OPW INTERVIEW -- Apr 20, 2005 -- R-Kevin Ambler - House sponsor of the Florida background checks legislation
Why the need for legislation? – “I have a 15 year old daughter and a 17 year old son who live on the internet. It’s their tool for communicating. Background checks sounded like a good idea for protecting their interests in the future, especially after I heard about a national poll in which 20% of the one thousand online dating respondents thought background checks were already required. (Independent national survey of online daters, Infosurv). Many online daters have a false sense of security. Clear disclosure is required in this case, along with the meaning of 'background checks' and limitations. It’s not a perfect system. Some states don't release conviction records publicly. I have written this legislation so if a site does a check a pop-up that has to be electronically acknowledged is displayed. Do you know there are over 200 million conviction records publicly available! I want my daughter to know, and have the ability to identify felons in the future. As a parent it's incumbent of me to protect my kids future. They are the most internet savvy generation yet...and the most likely to drop their guard. The government looks after public safety and welfare. Disclosures are a part of that. The government requires labeling and warning on cigarettes and other known perils. I should note, this legislation does not require anyone to adopt background checks.”
What is the legislations likelihood of success? – “The first committees have processed it after an excellent vetting of the issues. It was debated twice for over an hour in the house. We are becoming alarmed about the number of predators and felons so anything we can do to improve the odds and safety is a good thing, a step forward, so I have a very positive outlook on this legislation. The Florida legislation is different from the rest of the country. I spent 20 years as an attorney, am a former federal prosecutor with the US attorney’s office, and have a deep understanding of constitutional issues. I drafted the legislation to balance business, commerce and government issues in the interests of protecting safety. It was very carefully tailored to be minimally intrusive to the business model but offers a fair level of protection. The legislation goes one step further; if the site does background checks and finds convictions, it can choose to disclose to the member that this person has been identified as having a felony or sex related conviction. It’s up to the site if they choose to ban communication or simply disclose.”
How about married people? – “We’re not legislating on marriage disclosure. We’d be getting into morality issues.”
What are the next steps for the legislation? – “There’s one more committee in the house and senate; the justice council and judiciary committee. It then goes to full votes in the senate and house and has to pass in both chambers, and then the governor has to sign it. If it were to fail then it could not come back up till next March in the next legislative session.”
What are the implications for other online services? – “ISP's are excluded from liability…background checks have nothing to do with the carriers of online dating sites. The employment area is also ripe for discussion i.e. monster.com should indicate if applicant background checks have been done. I don't see anything beyond services effecting individuals safety as possibilities for future legislation. Sites that are involved in financial deals could also choose to do background checks. I could foresee them being offered in environments such as eBay. But, this area does not serve the same compelling safety interests for legislation. I don't have to meet people from eBay…but a background check would have some bearing on whether I trust them.”
Mark Brooks: Some useful links to proposed legislation; MICHIGAN SB 286, FLORIDA HB 1035, FLORIDA SB 1768, TEXAS HB 1307, CALIFORNIA AB 1681
