The first story was about a 40-something reporter covering the big dollar business of social networking and ending up with 700 people claiming to be his friends, many of whom he never knew existed. The second did not end all that well, here a 14 year old, also from the UK, vanished from her home possibly with the 18 year old she met on a chat-room. In one instance we discuss the school boy mentality of judging the person based on how many friends he/she had, while on the other we are confronted with the reality that things could be different if there were restricted access for kids and teen to predators preying on such sites in anonymity.

On the one hand we have “freedom of speech,� while on the other “security�. Instincts tell me that when such choices are posed, we humans (as the self-preservationists that we are) would choose security, but not in this case. Sites such as Facebook and MySpace continue to grow exponentially, while new networking sites pop-up each day promising more options with less hassle to meet  others online. One common feature in all these sites is the protectionist attitude of the sites to protect the secrecy and identification of its users.

The issue that bothers me most is, if you honestly represent yourself on a networking site where you “want to� meet others, why not be forthcoming and have your true identity verified like on PayPal or Google Adsense. Have your bank account or social-security verified, other users need not get this information, but ensures nonetheless (to the site offering the service) that you are really who you claim to be.

Considering that not all networking sites are as big as Google or eBay (which owns PayPal) to spend on resources to collect and protect your information, the dilemma for the user then would be the security of such information floating on the Internet, but that is up to the user to decide and demand of such sites (that profit, millions if not billions).

If the sites can provide for the privacy of the user information, adding a system to verify the identity of its users should then be a matter of adding two more line items in the contact form and spending a few million on securing the site.

Ultimately the decision must be made as to what is of importance to us, the privacy of the shady stalker who will eventually kidnap your child and kill them or the lives of our, huh.. “not-so-bright� youth!

End of ramble.

“Submit three pictures, one of which is a full-body picture and get rated on an attractiveness scale from 1-10.”

Is this a call for aspiring models to be hired by an ad agency? No.

‘HotEnough’, is an online dating site where prospective ‘fit’ and ‘good-looking’ members must submit pictures and must be rated 8 or higher on a scale of 1-10 by people already there in the club, before they get lucky to be part of the $9.95 monthly membership. This means if you look average or worse, you are out and even if you are good-looking, you stand only 20% chances of being called “hot”.

Duh! Every man dreams of hotties 36-24-36, but it’s evident that given a choice between a “dumb hottie” and a “not-so-goodlooking intelligent chick”, Jason Pellegrino would probably choose the dumber one, why bother checking out the less-goodlooking ones at all. Intelligence, compatiblity, compassion, other qualities, do they count? Guess not.

Some might call this discrimination shallow, but to qualify for a truly shallow website, Jason needs to add some features to the ‘attractiveness scale’ like:

• Money
• Mansion
• Mercedes

If you can’t make it to the beauty contest, you can at least make it to “Jason’s Hot-o-meter”. Lame.