OPW — Jan 14 — Emily Hackett from the Internet Alliance sent me the following note…
The NJ Governor is going to sign this bill unless he gets email from affected constituents, e.g. on line daters and dating and social networking industry doing business in New Jersey, asking for a veto SB 1977. You are our last and best hope for a veto. It is the 11th Hour in NJ. Governor John Corizon can at any moment sign, and has until Jan. 15th at noon to sign, the first online dating bill in the 50 states. The very powerful Senate Leader Cody included SB 1977 in a trio of bills trumpeted as increasing online safety. We at the Internet Alliance believe offering criminal background checks for online daters provides a false sense of security. We also think online dating is an activity and an industry that does not need to be regulated. Finally, we think the bill as written is unconstitutional. We are afraid when this bill passes in New Jersey it will open the floodgates for regulation of dating and social network sites. Click here for email address and more info.
Mark Brooks: The NJ State Assembly passed bill number A4304 which corresponds with NJ State Senate bill S1977, known as the Internet Dating Safety Act, which is aimed at Online Dating businesses. The controversial part of this bill is section 4.b. which reads… "If an Internet dating service does not conduct criminal background screenings on its members, the service shall disclose, clearly and conspicuously, to all New Jersey members that the Internet dating service does not conduct criminal background screenings. The disclosure shall be provided when an electronic mail message is sent or received by a New Jersey member, on the profile describing a member to a New Jersey member, and on the web-site pages of the Internet dating service used when a New Jersey member signs up. A disclosure under this subsection shall be in bold, capital letters in at least 12-point type."
There needs to be a level of regulation. Guys look at the scam rate! Only a small handful of the webmasters actually do anything to, if you were more pro-active then the state wouldnt need get involved besides for the most part .. its just a disclaimer nothing more. There has to be a level of accountability as well.
There needs to be a level of regulation. Guys look at the scam rate! Only a small handful of the webmasters actually do anything to, if you were more pro-active then the state wouldnt need get involved besides for the most part .. its just a disclaimer nothing more. There has to be a level of accountability as well.
How will this legislation lower the scammer rate?
How will this legislation lower the scammer rate?
Years later, we are still being subjected to this ridiculous legislation. Dating sites refuse to organize and rally against the legislation, which is poorly worded, practically impossible to enforce and strategically impotent.
Where is the company acting as the spam blacklist for dating sites? There are companies worth hundreds of millions doing this with email, why not dating?
There are far too many loopholes for this to be useful. Time for the dating industry to take matters into it’s own hands.
Years later, we are still being subjected to this ridiculous legislation. Dating sites refuse to organize and rally against the legislation, which is poorly worded, practically impossible to enforce and strategically impotent.
Where is the company acting as the spam blacklist for dating sites? There are companies worth hundreds of millions doing this with email, why not dating?
There are far too many loopholes for this to be useful. Time for the dating industry to take matters into it’s own hands.
this would force dating sites to clearly tell which member is a paid member and which one is free. Obviously only 10% or so of members who have paid can be backgrounded checked.
this would force dating sites to clearly tell which member is a paid member and which one is free. Obviously only 10% or so of members who have paid can be backgrounded checked.
We see many online sites taking a proactive role in offering background checks. As this trend continues and it becomes a standard “best practice” for the industry, I think we will see less of a push for legislation. Certainly sites that will offer identity verification and background checks will have little concern with requirements to reveal what they are doing to protect the consumer and will not face the stigmatization of having to post a statement that they do nothing.
We see many online sites taking a proactive role in offering background checks. As this trend continues and it becomes a standard “best practice” for the industry, I think we will see less of a push for legislation. Certainly sites that will offer identity verification and background checks will have little concern with requirements to reveal what they are doing to protect the consumer and will not face the stigmatization of having to post a statement that they do nothing.