THE DAILY MONITOR — Dec 29 — Mark Musoke of Global Internet café says that online dating has become as much a part of peoples' lives as the Internet is. What makes online dating even more fascinating are the high levels of privacy that are maintained. Most dating sites keep the details of their clients private and allow users to report incidents of harassment. Dating online is very convenient and a lot more comfortable than real life experience. Online dating grants women security from premature physical advances from men, granting them and opportunity to study the date well before getting involved in a serious relationship.
Bill wrote at 1:18 PM:
“Your calculation to Kurt does not include the calculation for a false sense of security Dan and therefore is a fallicious argument.”
Dan V. at 12:39 PM (in the post to which Bill is ‘responding’).
“Of course, if you think this is a sound arument, you could still disagree with the legislation. You can go back to the “false sense of security” bit, for example. But I hope that if you do that, you will respond to what I’ve already said on that point.”
I must be psychic!
Markus frind wrote:
“Now as for if it happens we will never hear about it, that is complete BS. I get calls from the police because someone uttered a threat, someone posted something stupid in the forums etc. Now if someone were to actually get killed the police would immediately have to go to the site and obtain all records related to that person etc as it becomes part of the criminal case.”
If A reports a threat made by B against her on your dating site to the police and A subsequently gets murdered, the police would certainly be interested in any threats made against her. But, I’m betting that after B threatened A in your chatroom, she didn’t then go have dinner with him! The sort of incident that is a real concern is one where the victim doesn’t find out about the perpetrator until it is too late. In that case, the police have no prior report regarding your site and no reason to notify you.
Also, more generally, I’m puzzled by your posts here. You posted a link to an article that detailed several stories of people being murdered by people they met through an online dating service. http://www.bobparsons.com/WhytheinternetcanbeabadplacetomeetpeopleAmurderinVirginiaTheTaylorBehlstoryp.html
But now you seem to be denying that that happens. (Though, it’s worth pointing out, you do admit that you know of threats on your website, and enough thefts between members to make it one of your “biggest complaints”!)
Markus Frind wrote:
“I might also point out that the vast majority of voilent crimes are commited by blacks, homeless etc basically people are could never afford a computer in the first place let alone pay for a subscription.”
Oooh-Kay. You want to try that again without the racism?
Kurt, thanks for the response. I’ll get back to you in my next post.
Racism? Lets look at texas the homestate of True.com
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/blacks_in_prisons.htm
“Texas has a Black population of 11% but a Black prison population of 44%. ”
“Wisconsin, with a tiny Black population of 6%, has a Black prison population of 48%.”
54% of Homeless people have criminal records.
http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/mar2001/ammann.html
As for the examples in the article above, they talk about chat rooms, which of course are full of married people, nutcases and generally disturbed users. Ie i’ve yet to see a chat room that isn’t dominated by 5-20 regulars spending 8+ hours a day on it. My site doesn’t have a chat room for that very reason.
“As for the examples in the article above, they talk about chat rooms, which of course are full of married people, nutcases and generally disturbed users. Ie i’ve yet to see a chat room that isn’t dominated by 5-20 regulars spending 8+ hours a day on it. My site doesn’t have a chat room for that very reason.”
I thought dangerous people were too poor too afford a computer, Frind?
In any case, the article mentions incidents that happened between people meeting on chatrooms, but it *also* mentions cases of murder between people who met on dating sites.
Also, in reference to our discussion about “hooks” and the media. Even in these articles about murder by online daters, only one of them emphasizes the online dating angle at all. (That’s the one about the “internet black widow” who used internet dating services as part of her MO to find and kill multiple victims.)
So, on balance, Frind, I’m not sure posting that link really helped your case very much!
Frind, this is not racism:
“Texas has a Black population of 11% but a Black prison population of 44%. ”
“Wisconsin, with a tiny Black population of 6%, has a Black prison population of 48%.”
This is,
“I might also point out that the vast majority of voilent crimes are commited by blacks, homeless etc basically people are could never afford a computer in the first place let alone pay for a subscription.”
Sorry, Kurt. It’s coming right away. I promise this time.
“I have seen the media report statistics that convicted felons have a high recidivism rate, but I do not know what that recidivism rate is for — e.g., more felonies or lesser crimes.
Also, please cite me the evidence that convicted felons are “much more likely to commit serious crimes in the future than the rest of the population.”
From the US Department of Justice:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism
“Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.
Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.”
Is that satisfactory?
“there may be groups of other types of people that are equally or even more likely to commit serious crimes.”
Maybe so. Any suggestions about what such groups might be and how we could screen for them? (Please, don’t say “Black people!”)
“This is accurate only if your methods of detecting felons is reliable. Please cite the evidence that True’s screening processes are accurate given that you seem to conduct no ID verification.”
The method is not 100% reliable, no question. But neither is anything else. People do get through True’s security measures.
It is possible that a criminal could steal a credit card and, while it’s still valid, sign up under the cardholder’s name. But, 1)Why do that when he can just go to Match or POF? 2) The person who had his card stolen is likely to find out before long and contact his credit card company. He will then find out about the purchases made and cancel ‘his’ subscription -if the CC company doesn’t do it for him automatically.
Also, this assumes that the criminal is trying to get around the screening in the first place. Dollars to doughnuts, most felons on online dating sites are just looking for a date, not trying to circumvent security procedures. (Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re not dangerous.)
Now, I’m sure you’ll hasten to point out, it is not a complete search of felony records, so some felons can and do get through using their own CC. This is *not* an excuse for not stopping all of them you can.
Okay, I think I’m done. I’ll keep watching and respond to any *new* points – or old points that I have failed to adequately respond to – I see being made *about the legislation*. Otherwise…
Thanks, it’s been fun.
That is not rasism that is simply stating the facts.
You can’t have it both ways. Either people in texas are racist and putting black people in jail for no reason, or homeless people, black people,spanish speaking etc who live under the poverty line commit a far disportionate amount of crime. It should be obvious the later is the case due to all the statics given out by your law enforcement agencies.
Either way my statement statement is based in fact, unlike yours which seem entirely based on speculation. You haven’t posted a single fact anywhere to support any of your arguements.
Your blanket speculation statements like this…
“1) Convicted felons are *much* more likely to commit serious crimes in the future than the rest of the population. ”
May be true in the general world, but the people who commit those crimes can’t afford a computer because they live so far below the poverty line.
Let me see if I understand the logic:
1) We believe background checks are a good thing
2) Consumers are morons and incapable of making their own decisions
3) Anyone who gave money to a competitive firm has to be an idiot
4) We want the industry to disclose safety issues prominently on their home page – we’re the only company that cares about consumers
5) Our background checks are not foolproof – we admit we have criminals in our membership though we have only caught one (or announced it)
6) We aggressively promote safety on our home page because we do background checks (even though we know they don’t really work)
7) We understand that our background checks may give people a false sense of security
8) In one of the states we are lobbying – our background checks are virtually worthless – but we want companies to do them nonetheless (or say that don’t use a service that is close to worthless service in that state – comical isn’t it?).
9) All our members can pick people in any state – even states we can’t get very much information from
10) Our members can communicate with people that haven’t had background checks
11) Some of our members may think everyone they communicate with has had a background check – but we don’t say that – we only imply that
12) Our members don’t read the terms of service agreement – they only look at the home page – the one promoting safety and background checks
13) We don’t disclose any potential problems with our background checks on our homepage, though we know there are many problems, we put that in our terms of service agreement or many clicks into our website (the one we think nobody reads)
14) Even though we feel our members don’t read anything, they have the responsibility to read our terms of service agreement if we ever went to court
15) The rest of the industry should disclose that they don’t use our background checks that have not been proven to increase dating safety
16) Do it our way or prominently tell everyone else on your home page that your program sucks because you don’t do it our way – Herb’s way – God’s way!
17) We don’t have to tell people in prominent bold type the problems with our program on our home page – we can bury it in our terms of service agreement – the one we think our members don’t read – remember – we are God!
That’s the way I see it – am I missing something guys.
Something that hasn’t been mentioned here is the fact that 98% of murders are committed by spouses, broken relationships, by someone the decease knew.
As for Dan V. Give the guy a break. He does not work for True.com just his money does.
Is True is turning toward the sex trade – porn. Which would be constant with the sleazy ads, relationship with askmen.com where I might ad True polls for the hottest True girl. Sounds like the plan is to set up Rich Dirty Old Men seeking Young Attractive Gold Diggers.
I set up a fake profile on True. The so called free compatibility test was crap!! After going through the most ridiculous questions and finally getting to the end I was routed to a free trail in which required a credit card to see the results of the test. Bait and Switch. That is where a lot of people are complaining, because they believe the free part. So the put the information in get the meaningless results and a couple of days later they discovery their cards have be charged. By the time they decided it is better to cancel the card True has charged a couple of hundred bucks. You do this to say a million people you get a nice chuck of change. Unfortunately, the legal system is bogged down with say stupid bills for a disclosure that your business does or doesn’t do background checks. By the time anyone catches on they disappear and the problem is gone and deceiving someone else. You never suspect they are ripping you of because they are claiming we care we are safe and see we are doing something about it. We are trying to pass a law that wouldn’t do a Dang thing.
What we hear now is True is a victim and the industry is beating up on them. All the while you are watching on hand True is picking the pockets with the other hand.
Question for Dan V. if married people aren’t allow on your site and cannot communicate with others the why is your father “Undermoose” and stepmother “fite” on the site and using the chat rooms? How does the system not catch that? When I set up a profile I never receive anything about acknowledgment of being a felon or married. Why is that? Dan, what about the magic act on customers wallets? Very deceptive when True clearly list FREE on several things Free Capability Test, Free Wink, Free Communicate with Me. CRAP, CRAP, AND MORE CRAP.
I am in no way supporting any sex offender. With what this Dr. Wells said “he was never asked if he was a felon” I wasn’t, so maybe he wasn’t? Which if he is correct he would have a hugh law suit against True for the public liable, slander, and humiliation? I would like to know what law he broke that True is suing him for 200K What is True’s damage for a civil lawsuit? True is using it for publicity, so True is profiting. What about the constitution. Any convicted felon that has serve their sentence and released is a free person. True is actually discriminating against a group of people. Lets say you are a pot smoker. You get stopped for a traffic violation and the police smell pot. They have probably cause and search your vehicle. Low and behold they find a bag of weed and for argument sake we will say it is just over the possession limit and is considered distribution. You got a couple of bags for friends. Now you are a felon. Is being a felon of possession different from felon for murder or rape. True doesn’t care a felon is not welcome and in fact branded and as in the case of Dr. Wells publicly humiliated and sued. And lets go as far to say your father gets arrested for solicitation of a prostitute in a police sting now he is a felon. What would you or your father do when you are publicly humiliated and sued? Good thing both for you are married!
The point being there are different levels of felonies. Does True take them in consideration and if so what is the standard. What legal right does True have for suing these people? How far back in a persons pass does True investigate. Say 10 years ago you got a DUI while you were in college. What is True’s legal rights and standards to brand, public humiliate, and sue a law a biding citizen today? How long does someone where a scarlet letter?
Do you see why the ACLU has a problem and is against the legislation? Felons aren’t allowed to own or possess fire arms, but they do. The great debate of gun laws and gun control continues. The same thing is going on with the bills True is pushing. True isn’t trying to require background checks they just want other businesses to say if they do them or not. Which is what is called prejudicial in a court of law. If say Match discloses it doesn’t it may be perceived as less safe then say True. Which basically exploits peoples fears when we hear new reports about man kills estranged wife and turns gun on him self
True’s self servicing legislation does nothing to prevent crime. True makes claims they have Prevented crimes. Prove it! True has made a lot of assertion and yet offers no data, studies, no criminal analysis to their outrageous assumptions and claims. What the industry has gotten is publicity stunts and the ramblings of the owner’s son.
So is Vest a con artist doing a slight of hand trick? Sum up the facts. True has major deceptive billing problems. Makes claims of wholesome and safety which their own background system doesn’t work and True’s advertisements are sleazy (Iam being kind) The lawsuits are flying. Vest experts for psychologist and security have all been fired. Vest’s own personal conduct is under fire. There are major financial issues both business and personal. And all we get from Dan is an argument about his opinion
Dan V do you get it now? You seem to think the issue is background disclosures. The industry is looking for explanations for so much more.
Sam, Markus, Bill, Dan and others,
I’ve been in a strong opposition to the True’s proposed legislation since the very beginning.
And Sam, if you remember there was a sumo fight last year in Miami. I recall you and I were screaming VERY loud expressing irritation caused by the TRUE’s initiative.
But since the legislation turned to be a die hard as opposed just a bad joke, I would suggest to focus on arguments from state reps prospective. Though here I have to agree with Herb and Co. for the 1st time: motivation of the legislation’s sponsor doesn’t make any difference as well as their personal behavior.
All the industry insiders know the whole campaign with the background check legislation is nothing more than just a PR campaign deployed, sponsored and supported by TRUE and constitutes an unfair business practice when governmental institutions are used by a private group to profit.
The point is that it all means nothing for the states reps involved in the campaign.
Any industry insider can tell 1000’s fairytales and get anyone confused including state reps.
So, what to do?
With all my respect, you overestimate the ability of state reps to comprehend how the online dating works not even mentioning that it’s a totally unrealistic goal to make them say free members from paid ones. Counting percentage of coverage can’t also be an argument for state people. They think at large (at least they think so). Wouldn’t you agree?
The question is much deeper then the details of the online dating technology. And it’s wider but simpler at the same time. Something like:
– will the legislation improve security of users involved in meeting each other via online dating providers? And the answer is NO for a number of reasons including feasibility, limited access to criminal records, time sensitivity and so on.
– why online dating but not any other industry that brings 2 people together intentionally or unintentionally? It may be newspapers with their classified, auction site like eBay, chat rooms of all portals like Yahoo and MSN and so on.
– why criminal background check but not any other kind of check, like mental health check or STI (sexually transmitted infections) check? Does that mean that the lawmakers led by TRUE prefer to have the public safe but sick? It should be especially important for TRUE persistently promoting sex judging by their banners with naked young girls.
This kind of logic must be suitable for state reps.
There has been a long discussion at the lawmakers level some 50 years ago about the use of seat belts and/or airbags for a very similar reason. The corner stone was safety and security. It took 5 long year of tests and detailed analysis by the government assigned road safety institutions to figure our what works and why. And only then the legislation has passed making seat belts mandatory. Why should it be a shortcut now 50 years later?
Dan,
Thanks for the DOJ stats, which give us estimates about recidivism. Unfortunately, they tell us nothing about the rest of the population – nowhere do they compare convicted felons to “the rest of the population.” Worse still, the DOJ stats tell us nothing about what group of people (if there are any) are more likely to commit online or online-dating related crimes. So, no, those stats are not useful or satisfactory to support your speculation.
“Which other groups may be more likely to commit online dating-related crimes,” you ask? I do not know, and neither do you nor True, which is why I suggested that True donate money to an independent research firm to find out the answer so you can stop speculating.
Re: the reliability of True’s methods. We all know background checks are not 100% foolproof, but it seems to me that your checks would only catch (where there is coverage) criminals who are naive. Arguably the most dangerous criminals/ felons are the ones that are sophisticated. Of course, I doubt it would take a very sophisticated convicted felon, never-before-caught caught criminal or aspiring criminal to just simply NOT GIVE A REAL NAME WHEN SIGNING UP FOR TRUE.COM.
Your screening methods, if I correctly understand how they currently work, merely run the name given by the customer against Rapsheets.com’s database. Are you claiming that the customer name given at sign up on True is automatically cross-checked against the name on the credit card, and if they do not match then the customer is denied the ability to communicate with members? Please check on this issue and report back, as it is an extremely important question for True to answer. If you do report back on this issue, please state in the post that you have the authority and permission to reply as a formal representative of True. In other words, I want your response to place the company on record.
Finally, you failed to provide any hard data/ evidence that there is an epidemic of online dating crimes to begin with. In other words, who does this legislation protect if there is no group of victims per se? Please do not cite sporadic case studies in support of this epidemic. I have seen more cases of shark attacks in the media than online dating attacks. My point is that sporadic case examples are not evidence of an epidemic of crime that requires legislative intervention.
Maybe you forgot this crucial point I made earlier? To my way of thinking, True can deny service to all the felons you want, but if you have not showed that those felons (or any one for that matter) are out committing an epidemic of online dating-related crimes to begin with, your screening methods and your proposed legislation are moot. It is akin to a “solution” in search of a “problem.”
Dan, True has still not proven the two basic issues I outlined years ago it now seems:
1. Evidence that there is a social dilemma re: online dating-related crimes which warrants legislation, and
2. Evidence that the proposed legislation will relieve, not aggravate, this apparent problem.
Dan, you again leave us with “an unsubstantiated solution to an unsubstantiated problem.” In case you do not return to the forum, I will leave you with another point I made and want you and everyone at True to consider deeply:
There seems to be more evidence for fraud and unethical business practices BY online dating companies against their own customers (like Match, Yahoo, and let us not forget True itself!) than there is evidence that convicted felons or any other people use online dating to commit new crimes.
Finally, I want to say that I respect your courage and willingness to be available to respond to questions and issues. I have tried to ask various True reps questions, but always receive no response. I do not agree with your position, and I feel you might be being duped and blinded by family loyalty, but you have demonstrated a level of responsibility that True has not.
Kurt Manning
I hear the next state on True’s list is Illinois. The bill lost support by the sponsoring representative in California last year and was pulled. The rep. stated there was no studies, data, or analysts to support True’s claims.
Match.com and True are both based in Dallas County. Match hired a big time lobbyist in Austin to defeat True’s efforts to pass the online background check bill in Texas. Match had the money and clout to defeat the bill in Austin.
Rumors that True has such a negative reputation that a group called SODA which claims is composed of various victims groups and law enforcement agencies will sponsor the bills. Now several people are investigating SODA (Safer Online Dating Association) So far it appears it is a lobbyist working for True.
Something I have noticed is that True doesn’t update their information on their campaigns. True loves to post press releases that they got so and so to sponsor the bill in Michigan and it passed the house. No where do they release it died, nor do they state that their bills that did make it to the house went to legal and major changes had been made. One of the changes I believe every state made was the background checks would be made through that states law enforcement agencies and that the state would access a fee on the average of $20.00 pre check and that income would go to fund various state projections.
Now this information goes against what Vest has stated in interviews. Vest claims the cost is only $1.50. That may be the case for True because of their relationship with Rapsheet.com, but True’s contract with Rapsheet will back fire on them and would essentially be worthless, since True would have to use each states law enforcement and paid at the very least $20 pre check. True would have to pass that expense on to the consumer, which Vest said he wouldn’t do. True is already one of the most expensive at $50 a month. I for one want to hear Vest address this issue. Would Vest continue to pursue this bill with the changes the state lawmakers are making? I would also like Vest to justify the $50 a month fee. True’s background check don’t work. The team of experts for security Rathburn and psychologist Dr. Jim Houran were fired. Vest is suing Dr. Houran trying to bully Houran and the man that wrote the programs for the capability and sex test for True. Vest wants to patent these tests and he can’t as long as the two people that created them have their names on them. Vest offered to settle the case if both of them agreed to a two non compete agreement and sign over the rights to the ownership of the intelligence of the test. And they pay Vest’s legal fees and in return Vest will pay them nothing, will drop the lawsuit, and stop calling them thieves.
Anyone else remember when Match subpoenaed former employees that took positions with True to see if those ex-employees disclosed and possible broke their two year non compete clause, which Match paid them for when they went to work at True. Then Vest took out full page ads in two news papers and accused Barry Dillar of intimidating and threatening this people and how Vest said he didn’t what or need Match’s trade secrets.
May it is time we all start reading True.com’s disclosure agreements. For both consumers and affiliates.
Something tells me there is more.
Dan Vest omits he and most people don’t read them, so it is about time someone does. Maybe the FTC and IRS should as well.
Something interesting going on!
Anyone else notice that Dan’s comments have all been removed?
Looks as if Vest is on Brooks. Bet he is threathing him like Vest has everyone else with law suits.
Dan hit a neave. Vest reaction goes to prove Dan’s information.
Vest it is to late the cat is out of the bag!
The SEC has the documents they need all they need is an insider to point out where the problems are. Sounds like they got that now.
There is a bigger surprise for Vest coming up very soon.
Danger in Speed Dating and Internet Dating
There is no other way to describe meeting a stranger then risky business.
Charlottetown, PE (PRWEB)March 25, 2006 — There is no other way to describe meeting a stranger then risky business. Who knows how unstable the stranger is. You don’t as you only know what the person says about themself in their dating profile. New web start up http://www.mefinder.org is aiming to take the risk out of dating by enabling members to register their dates. This creates a record of who members are meeting, where, and when they are meeting them. Creator Marcel Arsenault stated that this record will help keep stangers at bay knowing there is a log of the meeting. For more information, you can check out http://www.mefinder.org
at Onlinde dating Same goes for making that perfect match with a company.