Woxidu

Ars Technica ran an article this morning about a piece of New Jersey legislation requiring that dating sites inform users in NJ about the fact that criminal background checks are not required for membership. The Internet Dating Safety Act tells dating sites that they have to send big, bold, ugly disclaimers on every piece of email sent to an NJ user and show them on every NJ users’ profile. And, as an extra “gotcha” safety measure, sites that do perform criminal background checks would still need to post disclaimers saying that criminal background checks are, in fact, not infallible and that users should still be wary. There’s so many things wrong with this, I hardly know where to begin.

The biggest real problem in passing a law like this is that people will take it too seriously. It’s got all this press, all these high-powered politicians behind it, and such a mighty title (what could be more to the point than “Internet Dating Safety Act?”) that it’s sure to catch the attention of countless parents whose hip young children are hopping on the internet dating scene. So much behind it, when the act really doesn’t do anything to stop criminals from using these sites. The laughable criteria offered for “criminal background check” betrays a decrepit stab at true security, while seemingly trying hard to maintain the facade of an effective defensive measure. Have Americans picked the illusion of security over security itself? Maybe.

The next thing that bugs me is that, for some reason, this sort of legislation is necessary for an internet dating site, but unnecessary for a bar, concert, or restaurant. The argument could be made that since an internet dating site represents a more powerful tool for finding people than any of those otherwise mentioned, then we should restrict access to this tool. But regardless, the same caution taken at a bar could still be used to defend yourself:

On top of that, what’s wrong with meeting up with someone you’ve met online at a coffee shop? Are the odds better that this person you’ve met online has nefarious intentions than they are of the average coffee shop patron? If so, does this person have an advantage in accomplishing these intentions than the average coffee shop patron?

That said, I’m still confused about how the law is supposed to accomplish any of what it seems to be attempting. Americans definitely do want warnings, and seem to feel more secure as a consequence of more warnings. But aren’t the warnings what scare you in the first place? If it hadn’t crossed your mind that a person you just met in a bar hadn’t taken a criminal background check before entering (enforced by the bouncer at the door, I imagine) then a big sign on the door reading, “WE DO NOT PERFORM CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS AT THIS BAR” would probably only scare you into thinking that more bars ought to have their bouncers doing criminal background checks. Is that really where we want to go with this?

In the end, I expect that laws like this are a reaction to threats whose true urgency has been exaggerated. The game of meeting people isn’t really any different than it’s always been, and the same security considerations apply. Judge people for yourself; go out with people you feel comfortable with; and be careful drinking things that strangers give you.

Internet Dating Safety Act (PDF)