FTC Rules in Favor of Privacy 174
christian void writes, "The FTC recently ruled that it is illegal for credit reporting agencies to sell personal information to third parties. Here's an interesting article on a decision that will hopefully have ramifications in other industries. Score one for privacy."
Three cheers for the FTC (Score:1)
this has been long in coming. (Score:1)
LW
What a breath of fresh air! (Score:2)
--
Genie out of the bottle? (Score:3)
Also, as I'm in the dark on this, are there any laws that prohibit the legitimate institutions from re-selling the information upstream to data companies? What's to prevent Bob's Auto Dealership from turning around and doing the exact same thing that Trans Union just did?
This is absolutely great! (Score:2)
On the scale of things, I place privacy as the number one human right that is most abused in the US. (Number two is life. Liberty is probably in the mid 30's.)
This is also good news for Europe->US relationships, as it is now EU law that EU companies cannot pass personal information to countries with weaker privacy laws. If the FTC does it's job, this could be the first step in healing a major rift.
Justice for the rich & powerful (Score:5)
Heh. In other words, we knew it was illegal, and that we could make a lot of money before anyone decided to enforce the law.
<i>Trans Union has to stop selling the information or pay $2,500 for every violation.</i>
Wish criminal law worked like this for me... "Yeah, you've been consistently breaking the law since 1997, but we'll let you go without punisment, and won't bother to try to correct the harm you're illegal actions have already caused."
Re:Genie out of the bottle? (Score:1)
IANAL, but it seems this ruling could count towards other similar decisions in smaller courts if this ever becomes an issue. Bob's Auto may find it hard to convince a judge that it's ok to do this if the FTC told credit card companies to NOT do it. OR so we can hope.
I don't know what laws exist right now that concern selling customer information without asking you if you can.
Bad Mojo
Nightmare (Score:1)
GO FTC!!!!!
Whoppee (Score:4)
Bummer... (Score:2)
Talk about your slippery slopes... (Score:2)
Their (collective) hearts are in the right place on this one maybe, but the ever increasing government control over private enterprise bothers the hell out of me.
Speaking of privacy... (Score:5)
dejanews etc. [tiac.net],
intuit [yahoo.com]
...also, now they're being investigated [cnet.com]
Doubleclick has gone back on it's promise not only not to collect personal information such as real names, ss# etc, but also on the promise not to sell the info they collected to third parties. That means if you searched for something on deja news or other search engines, browsed any sites with doubleclick banners etc., all that info is being collected(including keywords you searched for), matched with your real name and real address which doubleclick gets (I assume) from sites where you registered, and then all that is being sold to third parties.
I bet e-truste, or whatever they're called, doesn't mind, doubleclick did change their privacy statement after all (in case it didn't occur to you to check recently).
Good bye privacy, hello big broth...ahem, doubleclick.
not enough teeth? (Score:5)
For example, I bet it would still be OK for a Hotline Psychic Friend to take your credit card, and then (now that they are a creditor, i.e. not a "third party") look up your personal info and say "I'm sensing that you've been on a vacation... I see palm trees..."
I think the right answer is disclosure. Anytime anybody buys or sells info about you, you get notified. Then, once we had an idea of how the data is flowing, we can make a judgement as to what we like and don't like. I don't think anything short of that will be good enough.
And, that probably won't be good enough either. I mean, as much as I try to keep my social security cat in the privacy bag, you can't buy a simple thing like a cell phone without forking it over. Why isn't just my credit card good enough? Probably it would be, but the Big Brother and the Phone Holding Companies know that they can get away with forcing disclosure. How about a "no requiring of information that's not necessary" regulation.
one small step...what next? (Score:1)
To prevent these kinds of problems entirely in future, I suggest a intellectual property / privacy amendment to the Constitution. It should specify in general language what rights people have to privacy and to information that they have paid to use.
Just credit agencies (Score:2)
In related news.... (Score:2)
Here's the news.com link. <a href-"http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-156274
At least this makes me feel a little bit better. People at the office call me crazy when I discuss privacy concerns and they say they don't care what people know about them. I wish I had a way to show them what exactly can be found out about a person from certain information.
Apathy of the public is going to kill this movement without proper education on the situation. That's my fear.
Re:Talk about your slippery slopes... (Score:2)
From the article at least, it would appear the answer is _no_: the ruling was an interpretation of a federal law which only applies to credit reporting agencies. It would be extremely difficult to generalize this to other private companies, unless a new law were passed.
Re:Genie out of the bottle? (Score:1)
Too Late For Me (Score:3)
I had figured that the company I got the mortgage from must have sold my name, but now I'm suspecting that it was TransUnion. Of course, due to the crappy state of privacy laws here in the US, I'll never know for sure. Oh well. I've got a friend who literally never answers the phone. He has his machine set to pick up after one ring, and you have to talk to the machine to get him to pick up. I used to think that he was just neurotic or something, but I'm giving serious thought to doing the same thing myself to avoid the telemarketers.
Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know of any good answering machine software for Linux? I would really like to be able to have an answering machine that acts normally if someone calls with valid caller-id info, and basically rejects anyone whose number doesn't come thru on caller id. Contrary to popular belief, the primary beneficiary of blocked caller id is telemarketers, not individuals. If the phone numbers of these companies actually came thru, we could just call them back and offer to sell them stuff, drastically increasing their costs. Or at least block the numbers out. Oh well.
A good first step (Score:2)
The only way to stop companies like these from selling, renting, and trading this is to make it illegal. The legislature here in Minnesota started to look at making these kinds of transactions illegal. It was very popular with the public. Now of course the lobbyists have stepped in and convinced the legislature that the economy will collapse if that does happen.
Europeans have very strong privacy legislation and benefit from it. I think it is absurd that our government has gone head to head with EU to get around this. People need to contact their governments and let them know that this is important.
Re:Talk about your slippery slopes... (Score:1)
If you're talking about personal information, then you might want to consider asking the permission of the people who you intend to exploit instead of the FTC. Da?
---
script-fu: hash bang slash bin bash
Absolutely (Score:2)
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
(I would honestly LIKE to say that the US is a safe and pleasent place to live. However, the utter disregard for the individual, and the absolute worship of greed at all levels makes the US only marginally safer than Chechnya or Kosovo. Mind you, all three are WAY better off than the UK, now, which has seriously slumped from being a bastion of individual freedom, safety and tolerence to being a police state on speed.)
Great News! But... (Score:2)
Too Little Too Late? Perhaps not. (Score:2)
If the FTC had fined Trans Union an appropriate amount for what they have done, it would put Trans Union out of business. The purpose of the FTC is not to put companies out of business (I think, please correct me if I am wrong), but to cause them, by reasonable means, to behave in a just manner.
On the other hand, if the FTC had given Trans Union some petty symbolic fine, it would set a precedent that would be difficult to change if Trans Union continued this behavior. With this sort of fine, Trans Union might continue their present behavior and see future fines merely as a cost of staying in business.
I would like to think that there might be a better solution, but I am unable to come up with one. In this light, I think that the decision of the FTC is reasonably good, as it will force Trans Union to stop behaing in the current manner, but still allow them to exist. Because as much as I do not like Trans Union (or any credit record companies), they provide a valuable service, one that makes it easier to do business.
A small victory but certainly not the end (Score:3)
What this underscore to me is a simple question; why are Corporate persons being given more rights than real persons? When are the rights of real people going to receive primacy in Law? Though I didn't pursue a legal career, from what I remember of my Law courses a company is considered a person with all the rights and obligations involved- so why is it becoming more and more that companies are being allowed to abuse not only the system but the people in the system as well?
As an individual I'm expected to respect and abide by the laws of the land and to maintain my end of the social contract regardless of my financial means; if I break the law I receive punishment in the form of potentially crippling fines or even jail. If law is to punish me as a legal person for failure in this regard, why is it that the *other* legal persons Business are not only not punished for similar infractions, but are instead rewarded?
These guys at Trans Union are laughing at the commission- they've made millions illegally and now that they are finally caught they don't even get a slap on the wrist.
Is nothing sacred? (Score:1)
SOMEONE SAVE ME!
Re:not enough teeth? (Score:1)
A credit card number is unique, but if the card is cancelled and you move, it would be more difficult to find you.
Maybe the answer is to have third party holders of private information. The consumer only releases specific information to the third-party company and the company wanting certain information just interfaces through them. Is customer 31415 credit worthy. Are they acceping credit card solicitations? etc.
Re:Too Late For Me (Score:1)
Unfortunately, a lot of "public" information was first called "public", when that meant that you had to go down to the local office and riffle through files. There was little abuse because of this difficulty. Now, with hard disks and bandwidth, big corporations can download the whole mass in a few seconds. That has nothing to do with the original intent, which was to allow you to contact the owner of some land, or make sure a potential spouse was already married, etc, etc.
I hope this sets a trend. (Score:2)
One thing that drives me nuts about so many of the companies that archive and sell personal info on customers is that they tag the 'doing it to improve service' bullshit onto it. Improve service, my ass. They just want more money out of you per sale.
I personally would be willing to pay more per transaction from a company that I knew would NEVER divuldge my personal information. How bout the rest of you?
--
blue
Safer? (Score:1)
Ditto (Score:1)
Between that and the plethora of junk mail about getting new home loans, etc. its quite a hassle.
Perhaps soon I can fix that....
:)
-Vel
Well, antitrust law (Score:2)
As for the rest of criminal law, you're right. Particularly irksome is the obscenity convictions that were adjudicated under doctrines that didn't exist until the Supreme Court pulled them out of its collective ass and applied them to the pending case (Miller v. California).
Re:Genie out of the bottle? (Score:1)
Re:Too Late For Me (Score:2)
In broad strokes it says this: When a telemarketer calls you have the right to tell them that you want your phone number placed on their "do not call" list *immediately*. If that particular telemarketer then calls you >1 more times in the next 52 weeks you have the right to collect damages of anywhere between $500-$1500
If you are diligent with this, keep a good log of when/who called and notice infractions usually a strongly worded letter to the company, with copies of your records, and a statement that you will sue for damages if necessary will net you a nice appology letter, a check, and a cessation of phone calls.
You can even go to Lowe's and purchase a $10 device that plugs into your phone line and plays a digital recording of someone reciting the TCPA when you hit a button. Junkbusters even has a prewritten script you can print out and keep near your phones.
I recently moved (which I do alot). I've noticed that when you change addresses and/or phone #s it takes about 4-5 months for the telemarketers to really catch up to you. This time around I was quite persistent with my invocation of the TCDA. I've been at my current house for almost a year now and it's rare if I receive even 1 or 2 telemarketing calls a week. It's bliss.
Re:Safer? (Score:1)
(The odds are very high that more than a few are orchastrated by cults and murderers, not that there is all that much difference, in many cases.)
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
Like the British who are considering to enact draconian measures that would violate our constitutional rights here in the USA.
Like the law that forces them to give over their crypto private keys.
Like the fact that right now most likely Some British secret agent is scanning all the packets that come out of my machine and archiving them for later.
Singapore where you can be jailed for spitting on the ground or eating too much in a resteraunt (no lie)
China [sarcasm]where it's really groovy with the government if you speak your mind[/sarcasm]
Much Ruanda where the entire country is practally gripped in civil war.
Russia where eating food is considered a luxry and where gangs of criminals and the Maffia run the country.
Shall I go on? Which country should the United States emulate?
Re:Whoppee (Score:1)
had a Platinum card AND
owned their own home AND
had taken out a car loan for over $50,000.
Re:Genie out of the bottle? (Score:1)
Bob's Auto cannot even get the info on your credit report unless you are trying to get financing from them and/or give them permission.
Therefore, Bob's Auto is not capable of obtaining the detailed data on enough people to make their list worth buying. (at least in theory)
And to truly answer the question, nothing is preventing Bob's Auto from selling the information they do gather, and many retailers do sell such information. That's why you should check for some type of option on any form you fill out letting you deny the sale of that info. If it's not on there, don't provide the info. It WOULD be nice if they couldn't sell that info either... Why don't you petition your congressman or senator to have such legislation enacted?
Re:Safer? (Score:1)
Re:Well, antitrust law (Score:2)
Re:not enough teeth? (Score:2)
Good guess, but that's not what several have told me explicitly. They said they needed it to do a credit check. The Sprint salesman told me he would enter it, and do the credit check, and then immediately he would delete it. Do I believe him? I did... but then in a later customer support call I was asked "what are the last 4 digits..." Sigh.
Re:Safer? (Score:2)
Oh, you mean like that 6 year old kid, at that elementary school?
Schools are safer than they were say 20 years ago and your are almost more likely to win the lottery than to even get shot in school.
Or the guy that got killed in that recent shooting spree?
Shooting sprees are not terribly common. They are just usually isolated cases of things going wrong. Odds are that if you go out and spend your whole life going to work and doing normal things you are not very likely to be even scraped by the wanton acts of another in the US.
Not to mention the very large number of "disappearances" that happen in the US, every year.
Could you elaborate? I would be very interested in knowing exactly what this means.
If you mean that people are kidnapped in the US then that may be a possibility but consider that the US is very large country and that also there are things like that happening everywhere. Don't tell me that say in China no one ever "dissapears" or in Russia or even Canada.
How to Opt Out of Doubleclick tracking you (Score:1)
Assuming they actually do what they say
Re:not enough teeth? (Score:2)
No, they wouldn't be a creditor unless they are extending you credit, like billing you in installments rather than all at once.
Re:Safer? (Score:1)
--
Re:I hope this sets a trend. (Score:2)
You should read your credit card/bank acount/what ever application. Part of the agreement is that you let the company do what ever they want with your information. But as best as I can tell there's nothing you can do about it. Ideally you'd be able to read the application, and say I don't like this part of the contract (the bit where they can sell your information), at which point there would be some kind of negotiation and you could probably get it removed. But, in this day and age they would probably just not issue the card.
--locust
Re:This is absolutely great! (For *RICH* people) (Score:2)
I don't think so.
The US has 5% of the world's population, and 25% of the world's imprisoned population.
12.8% of the population of the states is black, but 60% of the prison population is black.
Put that together, 15% of the world's prison population is black americans, but they comprise only .6% of the world's total population.
The average black family income is almost HALF of that of the average white family.
Tell me those aren't related.
Tell me that people living in slums are worried about companies buying and selling their credit card information?
Privacy is a 'human right' worried about by rich people.
Not to say I don't think it's important to respect, or think that a positive move towards greater individual privacy vis-a-vis corporations is a BAD thing, just that IMO, it's silly to call it the 'most abused' human right in the US.
Greg
Re:Nightmare (Score:2)
That would be awesome! I would charge everything just to run up their shipping costs and I would have a never-ending supply of coasters and frisbees!
What a whiner (Score:1)
This is about personal info.
Fsck, this is about respect.
The right to be left alone is essential to freedom, to paraphrase a judge's comments.
Privacy != Secrecy
Privacy != Security
Privacy != Safety
Gah... c'mon.
Why... Re:small victory but certainly not the end (Score:1)
Unfortunately, it is important for the well being of the community in general (not absolutely necessary, but important), that Trans Union stay in existence, while it is not important for the well being of the community that you stay in existence (no matter how important it is to you), therefore, Trans Union gets a tongue lashing and the threat of future fines, but you get the death penalty etc.
Is it clearer now?
Re:I hope this sets a trend. (Score:2)
No, I'm not a "communist" - its just that this world is becoming more vulgar and intrusive with each passing day. Here in the U.S. it seems everyone is encouraged to become (figuratively) a prostitute. I'm sick of it, and of the sleazeball fsckbags who pull the strings in the business world. Violating customers' privacy is only a tiny part of it.
There are far more interesting goals than "money and power at any cost"...
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
where you have to be 21 to purchase a beer, because you are not old enought to decide for your self but have to face all the consequences of the law in you do something wrong aged 12
great
this companies take something from me, my personal data and I get nothing in return
Looks like they knew what they were doing was wron (Score:1)
Trans Union indicated it had expected the decision. "We regret the commissioners did not agree with our legal opinion, but we are not surprised," said Oscar Marquis, Trans Union's vice president and general counsel, in a statement.
So, they knew what they were doing was wrong, at least in the abstract sense of 'against the law' and yet, they did it anyway. They should throw these fuckers in jail if you ask me. I guess big corps get to break whatever laws they want if they think they can legally worm there way out. (What would be really nice is if we got that $2,500 that they would have been fined for each instance)
[ c h a d   o k e r e ] [dhs.org]
I'm not an attorney... (Score:2)
These guys at Trans Union are laughing at the commission- they've made millions illegally and now that they are finally caught they don't even get a slap on the wrist.
They're laughing and crying. They're laughing because they got away with it for so long, and still aren't being punished; they're crying because they had a pretty good thing going there and now they've been told they have to stop or they'll have to pay (ooooh!) some fines...if they get caught doing it again.
Re:C'mon Katz! (Score:1)
*sigh* This is getting PATHETIC. I'd bet you that a *large* chunk of the people visiting this site feel that privacy issues (online and not) *ARE* important to them.
Not EVERY article is for EVERYONE.
If you hate Katz so much, save the bandwidth and quit reading his stuff, or for gods sake, stop bitching about him!
Greg
Re:Too Late For Me (Score:1)
Re:Safer? (Score:1)
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
I would hardly say that just because they can legally get the information or even if they can't get it can't just screw you almost any other way.
Yeah, there's just one problem... the score is still 162-1.
Well I wasn't keeping score but I think that you could say in some way that for some that score is much less or greater depending on who you are. If you are one of the stockholders of the company in question you may be thinking differently.
Re:Too Late For Me (Score:1)
Re:Safer? (Score:1)
I think Hineric Hemler would have loved that statement. Well, maybe not Hemler, but whatever member of the Nazi party was in charge of propaganda. I can't tell one damn Nazi from another these days.
Linking true statements to conjecture " Not to mention the very large number of "disappearances" that happen in the US, every year.". What are you talking about? By large numbers, do you mean 10? Or maybe 100? This is out of 280 million people. Large numbers of people do not just "Disappear" in the US each year. As for a few isolated incidents, those happen everywhere. I seem to recal a couple of UK kids stoning a little girl to death after seeing an episode of Power Rangers a few years back. What does this say about the UK? Nothing. The US is not a "dangerous place to live" And certainly not anywhere near the level of Anarchic, war torn, states like Chechnya and "that place in Africa"
[ c h a d   o k e r e ] [dhs.org]
Re:Whoppee (Score:1)
My wife works as a loan officer. The first time she pulled up my credit report on her machine (which took no time at all) I was completely amazed and the sheer volume of information. It's not just the ultra-detailed credit information Ice described, but "lifestyle" information as well, such as 'customer loyalty' (they provide check, debit card and credit card verification for many many buisnesses, then share that data with their other databases, and with every check and debit card purchase tracked, it's easy to see what things were purchased and where), 'behaivour models', how many people you live with (roommates, parents, spouse, kids, etc), medical and dental bills, utility information, you job and education history, ad nauseum. In fact, before Equifax changed their name from Retail Credit, their files even tracked a person's political activities.
It should also be noted that most of the top three credit report companies also run direct marketing databases, medical insurance claims databases, and auto insurance claims databases.
The biggest problem with this industry is that they have no interest in protecting your personal information - their expicit goal is the sale of that information to the most buyers possible. Case in point - does anyone remember Lotus Marketplace? Lotus teamed with a credit agency (I forget which) and sold CD-ROMs with the profiles of 100,000 people. Of course the law later put a stop to it, but it's a good example.
BE VERY AFRAID!
mgetty+sendfax. (Score:2)
Another really nifty feature of this software is that it lets you configure an unlimited number of answering messages, it'll just loop through them all playing a new message for each caller (and thwarting many telephony devices which the telemarketers use).
Also, check your state, city laws. In some areas telemarkets are illegal. In Florida they are required to be licensed and if you have your name on this opt out list, it is illegal for them to call you (and fairly easy to sue them over). I added my name to the opt out list and I have had exactly 0 calls since then.
They are a threat to free speech and must be silenced! - Andrea Chen
mixed feeling about it (Score:1)
Re:Thank you (Score:1)
are old enough to decide the fate of your country (vote)because you are an adult, at 18...
Are no longer allowed to have sex with your 1 year younger girlfriend (statutory rape) because you are now an adult, at 18...
but you can't have a simple beer 'til you are 21.
Because you asked... (Score:2)
I suppose I would, but I wouldn't be happy about it. Why should I have to pay more just so I don't get unpleasant surprises? I've been told it's economic reality - if something (privacy, f'rinstance) is valuable, I should be willing to pay for it. I guess that's understandable. So I ask: where's my cut for disclosing my SSN, my credit card numbers, the sites I visit? Doubleclick et al never told me they were gathering this information; I had to hear it from places like Slashdot. They profited from that information. It's valuable to them. There seem to be different rules in play for the big players. If something is valuable to you or me, we can expect to pay for it. But if it's valuable to Doubleclick, they want us to give it to them for free.
I'll pay more for food that doesn't have dogshit in it too, because that's important to me. But I won't be happy about it. I'd prefer that ALL the food on the store shelves was dogshit-free.
Is Privacy a "Human Right"? (Score:1)
It seems to me that privacy is a legal right that we've guaranteed under law. It's an agreement to stay out of others' business and provides recourse for dealing with others too deep in your business.
What do they know? (Score:2)
It should also be noted that most of the top three credit report companies also run direct marketing databases, medical insurance claims databases, and auto insurance claims databases.
The biggest problem with this industry is that they have no interest in protecting your personal information - their expicit goal is the sale of that information to the most buyers possible. Case in point - does anyone remember Lotus Marketplace? Lotus teamed with a credit agency (I forget which) and sold CD-ROMs with the profiles of 100,000 people. Of course the law later put a stop to it, but it's a good example.
BE VERY AFRAID!
who are the 3rd parties? (Score:2)
You didn't really address the thrust of my comment. I don't want to quibble about who's a creditor and who is not, and you may be 100% knowlegeable and correct: my point was that the article says "third parties" will be barred from buying your data. I'm saying that it is not clear to me who is a third party.
The article was talking about selling the data to people with whom you have no relationship so they could mine the data for potential customers. I'm sure that your credit card agreement, and their agreement with your merchant, and contract law covering you and your merchant does not define your merchant as a mere "third party". So, my original point about the Psychics (that is how they do it, I've heard) are still valid:
That's why I call for regulations which place burdens on data gatherers across the board. If my data is in your database, I think you must tell me. If my data is bought or sold, I think you must tell me. Any system that falls short will fail.
Apologies in advance for using the word "spam" and "shrinkwrap" in novel ways, but I'm trying to make a simple point in a few words to a smart audience, and I hope not to have to write yet another post to clarify clarify clarify.
That is OUR personal information they are selling (Score:5)
It seems to me that this would be a much more effective basis for creating a system for selling personal information: companies must buy the rights to use a persons information. Of course, in many instances individuals would grant use of their information for free, but basing a system on this rule would grant individuals the ability to control in what way their personal information may be used.
For example, I don't want phone solicitations of any kind so would limit access to anyone wanting my phone number. In this digital age it wouldn't even be far fetched for me to allow a clearinghouse to sell my phone number on my behalf for $5 per use. On the other hand, I am active in sports so would grant permission for local sports stores to have access to my address.
This may sound radical, but it is not that different from the current practice. There are a lot of companies out there already selling our personal information. They already act as the clearinghouse I describe. All that would be needed is for them to find out from individuals in what way and for how much they would allow their information used (granted, this is not a trivial task).
Some would argue that this would drive up the cost of gaining access to personal information. As someone interested in personal privacy, that isn't a bad thing. :)
YAAC (Yet Another Anonymous Coward)
More truthful? (Score:1)
--
Re:Genie out of the bottle? (Score:1)
I don't think that there's a legal issue that prevents them from doing so, but there's certainly a practical problem. They key think that makes the data held by the credit reporting agencies so nice to businesses is that it's current. Once that data gets stale it loses a lot of its value.
A good example of this is one of the uses described in the article; trying to get customers for furhter financial services. One of the companies looked for people with multiple mortgages who had poor credit, and tried to get them to refinance (presumably at high rates). If the data on their existing mortgages were a year old, this would be much less attractive. There would be no way of knowing if the people had refinanced in the interim, had suffered additional credit problems, or had any other changes in financial status that might make the offer pointless or bad business.
Re:Safer? (Score:1)
I've said it before (and linked before) but I guess you're a different AC. See #1 and #2. [nara.gov]
--
Re:Speaking of privacy... (Score:1)
Re:C'mon Katz! (Score:1)
Re:This is absolutely great! (For *RICH* people) (Score:1)
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
are old enough to decide the fate of your country (vote)because you are an adult, at 18...
Are no longer allowed to have sex with your 1 year younger girlfriend (statutory rape) because you are now an adult, at 18...
but you can't have a simple beer 'til you are 21.
What you are forgetting is that in many countries there is compulsary miliatary service which is not optional and not just a chance with the draft. Unlike my father who almost had to serve in Vietnam because of the draft I do not (although I did register but hey at least it's convienent and can be done over the internet
Free reports from credit agencies (Score:1)
Re:A small victory but certainly not the end (Score:2)
Please explain this social contract.
There is NO law that requires a person to have a SSN. (And yes, you can live, work, drive, marry, etc without one.)
Cheers
Re:This is absolutely great! (For *RICH* people) (Score:1)
The US has a very high rate of imprisonment as compared to the world.
The percentage of the US prison population that is black is much higher than the percentage of the general US population.
Blacks are far more likely to be poor in the US than whites.
Now, the thing that most people don't think about (many American leaders don't _want_ to think about) Race is not the signifigant correlation to criminal activity.... economic status is! The correlation between race and imprisonment is largely due to the correlation between race and economic status. (Although bias in the system doesn't help much either) Despite the standard propaganda "anyone can become anything they want to in America!" (which may be true to an extent), not _everyone_ can become anything they want to. It simply is not possible for everyone born in poverty to die wealthy.
...end meandering rant...
Even if it stays legal, screw with 'em. Lie. (Score:2)
--
Re:More truthful? (Score:1)
Ahhh. That foreign beer. I don't care for it, but it sure is cheap.
Score one for privacy (Score:1)
Re:Well, antitrust law (Score:2)
Pre-consent decree: Every PC vendor told MS
how many PCs they sold.
Post-consent decree: Every PC vendor told MS how many PCs they sold within each model line.
There was no change in pricing. There was no change in behavior. The net effect of the consent decree was to hand MS, who already had the best overall view of the PC industry, a much more detailed view of the industry. Stupid DOJ.
This explains it... (Score:2)
Thanks, Trans Union!
Re:not enough teeth? (Score:2)
Note that it is still legal and standard practice by all of the credit reporting agencies, to sell/give your credit report info to companies that are using the info to offer you credit, even if you didn't ask them to. The ruling in this article only applies to companies that aren't trying to offer credit. So citibank can do an unsolicited credit check because they might want to offer you a 'pre-approved' platinum card (they are never really pre-approved, they reserve the right to reject you) but Carnival can't do an unsolicited credit check to check to see if you can afford a cruise before they call you.
Also, you can opt out! You have to write or call each credit agency seperately and request that they not give out unsolicited information. It's kind of a pain because you have to renew your request every 2 years and I believe that they require a seperate form if you want to be removed from all existing lists immediately.
fyi here are the links:
http://www.experian.com/product/consumer/
https://www.econsumer.equifax.com/equifax.app/W
http://www.transunion.com/Consumer/
Re:Well, antitrust law (Score:2)
Plus, the judge assigned to the case had to approve of the decree (if the judge believes that the firm is getting off too easy they can reject it)
Judge Sporkin did reject the decree. Microsoft and the DOJ together appealed the rejection and got the decree accepted. It wasn't until later that the DOJ realized they'd been had.
Wow... (Score:2)
I could have sworn that the headline said "FTC Rules in Favor of Piracy."
Now that would be a story.
Too late for me... (Score:4)
OK, now the scam: In the past two years, not one, not two, but three collection agencies have continually sent me mail, claiming to represent the bank that issued the defaulted-upon card. Each of them offers me a chance to "clear my debt" at a deep discount. Granted, the amount of the debt is pretty small, I am willing to pay it, but I have severe doubts as to the credibility of these agencies. At least two of them are scams, and so I haven't acknowledged any of them, for fear of confirming my entry in a scammer's database. When I checked in 1998, none of the three agencies had websites. (maybe I should try again)
My first question, once I realized what was happening, was "How did these people get my name and SSN?" Then I learned how credit agencies will sell your data to just about anyone who can pay the price.
Every one of these letters reads the same: first, I have a short period (10-14 days) in which to reply to get the good deal. Threatening language follows, with vague threats to my credit rating should i fail to respond. The postmark on the letter is typically later than the date on the letter by a significant fraction of the offering period. Next, about three weeks later, comes another letter, stating how I lost my chance, and the entire balance is now due, and making more vehement but still nonspecific threats to my credit rating. Then comes another letter or two, saying that they are going to take action against my credit report. Then silence for a few months, and the cycle repeats.
All three "collectors" use the exact same tactic. It's like they bought the same "collection agency in a box" software kit.
I talked to my lawyer about this and she told me to not do anything until something appears on my credit reports. Only the collector who legitimately owns the debt may report to the credit agency. And even that I can contest, since it is the same debt already reported 10 years ago. So now I collect my credit reports annually (and struggle to read them - damn are they arcane).
But the bottom line is that the credit agencies practically promote this kind of scam by selling the data to people who have no right to it. I wonder how many people have been burned by it?
Human Rights in the US ... NOT! (Score:2)
Earlier today, Odell Barnes, was killed by the criminal state of Texas, despite the fact that several evidences showed his innocence and the unfairness of his trial.
GW Bush refused to delay the execution despite the intervention of the Pope, the French Prime minister and many others. Great president you're going to have, american people.
Moderate me down if you think this is off-topic, the shame has to be known.
IT WORKS! (Score:3)
It works. Anytime you buy so much as one item from something you got in the mail, it is a major return on investment for the bulk mailer. If you buy something in response to something you got in the mail, you have really dug yourself a hole. Don't buy/subscribe to stuff that way. If you want a good/service, find another way to get it so that they don't get the little ref # that tags along with thier bulk ad.
Several sites, such as junkbuster(s) [i don' know the spelling or url] give a long list of steps to get off various lists, including addresses.
I sent demands to the three credit beaurau's (sp?) demanding that they immediately cease and desist selling my credit info. So far, only one has replied, with a copy of my credit report. One full page of inquiries were listed, with only 6 that were legit. All the others were promotional - read sold - to various companies. Chevron was making an inquiry every other month! Guess what gas company I don't patronize anymore.
You must take an active stance to stop this junk. Once you do you will see results. Also, when you get another credit ap, return the envelope to the sender, with a letter informing them that all further correspondence will be subject to a $500/per piece proofreading charge. It costs them mail money, and gives you a nice lever to use against them. It also wastes their time sending the letter through channels.
Uncle Sam is for sale. He doesn't care about your right to privacy. Therefore you must take matters into your own hands to defend yourself. I know its not right, but until we can all get together and provide enough influence on our elected representatives, it is the only option to insure our privacy. Write to your local and state officials and let them know how you feel. Polite and well written letters are VERY effective, if you just take the time to write them. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so start squeaking - loud enough to drown out some (all) of that cash from the big corporations.
Sorry this was so long, but I'm having success, and hope I can inspire a few others to get going.
Re:Too Late For Me (Score:2)
BTW I've done this dozens of times and never once have I hung up on a real person accidentally.
Or you could do the opposite and waste as much of their time as possible (if they wanna sell you vinyl siding, don't tell them immediately that you're in an apartment, etc). Depends on your mood.
Someone should whip up a speech-to-text-to-megahal [uwa.edu.au]-to-text-to-speech processor for answering sales droid calls. That way at least once a year your machine would be telling a sales droid that "I DO NOT FEAR DEATH AND KILLING" [uwa.edu.au].
Re:Too late for me... (Score:2)
I worked as a sys admin for a collection agency in a former life. Here's a real VALUABLE link for anyone who finds they've got a collector on the other end of the phone:
American Collectors Association [collector.com]
A caveat; collectors ARE people, and they're trying to earn a living, too. I couldn't believe the unearned abuse that some of these folks had to take from people who were, honestly, deadbeats. ALL of the collectors I dealt with were good people, and would go out of their way to work with you. I must say, however, that the collection agency I worked for had no tolerance for a collector that strayed beyond the bounds of the FDCPA. Other collection agencies aren't as stringent.
This all said, your lawyer is wrong... dead wrong. If you wait for a debt to show up on your credit report, you've waited too long! You DO have the option of dealing with the original creditor, (and it's usually in your best interest to do so), but collection agencies legally can, and do, routinely report 'bad debts' to the credit agencies on behalf of the original creditor.
And, BTW, "writeoff" is short for "writeoff to bad debt". If you've accurately described your situation, it probably means that the company you owe the $500 to sent you several letters concerning your debt, and either got no response and had mail returned (did you move?), or their 'in-house' collections procedures determined that they'd have a better chance of recovery if they turned you over to a collection agency.
In either case you "know" that you owe $500 to the original creditor. The fact that the original creditor has not 'contacted' you with a bill does not relieve you of the debt; only filing bankruptcy will do that.
I'd go on to mention 'personal responsibility' as it relates to the debt collection 'scam', but I've already spent too much time reliving this part of my past.
In short, you owe the money, you indicate that you now have the means to pay it, and choose not to. What's your bitch? You're now costing me and everyone else who deals with your creditor money in the form of higher prices. (You don't REALLY think they're just going to write off $500, do you?)
Grow up, and take responsibility for your actions.
And damn, now I've got 4 moderator points that I can't use here!
this is sad (Score:2)
INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE.
Yet the government rules that information is "private" and can not be exchanged freely, and a hundred slashdot posters raise a foolish cheer.
Nobody should be prevented by law from exchanging information which they posess. Information needs to be free before people can be free. Now I'm not saying that you don't have a right to privacy. You may indeed have a MORAL right to privacy.
But it is YOUR responsibility to protect yourself from making bad purchasing decsisions, it's not the government's place to do so. If you deal with companies that are willing to make money off of your personal data, that's your problem.
You clearly have the ability to protect your privacy through your own choices. You could choose to only deal with credit card companies who guarantee your privacy thru their service agreements. You could choose to shop only at stores which advertise a "purchase privacy guarantee" to all of their customers.
But noooooo, if you are a typical American you instead wait until your personal information is being bought and sold all over the world. Next you whine and complain like angry children because the free market system works correctly. And then you beg the government to make it illegal for companies to do what comes naturally in a free market, namely make money off of information they responsibily obtained.
And what do the politicans say? Sure, just re-elect us, and we'll protect you from all the scary bad things that you don't want to think about.
No wonder this country loses more and more freedoms with each passing year. It's being railroaded into protecting the lowest common denominator -- the people who are so weak and stupid that they don't appreciate freedom -- at the expense of the free and the strong. And no wonder our taxes are so high. The government has to waste billions enforcing stupid laws like this.
This news makes me sick. Devolution in action.
Cookies are fine, people are lazy. (Score:2)
They for example allow an online-store to remember the products in your shopping cart so that you can pick items one at a time and then buy them all at once when you are completely finished shopping.
They also allow a page with a simple address to be customized to look the way each viewer wants it, instead of exactly the same for everybody.
The only modern problem at all related to cookies is with web pages which both include ads from another site AND sell your personal information to that other site. Imagine for example you go to www.slashdot.org and it includes an ad banner from www.doubleclick.net.
This naturally allows Doubleclick determine a little fragment of information about you (no cookies necessary)... it knows you viewed an ad thru Slashdot. But it doesn't know who "you" are.
So it puts a cookie in your cache for www.doubleclick.net. Then when later you browse to www.cnn.com, and another ad banner is displayed from www.doubleclick.net, Doubleclick reads back in the earlier cookie from Slashdot (because it's really a www.doubleclick.net cookie, not a Slashdot cookie at all) and can say "AHA!" the same person who was just browsing Slashdot is now browsing CNN.
But Doubleclick still doesn't know you you are, until you type your personal information into a site which sells your personal information to Doubleclick.
So you go to www.buy.com and there is another Doubleclick ad. You buy something. Doubleclick now knows that somebody viewed Slashdot, CNN, and then bought something at www.buy.com. If buy.com guarantees your privacy you are fine because Doubleclick still doesn't know who you are. But if you are lazy and don't check buy.com's privacy policy, they may sell your personal information to Doubleclick.
Finally at this point Doubleclick now has valuable marketing information... information which YOU gave them by shopping in the wrong place.
So DON'T TYPE IN YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION except on sites which guarantee your privacy.
This is not a problem with cookies, it's a problem with people's web browsing habits. Place blame where it is due.
UTICA (Score:2)
Re:This is absolutely great! (For *RICH* people) (Score:2)
Without doubt. Like I said though, America's leaders don't want to have to consider that. The more clear evidence that they get that oppression is not as effective at reducing crime as education and a generally improved standard of living would be, the harder it is for a politician to sound sincere when he says that the crackdowns on crime that get the votes really is for the best.
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
Or The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [hrweb.org]
(The latter is signed by all countries in the world,... except USA and Somalia)
A country that executes children should be very careful when it comes to condemning others.
(That said I'd still prefer to live in the US, rather than China or Iraq...)
How about @HOME? (Score:2)
Care to take bets on whether they are selling this data?
Cheers,
Ben "no proof but..." Tilly
Re:Justice for the rich & powerful (Score:2)