backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by Lord 666.. on Nov 26 at 10:12 PM
Internet dating bill would allow a simple name search to suffice for a criminal background check

Online dating and social networking sites have made news in recent months with convicted sex offenders and other criminals reportedly using the services to solicit minors.

In October of 2006, Wired editor Kevin Poulson used a Perl script to search MySpace and found 744 convicted sexual predators were using the service. In September of 2007, Facebook had similar problems when the New York Attorney general issued subpoenas against the company after complaints received claiming solicitation of minors on the site.

A New Jersey dating safety bill, known as the Internet Dating Safety Act (PDF), sponsored by Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein from District 14 (Mercer and Middlesex) is still being pushed in the New Jersey State Senate despite having acknowledged flaws. The bill as introduced requires online dating services to disclose to any user from New Jersey whether it has performed background checks on members of the site.

The flawed part of the bill comes in the fact that to satisfy the bill’s “Criminal Background screening” all a site has to do is a simple name search via a regularly updated government public records database or a database maintained by a private vendor. Any user of the Internet and social networking or dating sites knows that many users don’t provide their real names. The bill makes no provisions for dating services to check backgrounds via information that like social security numbers and to corroborate the data to be sure the member is who they claim to be.

What the bill lacks in actual real world effectiveness it makes up for in bold, all capital letter disclaimers required to be posted in at least 12-point type to New Jersey users. The disclaimers include such common sense nuggets of wisdom like:

  • "Anyone who is able to commit identity theft can also falsify a dating profile."
  • "There is no substitute for acting with caution when communicating with any stranger who wants to meet you."
  • "Never include your last name, e-mail address, home address, phone number, place of work, or any other identifying information in your Internet profile or initial e-mail messages."
  • "Screenings do not cover other types of convictions or arrests or any convictions from foreign countries."

The bill would also require internet dating services to notify users from New Jersey if it does criminal background screenings and what actions the site takes if members are found to have criminal backgrounds. The bill would not hold the Internet service provider in violation by acting as an intermediary for the transmission of electronic messages between members of the service.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Figures
By Polynikes on 11/26/2007 1:18:47 PM , Rating: 5
Who's surprised by this? Not me. Yet another example of the government trying to babysit its citizens, by making useless laws that only help when the citizen fails to make a simple common sense check.




RE: Figures
By RandomStyuff on 11/26/2007 1:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
useless laws that only help when the citizen fails to make a simple common sense check.


The problem is, too many citizens fail too many of those common sense checks. I've made really stupid mistakes which I now regret, and now seem like common sense, and I'm sure you and everyone else here has too...

Look at all the Nigerian scams. If everyone always used common sense, would we have those scams? How about (more on topic) all the people who have been harmed by the events like this law is attempting to stop? If there wasn't a need, I doubt we would have seen this law!

I don't think it will be very effective though. I know many people who ignore these things all the time, sort of like Vista's UAC really...


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 1:39:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Look at all the Nigerian scams. If everyone always used common sense, would we have those scams?

Anyone who falls for those Nigerian email or postal mail scams deserves to be hit in the head with a billy club. Its not even common sense, its pure stupidity.

quote:
How about (more on topic) all the people who have been harmed by the events like this law is attempting to stop?

You mean like the people who respond to those "one night sexual encounter" ads on craigslist? people need to get out more - go meet someone in person at a bar, park, restaraunt, work, etc. online dating is mainly for people who either a)make excuses that they are too busy, when really they are losers who do not know how to talk to the opposite sex, or b)people who wont try to pick someone up in person because there is something wrong w/ them.

Its hard enough trusting people when you look them in the eye, much less trust people who is typing to you on the other end. You're looking for a 20yr old female, but you're really typing to a 49yr old sexual predator imitating a 20yr old female.

Cmon people, get out more into the real world - not everything our parents and grandparents did was bad - and using technology for change isnt always good.

Get out for some good, old fashioned face to face communication with your fellow people.


RE: Figures
By clovell on 11/26/2007 1:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
Ive got to agree with you on this one, mdogs. There are a lot of things a person can be stupid about - shoelaces, restaurants, haircuts, etc and get away with relatively unscathed.

But, money and dating are things that need to be approached with some sense and with some respect.


RE: Figures
By RandomStyuff on 11/26/2007 2:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but facts show that this is not always done. Not everyone approaches these things with the common sense needed.


RE: Figures
By RandomStyuff on 11/26/2007 1:59:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Anyone who falls for those Nigerian email or postal mail scams deserves to be hit in the head with a billy club. Its not even common sense, its pure stupidity.


Well, in that case this law is to stop people from getting a hit on the head with a billy club.

quote:
You mean like the people who respond to those "one night sexual encounter" ads on craigslist? people need to get out more - go meet someone in person at a bar, park, restaraunt, work, etc. online dating is mainly for people who either a)make excuses that they are too busy, when really they are losers who do not know how to talk to the opposite sex, or b)people who wont try to pick someone up in person because there is something wrong w/ them.


I don't think that is the only use of online dating. My uncle met his (now) wife through online dating, and they are happy together and everything, so I don't think that there is anything wrong with the idea. I, personally, don't think that I will every try it out (not that desperate) but it does sometimes work.

That's also why you meet in (if you meet at all) a public, well populated place and not in some apartment or alleyway...

The fact is, people are meeting others online, and you probably can't really stop that without doing something shaky in terms of the US constitution, so the best you can do is try to help the people who do it anyways think about what they are doing.

I don't think it will stop anything, but at least it shows that some people are becoming more aware of the problem.


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 2:06:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Well, in that case this law is to stop people from getting a hit on the head with a billy club.

Disagree, I prefer "survival of the fittest" approach. If we keep bailing those people out, our society will turn into one similar to that of the movie "Idiocracy" ;-)

quote:
don't think that is the only use of online dating. My uncle met his (now) wife through online dating, and they are happy together and everything, so I don't think that there is anything wrong with the idea.

Don't get me wrong - I know people who have met people online and are/were dating &/or friends after. However, it's just bad news typically. Sure, theres good people out there - but since you cannot tell the good from the bad, I think its a bad idea. Just like those dating hotlines from the 80's and 90's.

quote:
That's also why you meet in (if you meet at all) a public, well populated place and not in some apartment or alleyway...

Again, that would be common sense....and now approaching the second "billy club" scenario.

quote:
The fact is, people are meeting others online, and you probably can't really stop that without doing something shaky in terms of the US constitution, so the best you can do is try to help the people who do it anyways think about what they are doing.

Sure, people are going to do it, no doubt. And its not up to me to tell them not to. But as long as they dont come crying to the taxpayers to help them out because something bad happended, then I dont care. There is no reason to change our consitutition to provide a means for people to date on the internet - its called use proper judgement, and if you choose not to use proper judgement then be prepared for the consequences.

quote:
I don't think it will stop anything, but at least it shows that some people are becoming more aware of the problem.

I agree, and how to solve the problem? Tell them to quit being mush-heads and get a real life.


RE: Figures
By FITCamaro on 11/26/2007 2:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
With you. If people want to do something, they better be prepared to live with the consequences. Good or bad.

"Hmm....a 35 year old guy who lives at home and lists his profession as 'Other'....can't possibly be a bad idea."


RE: Figures
By Polynikes on 11/26/2007 3:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we keep bailing those people out, our society will turn into one similar to that of the movie "Idiocracy"

*Involuntary shudder*

The sad thing is, you're probably right, though obviously it won't get THAT bad.

I hope.


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 3:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
though obviously it won't get THAT bad


I know, it was a joke - but definately something to think about after seeing that movie...

At least I hope you're right that it wont get THAT bad. Nothing seems to surprise me anymore.


RE: Figures
By Polynikes on 11/26/2007 7:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
I guess only time will tell. :)

Or perhaps a more appropriate emoticon would be :\


RE: Figures
By RandomStyuff on 11/26/2007 4:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Disagree, I prefer "survival of the fittest" approach. If we keep bailing those people out, our society will turn into one similar to that of the movie "Idiocracy" ;-)

Well, in that case(according to you), you should be letting those people go out and get raped/killed/whatever because they are not of that fittest group...

Don't tell me there haven't been times when you lost common sense. I can tell you that I have, even in subjects like dating and money (especially in dating, but then again... well, it's not the same type of not having common sense;)...)

quote:
Again, that would be common sense....and now approaching the second "billy club" scenario.


Ok, I see where that point might not have been too valid... but it shows you that online dating can be done safely, so there shouldn't be any problem with it...

Going back to why online dating. There is a TV show called "How I Met Your Mother" which I have started to watch with some friends. Describes the path of a guy in finding "the one" and basically he is telling his kids how he met their mother. Basically, what I am trying to say is that sometimes no matter how much you try you can't find someone who fits you, so you try looking outside of your normal area... there are 300 million people in the US, lets say about half women, and, how many would be the person's age (any age group...)...
I don't have any statistics or anything, but there are many, too many to go one by one looking... I am the last person to defend the idea of online dating (when my friends are gonna see this they will be shocked...) but it does have good uses...

quote:
as they dont come crying to the taxpayers to help them out because something bad happended, then I dont care


Maybe thats what this is for, being able to say "don't come crying to us, we told you so". In that case, it wouldn't be a bill as flawed as some people make it seem!


RE: Figures
By RandomStyuff on 11/26/2007 5:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, now that I have reread the article I understand why it is flawed. I guess I some how skipped that part when reading it the first time...

Still, it is probably a small step forward in the awareness of the problem with online dating.


RE: Figures
By rcc on 11/26/2007 7:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Disagree, I prefer "survival of the fittest" approach. If we keep bailing those people out,


Ah, natural selection. Unfortunately with all the current protective laws we are selecting for stupidity. And people then complain that that is the result. Go figure.

Where children are involved however, it shouldn't be law, it should be parental direction. We try to bring them up such that natural selection would work in their favor, if it were allowed to work at all.


RE: Figures
By Haven Bartton on 11/26/2007 2:35:35 PM , Rating: 3
There are dangers with online dating, of course, but are they really any more than meeting someone at a bar? At least when you're online you're (typically) sober and physically distant from the person. And webcams can help compensate for the whole "40-year old man" cheat.

I think online dating sites work best for people with very specific interests who are looking for specific types of people they wouldn't typically run into during their day.


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 2:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think online dating sites work best for people with very specific interests who are looking for specific types of people they wouldn't typically run into during their day.

Exactly:
A) Like when a 40 yr old man who is a sexual predator posing as a 20 yr old college boy, finds a 19 yr old college girl who is actually another 40 yr old sexual predator.

B) Freak seeks out other Freak - because neither or accepted in normal society (outside of San Fransisco of course)


RE: Figures
By vhx on 11/26/2007 3:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Lol. Do you honestly think everyone online looking for a partner is a scumbag or liar? If so, you yourself has failed the common sense check. People DO take precautions these days.


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 3:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you honestly think everyone online looking for a partner is a scumbag or liar?

Probably not...but i would rather not find out. Either way, its quite obvious that either A)they lack much needed social skills and are hiding behind a computer, or B)there is something wrong with them.

quote:
If so, you yourself has failed the common sense check.

Quite laughable. Back to your online Craigslist dating you freakin weirdo.

quote:
People DO take precautions these days.

And 14 year olds never get pregnant these days. Hey, heres an idea...lets give out forms of contraceptives in a public schools to kids who are too young to legally have sex to begin with!

That was just another form of a "government" agency creating a law for something instead of teaching what is right and wrong - its a cop out of self responsibility.


RE: Figures
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/26/2007 4:00:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Hey, heres an idea...lets give out forms of contraceptives in a public schools to kids who are too young to legally have sex to begin with!


Here's another idea. Ignore the fact that it happens, and that it will continue to happen, so we can pay for these children out of our hard earned paychecks. I agree education is paramount, but I think this is a bad example. As the saying goes, kids will be kids. If they ARE going to have sex, I would rather they be provided with some form of protection than nothing at all. It's not like the kids who know better are going to start having sex just because they can get some free condoms.

Vanilla


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 4:07:00 PM , Rating: 3
The school is not the childs parent or guardian, and should not be supplying contraceptives to students. The school is there to teach & educate - not to govern and rule.

Its a very good example of the some people wanting the government to make choices for everyone. Even when it means promoting activies that are actually illegal.


RE: Figures
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/26/2007 4:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think the parent/guardian is doing their job if at 14 their child is having sex? This is not "governing or ruling" either, as you put it. These children are not being forced to do anything. A service is made "available" and it is up to them whether to make use of it. No one is forcing these kids to strap on a condom and make like stoned test bunnies. Also, how is it illegal for two 14 year-old teenagers to be having consentual sex? I'm not saying it's right, but I don't think it's breaking the law.


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 4:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
Because in the state in which that law has been passed, it is considered illegal for anyone under the age of 15 to have sex at all - regardless of the age of the partner.

THey are not only putting condoms & BIRTH CONTROL PILLS in the high school, but also the middle school. THe parent has to sign a consent form that gives the student (age 10, 11, 12, 14, etc) permission to see and be treated by the nurse. That form also gives the nurse the power to give the student condoms and birth control - outside of the parents permission - and keeps the "patient confidentiality agreement" so the nurse doesnt even have to tell the parents that she put their daughter on birth control.

Now tell me how that is not governing someones child?! If the person is not of legal age or is still a minor, then the parent is responsible for all aspects of the child...including what types, if any, of contraceptives they want to give the child.... not the school.


RE: Figures
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/26/2007 4:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
THe parent has to sign a consent form


It's not governing someone's child because there was still CHOICE involved. The parent has to sign the consent form, as you stated. If it's not signed, it's not an issue.

BTW, which state is it you're speaking of?

Vanilla


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 4:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
How can you even say that? Do you know what the point of a school nurse is? To give basic medical attention in the case of an emergency. If a child is throwing up, the nurse can lay them down, and give them a cool rag to settle down until the parents pick them up. If a students gets hurt in gym class, the nurse can provide attention until the ambulance arrives.

The nurse is not even a full registered doctor to be able to write prescriptions, much less give out birth control pills.

THe problem is that the consent form is all or nothing. Either let the nurse do whatever she wants, or your child is not allowed to have any medical attention at all - even if he/she falls and breaks their leg.

And I believe this is happening in Maine - it was all over the news several weeks back.


RE: Figures
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/26/2007 4:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
THe problem is that the consent form is all or nothing. Either let the nurse do whatever she wants, or your child is not allowed to have any medical attention at all - even if he/she falls and breaks their leg.


Proof. I think this is BS. Please prove me wrong.

Vanilla


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 5:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ask and you shall receive...
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S229914.shtml?cat=...

Good enough?


RE: Figures
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/26/2007 5:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
NO

quote:
THe problem is that the consent form is all or nothing. Either let the nurse do whatever she wants, or your child is not allowed to have any medical attention at all - even if he/she falls and breaks their leg.


I want definitive proof of THIS statement. Your link provided no such proof. It was simply a link to a news story about the school and the issue. No DEFINITIVE proof
of your statement. Please try again.

Vanilla


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 5:58:14 PM , Rating: 1
LOL always have to be difficult.

"Students need parental permission to access the school's health center. But treatment is confidential under state law, which allows the students to decide whether to inform their parents about the services they receive."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/18/middleschool....

You can believe or not believe what you want, but the facts are the facts. Go ahead and do some searching and you'll see much more information. But its been on all news channels with the details.


RE: Figures
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/26/2007 6:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
I saw this, but it's more of a blanket statement IMO. I would like to see a copy of the consent form, or just more specific info on it's contents. I looked myself, and I can't find it. Either way, good debate for a conservative who wears $300 jeans. LOL.

Vanilla


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 6:03:45 PM , Rating: 1
Hey, some are more than $300 jeans. And I love being conservative.

But that really plays no part in the parents actually raising their own children and making their children's decisions for them until they are adults....as opposed to a school/government.


RE: Figures
By vhx on 11/26/2007 6:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Probably not...but i would rather not find out. Either way, its quite obvious that either A)they lack much needed social skills and are hiding behind a computer, or B)there is something wrong with them.

I don't get it. Are you honestly throwing everyone who has looked for someone online into those two categories? How stereotypical of you. I honestly don't even know how to respond to that close minded statement.

quote:
Quite laughable. Back to your online Craigslist dating you freakin weirdo.

Your retort is quite laughable. Who said I was Craiglist dating, or have even met anyone from online? Possibly the dumbest assumption I have ever seen. Clearly everyone who does not have the same opinion as you is a 'freakin weirdo', right? Grow up.

quote:
And 14 year olds never get pregnant these days. Hey, heres an idea...lets give out forms of contraceptives in a public schools to kids who are too young to legally have sex to begin with!

You missed the point entirely. Yes, there are some psychotic crazy people online, just as there are offline. (Oh nohs!) It is foolish and idiotic to assume all people online dating sites are all socially inept or weirdo internet stalker types because of a select few. Going by your logic all Middle Easterners are terrorists.


RE: Figures
By masteraleph on 11/26/2007 4:14:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You mean like the people who respond to those "one night sexual encounter" ads on craigslist? people need to get out more - go meet someone in person at a bar, park, restaraunt, work, etc. online dating is mainly for people who either a)make excuses that they are too busy, when really they are losers who do not know how to talk to the opposite sex, or b)people who wont try to pick someone up in person because there is something wrong w/ them.


There is a third possibility, which is that they are interested in a particular type of person. This is the reason that things such as JDate have decent success rates- you're going to go to JDate if you want to date a Jew, and the site is generally filtering out non-Jews (or at least those not interested in dating Jews) for you. The same applies for, say, African American dating (particularly for the college educated or more level), or for other groups. Heck, even a dating site for people whose favorite book is Tale of Two Cities (God help them) would probably be useful. Where it does fall flat is general websites which are not particularly self-selecting.


RE: Figures
By Lord 666 on 11/26/2007 10:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
Have to agree with you about online dating being lame with people needing to go out more.

But having grown up in NJ, these criminal backfground checks would be useful for online daters. Remember, NJ also started Megan's Law online databases so this could be a coming trend.


RE: Figures
By FITCamaro on 11/26/2007 2:27:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I've made really stupid mistakes which I now regret, and now seem like common sense, and I'm sure you and everyone else here has too...


Uh yeah. Thats called learning. And it was his point. Let people make the mistakes. Then they won't do it again. And they'll teach others not to make the same mistake. The government shouldn't try to shield its citizens from real life by making laws.


RE: Figures
By tjr508 on 11/26/2007 3:08:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If there wasn't a need, I doubt we would have seen this law!


Oh yeah. This is because all of our laws are completly needed.

I mean God-forbid I get an infection and want to take some Penicillin without spending a half a week's pay on a half-hour doctor visit. How could all of those starving doctors get paid then?

Next time I get in a wreck, I can thank those seatbelt laws for ensuring that only the opposing car hits me. I need not wory about an unrestrained body becoming a projectile as well.

Also, since everyone hates smoke so much and America's bisiness owners just don't get simple economics that non-smoking venues get so much more business, I can thank the thousands of communities for seizing the property rights of those retarded business owners.

Finally, if some nitwit decides to walk home after a night of drinking (even the law knows that you're better off driving) and gets caught relieving himself behind a dumpster in an ally somewhere, do you really want this guy hooking up with your sister on myspace?

This is just one more of the required steps needed to turn America into one big happy family. Deal with it.


RE: Figures
By sweetsauce on 11/26/2007 3:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
I consider myself pretty liberal in most things, but this is the one thing that drives me nuts about liberals. Im tired of either having my rights crippled or having to pay some damn agency to babysit because people are too stupid to make either common sense decisions, or are too lazy to parent their children. I heard a comic once say that the problem with society today is that we have too many stupid people and no one to eat them, and i totally agree with him. Our society has completely done away with survival of the fittest, and our generation today shows exactly what happens when you do that. Theres a show called weird science that was talking about the old chemistry kits kids used to get in the 50s that had actual chemicals for kids to play with and experiment, and then they interviewed scientists that said those kits are what inspired them to become scientists. Today, scientists can't even get their hands on the same chemicals in those kits without the FBI getting involved, because it can be deemed "dangerous" or god forbid it can be used to make an "explosive". I miss the good ol days of kids blowing up their hands with fireworks. I don't know about you, but thats how i learned not to be stupid with fireworks. Its time to stop coddling everyone already, its getting old.


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 3:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
For being a "liberal", you really dont seem to get the liberal concept - just in my eyes.

quote:
having to pay some damn agency to babysit because people are too stupid to make either common sense decisions

Liberals want the "nanny government" because they believe that government can make better decisions than its own people. Healthcare anyone? Social Security? Retirement investments?
quote:
Our society has completely done away with survival of the fittest

Of course it has, because liberals are turning into little socialites in that they want an even playing field for everyone - therefore there would be no "fittest". We'd all be the same!
quote:
Its time to stop coddling everyone already, its getting old.

Welfare, redistribution of wealth? Now that's coddling.

Not trying to offend you, but you really dont sound like you back the typical liberal stances.


RE: Figures
By sweetsauce on 11/26/2007 4:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
Typical conservative answer. I completely understand since putting everyone that has any kind of "liberal" idea under one umbrella is good for your agenda. I suggest taking a reading comprehension course.
quote:
I consider myself pretty liberal in most things
I know conservatives want to believe that all us evil "liberals" all share the same exact ideas, but that isn't true. I can go either way on any topic since im a human being able to think for myself but that might be hard for you to comprehend.


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 4:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
So are you playing the left vs. right terminology war - or were you planning on any type of competent responding to any of the examples that were clearly laid out for you?

Must have been that part where i complimented that you didnt act like a typical liberal that is setting you off....


RE: Figures
By sweetsauce on 11/26/2007 4:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry i couldn't get past the part where you assumed since i consider myself a liberal i can't have the viewpoint that more government is bad. Theres really no winner ever in the left vs right terminology war as you put it, since everyone involved usually come off as asses. No hard feelings.


RE: Figures
By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 5:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
I never said you couldnt have your own viewpoint, I was saying by some of your phrases that it did not sound like you backed the typical liberal viewpoints. Now whether I'm wrong and you do back them is your choice, but it didnt sound like you did. In fact, on governmental issues, you sounded more like a conservative - but perhaps your liberal side may be targeted towards more social issues.


RE: Figures
By sweetsauce on 11/26/2007 5:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
Its probably because im not a liberal, but on most things i tend to stand on the side of the "liberals". Just using the terms liberal/conservative makes me feel stupid.


This has potential...
By Screwballl on 11/26/2007 2:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
... but not in its current form. There needs to be some way for linking the persons name, criminal record, ISP connection and other online services to one person. This way they can use any name they want publicly that is seen by others but the secured records in the database show who it really is to prevent sexual predators and inmates from joining and soliciting minors or stalking. Also tying this information into one location would allow an ISP to get a legal lock on a specific persons attempt to browse anything that they were convicted of whether it is a child porn addict or sexual predator or even online games that caused their child to die from malnutrition ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289331,00.html )

Also another thing they need to do on these sites with the above information is lock down any profile that is under 18 so that no one but that individual can see it without multiple verification methods such as an ok from a parent who is also registered with the service. This way there is a secured ID of some sort that can differentiate from the parent and the child (and not just some predator acting like the "kids" parent to get access to this stuff).

Its one thing to claim your privacy is at risk but with so many predators online, there needs to be a sort of checks and balances with these online "social" type of sites including open forums. I am not saying that DT needs to get everyones personal info to post here but forums and other social type sites do. What reason would a 40 year old guy have to join a "Bratz" forum except to either monitor his own child OR join as a kid himself and be the sexual predator he has been convicted of. As long as the information is behind 512bit encryption on a linux server so that it is only accessed when I enter it and I come back clean then I have no worries. Any other access to my information should require a written signature or other legal means, not just whenever the site owner chooses to review it but also secure enough that not just any hacker can get in and steal peoples info.




RE: This has potential...
By clovell on 11/26/2007 2:16:40 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree. The checks and balances need to happen in your brain, not in a computer.


RE: This has potential...
By Screwballl on 11/26/2007 3:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
with the obvious dumbing down of society, you should know this will not happen. If someone is so mentally unstable to be a convicted sex offender or rapist, whos to say they have the right to join any website where kids or "prey" may have profiles?
Many of us here on DT and part of the technology based community may have the knowledge and common sense to not put our personal information online but the majority of people do not. This is why 56% of peoples computers in the US are part of a botnet spreading viruses and spam. If they can't protect their own computer with a simple antivirus program, how are they to know to not put personal info and pictures online? AND pass that along to their kids who have these myspace profiles showing the 14 year old daughter in a bikini with her friends... This is the protection that is needed. If you can't educate them, then at least protect them.


RE: This has potential...
By sweetsauce on 11/26/2007 4:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
Funny you mention convicted sex offenders and rapist. Theres your solition right there without needing any extra legislation. Instead of putting johnny pothead in jail for selling weed, maybe we should lock up these convited sex offenders and rapist for life. To me that is the more logical solution.
quote:
whos to say they have the right to join any website where kids or "prey" may have profiles?
I think the bill of rights does? Or is the Constitution? Possibly an ammendment? I always get confused since I always hear conflicting information.


School house rock FTW!!!!
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/26/2007 1:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
And also, I don't see what the big deal is. Maybe I'm young and jaded, but since when has the majority of state legislation been useful or effective?

Theres tons of trash laws like this, which politicians can play to line their jacket pockets with, with such lines as "I made the internet a safer place."




RE: School house rock FTW!!!!
By Machinegear on 11/26/2007 1:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
I hear ya. Woman legislator makes another law abridging your freedoms in favor of the nanny state... literally. Nothing new here... move along!

Politicians on a daily basis ignore current laws allowing criminality then create new laws to fix the old ones that were ignored.


RE: School house rock FTW!!!!
By sweetsauce on 11/26/2007 5:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Woman legislator makes another law abridging your freedoms in favor of the nanny state
So funny, yet so true. I miss the old days where laws were passed based on logic, not on one's emotional state. Typical woman's reasoning "omg rape is so bad, i couldn't imagine ever being raped, it would be so sad. I know, lets pass every law imaginable taking all accountability away from women so that rape will never happen." Meanwhile, a typical logical person sees the same rape problem and thinks, "I know there are people out there that are sick in the head and can't/won't control themselves, but can we also see if theres something that can be done on the victim's side of things to help prevent rape and/or sexual molestation from happening?" I know i know, im evil for think the victim could ever contribute to their own rape right?


RE: School house rock FTW!!!!
By jhinoz on 11/26/2007 8:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
Plenty of stupid laws... remins me of this... here's Britain's top ten stupid laws, as voted by 4000 of their own countrymen:

1. It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament (27 per cent)

2. It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside down (7 per cent)

3. In Liverpool, it is illegal for a woman to be topless except as a clerk in a tropical fish store (6 per cent)

4. Mince pies cannot be eaten on Christmas Day (5 per cent)

5. In Scotland, if someone knocks on your door and requires the use of your toilet, you must let them enter (3 per cent)

6. A pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants, including in a policeman's helmet (4 per cent)

7. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the king, and the tail belongs to the queen (3.5 percent)

8. It is illegal to avoid telling the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing (3 per cent)

9. It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament in a suit of armour (3 per cent)

10. In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow (2 per cent)

- AFP


And?
By clovell on 11/26/2007 1:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
> The flawed part of the bill comes in the fact that to satisfy the bill’s “Criminal Background screening” all a site has to do is a simple name search via a regularly updated government public records database or a database maintained by a private vendor. Any user of the Internet and social networking or dating sites knows that many users don’t provide their real names. The bill makes no provisions for dating services to check backgrounds via information that like social security numbers and to corroborate the data to be sure the member is who they claim to be.

Anybody can use a fake name online - but what can you do about it? Require SSNs to use online dating or social networking sites? No way. People guard their SSNs with their life.

Any type of verification system on social networking sites will run into the same problem. When people sign up for a free site or service, they expect a certain degree of privacy, if not anonymity. Most people don't even list contact information beyond an e-mail address, if that, on social networking sites. I can't imagine how users could have their identities verified without the majority jumping ship.

Dating sites are another matter as they require payment. They have the name on your credit card, and can run that through scans.




On the Money
By Mitch101 on 11/26/2007 2:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
I run an online dating site I started about a year ago. It no less has NJ involved in the title. Yes I know poor use of the name.

http://www.NJDevil.Com

I used to have a few hundred people on the site then I started receiving numerous complaints on the site. I must have hit someone's radar. Looking through the complaints I discovered that the majority of people recently added on the site were sending Nigerian e-mail scams within my site. The rest were probably collecting e-mail addresses for people looking for love. I had to kill several hundred accounts on the site trying to get the site to be legitimate. Most other legitimate people wanted to be removed from the site during this cleansing period. Now there are hardly any accounts. While I feel the site is close to 100% legitimate users the site is pretty much dead. These Nigerian e-mail people have killed my site.
Now I have to resort to locking the site and approving everyone individually to cut back on the number of scammers registering on the site. I must I get at least 3-8 requests for accounts that are definitely fraudulent. Start ups like this have a tough time getting off the ground for one you cant charge anyone because you don't have the base like large dating sites. Second you make it free and that's a welcome calling to the scum of the earth.

I wish I could hold them accountable because these scammers did cause my site irreversible damage. Its not a great site by any means but its distubing none the less.

I will probably redefine the site into something else if it doesnt turn around in the next couple of months but havent decided what to make of it next. Maybe I should sell it? Good Domain names are hard to come by today.




"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki