers say just posting the background-check disclosure would go a long way toward boosting awareness of the possible dangers of meeting people online. Learning that other users are not known criminals would provide a sense of security. They say knowing that checks have not been done would arm users with valuable information. But critics -- including most online sites -- say any feeling of security would be deceptive because there is no way to ensure people give their real names. Some wonder if government can effectively regulate the Internet, and some users such as Cornillie worry sites would pass on the screening costs to them. Others question whether the bill is being pushed mainly for financial gain. The legislation is backed by True.com, the only online dating service that performs criminal screening. Similar legislation has been proposed in five other states: California, Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Texas. True.com, a relative newcomer to the industry, cites incidents where people have been shot, stabbed or scammed by dates they met online. Herb Vest, founder of the site, said the Michigan legislation would save lives, property and heartache. "As an industry, we owe it to our members to inform them of the potential hazards," he said. Detractors, however, say the measure blatantly favors True.com and argue that the free market should drive demand for background checks, not the government. Match.com spokeswoman Kristin Kelly said the company just facilitates an age-old process -- meeting people -- with new-age technology. Users still take the same precautions as those who meet people in a bar, she said. "Safety in dating, that's a concern for everyone," Kelly said. "You're meeting someone new for the first time. You have to be cautious. But if we get too far down the path of paranoia, we don't see what point that serves." Residents don't want Michigan to become a "nanny" state, she said, arguing that meeting people online is no less safe than meeting in a restaurant or at a party. Similar legislation passed the House last year before stalling in the Senate. Its chances for success this time are unclear. In a debate on the floor last week, Democratic Sen. Mark Schauer of Battle Creek said some lawmakers are wavering because users still could hide their shady pasts by using fictitious names. "That's a fundamental flaw with this bill," he said. But Cropsey said the main goal is to heighten awareness about the possible dangers of meeting people online. The Senate could vote on the bill in April.
|
I think wether you meet a person face to face or the first time or on the net, NO ONE is going to reveal there whole life story to you? it takes time and trust with that person, people just need to be careful in how they meet anyone for the first time..Serial Killers like Ted Bundy and Kenneth Bianchi met women face to face some who trusted these killers just by talking to them innocently.
Meeting people for the first time no matter how you meet them takes time before any trust can happen it needs to build up..
That's my 2 cents....
Seperated at birth?
Haw!
LOL
I have a better idea. Pass a law in Michigan requiring single women to avoid men completely.
Very good likeness.
You know, this makes sense. Otherwise you'd have folks like Scott Peterson getting marriage proposals.
Oh, wait........
Good post. People need to learn how to read non verbal communication, which is hard with the internet but not impossible if you keep up with the details shared. When there are red flags you have to learn to trust your instincts. I had a couple of bad experiences with online dating and have sworn it off for me. I do know people who have met online and are happy as a lark though.
Agree....People have had good and bad experiences wether meeting a person on-line or in-person. You can meet a person in a bar they can either be a half way decent human being or a rip roaring drunk.
Use your instincts..
I can tell you after being on FR 2 years there are some folks I can see myself being friends with in-person, then there are some that would be an absolute NIGHTMARE to meet in person! LOL...
Actually I did meet one freeper in person and we have turned out to be pretty good friends..
Crikey, how safe is romance OFFLINE?
---
Good point. We should require background checks before issuing marriage liscences. /sarc
stupid useless, big government wacko politicians... grrr
Alan Cropsey's behind this one?? I didn't expect this from him.
Not just anti-depressants. I would also be looking at serial divorces, serial restraining orders (either directions), membership in radical organizations, etc. BTW, what I have listed are of course disqualifying criteria. After one very bad experience (she went extreme psycho), I would almost prefer running a background check of the same magnitude of a Q clearance.
Please add me to the Libertarian ping.
I have some friends who have used match.com and have met some very nice people. They did meet a few who were married, however.
you have been added welcome aboard
eHarmony - Loser Central for $50 a month.
Yeah, a friend of mine tells me she cannot believe the amount of married people on these single sites... One guy she met who she told me she really liked confessed after the 3rd date with her he was married, she asked him why and the dufus said "because I can, the Internet, Text Messaging was made for Cheaters! She dumped him quick!
I've never joined eHarmony, but I took the free online test. Apparently, there are four women in the country that I'm compatible with. Let the good times roll.
How do you know it's Loser Central? How do you know it's $50 a month? LOL ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.