A few weeks ago, a group of hackers called the “Impact Team” threatened to expose the profiles of people who had accounts on Ashley Madison, a dating site specifically aimed at married people who are looking to cheat. The hackers threatened to “release customer records, including profiles with all the customers’ secret sexual fantasies and matching credit card transactions, real names and addresses, and employee documents and emails” if the site was not taken down. The parent company–Avid Life Media–did not comply, and now that data has been released to the public. The Impact Team hackers have now shed a very personal light on cheating spouses around the globe–but the potential overall ramifications are significantly more jarring than the awkward conversations that some members are probably going to have with their spouses tonight.

Massive data hacks are nothing new–the Sony and Target hacks warranted significant news coverage for weeks, and the Office of Personnel Management hack earlier this summer compromised the data of over 20 million people. However, this Ashley Madison hack may rank among the largest yet. As Ars Technica points out:

Researchers are still poring over the unusually large dump, but already they say it includes user names, first and last names, and hashed passwords for 33 million accounts, partial credit card data, street names, and phone numbers for huge numbers of users, records documenting 9.6 million transactions, and 36 million e-mail addresses.

The hackers targeted Ashley Madison in particular for a few reasons, but one of the biggest sticking points appeared to be that they didn’t agree with Ashley Madison’s business practices when it came to handling data. Specifically, they took issue with the fact that Ashley Madison charged users to delete their data, and then didn’t. Impact Team further explained about its hacking motives:

Avid Life Media has failed to take down Ashley Madison and Established Men. We have explained the fraud, deceit, and stupidity of ALM and their members. Now everyone gets to see their data. Find someone you know in here? Keep in mind the site is a scam with thousands of fake female profiles. See ashley madison fake profile lawsuit; 90-95 percent of actual users are male. Chances are your man signed up on the world’s biggest affair site, but never had one. He just tried to. If that distinction matters.

Find yourself in here? It was ALM that failed you and lied to you. Prosecute them and claim damages. Then move on with your life. Learn your lesson and make amends. Embarrassing now, but you’ll get over it.

What is particularly concerning about this hack, however, is what it signals about any site where personal information is provided. This isn’t just about stealing individuals’ social security and credit card numbers, like so many hacks in the past. This involves private information, and while it’s easy to justify that this private information has been breached because the people who provided it did so willingly in the hopes of engaging in an affair, it’s not that simple.

Online privacy is something we’ve all taken for granted for so long–we probably shouldn’t have, but that ship has completely sailed. Things like our private communications, our medical records, and sometimes yes, our dating or sexual preferences, can be found online. It’s easy to ignore the Ashley Madison hack because it was aimed at people that are in a very moral gray area, but it can just as easily happen, and may happen, when it comes to other personal information. The Impact Team did show the power of hacking. Despite the nature of the hack, it’s time that we realize its seriousness when it comes to our expectations of online privacy.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ashley Madison Hack: The Future of Online Privacy Doesn’t Look Good appeared first on Law Street.

Is Beyonce leaving Jay Z’s Tidal? What did a family’s massive charity actually spend its money on? ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Music Streaming Site Tidal Could Be Losing Its Queen

Here’s an update for my music lovers on Jay Z’s new Spotify-esque streaming site Tidal. As expected, the $20 a month service isn’t exactly revolutionizing the music industry like Hov and his famous friends had hoped. Despite boasts that they pay the highest percentage of royalties to music artists and songwriters within the music-streaming market, Tidal still continues to face waves of criticism from music experts and other artists. Read full article here.

#2 The Best Legal Tweets of the Week

The excitement over finals and the latest round of bar exam results has died down and now lawyers and law students are back to the daily grind of being overworked and over-caffeinated. Check out the best legal tweets of the week. See the slideshow here.

#3 Your Donation to This Cancer “Charity” Funded Online Dating Subscriptions

Every few years, a scandal breaks where it is discovered that a charity isn’t donating as much as it claims of the funds that it raises. But a new story coming out of Tennessee puts pretty much any other misbehaving charity to shame. A civil complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) revealed that four related charities, all run by members of the same extended family, donated only three percent of the $187 million they raised from 2008-2012. The rest of the money went to items for the family. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The problem with online dating is that it might lead to an STD.

At least, that was the case with a woman who used the It’s Just Lunch dating site where the idea is you might find someone great, but if you don’t then it’s no big deal. After all, it’s just lunch.

In a lawsuit, the unnamed plaintiff found out that it could be a big deal and it was not just lunch when she left the date with Herpes II.

Her Story

Woman goes on date set up by It’s Just Lunch. Date goes well. Woman goes on second date. Date goes really well. Woman confirms that man was STD free, and informs him she is as well. Man and woman ‘enjoy each other’s company’ if you get my meaning. Woman finds out she has Herpes II. So maybe that date did not go as well as she had thought.

Now, after reading this, I am sure you are thinking, wow! I’m never using this dating service, not if they let things like this happen on the dates. I mean, there they are forcing people to have sex on second dates, and they don’t even require STD panels first. What kind of business is that?

The plaintiff in this suit felt the exact same way about the company, which she called the world’s #1 STD service. And since she is stuck with the consequences of the company’s irresponsible actions, she is obviously entitled to the big bucks.

The Court’s Rejection

 In court, It’s Just Lunch came up with a pretty shocking defense that might just shake you to your very core. They do not require you to have sex when you go on one of their outings. I know. If this is true, it changes everything.

Apparently, all they promise their users is a nice lunch with a stranger. If you follow up that lunch with a passionate workout that will burn the calories of the lunch and potentially leave you with a life-long memory of your experience, then that is not on them.

I guess they stop holding your hand after your introduction to the person because they think you are adults. So if you participate in adult activities, that is solely your choice.

The court agreed. It dropped her claim against the company and told her to put all of her eggs in one basket. Win against Norman, the poor, potentially STD-spreading dater, or do not win at all.

 Norman’s Story

Most of this case happened a few years ago (2011-2012 range). However, in an appeal filed earlier this year, we got some new light on the whole who-gave-who-what case.

Norman claims that he had undergone a medical exam not that long before this outing in which he was given the all-good-to-go stamp of approval from his doctor.

The court decided that the fact that he didn’t have Herpes II a couple of months before the fateful date didn’t mean he did not have it at the time of the date. Therefore, they ordered him to get a medical exam to find out his current condition.

Of course, the problem with this is that even if he did not have it then, he could have subsequently caught it. Or maybe she passed it to him. Either way, Norman is probably not going to be using It’s Just Lunch anytime soon–even if none of this was their fault.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Gets STD on Date, Sues Dating Service appeared first on Law Street.

Love don’t cost a thing, or at least that’s how it used to be on the swipetastic mobile matchmaking app Tinder. But last week the popular location based dating service rolled out a new paid feature called Tinder Plus. The update has many accusing the company of being ageist.

With Plus, premium users are granted access to features called “Passport” and “Rewind.” If you’ve swiped through all the available singles in your area “Passport” allows you to change your location to connect with people anywhere around the world. Anyone who has ever regretted a swipe may also enjoy “Rewind,” which lets you re-do your last swipe. All in all these aren’t make-or-break features for the app, but their pricing is now under fire.

Tinder Plus users over the age of 30 will have to pay about $20 a month for the upgrade, but younger users under 30 will only have to pay about $10 a month. This gap has older singles protesting the app using #boycottTinder on Twitter, saying it’s discriminatory and arguing that they shouldn’t have to pay more for the same perks.

Tinder’s Vice President of Corporate Communications Rosette Pambakian, defended the age-related pricing telling TakePart via email that it actually benefits the company’s bottom line. She explained saying:

During our testing we’ve learned, not surprisingly, that younger users are just as excited about Tinder Plus, but are more budget constrained, and need a lower price to pull the trigger.

We’ve priced Tinder Plus based on a combination of factors, including what we’ve learned through our testing, and we’ve found that these price points were adopted very well by certain age demographics.

I’m not sure I buy that excuse. Pambakian elaborated by equating Tinder’s price tier with similar student discounts offered by the music-streaming service Spotify for premium services. But in my opinion it looks more like Tinder thinks being older and single makes you desperate, and as a result willing to cough up more money for swipes. Its not like they even need the extra cash, as valuations of the company range around $1 billion.

On a lighter note, if older people are discouraged from using Tinder, we wouldn’t end up with great videos like the following, where a 20-something year old young man sets his grandfather up on Tinder “dates.” Fair warning though, the video below, while adorable, contains some NSFW language:

In regards to demographics, Tinder co-founder Justin Mateen told the Guardian:

Early on, over 90% of our user base was aged between 18 and 24. Today, that number is about 51%. 13-17 year-olds are now over 7%, 25-32 year-olds are about 32%, 35-44 is about 6.5% and the remainder are older than 45.

Based on these figures it’s clear their core demographic is changing. But charging people for bonus features may not be the solution when it comes to legitimizing the “hookup app” as a real dating source. Only time will tell when it comes to whether or not Tinder execs will adjust its pricing due to public disapproval, or whether anyone will accuse them of ageism more seriously. My guess is this Tinder boycott won’t last long when people’s index fingers begin twitching from swipe withdrawal.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Singles Boycotting Tinder Over Alleged Ageism appeared first on Law Street.

Is your love life nonexistent? Are you sick of unsolicited relationship questions from your coworkers, mail lady, or parents? Then put down the catnip and carton of chunky monkey and say hello to your new virtual man.

With the help of Invisible Boyfriend, $25 per month can get you all the fake relationship proof you need to fool any unsuspecting meddlers. For those singles who like the superficialness of Tinder but want to put in zero work, you can sign up for a profile with this app and pick from a selection of online photos to begin creating your perfect boyfriend or girlfriend. You can also pick his name (mine would be Aubrey Graham), age, and even craft his personality. Then users can text their new fake boyfriend, and get this–he texts back!

What’s probably the most shocking thing about this site is that the fake boyfriends are actually real guys! One Washington Post reporter actually found herself falling for her faux beau. According to her invisible boyfriend he’s not the only one she’s talking to. She explains:

The service’s texting operation is powered by CrowdSource, a St. Louis-based tech company that manages 200,000 remote, microtask-focused workers. When I send a text to the Ryan number saved in my phone, the message routes through Invisible Boyfriend, where it’s anonymized and assigned to some Amazon Turk or Fivrr freelancer. He (or she) gets a couple of cents to respond. He never sees my name or number, and he can’t really have anything like an actual conversation with me

This app is probably one of the saddest/creepiest things I’ve ever seen.  I applaud the developers for seeing a niche audience’s unmet need and finding a way to service it, but the whole concept is bound to backfire. What happens when the people you’re fooling want to meet this prince charming? Have fun explaining that one.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ‘Invisible Boyfriend’ May Be the Saddest Thing Ever appeared first on Law Street.

There are some pretty bizarre trends going around these days, and just one of the many is men posting photos of themselves with tigers on online dating sites. Why? To seem manly and brave via some kind of weird, caveman-esque mating ritual showing that they can take on any wild beast to save his damsel in distress. Alas, there is a new challenge to this practice — a New York law threatening to ban tiger selfies.

If men trying to prove their macho-manliness can no longer pose with the wild, striped felines, what will become of the Tumblr blog dedicated to featuring their photos? How will women find suitable partners on the reliable sites Tinder and OKCupid if they cannot assess he size of the tiger with which her potential mate cuddles?

State legislators in both houses have passed a bill banning people from posing for photos while touching tigers in New York State. This, along with ridding the world of large, sugary sodas, clearly top the priority list of New York politicians, as they should the lists of everyone.

Manhattan Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal explained that she introduced the legislation to increase safety at traveling circuses and fairs that allow the public to take photographs of themselves getting cozy with tigers. She did not point out, however, that there were only two big-cat attacks at traveling shows in New York over the last decade.

So no matter the size of the tiger with which you are posing, you will pay up to $500 for such a horrendous offense. If Tigger approaches you in New York, back away — yes, he LOOKS friendly, but it’s all a farce. Same with Raja — Jasmine better not consider a move to New York anytime soon.

Sorry, Jasmine, that’ll be $500

Lauren Schuster, a staffer for Rosenthal, accurately pointed out what their law is REALLY going to do: “We’re killing bros’ dreams and chances of being laid!” She couldn’t have foreseen the consequences of this law any better. Seriously, if a man can’t post pictures of himself with tigers, I can’t think of how he will score chicks. Buying them drinks just doesn’t suffice anymore.

Despite this attack on the prominent method through which men demonstrate their masculinity, there is still hope, at least according to Rosenthal. “They can still pose with bears and monkeys,” the assemblywoman said. “They just have to take big cats off their list.” Even if dating app users can still pose with monkeys and bears…come on, that’s not NEARLY as sexy and manly. It’s just not the same! How are Tinder users going to woo the love of their lives while cozying up next to a monkey? Will that be the next blog on Tumblr? Simian selfies? That is bound to attract an entirely different type of woman. I guess only time will tell.

No word on if lion selfies are acceptable…

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Wilma Verburg via Wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No More Tiger Selfies, NYC Men Will Have to Snag Chicks Some Other Way appeared first on Law Street.

I recently discovered Tinder, the latest dating app craze, after a friend tweeted about her shame over having to create a Facebook account just to use the Tinder app.  At that time I was unaware of the app’s existence and decided to ask my significant other about it — which was a huge mistake.   At the mere mention of Tinder I was banned from even thinking about it. Fortunately for all of us, I feel that as a technology blogger it is my duty to investigate this new phenomena and give a report.

So what is Tinder? It’s a dating app, available on Apple and Android phones, that allows users to find people in their area whom they’re are attracted to and send them an alert. To do this, you have to log into Facebook and turn on your phone’s GPS.  As with many other apps, the use of Facebook is to verify a person’s identity, and the GPS allows the app to know your location. Based on your Facebook picture and information, Tinder creates your profile. To be clear, not all of your Facebook information is visible, only your picture, age, and first name. The creation of a profile allows your information to be seen and sent to other Tinder users in the area.

Next, the profiles of users nearby are sent to your phone and Tinder gives you the option to either like or pass. If you like the profile, an alert will be sent to that user. If someone likes your profile, then an alert will be sent to you. If both users like each other, then you probably guessed by now that the app connects them to each other. What happens after that is up to you.

There have been complaints of difficulties when using the app. Slow picture uploading, an inability to find Tinder users in one’s area, and issues logging in are just a few. Recently, Tinder upgraded the app to improve picture deleting time, correct minor crashes and issues, and hide common interests and friends from being viewed in a user’s profile. The issue of finding Tinder users nearby will probably correct itself as more people download the app. One of the most important new features is the photo zoom.  Why is photo zoom important, you ask?  Because this is Tinder, not Match.com!

In the dating world, who approaches a person because they appear to possess strong family values? Nobody, that’s who. This is what sets Tinder apart from other dating apps. Unlike with others, you won’t waste time finding out you’re compatible just to click on a picture that makes you change your mind. Tinder depends on a shared physical attraction between its users before it connects them — and this more closely resembles what happens in real life. I’m not sure if creating a dating app to resemble actual dating life was Tinder’s intention, but that’s not the only way people are using it.

In practice, Tinder is used as a hook-up app, or as a source of entertainment. On the hook-up side, users are logging on, swapping likes with people they’re attracted to and meeting them to… you know. I’m not saying that every person who uses Tinder is looking for this kind of situation, but it is happening. For entertainment, people like my friends are using Tinder to look at the awkward messages men send them and laugh. Others, the rare few, are actually committing to dates and using the app the way it was created to be used.

Tinder, like any dating app can be used to find great people in your area to create meaningful relationships with. Don’t get upset if someone approaches you in a way that seems brash and slightly shocking. Don’t be surprised if the person you’re messaging is being silly and using Tinder as a way to safely talk to strangers. For all the single adults out there, enjoy. For those adults in relationships, enjoy at your own risk. For all of you who are as intrigued as I was… check it out.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Kenny Louie via Flickr] 

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Want to Hook Up? Better Get on Tinder appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning loves! How many of you have been staying off the internet this week, thanks to my post on Tuesday? LOL none of you. Just kidding! If anything, you’re all hitting the interwebs harder than usual. This Pacific Standard piece is BLOWING UP. The number of response pieces it’s triggered is seriously impressive.

So! I’d say the theme of cyberspace this week is — women face crazy harassment online and it’s seriously a problem. Like, for serious.

So let’s ride that wave, shall we? Because some awesome, hysterical things are happening. Specifically, this.

A dude Reddit user named OKCThrowaway22221 (apparently Reddit is the place where our middle-school, AIM usernames live on?) decided to conduct a little experiment. He had this hypothesis that women totally have it easier in the world of online dating, so he made a fake profile as a lady, and decided to see what would happen.

This guy lasted TWO HOURS. That is all. That is how traumatizing the results of his little experiment were. SO BAD, that he had to quit after only two hours.

In his words, here’s what happened.

“Before I could even fill out my profile at all, I already had a message in my inbox from a guy. It wasn’t a mean message, but I found it odd that I would get a message already. So I sent him a friendly hello back and kind of joked that I hadn’t even finished my profile, how could he be interested.”

Yes, how COULD he be interested? Probably because he doesn’t give a shit what your profile says, champ. He thinks you’ve got a vagina and he wants to use it.

It gets worse. As OKCThrowaway22221 filled in the profile, the messages were literally coming in faster than he could keep up with them. Again, from guys who knew absolutely NOTHING about the person they were messaging, other than the fact that were was allegedly a vagina involved. It got old pretty quick.

“At first I thought it was fun…but as more and more messages came (either replies or new ones I had about 10 different guys message me within 2 hours) the nature of them continued to get more and more irritating. Guys were full-on spamming my inbox with multiple messages before I could reply to even one asking why I wasn’t responding and what was wrong. Guys would become hostile when I told them I wasn’t interested in NSA sex, or guys that had started normal and nice quickly turned the conversation into something explicitly sexual in nature. Seemingly nice dudes in quite esteemed careers asking to hook up in 24 hours and sending them naked pics of myself despite multiple times telling them that I didn’t want to.”

OKCThrowaway22221 found the whole situation pretty upsetting.

“I would be lying if I said it didn’t get to me. I thought it would be some fun thing… but within a 2 hour span it got me really down and I was feeling really uncomfortable with everything. I ended up deleting my profile at the end of 2 hours and kind of went about the rest of my night with a very bad taste in my mouth.”

OKCThrowaway22221 came away from his experiment with a different conclusion than he’d expected — that women actually have a harder time in the online dating world. Yep, it’s rough shit being harassed by gazillions of guys during all hours of the day. Emotional tolls are taken — and hopefully that’s all.

But our friend over at Reddit isn’t the only person who’s conducting online dating experiments. There’s also Cracked writer Alli Reed, who wanted to test her own hypothesis — that men will literally message any woman with a profile. Hoping she was wrong, she created a fake profile for The Worst Woman in the World, AKA AaronCarterFan. Here it is. Prepare to laugh your ass off/puke all over your laptop.

She’s the worst, am I right? No one would ever want to date her! Definitely not. But they did.  She got 150 messages in 24 hours.

So, Alli decided to add another approach to her experiment. With her reply messages, she’d have to convince these guys that she was, in fact, The Worst Woman in the World. After all, maybe these guys didn’t actually read the profile?

She bragged about bullying children, she boasted about the skill with which she could fake being pregnant to exhort money from unsuspecting suitors. She even asked one guy to let her pull out his teeth.

NO ONE WAS DETERRED. Everyone still wanted a piece of the diabolical AaronCarterFan.

Alli’s takeaway was seriously kindhearted. Here’s her advice to the douchenozzles who were interested in her evil creation.

“Men of the world: You are better than this. I know many of you would never message AaronCarterFan, but many of you would, and a whole bunch of you did. You’re better than that. There are women and men out there who are smart, and kind, and challenging, and honest, and a lot of other really positive adjectives. You don’t want someone who will pull out your teeth and then sue you for child support; you deserve someone who will make you want to be better than you are, and will want to be better because of you. You deserve happiness, and love, and adventure. Be brave. Don’t settle.”

She’s a really nice lady, am I right? I’d love to be her friend.

BUT. I’m calling bullshit on the idea that the most important thing we can take away from these two online dating experiments is that men are shallow and dumb and maybe have low self-esteem. This is true. Some men do struggle with these challenges. The struggle is real, and we feel your pain, guys. We really do.

But. We’re not talking about destructive relationship patterns or unfortunate, self-sabotaging behavior. We’re talking about internet harassment. So here’s the big takeaway, folks.

Drumroll, please.

Men objectify women to a disturbing degree. The reason they’ll message a woman whose online dating profile isn’t filled out yet is the same reason they’ll message a woman whose profile clearly shows that she’s The Worst Woman in the World.

They don’t care who you are. The fact that you are a person, with real thoughts and feelings, doesn’t matter to them. You’re really just a sex toy. The equivalent of a super awesome blow-up doll. An object.

This is you. Courtesy of Jes via Flickr.

Feminism in the U.S. has made a ton of major gains over the last century. We’ve earned the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to play sports, the right to hold jobs, and the right to own property. In some states, we even have the right to control our own bodies. Because of all these gains, we’re often told that feminism is done. It’s over. It’s served its purpose, its goals have been met, and we can all ride off into the gender equality sunset.

But that’s a load of shit, designed to keep women from continuing to fight the feminist fight. Society’s true colors come out on the Internet, where anonymity and a lack of accountability invite everyone to drop their inhibitions. You don’t have to pretend to be PC on OKCupid. You can be who you really are, and no one will be the wiser.

You can demand sex and naked photos from a woman you don’t know — and get supremely pissed when she says no. You can be your douchiest, most asshole-iest self.

So loves, do me a favor. Keep fighting the good fight. OKCThrowaway22221 and AaronCarterFan clearly prove that it’s not over.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [me and the sysop via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ladies, the Men of OKCupid Think You’re a Blow-Up Doll appeared first on Law Street.

Online dating becomes more popular with each passing year. In 2013, 38 percent of singles reported having used an online dating site or some sort of mobile app. But in order to secure a successful online date, it takes time and effort to weed out all of the duds–after all, approximately 1 in 10 online dating profiles is faked.

Now, when I say faked, I’m not saying that people are lying about their looks, or amount of children, or whether they’re actually ready to settle down with the right girl. To be honest, if we included those kinds of relatively harmless fibs, I’m sure the number would go way over 1 in 10. I’m talking about faked profiles purely for the purpose of Internet fraud.

Internet fraud is not new. I know that I’ve received those horrifying emails from friends and family claiming someone has been kidnapped or robbed while in an exotic location, and they need me to wire $15,000 to a random location at least half a dozen times. And don’t even get me started on those spam emails where someone introduces themselves as a member of royalty, informs me they are getting their inheritance in a few weeks and will pay me some exorbitant fee, but just need some money to tide them over. The propositions are ridiculous, annoying, and unbelievable, yet thousands of people fall for them annually. In 2011, The Internet Crime Complaint Center reported 315,000 fraud claims, but there were probably many more that did not get reported.

One of the newest waves of such Internet schemes has been taking place on dating websites. And at least one scam on the popular dating site Match.com has ended in abject tragedy. In 2010, a 70-year-old Yonkers man named Al Circelli was contacted by a profile pretending to be a beautiful young woman in Ghana named Aisha. “Aisha” corresponded with the man for over a year, built up a rapport with him, and then informed him that she was in financial struggle. The profile scammed $50,000 out of Circelli until he went broke and actually had to borrow money from his son in an attempt to help her out. When he found out that it had all been a scam, he committed suicide.

Now, Match.com is being sued by a woman named Yuliana Avalos, and other unnamed plaintiffs. “Aisha” had been using Avalos’s modeling photos during her attempt to extort money from Circelli. Avalos claims that her pictures are used constantly on the site; at this point she has discovered at least 200 fake profiles in her likeness. While Avalos has become the face of this lawsuit, the others involved in the suit also tend to be young, attractive, and relatively visible women whose public personas have been co-opted to create fraudulent profiles.

According to the plaintiffs, it would be pretty easy to prevent this fraud from happening. There is facial recognition software that could pinpoint multiple profiles using the same photographs. And there are ways to track computers’ IP addresses to see if the computer on which the profile was created actually matches the city on the profile. She claims that the site knows about these fake profiles, but doesn’t necessarily do anything to stop them because even fake profiles inflate the number of users the site is able to report. The class action lawsuit is currently $1.5 billion.

A similar suit regarding fake profiles on Match.com was dismissed a few years ago. In regards to Avalos’s lawsuit, a Match.com spokesman has already claimed that the lawsuit is baseless, stating “the real scam here is this meritless lawsuit, which is filled with outlandish conspiracy theories and clumsy fabrications in lieu of factual or legal basis. We’re confident that our legal system is as adept as we are at detecting scammers and will dismiss this case in short order.”

Match.com absolutely needs to start working harder to weed out scam profiles. People pay for their service, and they should be guaranteed that they are only interacting with real profiles. That being said, I’m not sure how effective Avalos’s lawsuit will be. According to the claim, the defendants (Match.com and its subsidiaries) were cognizant of these fake profiles and broke laws by not removing them. From reading the complaint, the plaintiffs do seem to have identified a large number of fake profiles. But the question is, was it Match.com’s job to police these profiles? If so, could it be, for example, Google’s job to prevent fake emails? Companies can only do so much. Hopefully, Avalos’s lawsuit will help define those hazy parameters.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [maya elaine via DeviantArt]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Match.com May Pay Heavy Price for Fake Profiles appeared first on Law Street.