Match.com has decided to check members against a national registry of sex offenders following a lawsuit—though the company says the move is not in direct response to the suit.A California entertainment executive sued for the action earlier this month after she was allegedly attacked by a Match.com member with a history of sex assault convictions.
The president of the popular online dating site said executives had earlier considered such screenings, but concluded that the registries were "historically unreliable."
But now, she said," a combination of improved technology and an improved database enables a sufficient degree of accuracy to move forward with this initiative."
Still, she said the company's new policy was no substitute for subscribers remaining vigilant on dates: "We want to stress that while these checks may help in certain instances, they remain highly flawed, and it is critical that this effort does not provide a false sense of security to our members." The policy will be implemented in the next 60 to 90 days.
(SO WHY ARE YOU STILL USING ONLINE DATING!??? - EOPC)
_____________________________________
(opinion - response:)
Match.com, Don't Bother Screening Sex Offenders
The effort may do more harm than good
By Evann Gastaldo
In response to a lawsuit, Match.com announced it will start checking its members against a national sex offender registry—but that's not news worth getting excited about, writes Benjamin Radford on LiveScience. "There are several obvious flaws with the plan," including the fact that members can register for the dating site using a fake name and someone else's address to avoid being matched. Even if members' identities and addresses were somehow verified, sex offender registries themselves "are notoriously unreliable."
Besides, Radford points out, statistically speaking, a person "is far more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone who is not listed on any sex offender registry than a convicted sex offender."
So there are plenty of reasons why the cross-checking will be far from foolproof, but that won't prevent many women from having "a false sense of security" because of it, he concludes.
No comments:
Post a Comment