This gem of an article by Declan McCullagh outlines a lobbying strategy by an Internet dating service corporation seeking legislation to require criminal background checks for "social referral services." McCullagh does a great job slashing holes in the specifics of this proposal, so I will leave that to him. Briefly, this proposal would require a warning -- in a 12-point font -- that no background check was conducted, perhaps giving an advantage to True.com. It already runs such checks; in fact this check and a marriage scan are its business model.
The rationale for the law is quite different though. True.com claims 20% of Internet users think some dating sites already run these checks. That's right -- 20%. I am just dying to see this survey. They must have rounded up the 5% of Internet users who enjoy spam. I thought everyone was deathly afraid of questionable suitors on Internet dating and feared the lack of screening. Certainly anyone who has gotten a few responses from a posting has filtered out some chaff. That's what the entire True.com business is based on. So tell me True.com: is the market (you) fixing this need or is there no need because the mistaken perception -- so dangerous we must warn everyone in 12-point font -- is that it is already occuring?