Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media Government The Courts Businesses News Your Rights Online

True.com Wants Warnings On Personal Ads 418

Posted by timothy from the parliament-of-whores dept.
An anonymous reader submits "News.com.com is reporting that personals company True.com is behind a push in several state legislatures to require everyone but them to include scary looking warnings above personals ads. I'm sure they're not the first, but this looks like a particularly slimy way to corner a market. And the unintended consequences look big, too: by my read of the proposed law, even Slashdot would need to include the warnings above user profile pages." In just a few weeks, this would sound like an April Fool's joke. I hope every legislator to whom this is being shopped is sent a copy of Declan's counter-example.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

True.com Wants Warnings On Personal Ads More

True.com Wants Warnings On Personal Ads

Comments Filter:
  • what are you talking about?
    • From TFA:
      "Warning: TRUE.COM'S background searches will not identify criminals using fake names. And the cost to run them may be passed on to you."
      case changed to lower case to avoid lameness filter

      He is suggesting that if the bill is passed that true.com be required to post a similar "truth in advertising" notice.

    • Re:declan's counter- what? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jangobongo ( 812593 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:58PM (#11808686)
      what are you talking about?

      I believe that what's being referred to is Declan McCullagh's (the author of the above article) counter example:
      • It would be just as easy to argue that True.com should be required to post labels on each page: "WARNING: TRUE.COM'S BACKGROUND SEARCHES WILL NOT IDENTIFY CRIMINALS USING FAKE NAMES. AND THE COST TO RUN THEM MAY BE PASSED ON TO YOU."
      in response to True.com CEO Herb Vest's proposal:
      • Those sites would be required to stamp this stark warning atop every e-mail and personal ad, in no less than 12-point type: "WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL."

  • Awww.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by muka3D ( 858875 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:42PM (#11808559)
    So I won't be a 20-year old stud with massive guns anymore? Those were the days...

    Oh, I gotta go... The warden says my turn's up.

    • Re:Awww.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by elasticwings ( 758452 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:17PM (#11808801)
      "We found that 20 percent of Internet users believe that some of the larger dating services do background checks when in fact they do not. We believe there's a false sense of security out there that needs to be corrected through disclosure." I can't believe that only 20% of people are that stupid. The number should be way higher than that.

  • That's ok (Score:2, Funny)

    by GoClick ( 775762 )
    You elected em, you should trust them to watch out for you right?
    • That's the idea. Glad to see you're coming around to the idea of representative government.

    • Re:That's ok (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gessel ( 310103 )
      I wrote to my state senator:

      I read with tremendous dismay that True.com has managed to bribe at least one assemblymember into introducing their special interest legislation. I assume it will be crushed immediately, it's just so astonishingly moronic. My confidence in democracy would be somewhat improved if Fran Pavley is removed from office as expeditiously as possible. It's incomprehensible to me that anyone could be so naive and stupid as to believe that this legislation is in the public interest or

  • I'm way ahead of them. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Crowhead ( 577505 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:44PM (#11808577)
    With my fancy new sig.
    • Dude, you are going to swamped with chicks from true.com in about 5 minutes.
    • WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL

      But with a beowulf cluster of these, WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEARCH THE WHOLE LOT OF YOU! YOU JUST WAIT AND SEE. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!

    • Re:I'm way ahead of them. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ayaress ( 662020 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:01PM (#11808706) Journal
      Is that sig 12-point, though?

      Anyway, the law strikes me as kind of stupid. Something I found noteworthy from the article is that True.com's searches apparantly don't catch criminals who are using fake names. This makes me wonder what data they search by.

      Background searches just by name are possible, but they aren't reliable. For a simmilar slashdot thread, I decided to start putting my name into various sites, and now I know there's a sex offender in my state (Disclaimer: it's not me, so stfu) who happens to have my last name, a slightly different spelling of my first name, and my middle initial. If they're just doing this by name, am I going to get labled as a rapist? There are a lot of people with the same name (There's litterally a half a page in the Saginaw County phone book just for John, Jack, and J. Smiths), so there's the possibility of very humiliating false positives.

      The solution of course would be for them to ask for social security numbers, and we know where that discussion usually leads.
      • so there's the possibility of very humiliating false positives.

        Which means there is the possiblity of a lawsuit, or an out of court cash settlement. . . . yippie.
        • Yes, but if they get a particulary big asshole for a victim of one of those screwups, it means a lot worse than a little lawsuit. It means publicity, loud yelling on TV, and so forth, and a host of copy-cat lawsuits (both justified and not so much). If it comes down to a case where True.com loses their customers' trust on their one unique selling point (the background checks), they've basically lost their business model.

          • Re:I'm way ahead of them. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by shawb ( 16347 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:24PM (#11809179)
            Oddly enough, if True.com is put out of business by a lawsuit stemming from this, that wouldn't change the fact that companies would still have to follow the law. Then all matchmaking sites would be forced to decide between three choices:
            Risk getting suid by customers.

            Risk getting fined by states.
            Just not offering the service from people from those states.
            I wonder if this would get customers to start writing to their representatives if match.com would simply deny anybody from CA. the right to create an account and suspend any accounts from that state with just a message of
            • "Due to article H2732b, Match.com is unable to offer services to your state. Please contact your local representatives by clicking HERE."
            (where here is a link to an automagic form where you just put your name and other info in, and off it goes.)

            Then I guess a better question to ask would be whether or not the representatives actually care about what people write to them, especially in e-mail form.

      • Re:I'm way ahead of them. (Score:5, Funny)

        by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:28PM (#11808872)
        This makes me wonder what data they search by.

        ChoicePoint.
        • I mean, what data are they collecting to do the searches. Just name or maybe address? SSN? Driver's license numbers and looking up many accident's we've been in while they're at it?

    • What about the more fundamental warnings? (Score:5, Funny)

      by fbform ( 723771 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:57PM (#11809059)

      Good Lord! This proposal makes as much sense as the 20th century physics warnings [enchantedmind.com]:

      NOTICE: Due To Its Mass, This Product Warps Space and Time in Its Vicinity.

      WARNING: This Product Attracts Every Other Object in the universe, Including the Products of Other Manufacturers, with a Force Proportional to the Product of the Masses Divided by the Square of the Distance Between Them.

      CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent of 85 Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight. The Manufacturer warrants that this product is to be used only as matter and will not be responsible for injury or damage if it is converted into energy.

      HANDLE WITH CARE: This Product Contains Minute Electrically Charged Particles Moving at Velocities in Excess of Five Hundred Million Miles Per Hour.

      CONSUMER NOTICE: Due to the "Uncertainty Principle," it is impossible for the User to know precisely and simultaneously where this product is located and how fast it is moving.

      ADVISORY: There is an Extremely Remote Chance That, Through a Process Known as "Tunneling," This Product May Spontaneously Disappear from Its Present Location and Reappear at Any Other Place in the Universe, Including Your Neighbor's Domicile. The Manufacturer Will Not Be Responsible for Any Damage or Inconvenience That May Result.

      READ THIS BEFORE OPENING PACKAGE: According to Certain Suggested Versions of the Grand Unified Theory, the Primary Particles Constituting this Product May Decay to Nothingness Within the Next Four Hundred Million Years.

      THIS PRODUCT IS 100% MATTER: In the Unlikely Event That This Merchandise Should Contact Antimatter in Any Form, a Catastrophic Explosion Will Result. The Manufacturer cannot be held responsible for resulting injury or damages.

      PUBLIC NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW: Any Use of This Product, in Any Manner Whatsoever, Will Increase the Aggregate Amount of Disorder in the Universe. Although No Liability Is Assumed Herein, the Consumer Is Warned That This Process Will Ultimately Lead to a state of "Warm Death" of the Universe.

      NOTE: The Most Fundamental Particles in This Product Are Held Together by a "Gluing" Force About Which Little is Currently Known and Whose Adhesive Power, therefore, Can Not Be Guaranteed Indefinitely. No responsibility is therefore assumed for the structural integrity of this product.

      ATTENTION: Notwithstanding Any Listing of Product Contents Found Hereupon, the Consumer is Advised That This Product Actually Consists of 99.9999999999% Empty Space.

      NEW GRAND UNIFIED THEORY DISCLAIMER: While the Manufacturer is Technically Entitled to Claim That This Product Is Ten-Dimensional, the Consumer Is Reminded That This Confers No Legal Rights Above and Beyond Those Applicable to Three-Dimensional Objects, Since the Seven New Dimensions Are "Rolled Up" into Such a Small "Area" That They Cannot Be Detected.

      PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That, When Unobserved, This Product May Cease to Exist or May Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. Therefore all warranties are in effect only while this product is under the direct observation of a human being.

      COMPONENT EQUIVALENCY NOTICE: The Subatomic Particles (Electrons, Protons, etc.) Comprising This Product Are Exactly the Same in Every Measurable Respect as Those Used in the Products of Other Manufacturers, and Competitors' Claims to the Contrary are neither Justified nor Legitimate.

      HEALTH WARNING: Care Should Be Taken When Lifting This Product, Since Its Mass, and Thus Its Weight, Is Dependent on Its Velocity Relative to the User. The manufacturer cannot be held liable for injury or damage resulting from relativistic mass increase.

      IMPORTANT NOTICE TO PURCHASERS: The Entire Physical Universe,Including This Product, May One Day Collapse Back into an Infinitesimally Small Space. Should Another Universe Subsequently Reemerge, the Existence of This Product in That Universe, and its performance and suitability for any purpose, Cannot Be Guaranteed.

      • I want to run a video recorder company now just so I can use this one:

        PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That, When Unobserved, This Product May Cease to Exist or May Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State. Therefore all warranties are in effect only while this product is under the direct observation of a human being.

        and secretly snap video of people glancing back at frantically.

        Nice post!

      • Re:What about the more fundamental warnings? (Score:4, Funny)

        by sir99 ( 517110 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:37PM (#11809833) Journal
        So wait... One ounce of stuff is equivalent to 85 million tons of TNT, hence 85 million tons of TNT is equivalent to 2.3e20 tons of TNT is equivalent to 6.3e32 tons of TNT is equivalent to ... Hmm, that's a lot of TNT!

  • Be Cautious... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Avyakata ( 825132 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:45PM (#11808585) Homepage Journal
    WARNING:

    Personal Profiles may contain personal data. Be warned.

  • WE HAVE NOT CHECK IF THIS ARTICLE IS A DUPE (Score:5, Funny)

    by fembots ( 753724 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:45PM (#11808586) Homepage
    "WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL." Who would want to set up a date after reading that?

    If Slashdot put up "WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CHECK IF THIS ARTICLE IS A DUPE", I'm sure we will still be happily reading and discussing it.
    • Yes, that's just like warning signs on everyday products. I mean most of us still drink coffee even if the cup cover says "Might be hot".

      True.com might have intentions to disadvantage competitors, but it will just result in another silly warning which will be ignored by the broad public.

      Which leads to another point: Is it really necessary to conduct such searches if the legal system and the police are doing their job properly? Might sound naive, but isn't it just as naive to not assume as an individual th
    • Why is GP modded troll and offtopic btw? He has a point, because there must be a line drawn between warnings which have the purpose of informing an individual of dangers which can't be guessed and silly things which you knew before anyways. He might approach this issue in a funny way (because there isn't really a way to take this in a serious manner), but the point is still valid and quite ontopic.

  • It's about time (Score:5, Funny)

    by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) <bittercode@gmail> on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:46PM (#11808589) Homepage Journal
    I worry about all those Foes and Freaks-- I worry about the Fans too. I mean, they are just stalkers in the making-- putting their little colored dots around my name.

    I asked my mom what I should do and she said not to go to 'slushdort' any more but uncle troll said if I don't log in every day and keep visiting him at the holiday inn on week-end he'll hurt mister chips.

    These laws can only make the world a better place. If you are against them, you are against everything that is good.

  • So? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 )
    We put ridiculous warnings on all sorts of things. That's because we've got some truly ridiculous people here.

    If my "Let Darwin sort them out" proposal would gain a little traction we'd all have a great deal more fun with our lives. Although it would seem a bit ironic because of my belief in an alternative theory -- intelligent design -- perhaps bringing a little more intelligence into society would improve our shared experiences a little.

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:56PM (#11808668)
      If my "Let Darwin sort them out" proposal would gain a little traction we'd all have a great deal more fun with our lives....

      We've tried that approach. He mostly just lies there, dead.

    • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ArmchairGenius ( 859830 )
      Well this won't even get enacted, but even if it does I agree: so what.

      The thing I find interesting is that by doing these background checks True.com is really setting itself up for some really nasty lawsuit at some point. They will screw up a check or something like that and something will happen and they will get sued for millions - as they should frankly. I just don't see this marketing ploy (which is all it really is anyway) as paying off in the long run. The other more well known dating services a

  • People lie all the time. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by still_sick ( 585332 ) * on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:47PM (#11808596)
    Especially about themselves.

    No reasonably sensible person "needs" a warning to remind them of this fact.

  • Warning We have not done a check on Herb Vest (Score:5, Funny)

    by srobert ( 4099 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:48PM (#11808603)
    Warning we haven't conducted a background check on Herb Vest of True.com to ascertain whether or not he is an ass-hole.

  • First Amendment Test? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fishbowl ( 7759 )
    How could this kind of law possibly stand up to even the most cursory first amendment test?
    • SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphyzema, and May Complicate Pregnancy.
      • The Surgeon General's Warning is a limitation on commercial speech (i.e. advertising something for sale). Commercial speech, while protected under the First Amendment, does not get as much protection as other types of speech. See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council.

        Not to mention that the tobacco warnings are for a very serious and real threat. Tobacco is proven to cause death in a high percentage of the people who use it. No such statistical link is known to exist be

  • In Addition... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kozar_The_Malignant ( 738483 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:54PM (#11808651)
    We have also not:
    • Verified that the claimed physical attributes bear any relationship to reality,
    • Verified the claimed income bracket,
    • Verified the claimed IQ
    • Verified the claimed negative STD status
    • Verified the claimed unmarried state of the individual
    • Verified the the included photograph is the individual in question or even of the same race, gender, or species.
    As Jules the C once said, "Caveat Fornicator." Meet in a public place and go armed.

    • Re:In Addition... (Score:5, Informative)

      by panaceaa ( 205396 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:28PM (#11808870) Homepage Journal
      Verified the claimed income bracket

      The income bracket thing on Match.com is interesting. Is it primarily used so that people can make sure they're dating the same financial class as them, or for girls or guys to make sure they'll be provided for?

      I have always underestimated my income because I didn't want to attract the wrong type of girl. Plus if I say too high a number, my dates might expect fancy dinners when I'm just as content getting Indian food at a hole-in-the-wall.

      Have any guys here overestimated? Did you get any extra attention?

      I never actually met anyone from match.com in real life. I even subscribed for 3 months and emailed probably 20 different girls. Most didn't reply, and the closest I got to a date was a phone call with a girl who thought the world revolved around her. So if you're thinking about subscribing... don't expect miracles! I think only tall, dark and handsome guys do well online, but they don't really need dating sites anyway!
      • When I was 21 and fresh out of college, I listed my income bracket as around $35,000 and my age correctly. Got nothing. Bumped up the salary and age, and I got a lot better response. Same picture, same profile data, and a more general "Consultant" rather than anything computer-related. See how it works for you.

        The interesting thing is that I moved into an apartment when I had been working for a few months, and the model-gorgeous Italian girl who gave me a tour and did my credit check asked me out. S

      • Re:In Addition... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by shark72 ( 702619 )

        I've used match.com on a few occasions. The most recent time, my income had gone north of $150K, so that's what I chose. I noticed a significant increase in women who wrote to me. This was not a good thing.

        "I never actually met anyone from match.com in real life. I even subscribed for 3 months and emailed probably 20 different girls. Most didn't reply, and the closest I got to a date was a phone call with a girl who thought the world revolved around her. So if you're thinking about subscribing... don'

      • Being successful when dating online is just like being successful at dating in real life - you need to not only be a good catch, but you also have to go after people who will thikn you're a good catch.

        You're part-way there by underestimating your income, if hot money-grubbing bitches are not the kind of women you are interested in. Although to be honest, even most normal women are attracted to a guy who is not por, not because they want money, but because they don't want a guy who wants their money.

        But,

  • The American Way (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mcguyver ( 589810 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:55PM (#11808658) Homepage
    1. Create new laws and impose them on yourself.
    2. Influence new legislation that will force your competition to abide by your bogus laws.
    3. Create a new market by having the government eliminate your competition.
    Sounds like the American way to me...

  • Riiight (Score:4, Funny)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:55PM (#11808661)
    even Slashdot would need to include the warnings above user profile pages

    There is no dating on slashdot, and the only thing people are going to get here is "carpal tunnel" from too much "wrist action."

    If you do have a girl, go away, we don't like you.

  • Liability? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by XorNand ( 517466 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:56PM (#11808664)
    By stating that they *have* done a background check on a person, aren't they assuming liability (at least partially) if the person turns out to be a psycho?

    • Re:Liability? (Score:2, Informative)

      by RmanB17499 ( 829438 )
      Imposed liablity in a contract would only be for costs incurred (such as the dating service, itself) and can not usually be punitive in nature.

      They only claim to carry-out background checks. Not that they will screen users out because of the results, but that they have made the backgroudn check.

      Now, if they fail to do the check or do it in a shoddy way you could argue breach of contract, but then again, the liability would be limited to the amount of the contract and nothing more.

      To argue that they comm

      • Re:Liability? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ocbwilg ( 259828 )
        I'm not sure about that. By stating that they've done a background check, the implication (and certainly the impression that they are trying to convey) is that the individual is "safe". If that individual turns out to be a convicted sex offender who registered under a false name and a patron of True.com gets raped, they would definitely have a case.

        The actual legal technicalities (and certain kinds of logic) might say is that True.com wouldn't be liable. But realistically, if the cornerstone of your ma

  • I don't get it and some FUD. (Score:3, Informative)

    by flithm ( 756019 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:56PM (#11808667) Homepage
    In case anyone else is wondering, like I was, how this can be done in only a few states... the basic idea is that services that don't comply with the law would be fined for only the members belonging to those states.

    This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

    Regardless of that, I think this is another strong case of FUD spreading ./ editors. The proposed bills are different in all 4 states, and I couldn't find much information on them. If the poster really did manage to read them it might have been nice to provide links. Anyway from what I can decipher from TFA it in no way seems as if slashdot would need to include warnings in the profile pages.

    It clearly states that it applies to social referral services. I admit that what the poster suggested could be true depending on the definition, however it really seems like nothing but sensationalism. The article itself points out that the law is meant to apply to companies like friendster.com, and orkut.com.

    Please ./ editors... grow up a little bit.

  • Why stop there? (Score:5, Funny)

    by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:56PM (#11808669) Homepage Journal
    Personally, I won't use an online dating service until they assign a chaperone to every date. I would like my grandmother to sit on the couch between me and my date, just to make sure that nothing bad happens, like touching hands or getting pregnant.

    I'm an innocent girl and I lose my head when the date goes past 8PM.

    Can true.com make sure that my date washes his hand after using the bathroom?

    Oh, now I'm all flustered. I need to sit down. true.com, can you please give me a ride home?
    • I would like my grandmother to sit on the couch between me and my date, just to make sure that nothing bad happens, like touching hands or getting pregnant.

      Oooh,Icky! I just read on the intanet that girls get pregnant from touching your hands!

  • warning (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @07:58PM (#11808688) Homepage
    How about:

    WARNING: This guy whose personal ad you're reading is the kind of paranoid weirdo who does FBI criminal background checks on women he's thinking of dating.

    or

    WARNING: This guy whose personal ad you're reading is the kind of person who thinks government regulation is a good replacement for common sense.

    But seriously, it seems like people have an insatiable appetite for security measures that won't help them, and an intense distaste for security measures that actually might help them.

    My favorite was the little warning on the side of the box of Shredded Wheat that said it contained wheat products.

    • Re:warning (Score:4, Funny)

      by xgamer04 ( 248962 ) <(moc.oohay) (ta) (40remagx)> on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:08PM (#11808738)
      Even better, I've seen some (clear) jars of peanuts state "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS NUTS AND/OR PEANUTS"
      • Though it sounds silly, it's understandable. Some people have severe, as in potentialy leathal, reactions to nuts and peanuts are a specific problem. So, the FDA mandidates that all products that contain them must be clearly labeled as such. They don't bother to make exceptions such as "unless you can see the nuts" or "in the event the product is nothing but peanuts".

        It's just easier and clearer to have a universal requirement. It's not like it costs the manufacturer anything extra to insert the warning in
      • Even funnier on a bag clearly marked as peanuts:
        "THIS PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN NUTS"

        ummm...WTF is supposed to be in there?

    • WARNING: This guy whose personal ad you're reading is the kind of paranoid weirdo who does FBI criminal background checks on women he's thinking of dating.

      Go watch Audition [imdb.com] and then see if you feel that way.

      (Yeah, I know it's just a movie, but I'm still freaked out.)

    • My favorite was the little warning on the side of the box of Shredded Wheat that said it contained wheat products.

      It's much easier for a company to put a warning like this than to deal with the lawsuits, especially considering the large number of people allergic to wheat (and peanuts).

      Also remember that not everything is as it seems with food - Betty Crocker's "Bac-Os" brand "bacon" bits are actually vegan and kosher, containing no meat at all.

  • What about the prison dating sites? (Score:3, Funny)

    by soft_guy ( 534437 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:00PM (#11808697)
    There are several sites where you become pen pals or whatever with prisoners. I would think they wouldn't have to add this text since you do know the person is a felon by the nature of appearing on the site.

  • Total Upfront Disclosure of All Your Past Mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by srobert ( 4099 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:00PM (#11808704)
    How many of you are in a successful relationship that would have never gotten off the ground if you had been required to reveal all of your past upon meeting your mate? When we first meet someone, most of us would like to keep some of our skeletons in the closet, at least until the other has grown to know us as we are now. It would be unfair if a potential new mate's opinion of me were based upon horrible mistakes that I made early in my life.
    • Name: Jane Q. Public

      Background Info:
      Previous Addresses: 123 Main St.
      Previous Names: John Q. Public

    • How many of you are in a successful relationship that would have never gotten off the ground if you had been required to reveal all of your past upon meeting your mate?

      Or as the old saying goes: "People love you despite who you are, not because of who you are."

    • Not to worry. The people who are into thoroughly pre-screening all their potential dates for any past mistakes will die single, frustrated, and lonely, thus breeding the tendency to pre-screen potential dates out of the gene pool. Granted, it'll take a while.
    • "How many of you are in a successful relationship that would have never gotten off the ground if you had been required to reveal all of your past upon meeting your mate?"

      I stalked my current girlfriend for almost 12 months before we got together. She was in a relationship and I spent a lot of time and money carefully crafting a frame up for her boyfriend. When he went to prison on the child prostitution charges I was able to introduce myself to her and comfort her, which was how we ended up getting to

  • http://www.runjoemay.com/contact.asp (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you are in Virginia and have any opinions about this bill, its sponsor is trying to run for Lieutenant Governor. Let him know what you think about it and whether that's what you want in a future Governor of your state.

  • Let the legislators know how stupid this is.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:08PM (#11808739)
    California Sponsor: Asm. Fran Pavley (assemblymember.pavley@assembly.ca.gov [mailto])
    Michigan Sponsor: Rep. Jim Howell (jhowell@house.mi.gov [mailto])
    Texas Sponsor: Sen. John Corona (john.carona@senate.state.tx.us [mailto])
    Virginia Sponsor: Rep. Joe T. May (Del_May@house.state.va.us [mailto])

    Let your voices be heard!
    • Unless you are a registered voter who actually lives in one of these chucklehead's districts, writing them won't do any good. They won't listen.

      If you can't vote for (or against) them, you and your opinions are completely irrelevant to a politician.

    • My letter, is case it helps you:

      Assemblyman Pavley,

      As a California resident, I feel compelled to express my distaste for the bill you have introduced (AB1681) relating to online
      services and disclaimers.

      It is blindingly clear that this bill was written/requested by a single entity, True.com, in furtherance of their business desires. By introducing this bill, you have conscripted the legislative machine for the furtherance of profit of a single entity, which I find unacceptable.

      We do not need forced stat

  • broader is better (Score:4, Funny)

    by mottie ( 807927 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:14PM (#11808777)
    Back when I was single I wished that there were warnings like:

    WARNING PERSON IS USING PICTURE FROM 3 YEARS AGO AND HAS SINCE BECOME ADDICTED TO CHOCOLATE CAKE

    or

    WARNING PERSON HAS NOT BEEN SCREENED FOR EXCESSIVE BODY ODOR

    and finally

    WARNING PERSON HAS AN IQ BELOW 50 AND LOVES TALKING ABOUT THEMSELF

  • I'm not surprised.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Cumshot ( 859434 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:17PM (#11808799)
    Now people will have yet another reason to sue someone for not informing them of what they should figure out by themselves.

    Soon everything will come with a warning label, making warning labels as such obsolete and personal responsibility a thing of the past.

    This is just another instance of "hot coffee; do not spill!" and it truly saddens me to know that some people actually have to be told these things.

  • The Nanny State (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PHAEDRU5 ( 213667 ) <instascreed@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:19PM (#11808816) Homepage
    Does it occur to anyone that the nanny state may be going just a little far.

    The day will come that I drive around drunk in a '95 F-150 with a oil leak pre-installed, smoking unfiltered Camels, eating only at Waffle House, etc., etc., simply to protest this idiocy.
  • I'm pretty sure that TER [theeroticreview.com] does background checks, to make sure that there's no one with a shady past.

  • Let them know what you think! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Fjornir ( 516960 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:22PM (#11808835)
    5215 N. O'Connor, Suite 1600 Irving, TX 75039 1.866-583-TRUE

  • Warning Uncircumcised Male!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Martin Marvinski ( 581860 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:22PM (#11808836)
    Crap. There goes another date. :-(
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Time to illustrate absurdity by being absurd:

    Warning! Persons posting pictures of themselves to personal websites may have personality quirks that cause them to be completely unable to pick up a living, breathing, member of the opposite sex. Or bad breath.

    Warning! Persons posting personal ads with Fark logins may in fact still live in their parent's basement and may compare you to their mothers mercilessly. Or, they may see you and say some dumb shit about "I'd hit it" or "no way those knees are too sh

  • 20% of Internet users... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Steffan ( 126616 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:28PM (#11808873)
    "We found that 20 percent of Internet users believe that some of the larger dating services do background checks when in fact they do not. We believe there's a false sense of security out there that needs to be corrected through disclosure."
    In other news, 20% of internet users believe that clicking on Bonzi Buddy could win them a prize.
  • This aughta solve the problem:
    <html>
    <body bgcolor=#ffffff>
    <font color=#FFFFFF>"WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL."</font>
    <br>
    <img src="kandi.jpg">
    </body>
    </html>

  • Why stop at dating? (Score:4, Funny)

    by clevershark ( 130296 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:42PM (#11808978) Homepage
    I'd certainly like to see that sort of warning on electoral posters.

  • Failed in Virginia (Score:5, Informative)

    by lax-goalie ( 730970 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:54PM (#11809041)

    I saw this one close up. True.com's hired a professional lobbyist to try to push a bill through in Virginia, and it resulted in this: The Online Dating Safety Act, HB2467 [state.va.us]

    I was bird-dogging the House Science and Technology Committee [state.va.us] meeting the day they dealt with it, and had a front-row seat on the results. Even among the most socially conservative legislators, it was seen as a company trying to legislate their business model for competitive purposes. Gotta hand it to the lobbyist, he took the True.com reps to all the right people. But in the end, it didn't really matter. When the bill came up, there was lots of snickering, and the bill died a quick and painless death. [state.va.us]

  • ...where the men are men, the women are men, and the little girls are FBI agents?
  • TRUE.COM's only advantage in the marketplace is the fact that they do background checks. Once this law passes, all online dating services will do background checks, and TRUE.COM will have lost whatever meager advantage they once had.

  • The best part... (Score:4, Funny)

    by I Be Hatin' ( 718758 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:02PM (#11809366) Journal
    ... is that they probably have a patent application submitted for "conducting a safe online meeting place for interested parties by directly and indirectly analyzing the past criminal conduct records of participants in relation to a vast, continually updated registry of sex offenders and criminals". Imagine if their patent is approved and they get these laws passed in several states... Ca-ching!

  • Ohh Cmon (Score:3, Insightful)

    by logicnazi ( 169418 ) <gerdesNO@SPAMinvariant.org> on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:01PM (#11809694) Homepage
    Clearly this isn't really going to pass. It is a PR ploy plain and simple. He probably made some campaign contributions to state legislators and they are paying him back by introducing a bill they will then let die in committee. In the meantime he gets all this free ad space.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close