Online Dating Background Checks Debated

Web Site Operators Divided Over How To Screen Cyber Love Birds

(AP)  As Valentine's Day approaches, all is not lovey-dovey in the high-stakes online dating industry.

The contentious issue of the moment - pitting one of the three biggest companies, True.com, against its major rivals - is whether online dating services can enhance their clients' safety by conducting criminal background screenings of would-be daters.

Last month, New Jersey became the first state to enact a law requiring the sites to disclose whether they perform background checks. True.com - the only large online dating service that already does such screenings - was elated by its successful lobbying and hopes other states will follow suit.

"The online dating industry tends to get a real bad rap, because of criminal activity," said True.com's founder and chief executive, Herb Vest. "If we were to clean up, there's hordes of off-line singles who'd come online to find their soul mate."

The pitch appeals to women like Jayne Hitchcock of York, Maine, who was victimized by three years of online harassment and cyberstalking in late '90s after someone assumed her identity and sent sexually explicit messages. When Hitchcock later decided to try online dating, she turned to True.com.

"There are people out there looking for a site where they'd feel a little bit safer," said Hitchcock, who recently met her fiance on True.com.

However, Vest's many critics in the industry say he is acting mostly out of self-interest. They contend that True.com's screening method - running names through state databases of criminal records

is incomplete and too easily thwarted, potentially creating a false sense of security for customers.

"It's so superficial that it's worthless," said Braden Cox, policy counsel with NetChoice, a coalition of e-commerce companies that includes Yahoo, AOL and other major players in online dating.

Match.com, one of largest dating services, said it had been assessing online background checks for six years and concluded they offered no extra protection.

"Match.com is disappointed New Jersey has enacted a flawed and unconstitutional law and we will explore opportunities to challenge it," a company statement said.

Even sponsors of the New Jersey bill conceded it was imperfect, but suggested it would at least make online daters more aware of security concerns.

There are no authoritative national statistics on serious crimes arising from online dating, but such cases periodically make headlines. A Philadelphia man, Jeffrey Marsalis, was accused of raping several women he met through Match.com, and was sentenced in October to at least 10 years in prison. A Cleveland firefighter, George Greer, was indicted last June for raping a woman he met through an Internet dating site.

An online dater in New York City, actor/musician Franca Vercelloni, said background screenings "couldn't hurt matters" but should not be a reason for dropping one's guard.

"You're not going to rely on what you learn from the online profile anyway," said Vercelloni, who's in her late 20s. "Dating in New York City is just as hard as trying to get a job or an apartment. You have to take a risk."

The New Jersey law, similar to ones considered in other states, will require online dating services to notify their customers in the state whether criminal background screenings have been conducted.

If a dating service doesn't perform such screenings, it must acknowledge that in large capital letters in every electronic communication with members from New Jersey, who would be identified by zip codes they provide when registering. Details of the notification rules are still being worked out.

Services that do conduct screenings must disclose that fact and say whether they allow people with criminal convictions to use the site. Those services also must note that background checks are not foolproof, but that disclaimer doesn't have to be displayed as prominently as the disclosure by companies that don't do screenings.

Critics say the type of screening envisioned by the law - checking for a particular name in databases of criminal convictions

has inherent flaws: users could give fake names, and many dangerous people may not be in the databases. Methods used in more probing background checks - such as fingerprint scans and research into employment records and Social Security numbers - are not required by the law.

More broadly, some worry that New Jersey's action will push other states to regulate the online dating industry, creating a hodgepodge of laws that will drive up operating costs and force some companies out of business. Some in the industry say they'd prefer federal legislation addressing background checks, rather than a patchwork of state laws.

Huge sums are at stake. Projections by Jupiter Research, an Internet consultancy, suggest the online dating market now totals $700 million or more, and Online Dating Magazine estimates that more than 20 million people visit online dating services each month.

A relative newcomer - founded in 2003 - Dallas-based True.com has drawn attention with racy ads as well as background screenings. Avowedly for singles only - not straying spouses - it claims to be the only dating service that checks on marital status as well as criminal convictions.

"We can't guarantee that criminals can't get on our site, but we can guarantee that they'll be sorry they did," the site declares. "We report violators to appropriate federal, state and local authorities, including parole boards."

[grammawhamma]

IMO criminal background checks should be made available, free of charge, on the internet to the general public. Wisconsin circuit court records are open to look at...I have checked out the boyfriends of my four daughters this way. My kids didn''t always listen but the guys with lenghty records ended up to be bad news. Now my daughters check the guys out themselves on this site before they get invovled.

[rf35]

This is so useless. I did a little test. I signed up for an on-line dating site using a false, common name. The site required a reply to a "confirmation" e-mail to complete registration. I set up a Hotmail account under said false name and "poof," the profile was posted. If a background check really was done for the name I used, I''m sure the flood of matches for such a common name would have left me labeled as "unverifiable" at best. There is at least one site that will do an "identity verification" by actually having you reply to a snail mail letter. Not sure what this does except verify that you actually live somewhere, but it doubtless gives singles a false sense of security.
Really, if you''re going to pass a law making dating web sites disclose whether they did a background check, you should have bars do the same...if they don''t run ID checks on their patrons, they must say so in a huge sign above the door! It should be the individual%u2019s responsibility to make sure they are not dating a felon no matter where they meet him or her. Of course, seeing how many people refuse to take any responsibility for their kids%u2019 safety on-line, why should they be expected to do so for their own?

[panton41-2009]

As a use of online dating sites, I agree that it is WAY too easy to falsify information (in fact nearly everyone does it) so merely searching a database of names would be worthless. Not to mention while I have a fairly uncommon name, what about all of the "John Smiths" out there with such common names that a false positive using their real name is an almost 100 percent chance?

Given they cannot legally ask for your social security number, which should identify you to you, this is a worthless law that will only make it harder for these companies to operate in a VERY competitive market.

[walt1944-2009]

The Great Emperor Bush II is excited about the prospect of background checks being done on all those who use an online dating service to find someone they hope is special.

To the Great Emperor, it means nothing that there are lonely people out there looking for affection or sickos looking for something else; what matters to the Great Emperor Bush II is that there will be additional information flooding into his already bulging databases on citizens of the US(SA).

The Great Emperor justifies this by stating that lonely people can be "terrrrrrrorists" too!

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!

[shanev137]

I think it''s a good idea.

Most of the women these days can''t be trusted and should have background checks run on them.