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