Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The horror
Next Post: Mark Kirk health update
Posted in:
* Umm, actually, not true…
* From the bill in question…
Provides that if an Internet dating service does not conduct criminal background screenings on its members, the service shall disclose, clearly and conspicuously, to all Illinois members that the Internet dating service does not conduct criminal background screenings.
You may disagree with the bill, and the online dating industry most certainly does, but the proposed legislation wouldn’t mandate criminal background checks. It would just let consumers know that these online folks they’re chatting with haven’t been vetted beyond some questionnaire, if that.
* And keep in mind, this is only a bill. Just because a bill is introduced doesn’t mean it’s gonna pass…
Six years ago, a similar push to provide a modicum of regulation to online dating sites passed the Illinois House and then stalled.
Thousands of bills are introduced in the General Assembly, a tiny handful actually become the law of the land.
Still, I wasn’t aware how big this particular business is…
Nearly one in three Web users isn’t looking online for bargains or jobs.
Some 30% have romance in mind and are surfing the Internet for a boyfriend or girlfriend, according to a new poll.
* Meanwhile, what do you think would happen if a new product was released and we soon found out this horror?…
According to the World Health Organization, [using his product] before the age of 30 increases the risk of skin cancer by 70 percent. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the average age of most [product] customers is between 16 and 24.
If a new product caused a 70 percent cancer risk increase for those under 30, the uproar would be tremendous. And that age range on the product’s principle users would freak out moms everywhere.
But this isn’t a new product. The product in question is tanning booths. So, of course, a big deal is made about Big Brother because those alarming statistics caused some legislators to file a bill…
Banning tanning? Some Illinois law makers want to make tanning beds illegal for anyone under the age of 18.
It’s hard to worship the sun when you haven’t seen it in what seems like weeks.
So high school seniors Madison Meyer and Danielle Angevine are working on their tan the same way they have since age 14.
Again, this is just a bill. It ain’t a law. Not even close. Another bill like it was introduced last year. It went nowhere. No panic needed.
* True?…
The number of people licensed to own guns in Illinois jumped by more than 78,500 last year, possibly fueled by a belief the state was poised to legalize the concealed carry of weapons.
According to figures provided by the Illinois State Police, nearly 1.4 million people had Firearm Owner Identification Cards as of Jan. 1, compared with just over 1.3 million the year before.
Go to the bottom of the story…
Todd Vandermyde, who lobbies in Illinois on behalf of the National Rifle Association, said along with the concealed carry issue, economic instability may be leading people to feel more exposed to violence.
“You can’t put it on any one issue,” Vandermyde said.
It’s just a bill.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 12:02 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The horror
Next Post: Mark Kirk health update
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Do people really need to be told that those they are scanning on Match have not been screened? We do not need to legislate every aspect of common sense. This is simply an attempt by Silverstein to pass any legislation to say he “got something done”.
Comment by Independent Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 12:10 pm
service does not conduct criminal background screenings.
So, will bars post such warnings also? Other places where men and women might meet?
Are legislators still limited to 3 bills they can introduce, or was that a Madigan thing?
One would hope Sen. Silverstein had more pressing constituent needs to resolve. Maybe I should move to his district, if that is the worst thing people there need fixed!
Comment by Pat Collins Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 12:13 pm
Why stop at just online dating?
Should I conclude the person selling me a couch on Craigslist has been vetted not to be a criminal by Craigslist? How about eBay?
What about restaurants I buy Groupons for? How do I know these restaurants are safe? Is Groupon vetting their clients?
Comment by More questions Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 12:15 pm
In watching the twitter feed, blueroomstream tweets about the DCFS corruption “scandal”: “Gov. Office: Legally prohibited from saying why the McEwen case was not made public or why we didn’t announce we asked him to resign.”
I thought it was made public when posted on the IG’s website 10/17/11: http://www2.illinois.gov/oeig/Pages/PublishedOEIGCases.aspx
Direct link: http://www2.illinois.gov/oeig/Documents/10-01182_McEwen_et%20al._10.17.11.pdf
Is that a mistake? Weird.
In reading the report, McEwen definitely should have been fired. That stuff is ridiculous. The non-cooperation with the investigation indicates he likely knew he was wrong, too.
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 12:18 pm
Those tanning booths are nasty. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to protect children from them.
Once you’re an adult, fry yourself in butter and pick up some criminal online - just make sure you’re packing.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 12:20 pm
===So, will bars post such warnings also?===
Somehow, I don’t think that bars also post things like this at their businesses…
===eHarmony remains committed to investigating and understanding what makes long-term relationships successful by conducting ongoing, rigorous scientific research to keep the matching model up-to-date and relevant for domestic and international markets.===
http://www.eharmony.com/about/eharmony
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 12:20 pm
And that’s all the research on dating sites I’m doing for the day. You’ll have to do the rest yourselves, because life is far too short to get busted surfing Match.com at one’s home office.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 12:27 pm
There is an old adage,” You can’t legislate common sense.”
But our GA evidently feels the need to try.
So just to stir the soup a bit - If the GA continues to protect us against all of these ills do they then become responsible if they miss one? Isn’t there a danger when you set yourself up as being the one to protect people from all that’s bad do you then become more responsible to ensure that safety?
Comment by Irish Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 12:27 pm
–You’ll have to do the rest yourselves, because life is far too short to get busted surfing Match.com at one’s home office.–
“Honey, this is business. Don’t ever ask me about my business. In five years, the Cap Fax will be totally legitimate. But there are certain things you cannot know…”
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 12:31 pm
Boy: Woof! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to this Capitol Building here in Washington. But I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?
I’m just a bill.
Yes, I’m only a bill.
And I’m sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it’s a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It’s a long, long wait
While I’m sitting in committee,
But I know I’ll be a law someday
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Comment by Bigtwich Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 12:35 pm
Many people assume the FDA monitors and regulates supplements and/or vitamins. As a result they freely accept the claim(s) of efficacy on these substances, many of which are nothing more than snake oil. When there is a belief that the “state” has it all under control many become less vigilant in protecting themselves because they believe the state’s got their back. I would assume many who had funds being managed by Bernie Madoff believed that.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 12:44 pm
all my pals tell me that online dating is the way to go now. one even married her online dating guy. but then they also tell me about the collection of stalkers, liars and losers who portray themselves one way on line and turn out another IRL. a guy who moved to the same state as a woman who was relocating because he misunderstood the status of their “relationship.” a guy who stalks a friend through the U.S. and the email from another state. and then there is the apartment sharing matching and victim group meet up stuff that turned up a super grifter who had not only my friend, but me convinced she was cool. until she was thousands of dollars in debt to my pal and starting to ask me for money. poof she’s off to another scam. I’m not promoting the legislation, I ‘m just saying the stuff I’ve heard makes me love the person at home even more!
Comment by amalia Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 12:45 pm
===Some 30% have romance in mind=== I’d expect more than that with a 50% divorce rate. I guess the other 20% must be financial infidelity.
My wife and I got our FOIDs on a whim several years back, not because we really planned to get a gun. I suspect a not insignificant number of those FOID holders don’t even own a gun.
Comment by thechampaignlife Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 1:04 pm
– I would assume many who had funds being managed by Bernie Madoff believed that.–
Investors with Madoff should have had every expectation that the SEC was doing the job it has been charged with since the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 — monitoring compliance and protecting investors from outright fraud.
But we wouldn’t want to bog down the SEC and the upstanding chairman of NASDAQ with a little thing like investigating whistleblowers’ decade-long claims of a Ponzi scheme — bad for business, all that regulation.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 1:04 pm
The headline says “could” be coming. Which is clearly what some of the sponsors want. Nowhere in the story does it say the bill would mandate anything. Also, NBC’s story said that it would be a mandate. So maybe you should screengrab them.
Comment by Jen Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 1:09 pm
===Which is clearly what some of the sponsors want.===
Not really.
And, I didn’t see NBC’s story. You got a link?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 1:10 pm
WBEZ also implied that it might encourage sites to add background checks in their story this morning.
NBC story:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/tech/illinois-online-dating-138148053.html
Comment by Jen Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 1:15 pm
Got my FOID card last year. Not because I wanted/hoped for concealed carry, but because of an abundance of rabbits on my rural property. I would safely speculate that the biggest supporters of concealed carry were all ready licensed. Another possibility of course is the end of the Mayan calendar and all the driving on the left side of the road that will surely follow.
Comment by Tommydanger Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 1:17 pm
exactly, word, placing your trust in a gov’t agency that promises to protect you leaves you vulnerable if said agency fails in its’ duty. And weren’t you vulnerable before you paid all those taxes to fund the regulatory agency?
Kinda leaves a person with the feeling that he got it at both ends.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 1:45 pm
People are buying guns because they fear the feds are going to try to outlaw them to an even greater degree under BHO’s social justice dept. The FBI sent a memo to gun stores last August asking the to report the following:What should I consider suspicious?
People or groups who:
Provide identification that is inconsistent or suspect or demand identity “privacy”
Insist on paying with cash or uses credit card(s) in different names
Make suspicious comments regarding anti-US, radical theology, vague or cryptic warnings that suggests or appear to endorse the use of violence in support of a cause
Demonstrate interest in uses that do not seem consistent with the intended use of the item being purchased
Possess little knowledge of intended purchase items
Make bulk purchases of items to include:
-Weatherproofed ammunition or match containers
-Meals Ready to Eat
-Night Vision Devices; night flashlights; gas masks
-High capacity magazines
-Bi-pods or tri-pods for rifles
Comment by Liberty First Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 1:47 pm
===placing your trust in a gov’t agency that promises to protect you leaves you vulnerable if said agency fails in its’ duty. ===
Except your solution appears to be to forget regulations altogether, or at least almost so.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 1:48 pm
DD, you’re all over the place.
You start with some claim that “many people assume” the FDA regulates the claims of vitamins and supplements. In fact, the FDA does not.
Then you make some tortured segue to Madoff. The SEC does in fact regulate investment advisers but some folks there were either negligent or criminal in their failure.
What are you talking about, anyway?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 1:55 pm
===placing your trust in a gov’t agency that promises to protect you leaves you vulnerable if said agency fails in its’ duty. ===
Oh well, perhaps we’ll find perfection in heaven. I’ve got paperwork from the Lutheran Church in America that guarantees me a good seat at the banquet.
Until then, I guess we’ll keep trying, knowing there will be failures and successes along the way.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 1:58 pm
Hmmm, you won’t need a foid card if the pass HB 1294 makes it anywhere…. it is out of committee and on the house floor. It bans ownership of “semiautomatic” weapons. Semi automatic weapons are not machine guns- those would be automatic weapons and are already illegal.
Comment by Liberty First Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 2:04 pm
As echoed by others on this post before me, the online dating background check bill is inane. First, most users understand the sites do not conduct background checks. Second, the government cannot legislate every aspect of our lives — this a gross overreach. Third, it is just going to create more work from state regulators who will need to police all the sites out there for compliance — we cannot afford all this nonsense.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 2:13 pm
Well, what I am trying to say is that people form their impressions of what the gov’t is and does - hence the phrase “many people assume”. If you don’t believe that people believe that the FDA regulates supplements and vitamins you are truly naive.
The second part involves how many people assume that the gov’t has their back when it comes to things like the Securities and Exchange Commission. I clearly recall people expressing shock that the SEC was unaware of the massive Ponzi scheme operating under their very noses involving such a well know and, by most accounts, “trusted” person. So, even tho the gov’t claims to be regulating a particular industry doesnt’ mean they can actually catch the bad stuff/guys. Savings and Loan debacle is another example. The list is long. I think that’s pretty simple to understand, really. People have perceptions and expectations that don’t necessarily match reality. Whodathunkit?
As far as what I would propose, Rich, that is a harder questions to answer. I don’t necessarily think all regulations are bad or useless. I certainly am not qualified to expound on the financial services industry, hell, I can’t even balance my checkbook. But I do research a company before I buy products and/or invest in them and continue to maintain vigilance over time even after I have bought in. I would have no problem dropping $100 to do a background/criminal check on a person my daughter, were I to have one, was seriously dating. I could see myself getting nosy if I thought there was a problem. I absolutely reject the idea that I would want the gov’t going that for me. Would I expect a NH to do background checks, as they are required to do, on every prospective employee were I to have a loved one residing in on? You darn tootin’! Would I feel assured that all was OK just because I knew the rule was in place? Not on your life. If I saw anything out of the ordinary during a visit to my loved one you can be certain I would follow up on it.
Deciding what to regulate and what not to regulate is a tough one. So much can go wrong in every aspect of our lives.
I have a great deal of trust in the Underwriters Laboratories, a PRIVATE firm that we are all aware of. This is a type of regulatory scheme that could be expanded, I suppose, that wouldn’t involve the gov’t. Could it be expanded into NH monitoring? Financial services? Are there such groups working now in different areas. Good debate topic.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 3:34 pm
d dan
One reason regulations are ineffective is due to the “capture” of regulatory agency by the industry they are supposed to be watching. This occurs via the revolving door between government agencies and the industries they regulate.
Another way regulations are compromised is when legislators seek to weaken oversight on behalf of their industry donors.
Comment by reformer Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 3:49 pm
reformer,
That point is well taken. Some believe that this is why Madoff got away with his stuff for so long. He was so well known that it was hard to believe that he was doing anything of that magnitude. In fact, we know there are cases where the regulator leaves political life only to pop up working for the very regulator they emplaced. All a part of the whole donation thing as well.
Incestuousness at is very costly uliness.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 4:06 pm
should be ugliness. I don’t even know what uliness is.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 4:08 pm
=== It’s just a bill. ===
…Yes, it’s only a bill.
And I’m sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it’s a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It’s a long, long wait
While I’m sitting in committee,
But I know I’ll be a law someday
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dVo3nbLYC0
Comment by northernIL Friday, Jan 27, 12 @ 4:33 pm