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…
Dr. Houran, I do not think that background checks should cease. I have not made that argument.
My argument is this; background checks are not 100% successful and as such it is only fair to warn those who depend on them the possibility of such failures. We are not aware of the true failure rate in such searches because the companies involved are hardly forthright in disclosure and are not required to be so by law. You cite the examples airplanes, medications and driving cars. Medications come with warnings as to the possibility of failure rates and the potential health risks and are clearly displayed on the bottle or packaging. Government regulations require disclosure of the risks associated. The same is true of air travel. If you look at your airline ticket it has a whole section of warnings of possible risks. To drive a car you must be licensed and in that process you are made aware of all the dangers associated with driving an automobile in addition dangers associated with a particular automobile must be displayed in the vehicle itself.
It is reasonable to require that such warnings be included for background checks since there is a very real failure rate and a very real risk when they are used in relation to online dating. As things currently are on True.com a person could very likely come away with a false sense of security since no such warnings are displayed in an area where anyone is likely to see them.
I am not sure why you are opposed to this.
My background is computer science in which I have multiple degrees and certifications as well as many years of practical work experience. As such I feel that I am somewhat qualified to note the possible failures of such systems. These systems do fail, can fail and have failed. As such, it is only fair to warn consumers of such possible failures.
Some sort of government regulation is needed to require such warnings by the consumer information industry.
This argument is supported by the actions of Choicepoint and the fact that they failed to notify people who were directly affected by the failures for almost five months. Choicepoint has shown that it has a secretive corporate culture and can not be relied on to disclose the true nature of security breaches on their own. Choicepoint would have never issued notifications if they were not forced to do so.
Choicepoint was not breached once. It established accounts with at least 50 different fraudulent companies and identities established by one man. One man, 50 breaches that we know about. It is possible that Choicepoint has been breached more times than that and it has not been discovered since the only reason this one was discovered is that law enforcement authorities stumbled on an identity theft ring. Choicepoint never discovered the breaches on their own. One would hope that they are taking steps to ensure their other customers are valid and so we cannot rule out the possibility there were more breaches than those recently discovered.
You state: ” 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.” You are right, we do not know if Choicepoint used Rapsheets.com to screen anyone. You are wrong about the “guilt by association.”
The evidence is that Choicepoint behaved irresponsibly before and after they discovered the breaches and Rapsheets.com is not associated with Choicepoint but has actually been acquired by them.
https://www.rapsheets.com/consumer.aspx
It would be safe to assume that Sprite has the same corporate policies as Coca-Cola, since they are a division of the company and so it is reasonable to assume that Rapsheets.com has the same corporate policies as Choicepoint since they are a division of Choicepoint. At the very least it is cause to view the forthrightness of Rapsheets.com with some level of suspicion just as it is for Choicepoint.
It is only reasonable that since failures have been known to occur that consumers be warned of such potential failures. This warning should go right next to any mention of background checks to ensure that consumers are not given a false sense of security. If you truly mean what you have said about wanting to give consumers the safest possible form of introductions online then you would not be opposed to this. Background checks are not infallible and as such consumers should be warned.
Doing background checks to determine if someone is a felon or not is a simplistic approach. Assault and battery is not a felony and many domestic abuse offences are not felonies either in most states.
A person convicted of such a misdemeanor is more likely to be violent than a person convicted of lying to law enforcement officials or obstructing justice. We all saw how easy it is for the FBI or any law enforcement organization to convict a person of such a crime after they did so to Martha Stewart, regardless if you feel she deserved it or not. The fact is they convicted her on little more than very slim circumstantial evidence.
If True.com really wanted to perform a valuable service for their members they would refine their background checks to include violent misdemeanor crimes and the focus would be on violent crimes and crimes of “moral turpitude” as opposed to generally felonies. A person who as a kid shoplifted tennis shoes as a dare poses little risk but a man who slapped around his girlfriend would be. Currently, as things stand, both would be allowed to be members of True.com. If the search was refined in a responsible way, the violent offender would be excluded and the one time shoplifter would be allowed. It seems to me this would be preferable to the current offering.
Online verification is not 100% accurate. Not even close. The ability to physically verify a member would prove be a daunting task for personals sites that claim to have millions of members. Premier Singles is taking on that daunting task by introducing a very unique program that no other online singles community can offer. Physical verification. Since day one, our unique busines model of producing weekly offline events for our online members has proven to be the strength of our business model. Where many online sites have closed their offline business models, Premier Singles has continued to excel. We have now taken the controversial issue of background checks and member verification to a whole new level. Although our Member Verify program is optional for members, we are finding out that members who have become verified are receiving far more profile views than members who are not verified. The advantage that our business model provides over any other competitor is that we can physically verify a member by meeting with them in person, checking their identification card and other forms of required identification against what they have posted on their online profile. This a far more powerful screening process than what any other business model is currently providing. Because our sites are tailored to each individual city, our local Marketing Directors are able to meet, greet and verify at any of our regularly scheduled offline events. We beleive that in the future, the majority of online singles will only view members who have been verified much similar to the viewing preference that members have in regards to photo personals. We do not feel that mandated background checks will ever benefit any online singles business model. What we do believe is that if you give members a choice, they will always select what is in their best interest. We have given them a choice and they are already proven this theory to be correct. If anyone is interested in knowing more about our verification process, please feel free to visit our verification web site at http://www.memberverify.com
A previous poster stated:
– online matchmaking sites exist and make millions of dollars to essentially fix you up
I and my husband own http://www.ChristianSinglesDating.com and I’d like to know where are our millions?
We operate our business as a ministry and have always attempted to make it affordable to all members. We have different membership plans where those who can’t afford to pay still have numerous free privileges, including free chat room. We also offer a financial hardship plan. And we also give out full sapphire plans to thousands of members every week who are in low income categories such as students, seniors, parents with multiple children, disabled, and more.
We take numerous steps to ensure the safety of our members, including blocking IP addresses of known scammers, warning members immediately when someone attempts to use our site for scamming or spamming, parsing mails for known scam phrases, and accepting and encouraging members to report those with inappropriate behavior. As a Christian site, ours is kept very conservative and clean.
If this legislation is passed, we will no longer be able to offer affordable services to those less fortunate. We have members world-wide, many missionaries. How can we do background checks on world-wide members? How can we keep our regular costs down and still offer free services to thousands?
I’d love to have members be able to obtain background checks, but I think this legislation is messed up. What the legislators SHOULD be focusing on is offering free background checks to everyone. Many people do meet at bars, bookstores, etc. Don’t they deserve to know backgrounds too? We now have the right to receive our credit reports once a year for free. Why doesn’t the government spend some of that NASA toilet seat money on setting up a place that offers free criminal checks to people so that these adults who use our sites, or who simply meet someone in person, can responsibly find out this information on their own?
We do not make millions. I wish we did. Sure, some of these big sites could easily afford the extra cost and staffing involved in doing background checks, but this sort of legislation is only going to put the little guys out of business, or make us look like we’re an unsafe site.
It is unfair to lump Christian dating sites with secular sites anyway. They seem to allow and encourage obscene behavior which attracts criminals and perverts.
This legislation doesn’t even allow for options. They insist that you put one of 3 messages on your home page, profile pages, and outgoing mails. Either you are doing background checks or you aren’t. Some states are legislating that they be done every 12 months, some every 3 months. But…
I’d like to offer the option of having a flag on the profile indicating that we have received a background check for a member and the date it was received. I would allow my members to pay an extra fee, the cost of the background check to us, to send the background report to us and have us flag their profile. The wording of these legislative bills doesn’t allow for alternatives, such as WE OPTIONALLY ALLOW OUR MEMBERS TO HAVE THEIR BACKGROUND CHECKS SENT TO US. PROFILES ARE FLAGGED ACCORDINGLY. Or something of that nature.
Of course, that would again put a burden on those less fortunate, as they couldn’t afford the background check anymore than we could. And what about Christians in poorer countries. They too, wouldn’t be able to afford it.
Sigh.
Nannette
Like most legislation there is some nice blurb about how it will protect someone. There is some example of a terrible story that occurred. There is a company that thinks they will benefit whether the legislation is passed or not. At least they are getting free marketing. What happens if it is really made into law? Initially sites will put up the disclaimer – most have it already in the terms and conditions. Then as background checks become more popular the scammers will get involved. First there will be fake background checks where people are paying $49.95 for nothing. After that it gets bad because the scammers discover that they can charge $49.95 for the privilege of stealing someone’s identity. So at a time when we are seeing an increase in identity theft, True.com in all of its wisdom has decided to make it easier for phishers and scam artists to rip people off. Whether or not a felon is on the dating site should be the least of our concerns. What’s next? Fingerprinting at the door of a bar? The real concern should be the complete lack of understanding about fraud on the internet that the Florida Legislature and True.com have exhibited. The legislation should be about protecting people and not making it easier to take advantage of people. If this is made into law it will start to become a normal thing to provide social security number to dating sites. When this occurs, identity theft will increase to an uncontrollable level. On a personal side – I am concerned that my personal data can be accessed so easily by a company like True.com. What safeguards do they have? Are they ISO Security compliant? Who has access to the data? There should be stricter controls over the data. There should be a certain level of need for the data before it can be accessed. Online Dating sites should not rise to that need. Pass that legislation!
Hello,
We at TrueDater.com, believe recent attempts by True.com (no affiliation) to require dating sites to post notices about background checks are overly intrusive and ultimately negative for the industry.
We believe there is a better way, a more effective and positive way to increase the security and awareness of online daters. At TrueDater.com, we give online daters the ability to provide feedback of all kinds, both positive as well as negative, regarding people they have met online.
This feedback approach has many advantages for the industry. First, it is truly empowering to online daters, giving them the ability to share information with each other, rather than requiring them to rely on a limited background check performed by a site. Second, a system where daters are actively involved in providing and reading feedback is likely to be more effective in identifying criminal and pre-criminal behavior.
For the industry, TrueDater.com and other feedback sites demonstrate to legislators that the free market system can readily provide the increased information required to enhance online dating. Government regulation and frightening warnings to consumers are not required and could be detrimental.
We at TrueDater.com believe a vibrant neighborhood watch approach is the best method for promoting safety and empowering daters. We welcome the opportunity to partner with other online dating companies to communicate this message to legislators, the media, and member daters.
Best regards,
Mark Geller
co-founder
TrueDater.com
This is in response to Mark Geller’s comments:
“For the industry, TrueDater.com and other feedback sites demonstrate to legislators that the free market system can readily provide the increased information required to enhance online dating.”
I can see all sorts of abuse with this type of “feedback” system. I don’t see how it shows the legislators anything, other than the same complaints in regard to posting background check results, which I find LESS offensive than your “feedback” implementation.
How do you control bitter people from writing mean responses just because the person wasn’t interested in them? “They led me on…” “They owe me money…” etc. I had a guy take me on a date, and when I didn’t feel the need to proceed, he sent me a bill for the cost of his hourly rate, gas money (which I had paid for in the first place), and more. Bitter. Stalker – but that’s another story. He would have certainly written me a bogus review. How do you keep ex spouses from bad-mouthing their spouse in the feedback.
On our site, I receive notices from ex’s a few times a month complaining that their ex has no right to be there because of this, that or the other and that I should delete them. How can I prove what is true or not? How can you in the feedback? (I do ask them to have law enforcement contact me, when complaints are about them being in some legal hassle, which no one has yet to do so.) I had one woman accuse a guy of rape and killing her dog, simply because he put in his profile that he was seeing her exclusively and that they were in love. Ouch for her! She was writing 3 other men and claiming she loved them as well! How was she to then explain to them why this one guy said they were in love and seeing each other exclusively? She told them he was a stalker, raped her, killed her dog, and more. Bottom line, SHE was the liar and cheat. Not him. One guy refused to believe me and believed her. Thousands of dollars later lost to her, he found out the truth, and admitted with is tail between his legs, that he should have listened to me.
I clearly state on my site that I will share what a member is up to if it appears they are being scammed by a member. For instance, I told him that she was writing multiple men, including him, and promising undying love for them all. I will also warn a 60 year old man, dating a 20 year old girl from Philippines. He says they are in love and getting married. I check her out and see she is claiming love to 15 other men, and warn him and delete her. Of course, men like that seldom believe me. I must be confused.
Your feedback system seems like a strong breech of privacy. Even if someone receives a good review, do they really want every person on the site to know that they have been corresponding with 20 women (or men) instead of just one? We used to track and display the percentage of how many mails someone received versus how many they replied to, in order to show their “Congeniality” rating…. your chances of getting replies back. Wow! Did that stir up trouble! People didn’t want people to know they were sending mails. They don’t want people to know they are viewing profiles. Some dont’ even want people to know they are online! They don’t want each female (or male) to know that they aren’t their one and only until they are certain and sure about them. Maybe they are not ready to settle with one person, but having a list of feedback from multiple people will certainly reveal what they are doing online. Nobody’s business in my opinion.
Our site does encourage members to report bogus profiles and those who are abusive, mean, and inappropriate online. We are a very conservative web site. Even more so than other Christian sites. If a member is reported, we check out their online mail or chat logs and if it is indeed true, they are immediately deleted and blocked from future visits or attempts to create a new profile (won’t tell how we do that)… If it is something done offline, we use our discretion: we either delete them and take the member’s word (if it is a long time member we trust)… or we flag the account, write the complaint in conjunction with the profile, keep an eye on them, and if we receive multiple complaints then we act.
I just don’t see how the “feedback” would encourage members to join your site. Sure “reading” feedback is fun, but wait until you get that first complaint about yourself; I’d pull my profile immediately. And how does one prove to YOU that the complaint is just sour grapes? What do YOU do if one insists it’s true, and the other insists it’s not? I see law-suit written all over that. I also wouldn’t want that complaint head-ache, and my system is head-ache enough! I often times envy the secular sites that allow anyone and everyone and ignore emails and complaints – but that’s not what we’re about. We do everything in our power to offer our members a conservative, clean, Christian, and SAFE experience.
I see your site was registered January 2004 and from your rank on alexa.com, 164,346, that it appears you don’t get that much activity. I’d suspect lack of privacy is valid reason. It’s a good idea in principle, but a bad idea in implementation and avoiding fraud, sour grapes, bogus reports, and law suits.
God bless,
Nannette Thacker
http://www.ChristianSinglesDating.com
What is the latest on this? Have any of these laws passed anywhere? Are any still in legislation? Or are they all shot down?
thanks.
We too are providers of pre-employment, singles and online dating background checks. However, unlike True,we believe its call for legislated universal background checks for online dating services is either a great public relations ploy or one more example of of our hysterical quest for risk reduction in everything we do. Our desperate national obsession with safety at all costs in this case will force us to exchange freedom of choice for the misbegotten oversight of our state governments.
Like much recent legislation, such a mandate would only transfer our personal power to a moribound bureacracy and serve to weaken our personal freedom. Prozac and bad media have done enough of that already. Online dating itself is testimony to an awkward social condition. Why make it more awkward by forcing security on those who neither seek it nor want it.
Online background checks shoud remain optional. Those who want security should request them, and those who like to roll dice should be granted equal perogative. We certainly encourage online dating background checks. But unlike many, we actually dated and have come to realize some people get a charge of finding these things out for themselves. Let them.
And leave them alone.
True.com may be enjoying their free publicity stint, but they should relish it while it lasts. The truth about true.com is that its liability substantially increases for every promise or assurance of a person’s safety they make. Although their criminal and marriage background checks don’t explicitly suggest another person is a safe match, implicity True.com is projecting a false sense of safety. Inevitably, if a woman gets date-raped or abused by a guy she met through True.com, the woman will have powerful legal ammunition in alleging that True.com made her false assurances of his suitability, and thus was clearly negligent and liable to some extent.
By contrast, the majority of dating websites make no promises regarding the safety or background of their members, leaving users with a realistic sense of the risks involved in dating. I think the greatest cost of mandating background checks for all dating websites is not the cost per background check, but rather the ticking time-bomb of a succesful lawsuits.
This is in response to Jake’s note. You are quite correct in noting extgended promises of safety can make for increased liability. Despite many Americans near neurotic quest to be safe at all costs, there are really no guarantees. Fate plays a hand, to say nothing of that inescapable fact of life that there is always a first time for anything. Of course recidivistic behavior may also be a clear signal that the new found potential lover is really not for you. At Corra we are careful in saying it is a good idea to check out your prospective Mr. Possible. We also, by the way, think it’s a good idea to check out potential business associates. We can only report that there is a record of someone committing ill deeds on previous occasions. It doesn’t make you safe, but it does assist in being informed.
This article about this topic is a must read:
http://www.oasisoflove.com/2/articles.php?id=8
Open Letter:
I had posted several comments in this thread in defense of True.com, their use of background checks, and this proposed disclosure legislation. Those posts were made freely; never was I required or pressured to post on the subject.
However, I think it should be mentioned that I am no longer with True. I left True over differences on certain business practices and now am President of the Employee Assessment division at HVS International. I appreciate the many people who have emailed me their congratulations and best wishes.
While I still personally believe that background checks are an excellent service for online dating customers when done judiciously, I must retract my earlier posts on this thread. In particular, I can no longer support True.com or attest in any way to the efficacy of their own background screening and security measures.
And in light of the recent claims of fraudulent practices by Match and Yahoo, I am interested in receiving accounts and documentation of any such unethical practices by these and other sites (including True.com). These accounts can be anything related to HR and billing to advertising and affiliate marketing.
Thank you,
James Houran, PhD
Research Psychologist
The exceptions in the law discloses the true intent of IMBRA. Sites that make millions, like yahoo, match.com, etc, are exempt from the law.
Why? The logic is that Yahoo like sites, primary focus is not international dating. In other words, yahoo and others also caters to domestic dating as their primary focus.
This yahoo exception is the reason I say the laws intent is not sincere. Sites as large as yahoo whose international dating may only be 10% of their primary foucs still have thousands of new memberships compared to the smaller international sites.
For example, my site is 100% international. I get about 20 or 30 new male members a month. I have to comply.
Yahoo international dating is only 10% of their primary focus, yet that 10% is thousands of male members a month.
Obviously Yahoo like sites had stong lobbyist at DC or made one heck of a contribution to N.O.W.
If women supporters of this law were sincere about protecting women from abuse, then the exceptions for the larger sites who have a larger membership base would of never been excluded from the law requirements. Instead, the law is about special interest groups, lobbyist and money.
The law as is, under IMBRA, an immigrant woman now has the right to be abused as a member of Yahoo, match.com, etc, a smaller mom and pop site with their 20 or 30 members a month will be driven out of business so the bigger sites can capture even more of the market.
And of course, Johnny bad boy, will be smart enough to prey on sites like yahoo since the exemptions exlude him from having to discose his background to yahoo like sites.
The law is biased and won’t do a thing to protect women from abuse as long as their is a safe heaven that exempts the larger sites from having to comply with the law.
No common sense — it is about a congress woman wanting to make a name for herself and business — not about protecting women from abuse.
There are no bills regarding background checks. They all died. And have not been submitted
The issue is Dead..just like True.
Online dating services need to embrace the idea of conducting background checks. Particularly since its going to make things safer for everyone. Plus truth be told, its going to open up an whole other revenue stream for the online dating providers while providing some peace of mind to its members. Now granted things will never be 100% safe, but it will be a whole lot better than it is now. What you have is a lot of married men and criminals praying on single women on these sites. That can’t be good for the industry in the long run.
True.com is claiming to be fighting to protect its clients…all while continuing to bilk people who cancel their True.com “free” trial accounts by continuing to make withdrawals from their clients checking accounts! Search “True.com, rip-off, dating” for many examples.
I felt insulted by true dot com’s policy and practices. What Tom printed above is the true experience I had when I tried their “free trial”! As for all of Dr. James Houran, Ph.D. comments about how wonderful and true this business is, it doesn’t take a Ph.D for me to figure out the deceptive practices this site is using. They might be working within the boundries of the law, but true dot com is giving the entire industry a bad reputation. I believe I would have more respect for Mr. Vest if he would have simply created a fraudulent site emulating my online banking so I could claim ignorant. Good luck online shoppers!
FYI Alan… did you overlook the post above where Dr. James Houran took back his endorsement of True.com? That post has been in this thread for quite a long time (posted December 27, 2005)!
Skeeter
A great new online dating product, the Personnel Security Standards Psychological Questionnaire (PSSPQ). What condoms are to sex, the PSSPQ is to online dating! This is not just a
cute parallel comparison, it is absolutely true, unfortunately so —–! Condoms are a safety tool, you really would not want to use them without being motivated for safety. The PSSPQ
is also, just a safety tool and no one would purchase its utilization unless one was appropriately concerned regarding safety. One has to be aware that just about all people, who make
use of any of the online dating sites, or who are contemplating use of these sites, are aware of the great number of dangers that one opens him/herself to when starting to use these
online dating sites, hopefully to meet their Mr. or Miss Wonderful. Only a VERY few of the available online dating sites (and these few are a couple of those that charge fairly steep
fees to make use of the sites) offer customers any safety features at all. eHarmony.com does make use of a built-in lie scale, which is a small part of its advertised 400+ item
personality testing battery, however, this particular lie scale only consists of only 20 True/False type items (i.e., not very sensitive) that are fairly ‘transparent’ as they stand out rather
prominently in contrast to the other couple hundred personality testing items. In other words, this eHarmony.com lie scale is rather obvious to those ‘taking’ the whole test as the
scale looks like it serves a different purpose than does the rest of the testing battery. A good lie scale should not be able to be ‘spotted’ as a lie or anti-truth-telling type scale; rather,
it should faultlessly blend in with all of the other items that comprise the overall test. An other popular (and expensive) online dating site, that offers some rather real safety to its
customers is the True.com site. Its safety mechanism offering is to do a criminal background check, as well as a current marital check, on those who apply for membership. This
really sound better than it actually is. Apparently, their background checking database really does no cover the entire USA, only done at an individual state level, or for some
combination of a few states. In other words, their data bases, which are used to accomplish criminal background checks, is frequently questioned as being fragmented and incomplete.
Another very major problem arises when a candidate for True.com membership makes use of a name that is not his/her own, or even worse – uses someone else’s name. Using an
incorrect name can defeat the whole criminal background checking. So what safety device or tool can be employed by a safety-oriented potential customer of any of the online dating
services? Fortunately, one is available that really works. It is the PSSPQ, a psychological test that was originally developed and constructed by a very senior psychologist, who at the
time of its construction was the Chief Research Psychologist in the USA’s then largest intelligence agency. It was developed using the most scientifically sound test construction
procedures and was designed to predict whether individuals, very early-on in the investigation/adjudication process the Government has set up to evaluate individuals for unusually
high-level security clearance status, would eventually be successful or not in being granted such a clearance status. The PSSPQ, which in reality is a very advanced test for personal
honesty/integrity, was found, based upon lots of repeated research, to accomplish exactly what it was designed to do. It successfully predicts the success or nonsuccess in eventually
being granted high-level security clearance status at about a 95% accuracy level. For the past several years the PSSPQ has been sold for individuals use on the Internet (see:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/psspq.html). During the latter part of 2006, it was discovered, by user customers of online dating sites that the PSSPQ was an idea tool for use
in evaluating the personal honesty/integrity of persons who they had come into contact with through online dating sites services. At about that time, research was conducted regarding
use of the PSSPQ in the online dating prospect situation. The results have been almost completely strongly supportive of such a usage. By the way, the PSSPQ contains what is
believed to be the very best lie scale ever placed in a real-world psychological test. It contains none of the lie scale problems that does the scale in the eHarmony.com lie scale. The
PSSPQ’s LIE Scale is much larger, stronger, and less visible [as a lie scale] than any other lie scale in use now or in the past. The PSSPQ also provides comparative information,
regarding the prospective dating partner, on 11 different human frailty or problem areas that are highly correlated with favorable levels of personal honesty/integrity. Finally, an
overall score for generalized personal honesty/integrity is provided; it is this scoring that very accurately predicts success/failure to be eventually granted high level security clearance
status in the PSSPQ’s original purpose situation. Information regarding use of the PSSPQ for evauating prospective dating partners, that one might meet through the services of
online dating services, can be found at: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/psspqdatingtest.htm.
I think with all the people getting scammed on all web-sites mostly from Nigeria , should have a automatic scammer alert for all dating sites, to give the people who use these sites to information of these ruthless people, to many people good people get scammed by these people, and it high time something get done, to many nice people fall for there sad stories. They steal pictures off sites, post them as themselves and then pour on the sob stories, when they are really a compelex operation, I really believe there should be an act passed, and us as americans should find a way to protect good people
I understand scam people are all over the world, but this problems can also be solved by adding Audio/video Web chat on every dating sites.
I applaud True.com as well.
Nothing has been better for our site than all the news about excluding people.
True.com is using the common “tough on crime” approach to societal exclusion of felons from its services and trying to make other dating and networking sites look like they pander to felons. It is great for True.com in the front end because politicians have been winning elections by making their opponents look like they are pro-criminal.
However, what the morally superior hypocrites at True did not foresee is that whilst politicians might grab onto their mantra of exclusion, the common American just doesn’t have the same views.
Americans are not as stupid and careless as True would have the legislators and voters believe. There are cases of crimes committed that were enabled by social networking sites. Before the internet, the SAME crimes were committed by the use of newspaper classifieds. Before that, false smoke signals were used to lure rival tribes into an ambush.
So, if everyone is as stupid as True would have them believe then I challenge True to define this:
“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).”
You “exist” to help reduce the divorce rate? I am not really sure who you wrote that for? What sort of self-gratifying masturbatory statement is that? You “exist” at True to make money. You should exist to spell better. The little red lines under the words means it is misspelled.
It is not the job of True.com to protect America. It is not the job of narcissistic legislators or the government to protect us. It is the job of every American to protect themselves. If the clients of True.com are so dull-witted that they believe True exists only to reduce the divorce rate, then quite frankly, I do not want them on my site.
I want people who watch their backs, take great steps to protect themselves and their family AND have an enjoyable experience meeting people of all backgrounds and YES, that specifically includes felons and those that support felons. Being supportive of a felon is not approving their crime, it is making society truly safer by providing the love, support, kindness and companionship that reduces recidivism. Excluding people does nothing.
Again, I applaud True, because there are 31 million felons and at least one loved-one for each of those. We welcome every single one. And we do it for free too…..
This is an extremely important issue. I recommend and applaud any dating web sites that do background checks and even charge extra for them whether it for online or offlne dating and matchmaking. Patterns of criminal convictions are a serious issue in dating as are people who are married and pretending to be single. I am single myself right now and use many dating websites and matchmaking services. Even with the women there is still alot of dishonesty. Of course probably much more with the men. The majority of people are sincere and really want to meet someone. Nobody wants a liar, convicted criminal, someone married dating many people, and so on. People do post different photos that may or may not be themselves. That is not the worst issue as it is virtually impossible to always have good and recent photos. Verifying photos and income is definitely not as important as checking criminal records and marriage status. The web sites that do this for a small extra fee will clearly become the most favorite and top web sites for doing something this quite crucial. This is an interesting topic that I myself are involved with in the dating scene. There is alot of fraud and deception out there that needs to be reduced and eventually eliminated. You can contact me and my assistant at the information below. Thank you…. 🙂
Mark F. Stolerman
Mercy
RUSHDATER@AOL.COM
http://singles.meetup.com/1609/
These checks are vital, although these companies might experience a slight decrease in their members and subscriptions, these background checks would actually be very beneficial in the long haul, for the business and for it’s subscribers.
i think doing background checks on thousands of members would be extremely time consuming and would cause long delays in profile approvals. Although in an ideal world, this is a good idea, but is it really doable for sites that have thousands of new members joining every day, it doesn’t sound realistic to me. Maybe if there is a system in place where it can be done automatically when someone signs up, but the problem we have here is members who have something to hide can simply give fake details, especially on free dating sites where you don’t need to register a credit card or anything