TECHWEB — Mar 3 — True has taken on the rest of the online dating industry in pushing state legislators to require matchmaking sites to conduct criminal background checks on members or post a warning that no such screening has been done. "We believe this legislation would save lives and prevent rapes, robberies and assaults," Herb Vest, True CEO. "I believe this raises the bar on the industry and it would bring many more single people, currently not using online-dating services, into our industry, once it's perceived as safe." Kristin Kelly, Match PR Director said, "It's special-interest legislation whereby you are taking a market differentiator of a particular company, and, through legislation, enforcing it on the rest of us." Nevertheless, True insists it will push on with its campaign, expecting some states to sign some type of regulation by the summer. The rest of the industry plans to keep on fighting, with Match.com leading the charge.
Mark Brooks: True has lit a PR firestorm by shooting for the soft underbelly of the industry and then playing David and Goliath with Match.com. Great PR ploy, but what will be the long term effects of inviting political attention? Your comments please…
I’m encouraged that the media remain interested in this important legislative threat.
Kristen Kelly’s comment fairly sums it up:
“It’s special-interest legislation whereby you are taking a market differentiator of a particular company, and, through legislation, enforcing it on the rest of us,”
The FriendFinder Network is staunchly opposed to this legislation. We see nothing but harm for the industry. At the i-date conference in January, I likened it to telling the people of a small town that there’s a danger of chemical terrorism, just so you can sell them gas masks.
The trouble is, as with all situations of “danger”, whether real or contrived, people don’t suffer them for very long.
If True.com succeeds in this effort, they will make a ghost-town of our industry.
Rather than opportunistically cultivate a climate of fear, I would rather see online daters LEARN to engage our services safely, and acquire whatever new skills and wiles are appropriate to the Online Realm — as regards dating or any other use of the medium.
Online use is, I’m quite certain, still in its infancy. If we shrink back with fear whenever we are afraid or uncertain, if we had done so before now, we won’t evolve any further, we would not be where we are today.
Jack Mardack
General Manager,
The FriendFinder Network
Many providers in the industry obviously disagree with TRUE.com’s proposed legislation to enhance online dating safety and that is their right. But, bloggers, industry insiders, and organizations like SITRAS do not speak for the industry — THE CUSTOMERS DO. And, the customers keep telling the industry repeatedly in surveys sponsored by us and others (as well as in journal articles) that safety is their number one concern and that they support disclosure laws as proposed by TRUE.com.
Bars, bookstores, and coffee houses do not charge people money to “match them up” and “provide social introductions.” They exist to sell drinks and books. We make them meat markets — not the owners. On the other hand, online matchmaking sites exist and make millions of dollars to essentially fix you up. TRUE feels that business model implies some inherent ethical responsibility to provide at least a minimum level of safety and screening.
We may not be able directly to enhance safety in people’s personal offline pursuits, but we can do something directly to enhance online dating safety. After all, we freely accept money from customers to provide the business of “introduction and dating services.”
The false sense of security argument is not just weak, it’s shamefully misleading. There already exists a false sense of security. A recent study revealed that online daters assume companies already conduct background screenings — when they do not. In addition, I hear a certain company claim that there is “no problem” — the same company repeatedly identified in news reports as the website where predators have met victims. The same company that had to reluctantly admit under repreated direct questioning from a legislator at the senate committee hearings in Michigan that there was a problem. Are we to really believe that such companies have the best interest of their own consumers at heart?!
TRUE.com regularly rejects about 5% of applicants because they fail background felony screenings and another ~4% because they fail marriage checks. These are important results since research consistently shows that women do not want to meet men online who pose as singles (but are married) and since the Dept of Justice’s statistics show that past felon convictions are the best predictor of future felony activity.
Clearly criminal background and marriage screening are not entirely foolproof (how naive to assume so), however, it is demonstrably a much better alternative to what is currently being done by a majority of online dating sites offered today. Moreover, the industry knows well that consumers often have memberships at more than one site at a given time. These failed applicants are not on TRUE, but they are somewhere else.
TRUE.com is not concerned with pacifying the industry. We are here to address customers’ realistic fears associated with online dating that the public has repeatedly told the industry are keeping that industry from growing. Thus, what ghost town would result?! Rather, a rising tide will raise all ships. I submit that the real fear being voiced by the industry is one of cost — and I am so tired of hearing multi-million dollar businesses use cost as an excuse to avoid implementing critical safety measures for its customers.
Herb Vest and all the employees of TRUE.com exist to help reduce the divorce rate by providing a more wholesome and safer environment for courtship, coupled with scientifically validated compatibility tetsing (my forte).
We don’t mind the insults that industry insiders and others levy at the company– after all “no one chases you unless you’re carrying the ball.” To be sure, the fact is that the bulk of the surveyed online dating community feels we have that ball.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
You guys at True.com are full of sh*t. The ONLY reason you are pushing for this is to make your competition get their panties in a knot and lose a chunk of their customer base.
It’s nobodies business if someone has a criminal record until they actually agree to meet. If potential daters are that concerned with someone having a previous record they should either A) Ask them and find out for themselves by other means… or B) Go date people elsewhere’s if they are that concerned. Someone they meet at a bar might have a record too. Should you go ahead and push for legislation to make them have to wear a shirt that says “I have a criminal record” whenever they go to bars to pick up? What if it was a record caused by a speeding ticket that went unpaid or someone defending themselves and getting an assault charge out of it. Labelling someone with a criminal record means nobody would be interested in checking them out at all and is not very fair to say the least. They paid their debt to society already. Not all people with criminal records are evil. In fact, most are nice people too who made mistakes in their past. I’d say that 1 out of every 100,000 people are dangerous with a criminal record. You’re not really protecting anyone at all but just trying to hinder your competition. That is ALL this is about and you know it. It’s none of your business how the competition runs things. It’s as ridiculous a requiring a competing ice cream stand to use pink spoons instead of the grey ones they have and doing so just to hurt them.
Again, you folks don’t really care about this, the only reason you are trying to get your competition forced into doing this is because you KNOW it will hurt their bottom line.
That’s a good case for an anti-trust class action suit.
Another thing that p*sses me off about this is that these people are going to hurt a lot of people in this process. there are 1000’s of affiliates that send new customers to these dating sites on a daily basis. When the competition starts losing memebers and such, the affiliates start losing money too. That’s taking food off everyone’s tables just so True.com can get control over the industry and effectively ruin the industry as a whole. Smaller dating sites will not be able to afford to implement criminal record checks on all their members and will be forced to close.
Is that why you idiots are doing this?
I congratulate the guys at True.com for coming up with a great piece of PR. They’re getting themselves some nice ink, and I congratulate them for it. Obviously this is a bogus cause for legislation.
If True.com does succeed in getting legislation passed (which I seriously doubt), it’ll be a hassle for the rest of us in the online dating industry…. but no huge deal either way. There’s no way the legislation will save lives or prevent rapes and robberies. However, the PR may help True.com turn from red ink to black.
Best,
Eric Straus
President & CEO
http://www.Cupid.com
For Immediate Release Contact: Tom Andrews, 415/507-9962
ONLINE DATING INDUSTRY REJECTS CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS REQUIREMENT
The International Association of Dating Websites (www.iadw.org) is opposed to proposed legislation that would require all dating websites to either do criminal background checks for all of their members, or post a very large disclaimer on the website’s home page saying that no background checks are being performed.
“This is unfair to the online dating industry,” says Rich Gosse, Founder of IADW. “No other websites are required to do background checks. Most offline dating services and matchmakers do not perform background checks, nor do speed dating, other singles organizations, and newspaper personal ads. Only a tiny percentage of the many hundreds of thousands of organizations and associations in America do criminal background checks. So why single out the online dating industry?
“Certainly it is important for singles to be careful when meeting a stranger via a dating website. Meeting in a public place, with witnesses, is common sense, and applies to meeting any stranger, be it for business or social purposes.
“IADW believes that every dating website should caution its members about safety issues. But requiring a criminal background check would be costly. One of the main reasons that the online dating industry is able to provide quality service to so many millions of singles is because the process is inexpensive. Criminal background checks can easily double the cost, making it too pricy for millions of singles. Offering criminal background checks as an option (at additional cost) is the proper way to address this issue.
“Currently six State Legislatures in the USA are considering this legislation. Fortunately none of them have enacted it. We hope that these states, and all others, will reject the proposed legislation.” Rich Gosse is available to discuss this and online dating with the news media by calling 415/479-3800.
The International Association of Dating Websites (IADW) is a non-profit trade association for the online dating industry. IADW provides members the opportunity to network with one another. IADW also is committed to promoting online dating, setting high ethical standards for the industry,and providing valuable information to its members, the news media, and government. Anyone wishing more information may visit http://www.iadw.org or call 415/507-9962.
Rich Gosse
Founder
International Association of Dating Websites
Background checks are an add-on service that users should be able to choose. I think it’s commendable True is offering background checks. But, I don’t think it should be pushed on everyone. Most users are not going to need or want background checks.
From a business standpoint, it doesn’t make any sense. It increases our costs, and if everyone has to do it, all we’re doing is feeding the background check industry. There are no free lunches, so someone has to pay for it—the users.
It’s a better policy for background checks to be made by users who deem them necessary. Whereas seat belts and air bags are no longer optional and saving lives every day, do one has demonstrated that having background checks will save any lives…. Not even one! If that were the case, background checks would already have been mandated for anyone who picks up someone in a bar.
In most countries, background checks are deemed an invasion of privacy and are illegal. Mandatory background checks are an opening for abuse. We’re all worried about the amount of data the government is compiling on us and this is just one more way for us to legislate ourselves into a Big Brother society.
Mary.com offers background checks as an option. But, there are other ways to help people feel safer on online personals sites and at the same time, improve their chances of developing significant relationships online. Mary.com, for example, also offers certified photographs. It’s an identity check of sorts, but not a ‘background check’ per se. Photographers check the drivers license of the person they are photographing to make sure it’s them. It’s a ‘foreground’ check, if you like. People who have questionable backgrounds are not going to have one of their real pictures disseminated on the World Wide Web..
We’ve researched this area. The True background checks are very inexpensive checks. Full checks are on the order of $250. That $10 check has some serious flaws. It’s not that thorough. So, if we want to start legislating, where do we put the bar. We could put the bar so high that the whole online dating industry could disappear over night, and everyone would be forced to go back to the legacy way of meeting people… where there are NO background checks, NO personality profiles, NO Lifestyle matching, and where it takes 10 times longer to meet the right person. That’s not progress…that’s stupidity.
Pat Dines
CEO
http://www.mary.com
Here are some facts to help provide clarification to industry insiders with opinions like “True.com’s background screenings are not that thorough.”
True.com has a partnership with Rapsheets.com. There are other service providers as well, but Mr. Herb Vest chose this firm because they have become the most comprehensive site on the Internet in delivering instant results of criminal records searches. Indeed, Rapsheets Criminal Records spans almost every state in the U.S. and includes searches at the county, state and regional and national level.
Rapsheets searches more than 175 million criminal records, which comprises over 94% of all felony convictions. To conduct True.com’s marital status verification, Rapsheets searches more than 19 billion public records.
Again to be clear: TRUE.com rejects a total of about 10% applicants because they fail the felony or marriage screenings. That 10% of failed applicants amounts to thousands of potentially harmful (emotionally and otherwise) individuals. Those are hard results — not tiresome and unsubstantiated cries about a “false sense of security.” To be sure, let’s just take the 5% rejection rate for failed felony screenings. The DOJ reports that the felony recidivism rate is close to 70%! Are we really to believe that statistically TRUE.com’s security measures have not prevented the pairing of AT LEAST ONE serious predator and victim — above and beyond any “common sense” tactics used by truthful and sincere online consumers?!
In short, the logic I see from industry insiders is seriously wanting. The conclusion that is beyond any argument is that doing nothing to directly enhance online dating safety is the ultimate method that is “not that thorough.” I urge commentators to actually read the bills they are criticizing; questions about what the “background screening bar should reasonably be” are addressed by the legislators.
Why do industry insiders vigorously fight the message that online dating consumers keep sending them?! Safety is understandably consumers’ major concern and the majority of surveyed online dating consumers support TRUE.com’s legislative initiative. Nothing that has been posted here by industry insiders undermines my arguments and the facts I summarized in my original post. Therefore, I look forward to future posts that speak against TRUE.com’s legislative initiative based on hard facts and substaniated claims.
Thanks
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
First, I’d like to remind everyone that every criminal, at some point in his or her life didn’t have a criminal background to check up on. Does a propensity to commit a crime make one a criminal? Are there secret criminals we should be wary of?
It took this industry 10 years to convince people that online dating is a safe venture and now you’re telling them it’s not and everybody is a potential criminal unless they can prove otherwise. This is foolish. Background checks make perfect sense when they are optional and performed of your own free will, but they make very little sense when made mandatory. I’d rather live with the possibility of meeting a criminal by accident then by being forced to get a background check. I might get one on my own, but I won’t be coerced into it. Ain’t gonna happen.
What’s next?
1. Send all members for a psychiatric evaluation?
2. Get credit reports on your subscribers to make sure they are not in debt?
3. Send them to get a blood test to make sure they are STD free?
Just like in real life, people have to use some common sense when they meet new people, regardless of where they meet them. And every action we take involves risk. Inflating the risk by propagandizing it, then promising to reduce it to gain a marginal advantage over your competitors a silly strategy.
Keep the background checks optional. Promote them as a subscriber advantage and a good thing to do. Don’t make them mandatory.
This is not creating a better image for the industry. In forcing everyone to follow, this could have a negative impact on the industry.
We want to create a safe environment. What are we doing in the off line world? Will we have background checks on people in bars? How is that different? Can you see where this could lead?
This might blow up in their face. Background checks have merit but to force it on everyone else is not fair.
It’s great to offer more singles lifestyle resources and services. Great add-on. Let’s not force it with legislation. It’s almost like trying to legislate morality. Noble, but to force it on everyone nullifies what they are doing.
Mary Spio
Editor-in-Chief
One2One Living
http://www.one2onemag.com
It’s always nice when posters identify themselves — makes their posts more meaningful. Just a tip!
“CEO” makes a valid point that every criminal was at once time a “first time offender.” Rapsheets was the first to mention and discuss this at the Michigan Senate Committe Hearings. Background screenings are certainly limited — as is the gain one gets from using “common sense” alone.
Again, please read the actual language in the bills being considered. No one is being forced to conduct background screenings — it is a disclosure law. Unfortunately, many industry insiders are propagandizing a misunderstanding of the bill.
TRUE.com is not propagandizing a fear of online dating — we are simply realistic like online dating consumers in general and merely the first to heed consumers’ repeated statements and concerns about safety with online dating. Let’s not talk down to our customers who pay us good money to help them meet others with statements like “life is just full of risks – deal with it.”
Instead, let’s work with our customers’ stated needs and provide them at least a minimum level of security. Providing background screenings and explaining their limitations is one way of helping our customers, and so is plainly and honestly disclosing when we do not screen online daters — thereby correcting the documented and unsafe public perception that many sites conduct them.
Thanks
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
This is simply a LIE:
“TRUE.com is not propagandizing a fear of online dating — we are simply realistic like online dating consumers in general and merely the first to heed consumers’ repeated statements and concerns about safety with online dating.'”
True.com IS PROPAGANDIZING FEAR:
This copy is from a flash banner ad appearing on (http://www.true.com/saferdating/). I hope that it will not be removed, so that subsequent readers of this thread will be able to see it as I saw it:
Frame 1: “Victims experienced 247,730 rapes/sexual assaults in 2002”
Frame 2: “And 4.7 million physical assaults”
Frame 3: “More than 5.6 million living US Adults have served time in prison”
Frame 4: “49% of state prison inmates were being held for violent crimes”
Frame 5: “Recidivism rates for felons 50-70%”
Frame 6: “How will you help”
If True.com is simply responding to the sentiments of the consumer, why do they find it necessary to impart this kind of information to them?
What do they expect would be the most likely reaction of the average Caucasian American with a mean Household income of nearly $60,000?
The ONLY reason I mention this rather specific demographic is because it seems they are the ONLY ones True.com thought to ask for their opinions regarding the safety of online dating in the research (conducted by Russell Research of New York City, August 2004) you keep citing.
Are THESE the customers whose opinions should direct the course of our industry?
Here are some specifics from the 3 Reports you link to from your “Safer Dating” resource site: (http://www.true.com/saferdating/true_safer_surveys_all.asp)
1. Ohio Online Dating Study: 79% Caucasian, MHHI = $55,830 —
(http://www.true.com/saferdating/images/russell_research_ohio.pdf)
2. Michigan Online Dating Study: 89% Caucasian, MHHI = $58,880 —
(http://www.true.com/saferdating/images/russell_research_michigan
I’d also be curious to see some of the sample questions from the survey. Actually, I would like to request on behalf of the Dating Industry a formal audit of the research you reference when you say things like “the customers keep telling [us] repeatedly in surveys sponsored by us and others… that safety is their number one concern.”
Did the survey go something like this?
1. Terrifying Statistic #1
2. Terrifying Statistic #2
3. Terrifying Statistic #3
4. “Are you scared?”
Jack Mardack
General Manager,
The FriendFinder Network
Read the academic literature on online dating: granted it is in its infancy but safety and misrepresentation are the consistently identified problems noted by consumers. Our market research confirmed this, as I’m sure many unpublished market surveys have done as well conducted by other online dating companies. After all, if online dating safety is so common sense and so unneeded, then why do most sites post “tips and guidelines” for keeping your self safer online and offline?!
Thank you very much for citing and promoting TRUE’s saferdating site. Online daters and industry insiders should be terrified by such statistics — and you seemed to indicate distaste at these stats as well. It seems TRUE.com is the only company that seems to acknowledge what consumers are saying: there are real issues that need real attention. And I keep hearing companies say there is no problem that needs addressing?! Citing facts is not propagandizing fear. Or should I turn this around and say you and other industry insiders are propagandizing safety in online dating when there is an established false sense of security?
TRUE.com has research on its side to support its position (the ones you kindly mentioned)– not ridiculous smoke and mirrors. This was research sponsored by us and research not sponsored by us. In fact, one of the studies was set up by a newspaper in MI seemingly in the hopes to discredit the position of TRUE (judging from their editorial). What studies do you have to report that go against my statements? On behalf of the online dating industry, we would all love to see them.
Please by all means sponsor some research studies if you feel the studies that have been done are inadequate. I doubt you would cite them as inadequate if they had shown the majority of surveyed people to be against this legislative effort. So, I encourage you to conduct “better” studies — at least, you would be contributing to the issue in a productive way. On a side note, I won’t address the issue of why reducing the divorce rate would be a good idea– it should be obvious, but my points involve academic research and this is not a professional conference.
Thank you,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
This is a marketing play.
Herb Vest is an intelligent individual. I believe his main intention is to promote his brand as a safe place to meet people and legislation in favor of his company would only be an added bonus. He probably knows there is next to no chance on taking these bill’s seriously. Especially with consumer activist groups and privacy advocacy groups only looming around the corner.
What he has done is identified his brand as a safe place to meet people. “His brand has the consumer’s safety in mind.“
What he has also done is force other larger competitors to basically publicly go against a consumer safety initiative. Very few have yet, but you can almost see it bubbling.
At the end of the day, there are lot more people that care about their safety than their privacy. The irony is that privacy and safety on the internet go hand in hand.
Large companies should go ahead and promote that they too offer the background check service and that they also value individual privacy. Leaving the ultimate decision in the hand of the consumer as an add-on service.
Smaller companies should wait it out and see what way the industry moves.
The real issue does come down to safety. Every service we have concieved of at our company has always had that question come up. How do we provide a safe environment for our customers to interact?
It would be best if a panel of industry experts would be created to attack this issue, than to have one man and his crazy marketing ploys dictate the way our industry moves.
Just a thought.
Ciao!
Q:… you’re this out of touch with the industry and consumer needs. Read the academic literature on online dating: granted it is in its infancy but safety and misrepresentation are the consistently identified problems noted by consumers.
A: I do read it. But I find that reading such research tells me much more about the interests that sponsored it than it does about consumer attitudes.
Q: “After all, if online dating safety is so common sense and so unneeded, then why do most sites post “tips and guidelines” for keeping your self safer online and offline?!”
A: I’ll just quote myself from higher up on the page:
“Rather than opportunistically cultivate a climate of fear, I would rather see online daters LEARN to engage our services safely, and acquire whatever new skills and wiles are appropriate to the Online Realm.
Q: Online daters and industry insiders should be terrified by such statistics — and you seemed to indicate distaste at these stats as well.
A: Why should “Online daters and industry insiders” be terrified by these statistics? There is no connection between these statistics and online dating. The cause of my distaste is the suggestion that there is.
Q: Or should I turn this around and say you and other industry insiders are propagandizing safety in online dating when there is an established false sense of security?
A: Decrying an exaggeration of the dangers is not the same as propagandizing safety.
Q: What studies do you have to report that go against my statements? On behalf of the online dating industry, we would all love to see them.
A: In a free market (That still is what we are, right?), I think the best way to gauge how well-received your product is (or isn’t) by the customers you propose to serve is simply to ask them to buy it.
* Why doesn’t True.com stop “telling” us what customers want?
* Why doesn’t True.com stop trying to compel anti-competitive legislation?
* Why doesn’t True.com just let online daters favor or disfavor them with the most democratic expression of consumer opinion I can think of – their BUYING ATTENTION.
Jack Mardack
General Manager,
The FriendFinder Network
EXCERPT FROM: National Online Dating Study, prepared by Russell Research on behalf of True.com, August, 2004.
NOTE: THIS IS THE RESEARCH THAT SUPPORTS TRUE.COM’S ASSERTION THAT CUSTOMERS WANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS TO BE A REQUIREMENT OF ONLINE DATING.
“Summary of Key Findings
Overall, a majority of registered voters support legisltion that would make it a requirement for online dating sites to pre-screen its members against criminal databases. Additionally, after learning of specific online-related incidents occurring in recent months, registered voters overwhelmingly support the urgent passage of state legislation that would make it a requirement for online dating sites to pre-screen its members against criminal databases.”
Hmmm. Let’s focus in on one sentence from that paragraph.
“Additionally, after learning of specific online-related incidents occurring in recent months…”
Gosh, I thought research meant gathering data via mechanisms that do not interfere with the integrity of that data. Am I wrong here? If this “research” procedure gave participants information that would certainly affect their opininons, I’d say it was utterly worthless.
Jack Mardack
General Manager,
The FriendFinder Network
True.com is a company playing politics to advance their business agenda all the while claiming it is what is good for the consumer.
True.com goes to great lengths to quote crime statistics but none that are actually linked to online dating. Does a background check actually make anyone safer? Where is the proof? Are background checks actually accurate?
As a software architect who has worked on systems that are used to do these quick background checks I can tell you that they lack accuracy. It is possible if two people share similar “markers”, such as a similar name and similar birthdate, for records to be confused. It is possible for a non-felon to show up as a felon due to such confusion or for a felon to be missed.
It is also not difficult to fool these systems as well to hide your record. If someone was planning to commit a crime what makes anyone think that they would use their own information when creating a membership? If anything, claiming that all members have undergone background checks creates a false sense of security that is more dangerous than not having background checks at all. The truth is, the systems that do background checks are seriously flawed, have reported erroneous information in the past at an unacceptable rate and yet are touted by people such as Dr. Houran as being “highly accurate” when any investigation into such a claim would show otherwise. Which is more dangerous? Giving people a false sense of security or educating users in how to better protect themselves?
It is all a publicity stunt by True.com. I seriously doubt they actually want it to really get passed into law because then they would have just about nothing to distinguish their service from the more popular services and most likely would fade into non-existence. If there was as much a ground swell of desire by consumers for background checks on dating sites then True.com would have many more customers than it actually has. Fact is that most people who use dating services are adults who know how to take care of themselves and know they are responsible for their own safety. To give them a false sense of security would be a disservice not to mention an unwelcome added expense. With the very public failures in the credit reporting industry and the very flawed background check systems, perhaps a more useful expenditure of energy for lawmakers would be to fix that industry before they start requiring anyone to use it.
My husband and I have been in the online dating business since 1996 and we’re also against this legislation.
One of our concerns is the scenario where a third party company is engaged to do a background check and one of their employees makes a mistake and misses some unsavory information. The member is cleared as “safe” on your site and later someone gets hurt by this cleared as safe member. Who gets sued? What does the bad publicity do for the entire industry? In the end, will this legislation REALLY make people safer online?
As someone else mentioned, these are adults on our sites who don’t have to have nearly every aspect of their lives legislated.
I met my husband through a personal ad in 1994 and I felt it was MY responsibility to determine whether he was suitable for me or not.
Maureen Shaw
http://www.sexyads.com
Thank you all for the continued discussion! There is no need for me to respond to all of the points recently posted, as I addressed virtually all of them in my previous posts.
Having said that, let me make one point that stems from my perspective as a clinical psychologist. I see a tremendous amount of space devoted to emotional speculations about TRUE.com’s motives with this legislation. That side steps the real issue in question– namely, the proposed social merits of the actual legislation.
Accordingly, here is an overlooked piece of information highly relevant to the real issue. Contrary to the news release posted above by the International Association of Dating Websites (IADW) which rejects our proposed safety legislation, the previously published report (pasted below) actually points out the realistic safety concerns facing our industry and subsequently credits us for providing criminal background checks and encourages online daters to do so…
——————————-
“Perhaps the greatest problem facing the online dating industry is that of “phony” profiles. Some estimates are that as many as 40% of male profiles on dating websites are those of married men posing as bachelors.
High percentages of online daters, both male and female, are estimated to lie about their age, height, weight, and income. And there are many horror stories of singles posting obsolete photos of themselves. Women often complain of being buried with dishonest emails from men claiming to be good looking, well-off, and in great shape. After many wasted hours they discover that the vast majority of these men are liars. As the New York Times reported, “Many online daters turn out to be married, and it is taken for granted that everybody lies a little.” (6/29/03).
Most troubling, felons are concealing their criminal records. As USA Today pointed out, “with the mere click of a mouse, you can stumble across a serial killer just as easily as your soul mate.” (“Truth in Advertising Hits Internet Dating,” USA Today, 4/19/04).
Verification of profiles and photos is therefore a critical area of concern. Millions of singles have dropped out of internet dating because of bad experiences with dishonest members of dating websites. They are likely to return to online dating if a solution to this problem is provided. The International Association of Dating Websites urges dating websites to offer their members the opportunity to get their photos verified and background checks performed. A number of companies are currently offering these kinds of services to online daters. Among the most notable:
betterDatingbureau.com is not a dating website, but rather, works with a person’s online dating service. Subscribing members’ photos have been professionally taken by bDB’s photography company and are dated. Members have been voluntarily screened (like a new employee) by bDb’s screening company and their summarized “Personal Credibility Reports” are posted along with their dated photos in certified “Member Reports.” Accurate/current photographs and certified personal information, including “Marital Status Indicators” are included. There are three levels of membership: Bronze members are certified in terms of the date their photo was taken, height, and age. Silver members are certified for these factors plus marital status (based on current paystub declaration and last year’s W2 and employment status. Gold Members are certified for all of these factors, plus, education, job title, industry last 5 years, credit rating, rent/own resident, average income (3 years, )driving record, and criminal record. bDb is paid directly by the dater, rather than the dating website. bDb shares the revenue with the dating website the dater belongs to, so this is an additional profit center for the dating website. Contact Warren Austin, warren@betterdatingbureau.com, 480/947-4260.
Match.com “employs more than 100 people to read every bit of data that a subscriber inputs, which is then checked for consistency and oddities,” says president Tim Sullivan, who adds that 2,000 people are booted off the site every month because data doesn’t square,” according to USA Today, 7/29/04.
CertifiedDates.com checks out marital status and criminal records of singles who are members. Skipp Porteus, a New York private investigator, is the Founder. 212/579-4302, prez@certifieddates.com.
True.com, in partnership with a criminal-record database firm called Rapsheets.com, which stockpiles 150 million records compiled from more than 110 state and county agencies. is an online matching service that provides multiple layers of security, including criminal screening. Anyone whose name has a felony conviction recorded is automatically prevented from communicating with members. At signup, every TRUE member agrees to follow a code of ethics. Members are allowed to block out matches in six categories. TRUE requires that every member certify that he or she is not married, and all community members are screened against public records to check marital status.”
Best Wishes,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
There seems to be some debate hear whether True’s motives are altruistic or self-serving. This is not really the point. The question which must be asked and answered is, “Is government regulation best for the consumer in this case or are consumers informed and responsible enough to make their own decisions.”
The litmus test is, “Can the consumer make an informed decision without the help of government?”
The answer is so clear here there should be no disagreement. This is a case where government intervention does not serve the people.
Government regulation designed to protect the consumer only works when the consumer cannot make an educated decision by himself. This is why health laws are passed. It is impossible for the consumer to go to the back of a restaurant and see if food is being properly stored. We rely on the government to tell us this because we can’t do it ourselves.
When the consumer has full information, then the consumer has a consitutional right to make the decision himself. Otherwise government would regulate EVERYTHING. Can you imagine the day when government tells us we can’t eat a donut because it’s bad for us. Under this scenario, eventually, the government ends free choice.
The background check requirement is an informed choice by the consumer. The consumer knows that some sites do background checks and some do not. If background checks are that important to the consumer, then they would all be flocking to True.com. Other sites will see this behavior and begin offering background checks to attract customers.
However, if consumers are not willing to pay the extra money it might take to provide this service, then only a few companies will offer the service, targeting themselves at this niche market.
In either case, it is an informed choice by the consumer, and therefore is not something government needs to regulate.
But perhaps True feels that the consumer cannot make an informed choice and the government needs to do this for them. Well then I ask you, what happens when the government decides that online dating really isn’t a good way of meeting people compared to other methods and therefore outlaws it completely?
Do we really want to trust our government to regulate something that consumers can easily make an informed choice about? Ask any industry what happens when you open up that can of worms.
Glenn G. Millar
Brand Management Consultant
To be clear once again, the legislation does not require any company to conduct a background screening or to prevent those who fail a screening to participate in services (the latter is simply TRUE’s business model). This IS NOT a law of regulation — it IS a law of disclosure.
Thank you Mr. Glenn Millar for alluding to the value of disclosure laws in your comment, “When the consumer has full information…”
Right now consumers do not have full information, as research shows that many online daters assume that some companies conduct background screenings when they do not. That is the only documented false sense of security at work. And clarifying this type of unsafe public perception is arguably reason enough to pass the proposed disclosure law.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
The online service True.com uses to perform their background checks; Rapsheets.com, is owned by Choicepoint which recently was itself the victim of fraud and provided personal information on over 100,000 people to a ring of identity thieves, illustrating just how reliable their background checks are. If they could not protect themselves how can they protect anyone else?
It would be a more useful use of legislators time to regulate and fix the highly flawed consumer information industry which is a real mess before they concern themselves with the online dating industry.
If it is fair for online dating sites to be required to state in a conspicuous place that they do not provide background checks then it is also reasonable for sites such as True.com, who tout such a feature, to be required to state in a conspicuous place that such background checks are relatively easy to circumvent instead of being buried three pages into the site in an area most users are unlikely to see. If True.com was seriously concerned about their members interests this would not be something they would balk at.
How about it James Houran, Ph.D.? Why don’t you put the disclaimer ” Criminal background checks are not a guarantee of safety. It is possible for criminals to circumvent even the most sophisticated background search technology.” on the True.com’s home page?
If you believe that statement to be true, then surely it is important enough that you would want potential members to be aware of it instead of burying it three pages into your site and being the fourth bullet point? Is it possible your company’s claims of altruism is not really the motive behind the move to force such legislation through? Could it be that profit is the true motive?
Shame, shame. If you truly were concerned about your members and you believe the disclaimer on your site to be true, you would surely put it in a more conspicuous place. As it is, it seems to be more of a way to protect yourself from any potential legal problems if your background checks fail to prevent a predator from making it through and you get sued. The word I am thinking is “hypocrisy.” Please, prove me wrong.
Thanks, “Mr. Smith” for your continued interest in TRUE.com! Of course, I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with your sentiment that it would be great to strive continually to improve security measures — be they for online dating applications or not. I also hope society strives to improve airport security, driver safety, the potentially dangerous side effects from certain over the counter and prescription medications, etc. ad nauseum. Of course, society has not abandoned these things despite the “holes” in their efficacy.
TRUE.com’s claim is safer dating, not a guarantee of safety. I am surprised that a seemingly well read individual like you failed to mention that in your previous posts. How absurd for anyone to claim to absolutely guarantee another person’s safety. “Mr. Smith”, you can’t even guarantee your own safety at any given time! Accordingly, such rhetoric is silly and only misleads people away from the real issue, which is whether or not a disclosure law would be good public policy.
And, that there are limitations to background screenings is no argument against their use — after all, seat belts and prescription drugs also fail to help a certain percentage of people. In some cases, seat belts and prescription drugs have actually harmed people. TRUE.com has never denied that background screenings are imperfect just like any other security measure — in fact, we are the first to educate the public and the media about this fact. However, it is ridiculous to call a ~10% applicant rejection rate on TRUE.com a “false sense of security” and suggest that the screenings do not work. Statistics show otherwise.
I don’t claim to know any insider details concerning Rapsheets and Choicepoint (or see how this really undermines TRUE’s background screenings), but our applicant rejection rate contradicts your conclusions. Many HR and civic agencies know background screenings can be effective tools as well, which is why background screenings are used so widely in the US. TRUE.com sincerely believes that our approach is demonstrably better than what is currently being done today (which is next to nothing). Of course, it is your right to have a difference of opinion on this particular issue. The public surveys conducted so far indicate that online daters do not agree with you.
Moreover, in cases where someone was denied service on TRUE and rightfully appealed the results asserting an error within some part of the process, these individuals have worked with us and Rapsheets to become reinstated to the site and clear up the error. Furthermore, I’ve never heard of any one of these “false positives” people voice bitterness over this process — they are simply glad that the process actually took place and was not merely a marketing ploy.
But again, the issue is not that TRUE is forcing the industry to use background screenings — the issue is one of disclosure. The proposed bills are not regulation bills — please I urge you to actually read the material before you criticize it. And with an established false sense of security already in the public (see my previous posts), I fail to see how a disclosure law would be detrimental.
Finally, your recent post was much better than the first. Of course, it is always best to divulge honestly your identity and your professional affiliation (if any) to a forum like this. Carefully crosscheck the signature lines to all of the other posts as an example. It provides readers with a proper and crucial context for the comments being voiced. Naturally, I assume from the tone and vigor of your writings that you’d want to stand publicly behind your comments. Please, don’t prove me wrong!
Best Wishes,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
Mr Smith. Anonymity anon. Please, stand by your comments and declare your identity in future comments on this thread. You’re in good company. Thanks.
Mark Brooks
Editor/Moderator
http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com
mark@courtlandbrooks.com
2005 – 2010 The Flight to Quality
All this discussion shows that now, a more complex process started.
I named this process “the flight to Quality”. From now to the next 5 years the OnLine Dating & Social Networking Industry will need more than a simple “Code of Ethics”.
It will need an “internal procedures / quality / evaluation code”; i.e. how to manage clients, like a ISO 9001:2000 Quality Norms for a Service Industry (formerly known as ISO 9002) and external evaluators that will certify the companies complies with Quality norms, like Bureau Veritas -http://www.bvqi.com-, TÜV Reinhland -http://www.tuv.com/en/index.php- or others.
Perhaps by 2010, ALL serious Dating Sites MUST have been certified and show its certification mark/seal online.
ON Line Dating future = = QUALITY like actual OFF Line Chains
Contacting people, COMPATIBLE REAL PEOPLE, is NOT a GAME, NOT a JOKE, is not virtual reality nor something like that.
Kindest Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi
ardenghifer@argentina.com
Buenos Aires
Argentina
James Houran wrote: “betterDatingbureau.com is not a dating website, but rather, works with a person’s online dating service. Subscribing members’ photos have been professionally taken by bDB’s photography company and are dated”
“bDB’s photography company” is not accurate. They don’t have their own photography company. They send people to Sears or Wall mart to get a mug shot.
At LookBetterOnline we provide our premium partners a date stamp on the photo that displays the partner’s logo and the date the photos was taken. This answers a primary concern everyone has: Is this a real person? Does he/she really look like their photo? How recent is the photo?
An example for a photo like that is:
http://www.lookbetteronline.com/FullAccess/JobStampPhotos/PhotoStamp11727-Full.jpg?ch=0.2927362
The stamped photos are automated and can have any color/font/format the partner desires. We have been using it successfully with Jdate.com and AmericanSingles.com.
The whole “dating certification” idea was originally born in LookBetterOnline a year and a half ago, before anyone even heard about True.com 🙂
You can read about it here:
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=60885
And although we don’t offer this service on the LookBetterOnline site any longer because dating sites we don’t work with tend to crop out the certification part, we do offer it on our partners’ co-branding sites. Like on Jdate.com:
http://jdate.lookbetteronline.com/Home/Page.asp?page=certified
Bottom line, we can offer this very valuable service to sites that are truly interested in giving their customers a sense of confidence that the person they are looking at is the person they claim they are simply and easily. No muss, no fuss.
In addition, the partner gets a higher percentage of people with quality photos who also experience better success on their site. A survey we’ve conducted found that 80% of our customers have had at least twice as much responses with their new photos. 40% had at least 5 times more responses and 20% had at least 10 times more responses. The cool thing is that you don’t have to be a super-model to experience this increase which leads me to believe the fact your photo is clear and recent is a good enough incentive for other people to contact you.
People getting more responses and success dating online, should be the #1 goal of this industry. By providing them with an easy way to get quality photos with or without a date stamp, you increase their success rate and give this industry a better reputation.
Cheers,
Merav Knafo
Co-founder
LookBetterOnline.com
Great comments, Merav.
Of course, the description of “bDB’s photography company” came from IADW, not me. I merely reposted their content. Thanks for clarifying this description for everyone.
Also, to be fair and complete, the whole “dating certification” idea was not originally born in LookBetterOnline a year and a half ago. Offline dating sites like Great Expectations (nearly 30 yrs old) have been doing “checks of vital information” for many, many years — well before anyone even heard about TRUE or LookBetterOnline!!! 🙂
However, you are absolutely correct that quality photos increase a consumer’s response rate. TRUE’s own research echoes your findings. Just having a photo with a profile increases hits; having the right type of photo increases more hits.
Yes, this is another example that online dating can be successful if we provide consumers with the right tools so they feel safe and confident.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
This legislation is proposterous. It’s a great marketing ploy. Genius. But, let’s call the kettle black, when it’s black. If the market really wanted background checks, we could all upsell the service and let the market decide. If this was that hot on the minds of users then True would be higher in the ranks.
We can do without this bureaucracy. This legislation could have larger effects with companies like ebay and yahoo; commerce. ebay makes ‘introductions’ as well. Should someone do a background check to increase safety there as well?
Let market forces dictate. Who better to decide than the users. Politicians shouldn’t decide. We have 3.5 million members at WebDate and never had any reported incidents. I’m sure there have been some in the industry. But, where are we to draw the line. Let the users decide, not the government.
Abe Smilowitz
CEO/Founder
WebDate.com
While True.com feels this initiative is a viable marketing strategy that distinguishes them from their competitors, smart operators need only add the following to their mandated disclaimer:
Dear potential Online Dating customer:
We do not provide background checks on our members because we do not believe that by doing so you will be any safer or likely to meet your soul mate.
Background checks provide for a false sense of security and do not expose abusive or obsessive personalities that have yet to be criminally charged and prosecuted.
Additionally, there is no protection for you against identity theft. A felon can steal another persons identity and introduce himself as that person. You may be duped into meeting a person that is not real and that does not have a clean record. (Now you have 2 victims). Felons would be encouraged to pursue these types of scams because the victim would be in a false state of comfort and more vulnerable.
Accordingly, we will always endeavor to proactively monitor our system for abuse, however we cannot feasibly or reliably protect you from your own bad judgment, so hang onto your money, we won’t be asking you to spend it on a background check.
——————————————————–
Customers that are duped by rogues would seek restitution. Litigation would become rampant in the industry because certain warrants are made that imply that the character behind the ‘background check’ has been screened. What’s that you say?…just tell them to be cautious?…well then why have a background check to begin with if the system of background checks can be so easily tampered with?
How will operators like TRUE.com grow their businesses outside the U.S. if background checks are unattainable in other countries? shareholders beware.
In addition, background checks do nothing more than add another layer of costs into the online experience and another hoop to jump through before being able to meet someone.
My opinion is that, over the long run and after being thoroughly tested, True.com’s initiative will ultimately fail and most likely blow up in their own faces. I’m sure the cracks are already showing. (How many did they lay off recently?)
They should be careful what they wish for, it might come ‘true’ for them. True.com is more interested in being ‘right’ than wealthy.
The ease in which a commercial entity may be formed for the purpose of querying public databases makes background checks a viable business model on a mass level and thus true.com can exist. Anyone who thinks true has anything grand to gain from reflexive legislation (except free promo and lame blogs) is misguided. If everyone has to have background checks then true has no special feature so they have to exist on brand and value, alone. The details of background checks and what constitutes compliance on a state mandated level will only be resolved through the courts. Felons are a growing minority in this country and will eventually rise up against predatory legislaton. Disenfranchisement is a fundamental constitutional question and I suspect the laws will swing back and forth every era. This era is all about paranoia will destroy you—background checks and ‘immoral people’ exclusions. The next era people might actively seek felons and false.com will be all the rage and background checks will be made to ensure you are a felon…. see the madness of pointing fingers? Just get toghether and work out legislation that satisfies all of the purported ‘customer needs’ and the need for any capitalistic dating company to survive—if that’s possible. Marx would argue that anti social networking legislation is predicted by the overpressure of capitalism forcing its way upon every fabric of social life, including dating and mating. Just like the feudal days of capitalism…. Don’t Panic!
As someone mentioned earlier, privacy and safety on the internet generally go hand in hand. If True.com was Truely serious about the safety of their members, they would ask the members to sacrifice their privacy by requiring more personal data with which to use to conduct the background check. Would you be willing to pass on your driver’s license number or SSN for that purpose? Since True.com does not capture this type of information, the background checks that they conduct will have a significantly higher incidence of mistaken identity. But let’s face it, even if they did capture that information, any person serious about bypassing this system could do so. Perhaps they should require members to send a notorized copy of their photo I.D.?
As many others have stated in this thread, True.com is pushing this legislation as a form of PR and it is certainly giving plenty of that. But I suspect that a campaign based on Fear and negativism is a major reason why they have been able to acquire so few paying members, which I believe number less than 50,000.
Mark asked me to resubmit my post since he prefers not to allow anonymous posters. Rather than reposting I’ll just say that the post above by NiteRainTx was mine. Let the chips fall where they may.
Lee Phillips
Application Developer/Consultant
Forcing disclosure is still imposing an indeterminate agenda on an entire industry.
The most accurate way to check on someone’s background without using a fingerprint is to use their Social Security number, which is a unique identifier. True.com or any other online dating or introduction site is not allowed to require anyone to give their Social Security number however it has the right to refuse to offer services if an applicant does not supply it. A person’s name, address and birth-date is not a unique identifier because it is possible for multiple people to have any one of these. Taken as a group it is less likely however it is still possible.
Even with a Social Security number it is still possible to circumvent background checks using stolen information. A recent survey of employees at a chicken processing plant in Georgia turned up several employees in the company who shared the same Social Security number. I believe the number was 18 employees but I could be wrong. It is obviously not only possible but somewhat easy to get someone else’s Social Security number and use it successfully. All 18 employees turned out to be illegal immigrants.
With identity theft running rampant in the United States today it is not wise to assume that anyone is who they say they are or that information they have provided is correct. This seems to be an argument for increased background checks however the automated systems that provide such checks are made the most vulnerable by identity theft since they solely rely on this information. Nothing can supplant an individual examination of the data a person has submitted by a human operator and for that operator to question the individual personally and compare the answers given with the data provided by the automated background check to ensure they match. This is cost prohibitive for companies that provide “cheap” background checks. It is still the manner law enforcement agencies use to determine if a person is who they say they are in addition to checking fingerprints against a national database. Since checking fingerprints is a time consuming process most law enforcement agencies depend on a combination of automated checks and personal interviews with the suspect for more immediate identification.
As such there is an inherent risk in background checks. To run an automated background check and make the claim it provides some level of security is both naive and dangerous. The number of applicants who fail such an examination in no way validates those who passed. The only way to ensure that the applicants who passed are who they claim to be is to personally question them and compare those answers with the data you have collected. There is no other way to ensure that the members who passed the background checks are indeed who they say they are.
This interview process does take place at most employers who require background checks and government agencies that must vet their employees. I am not aware of any employer who hires an employee without first interviewing them, that is not to say it is not possible. The reference made to support the use of automated background checks being that many companies use them to check the background of their employees is also an invalid argument for supporting the use of automated background checks alone to determine if a person is a potential risk. There is no replacement for a personal interview and vetting process and few employers solely rely on automated background checks. The government certainly does not.
Full disclosure is not an unreasonable request or requirement however it has to also be taken into account the extent of the disclosure and the validity of what is disclosed. In order to do this, more government bureaucracy will need to be created and thus more tax dollars will be spent. What is the value per dollar of tax money spent in this case? Very little I suspect. If you compare the amount of crimes committed by individuals who are predators who use online dating sites as opposed to those committed by predators who commit such acts randomly I am sure you will find one far outweighs the other. I also suspect that in actuality it would be found that far less crimes are committed by individuals who use online introduction services than those who seek other means to lure their prey. Perhaps the tax money needed to regulate online introduction services would be better spent on law enforcement.
If disclosure must happen, and it seems as though it will, then it should be in truth full disclosure and not a half measure. The inherent problems with performing background checks makes it just as necessary to warn consumers of the potential failures of automated background checks as it does to warn them that background checks have not been performed. In my mind it is far more dangerous to give a false sense of security which automated background checks do, as someone else has pointed out. Not enough is done to warn the general public of automated background checks failure rate which is significant enough for law enforcement officials to not trust them enough to use them as their sole means of identification.
Just another example of how “secure” your personal data really is: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&e=1&u=/ap/20050309/ap_on_re_us/data_breach
Interesting reading and education for all.
http://www.publicvenuesecurity.com/articles/361supspotlight.html
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
This looks like it will really backfire in a big way, according to the wording of the california bill free sites like plentyoffish.com are exempt from the bill as they don’t collect membership fees. Even if it isn’t exempt there is no way to do a background check if you don’t collect CC information.
Dr. Houran, you have simply posted a link to a press release by Rapsheets.com. If you notice this “article” is written by Bill Whitford and at the bottom there is this:
“Bill Whitford is chief operating officer of Rapsheets, the nation’s largest online database of criminal records, offering the most advanced search logic to industry professionals. For more information, contact Rapsheets at (866) 432-7241 or visit http://www.rapsheets.com.”
No offence intended, but this is hardly an informative “article” and is of course very much biased. Mr. Whitford has a vested interest in presenting his company in the best light possible.
The “technology” he describes and gives the impression that is unique to Rapsheets.com is in fact just plain, everyday queries that can be performed on any database, MS Access included… A well written query is of course going to find more matches than a poorly written one or a manual search of the same data. In addition the types of queries he describes are going to return more false positives and I noticed that was not addressed.
Currently every state has moved to storing courthouse documents in an electronic format. A company like Rapsheets.com also has the added advantage of being able to compare criminal records with financial records. I am sure this also gives them greater ability to find felons however the greatest weakness is still the fact that they depend on the information provided by the applicant.
If a predator intends to stalk his/her prey in an online dating site it is reasonable to assume they may attempt to use a stolen identity to both cover their tracks and to avoid prosecution. The fact that identity theft has become such a huge problem just illustrates how easily it is done. A person who intends to commit one criminal act would hardly balk at committing two. If he used his own identity to commit such an act then it would obviously be easy to track him down and prosecute him. Most people who commit such premeditated acts usually take some precaution to avoid detection. It is not a stretch to imagine they would purchase on the black market or steal someone else’s identity to both avoid detection and to qualify for membership in a service such as yours. Perhaps he might even prefer a site such as True.com because of the perception, given by your marketing, that it is more secure. People who think they are more secure are more likely to let their defenses down or engage in behavior that is risky.
The greatest weakness in your model is that you rely on the applicant to provide the information that you use to check his/her background. That information could be valid in every sense except that it does not belong at all to the person submitting it.
It would be a reasonable addition to the legislation your company is pushing that in addition to the warnings on emails and such that a background check has not been performed, a warning that a background check does not in fact mean the person is who they claim to be and that it is possible to circumvent background checks. This really is necessary to prevent people from becoming complacent due to a false sense of security. Surely, you do not think such a warning is unreasonable?
“If a predator intends to stalk his/her prey in an online dating site it is reasonable to assume they may attempt to use a stolen identity.”
Are predators – let alone predators with the sophistication to commit any sort of identity theft – really the only, or even primary concern here? Shouldn’t people be more concerned about meeting a felon who is *actually looking for a date*? Common sense and countless statistics tell us that felons are, on average, considerably more likely than non-felons to steal from, abuse, rape or murder their dates, girlfriends and wives.
Dan Vest
(As the son of Herb Vest I obviously have a personal interest in this matter. However, I do not work for or otherwise represent True.com. Any nonsense is my own.)
The real issue here is whether or not legislation requiring background checks by dating sites, or their disclosure of the lack thereof, is in the public’s best interest and worth the tax dollars spent. Maybe I’m overestimating the intelligence of the general populace of voters, but I don’t think a majority of well informed individuals would think that it was. In my opinion, those dollars would be better spent on a campaign of education rather than legislation.
I think a few public service commercials during “The Apprentice” or “American Idol” would do more to for online dating safety.
Another problem I see facing this legistion is that it is being done at the State level rather than the Federal level. So does that mean that if it ever really passes into law in a given state that, dating sites would need to determine the user’s state of origin to determine whether or not to show the disclosure?
Of course the True staff is hoping that most sites would just show the disclosure to every visitor regardless of their state’s law so all it would take is one state passing such a law to make a BIG ripple in the industry.
Lee Phillips
Application Developer/Consultant
“The real issue here is whether or not legislation requiring background checks by dating sites, or their disclosure of the lack thereof, is in the public’s best interest and worth the tax dollars spent.”
As a result of this legislation two things will happen. 1) More sites will begin doing background checks and 2) More people will move to sites that do background checks. This will result in significantly fewer internet daters being paired with felons. Given that the number of felons that will be rejected is quite large, isn’t it certain that many crimes against customers will be prevented – including at least a few serious crimes? So how many tax dollars is that crime prevention worth? I would say quite a few.
Now, how much money will this legislation cost the state? In fact, how does it cost the state at all? There may be a very modest amount spent on enforcement, but certainly not more than the prevention of even a few violent crimes is worth. Further, can’t even that modest spending be made up for with the fines that have been proposed for violating the law?
If the real issue was in fact people being paired with felons then perhaps we should start with legislation that any person who goes on a date must disclose if they are a felon. Perhaps we could just make sure they wear an orange star or something on their clothing so people can be sure to limit their interaction with such people.
More people meet and date through traditional means than by using online services. That is just a matter of fact.
The real issue is best summed up in the words of Dan Vest when he points out what would most likely happen: “More people will move to sites that do background checks.”
That is what True.com is betting and hoping on and most people are smart enough to know that is the sole reason they are pushing the legislation based on their model.
The resistance that those who have a connection to True.com on this board to posting a similar warning to what they desire to be posted on online dating sites that states background checks can be circumvented only serves to show their real intentions and that is to bring customers to their site, not through offering a better product, but rather by instilling fear in consumers through legislation and then profiting off it at the expense of taxpayers who will have to foot the bill for the increased regulation.
All the disingenuous claims of concern for consumers you make do not mask your true intentions.
Dan Vest states: “Now, how much money will this legislation cost the state? In fact, how does it cost the state at all? There may be a very modest amount spent on enforcement, but certainly not more than the prevention of even a few violent crimes is worth. Further, can’t even that modest spending be made up for with the fines that have been proposed for violating the law?”
Now, honestly Dan, that is a very naive belief on your part that it would not cost the states at all to enforce such legislation.
You mention violent crimes, what I would like to know and what no one seems to be able to answer is just how many violent crimes involving people who have met through an online dating service are there? If it is such a common occurrence then there should be more information on it out there, but there is not. A Google search turns up only information about people who met through chat rooms and mobile services in Japan. Another question I have is how does the numbers of violent crimes related to online introductions compare to a similar sample of violent crimes that occur through people who have met a more traditional way? Is this all just hype by a company that cannot compete?
I guess the problem I have with this is that one company is trying to force its vision on the rest of the world and it is based on a flawed premise at best. No one has been able to argue otherwise.
“If the real issue was in fact people being paired with felons then perhaps we should start with legislation that any person who goes on a date must disclose if they are a felon. Perhaps we could just make sure they wear an orange star or something on their clothing so people can be sure to limit their interaction with such people.”
Though quite amusing your ‘orange star’ analogy is more than a little flawed. As Dr. Houran has already noted in this thread, online matchmakers are paid to provide a service. That is why it is reasonable for the legislature to demand that they be clear about what services they are or are not performing for the customer. Further, the law currently before state legislatures does not require sites to do background checks and those sites that do checks don’t inform anyone else of the results. Your orange star law, on the other hand, is an obvious and extreme violation of personal privacy.
“All the disingenuous claims of concern for consumers you make do not mask your true intentions.”
Again, as Dr Houran has written, questioning a person’s motivation is one thing and questioning the value of legislation is another. You obviously enjoy the former (in just your two previous posts there are three different ad hominems, one of which is repeated several times), but perhaps you could give us more of the latter.
“You mention violent crimes, what I would like to know and what no one seems to be able to answer is just how many violent crimes involving people who have met through an online dating service are there? If it is such a common occurrence then there should be more information on it out there, but there is not. A Google search turns up only information about people who met through chat rooms and mobile services in Japan.”
What exatly is your argument here? You can’t find statistics on it with google so it doesn’t exist? First, I suspect you know as well as I do that that is not – to say the least – the best way to find such information. Second, the online dating industry is still quite young and the fact (if it is a fact) that comprehensive studies have not been done says absolutely nothing about how common such incidents are. Meanwhile, there is an argument on the table that says that it is all but statistically certain that crimes will be prevented by this legislation. Do you have a response to that argument, or some data that refutes the conclusion?
“Another question I have is how does the numbers of violent crimes related to online introductions compare to a similar sample of violent crimes that occur through people who have met a more traditional way?”
I don’t know the numbers, but I would assume that many more victims meet their perpetrators somewhere besides online dating sites. But, again, that doesn’t mean we ought not to protect the millions who use such sites. I don’t see how that comparison is relevant at all.
“Now, honestly Dan, that is a very naive belief on your part that it would not cost the states at all to enforce such legislation.”
Thank you for cursing my darkness, but I would much rather you lit a candle. How much will it cost?
Hi, all:
Yes, I am well aware that the article to which I linked was prepared by Rapsheets. Biased?! No more biased than arguments against disclosure of background screenings levied by companies and individuals with a financial (or other) interest in seeing such legislation not pass. Or, no more biased than someone’s opinion of that article who “a priori” dislikes Rapsheets or the proposed legislation. It simply would not bode well for Rapsheets to falsify statistics to support its product.
I have heard no complaints from any customer about not understanding the benefits and limitations of background checks that TRUE provides. In fact, TRUE has an entire website — highly publicized — devoted to Safer Dating (http://www.true.com/saferdating/default.asp) that addresses in detail the rationale behind this entire legislative initiative.
That background checks CAN be circumvented is no logical argument against their use. Airport security can still be breached, but that does not mean we close down the airports and deny the benefits because we assume the risks outweight the costs.
This type of thinking would have society cease all civic resources like police and fire stations because these resources undeniably have “easily circumvented holes” (corrupt officials, uneven standards of training of personnel and budget, and not enough personnel to monitor and protect everyone in society). Accordingly, any security measure that does not 100% guarantee safety, 100% coverage for all, and 100% accuracy equates to a false sense of security and must be abandoned. Moreover, we should stop wasting tax dollars on promoting this false sense of security and we should stop telling the public that these services have any value at all.
Thankfully, that logic does not prevail. In fact, The MI Senate Committee just recently voted the bill out of committee because, after their careful analysis, they agreed with the legislators who filed the bill that the benefits of disclosure laws regarding background checks outweight the costs. And, three separate studies (see the safer dating website) indicate that the majority of the surveyed public also agrees.
No one really knows how many cyberdating related crimes there really are – much less cyber-related crimes in general. Not much media out there on it?! Of course, the absence of “evidence” is not evidence of absence. That is simply Logic 101. Unfortunately, there are a number of disturbing and recent examples from the US that are documunted on TRUE’s safer dating website. Moreover, Cyberangels.org has noted that most cyber crimes go unreported to authorities.
Apparently, there is enough evidence of a problem that the representative of a company in opposition to this legislation had to admit (extremely reluctantly) under repeated direct questioning from a MI senate committee member that indeed there was a problem. Furthermore, the available evidence has persuaded multiple, bipartisan legislators nationwide to file bills for disclosure and for the public to indicate in surveys that they support such legislation.
Most egregiously, one commerical opponent of the discosure law that has eagerly cited this law as a dangerous marketing ploy or business model that instills a false sense of security was recently accused of a deliberate campaign to deceive its customers in an attempt to boost sales (see below). Talk about hypocrisy, identity verification issues, and a false sense of security!!!
Maybe companies that most strongly oppose this legislation are the ones that are trying to protect their own “weak and flawed business models.” Food for thought…
Thanks, James Houran, Ph.D., Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
WPLG-TV CH 10 (ABC) Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, March 10, 2005
Local 10 Morning News At 5
03/10/2005 05:00 AM – 06:00 AM Estimated Audience: 6785
[cc] 00:09:00 A lawsuit has been filed against a popular online dating service, claiming Match dot com created false profiles and pictures of clients. The class action claim was filed in Miami Wednesday and it calls the Match dot com practices merely a sales ploy. The poeple who run the site counter by claiming Match dot com’s mission is to help people find love.
I am not opposed to full disclosure by online dating sites as to the exact nature of the services they offer, however I believe that it is reasonable to require sites which do background checks to include similar such disclosure on their sites as well as any business that uses their services. The failures of the consumer information industry has been clearly demonstrated in the past few months. More than 200,000 people have been effected by the failures of companies such as Choicepoint and LexisNexis in the last year at the cost of millions of dollars with that information still in the hands of criminals who intend to either defraud these people or use their information to defraud others. The failures by the industry on which True.com depends on to verify their members are not felons shows the need to inform consumers who use such sites as True.com as to the exact value of the background search and the fact it can be circumvented by felons.
This argument cannot be ignored by your company Dr. Houran because it is the very same argument that you are using to push your agenda. Consumers do have the right to know that background checks are not infallible and can be circumvented just as much as they have the right to know that a background check is not performed in the first place.
All the arguments aside as to the value of having such background checks and the tendency of felons to commit crimes, it is not unreasonable that consumers be informed of the reliability of background checks and that they are no substitute for responsible action and that they be informed in just such a manner as you advocate for the sites that do not include background checks.
You mention an online dating site that was involved in a deliberate campaign to deceive its customers but is what they did more egregious than the manner Choicepoint behaved when it became aware that it had be deceived by an individual posing as several different people and companies? Choicepoint did not alert customers or change its practices until it was forced to do so by California law enforcement officials and the bad press almost 5 months after they were notified that the crime had taken place. Which is more egregious? Posting fake pictures or the carefree manner in which Choicepoint behaved regarding people who are the potential victims of crime due to Choicepoint’s failures? This is not a company similar to the one that True.com uses to perform their background checks but the very same company through their subsidiary Rapsheets.com.
It has been mentioned more than once that online dating sites make money off of introductions and as such they have a responsibility to inform consumers. Companies like Choicepoint/Rapsheets.com make money off of compiling information on consumers and so they have a duty to inform consumers as to the true nature of the risks involved and potential threats as well. This also includes the possible failures of their background check systems not detecting a felon or returning a false positive and this also should be so for anyone who uses their services in the manner in which True.com does.
The very arguments you make for the need for notification that background checks are not performed only support the argument for notification of the possible failures of such background checks in a similar manner.
Here is some real and unbiased information about Choicepoint and its actions:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6969799/
Choicepoint is the parent company of Rapsheets.com, the company that True.com uses to perform background checks. The question has been asked before and begs to be asked again; if they are unable to protect themselves from a person using at least 50 different false identities to gain access to their services how can they protect anyone else?
Hi, Alan:
Thanks for your continued comments.
To be clear, Rapsheets was only bought last year by ChoicePoint. Rapsheets was in business and served many businesses and individuals well before that. It is my understanding that ChoicePoint does not directly manage Rapsheets today and that the security breaches in ChoicePoint did not originate with Rapsheets or involve their data.
Accordingly, I do not how anyone could conclude that Rapsheets did anything wrong — much less conclude that Rapsheets was somehow to blame for its parent company’s breach (for all we know ChoicePoint did not use Rapsheets to screen anybody). “Guilt by association” claims and arguments are not evidence-based and thus are meaningless.
What would be valuable for your stance is to tell this post the baseline rate for security breaches at ChoicePoint, or any such breahces. A single breach is certainly terrible (as is a single case of a death actually induced by the use of seath belts or airbags). However, it is unfair to call ChoicePoint ineffective in its over all security if that one incident occurred in the face of 1 million failed attempts to breach it. Again, it comes down to a baseline, or a cost-to-benefit ratio.
The argument you are making is attractive to detractors of this proposed legislation and I think you are sincere when you make it, but it is not logical. The analogy I posted above illustrates this very clearly.
In fact, my analogy begs an even bigger question than yours: If civic authorities are unable to protect themselves from all security breaches (and we’re especially talking about breaches performed by the general public not just intelligence agencies from other countries), then how can they protect anyone else?!
For example, see: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050311/tc_washpost/a25738_2005mar10
Again, your logic would dictate that we should cease all security systems and processes if they do not provide a 100% guarantee of safety. Of course, I am glad that the US has not adopted this line of thinking and subsequently has shut down security processes related to our power supplies. Alan, have you ever flown airplanes, drove cars, or taken prescription medications? If you said yes to any of these things, then I must ask “why?” There are inherent and serious risks to such things. No one can 100% guarantee your safety in these or any endeavors. If you believe your argument, then I assume you will from this day forward not engage in any activity where there is some risk of harm but no absolute guarantee of protection from that risk.
I sound sarcastic, but I say this all in sincerity. Sometimes the best way to show absurdity is to use absurdity. Of course you will continue to ride in cars, take medicines, and use seatbelts. Indeed, all of us engage in activities and use services that we shouldn’t if we abide by the logic of “why should we expect these systems to protect ANYONE if they can’t guarantee protection for EVERYONE?”
I’m not a marketer or a businessman — I’m a research and clinical psychologist. I will not speak for Herb Vest, who has stated his position repeatedly in the media. But, I will speak for myself. I’m proud that TRUE has remained committed to consumer safety by using Rapsheets. Our statistics and those of Rapsheets attest to its effectiveness. It may be a just a start in this era of cybersecurity, but I will say it again, the MI Senate Committe, multiple bipartisan legislators nationwide, and three general public surveys all agree that it is a beneficial start — and that the propsoed disclosure legislation has more benefits than costs.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
Could True.com get anymore ridiculous? Let’s run backgrounds on people who go to bars, restaurants, malls and oh don’t people also meet at church. This deserves the “gimme a break” tag. You are just as safe meeting someone online as at a club or bar or for that matter anywhere.
It’s interesting that Dr. Houran would bring up the lawsuit filed against it’s competitor for creating false profiles. Is that anymore unethical than sorting search results by the attractiveness rating assigned to the member at the time they uploaded their photo? Or having female employees send emails to male members in order to create the appearance of a more active member base? I don’t think so, but that’s just me. A well known person once said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Of course, this particular discussion is about security and safety. Like Dan Vest, I’m curious about the statitics. How many crimes have been committed that are directly related to the perpetrator meeting the victim on an oline dating site. Not a free chat room mind you but a full blown dating website. More importantly, how many of those crimes were committed by a documented felon that could have been prevented had a background check been conducted? Surely the data is there just waiting to be compiled. Let’s see some hard figures before crying wolf and attempting to legislate something prematurely.
Lee Phillips
Application Developer/Consultant