Slashdot Mirror

IANAL. In fact, this is the first I've heard of Noerr-Pennington, and what little I've learned in the last 15 minutes is from reading a pretty nifty Federal Trade Commission staff report (PDF warning).

Anyways, one of the branches of descent of this doctrine (California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited) protects court action (lawsuits) from antitrust enforcement (on the basis that petitioning the government is a 1st Amendment protected activity, even if anticompetitive, and a lawsuit is a petition to the judicial branch.)

So... the angle seems to be that somehow, the RIAA's original lawsuit was protected speech, and immune to countersuit from an antitrust angle. Is antitrust or pro-competition an element of Anderson's countersuit? That might be the in.

(Also, the doctrine has a "sham exception", where petition which is intended primarily to delay, vex, or interfere with a competitor, rather than as sincere petition to government, is not protected. Very interesting....)

But again, I AM NOT A LAWYER. Not much of this makes sense to me.

In the past, L.L. Bean and American Express all experimented with greeting customers by name when they called. They did this by linking the ANI information received on their incoming 1-800-telephonenumber line with a computerized database. People were creeped out to have a person greet them by their name before they'd even said "Hello", and both American Express and L.L. Bean stopped doing this. Affinity marketing campaigns also did this and the FTC regulated this away, partially.

link to ftc pdf, see page 42 and other.

What ATT is trying to hide about what they've already done is steps beyond this.

kris

Thanks, that is plenty reasonable of course. A lot of people use the spam button for all situations, including your #2.

#3 is willful violation of federal law. You can report it here:

http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/cmplanding.shtm

The card agreement provides safety for purchasers by limiting their exposure to $50

That's only if the physical card is stolen. If the just the number is being used fraudulently, you are responsible for $0. See Credit, ATM and Debit Cards: What to do if They're Lost or Stolen.

We're liable - by federal law - for a maximum of $50 if our cards get misused.

That's only if the physical card is stolen. If the just the number is being used fraudulently, you are responsible for $0, which is what is happening here. See Credit, ATM and Debit Cards: What to do if They're Lost or Stolen.

• Include the correct Header info (You did mark your messages "Bulk" - right?)
• Provide an automated opt-out method
• and... Included your valid physical postal address

than guess what, you not only are a spammer, but you probably also broke the law.

I work for a major financial company, and our policy is: you give out your card details, your problem.

If you are from the US, you must be very confused.

According to the FTC, if your credit card details are used without your approval, you are liable for absolutely nothing, and you have 60 days to report the fraud charges. From the FTC website,

Also, if the loss involves your credit card number, but not the card itself, you have no liability for unauthorized use.

I imagine it works in a similar a way in many other countries. I quick search wasn't giving me any non-US info though, so I don't have any links.

You don't even need to bribe standards bodies. You can just suggest some valid implementation ideas and happen to mention that you own a patent on them after everyone is using them. Heck you can even amend your patents along the way to include the ideas presented to the standards body by your competitors.

So bribes are not required... merely ruthlessness -- RAMBUS and the JEDEC standards body comes to mind. Then again, if you do this, you risk getting caught and fined by the regulators.

Indeed.

The reason software is so bad is that the customers absorb the cost of defects. That's a political decision. Cars used to be that way; today, if a car even stalls unexpectedly, that's considered a manufacturing defect. In the US, the manufacturer has to pay for the recall to fix the problem. Cars are far more reliable, and much safer, as a result.

In a few industries, the software developer is financially liable for errors. The gambling industry works that way. The companies that run lotteries pay back a few percent of their revenue as penalties for failures and errors. (And they try very hard not to have expensive errors.)

Back before the Bush administration caved on the Microsoft antitrust case, I proposed the Full Warranty remedy. The FTC took a look at this issue in 2000, but the Bush Administration didn't do anything. It may be time to revisit this.

Section 604(a)(3)(F)(i) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act:

In general, any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances: To a person which it has reason to believe ... has a legitimate business need for the information in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer.

You seem to have no concept of the cost of the Gramm, Leach Bliley Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
Passed in a lame duck session in 1999 the regulations implementing the act were written in 2001 and went into effect Jan 1, 2002. http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glbsub1.htm
The unregulated Credit Derivative market ran up "investments" to the tune of $200 Trillion or about 4x the World's GNP.

The BUSHIES were entirely behind robbing the US and the rest of the planet blind. They have left a shell of a nation - the USA, deeply in debt to the oil states and China and those notes come due in 20 years.

If we had (1) Never gone into Iraq - 100% of the US Infrastructure needs could have been met; and, (2) If we hadn't cut taxes during wartime (unprecedented in any nation); and, (3) If we had kept the SEC and other regulatory agencies awake - we wouldn't have these "money" problems.

Where the US GNP is $13.6 Trillion and Wall Street creates, and trades/sells credit derivatives worth $200 Trillion - money just isn't money any more. My sources are the Financial Times, my education (I'm a lawyer), my investments and a slew of other sources than /.

New Orleans was a pure example of gross - if not criminal - negligence. Don't tell me about money - tons went in after but there was a 3 day warning as Katrina formed in the Atlantic, crossed over Florida and then hit the Gulf Coast. All at a time when the Bushies had "restructured" government to increase "homeland security" - years after a single terrorist incident the President was telling the head of FEMA (no longer a Cabinet Agency), "Heckofa job Brownie" to Michael DeWayne Brown - a moron of an attorney with no emergency management skills - he did NOTHING to limit the damage BEFORE Katrina hit. Hell, he had to find out about what was going on from CNN while ensconced in Baton Rouge.

Go ahead and delude yourself - but the US has a $10.5 Trillion Dollar hangover as of TODAY thanks to BUSHCO - and the price will just go up and up and up as the bills come due.

If you're in the United States, you should read up on the E-SIGN act, signed into law in 2000 by Clinton. See here for some info.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/06/esign7.htm

The law was technology agnostic. My basic understanding is that if you have prior agreement in the US to do business with another person electronically, then something like this could work in the US too. There are specific legal requirements though for serving court summons and notices, so it might not. Who knows... IANAL.

• the United States does not have and will never have jurisdiction over foreign spammers
• the spammers can relay their email through yet another ISP tomorrow.

They don't specifically say you must have an AT&T contract to get warranty service, but it's more or less required via the other terms. They wont' service your phone unless its activated ("How can we see if it's working or not?). They won't service phones that aren't activated legitimately (at least not if they know about it). You MUST sign up for a contract to activate your phone (not actually true with the 3g, it'll apparently activate on a prepaid sim).

Well, I see from your other posts that your iphone isn't actually broken, but if you ever do need service, don't assume they won't service it. Give them a call. I doubt they won't honor the warranty (they might initially tell you they won't, but ask to talk with a supervisor).

The reason I'm certain they'll honor the warranty is because you can just file a small claims suit if they don't. You're on solid legal ground here. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prevents them from tying in their warranty to sales or services. And the latest DMCA exemptions allow you to unlock your cell phone. Of course, if your attempts to unlock the phone was what caused the damage, then it falls into the accidental damage clause and they're not liable again...however, I don't think anyone has actually bricked an iphone by unlocking it (by the real definition of brick, ie, a restore won't work).

Given the price of the iphone, the lawsuit would be worth it. However, do remember to ask them to honor the warranty first. Not only are they likely to honor it, but judges tend to throw out lawsuits if you don't make an effort with the other party first.

Wrong, neither of those entities are supposed to take care of this king of thing.

The correct agencies are the FCC and the FTC.

Here is an article about Caller ID fraud that gives the contact name and number for the FTC investigator in charge of this kind of thing.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/05/scorpio.shtm

It is from 2006, so the hierarchy may have changed, but it will send you to the right office. It the number doesn't work call - 1-877-FTC-HELP

Dosn't matter a bit FBI? CIA? RGB? TFB?

If she was getting call backs, she should tell EVERY ONE WHO CALLS, AWS are scammers, and they should register with the FTC: and START Signed and dated PHONE LOGS. Every one I hear gets these phone calls, I show them the origional post card that started it all, and my phone log. I have clued in about 20 people, and we have filed over 15 reports for illegal telemarketing contact, i.e. Dont call EVER, and ... they ... call @ $500 per complaint.

http://www.ftc.gov/

Scammer name:
Automotive Warranty Solutions
6501 congress ave, ste 140, boca raton, fl 33487
877-700-5880,
Call their 800 number, and ask to be put on their do not call list. ( just everone call plz )

This is a Attorney General who is taking this problem seriously. ( Note: California and Florida are probibly NOT ):

http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?A=2795&Q=411422

a blogger who did a lot of flatfoot work:

http://www.markturner.net/2007/11/08/car-warranty-scam-continued/

Remember: REMEMBER! Documented phone logs make diffrence. If you can document DNC and the call back time and date. Give them a call and get on their DNC list ANYWAY. So when they do call...

Oddly enough, when I look up that Bill, I find it was approved by both Parties (90 votes for in the Senate, 343 in the House), and signed by a Democratic President (Clinton was President in 1999, remember?).

If it was an evil Republican plot to rob the dear people, then why did the "Defenders of All That is Good and Right" (aka the Democrats) approve it? Remember, most of them voted in favour of this also.

This act was also known as the Gramm Leach Bliley act. It was written by a Republican controlled congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

You may have heard of one of the sponsors, Phil Gramm. He is the Gramm in Gramm Leach Bliley... He also wrote John McCain's economic policy and was John McCain's presidential campaign co-chair and his most senior economic advisor, until he made a gaffe on the campaign trail and said "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," and "We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline." Whoops. I guess McCain had to let him go after he said that on national television.

I love it how the right-wing media is trying to spin this that "it's all Clinton's fault" when we have a law passed by a Republican controlled congress, written by McCain's senior economic advisor. I know you guys like to try and stretch the facts about everything, but the people are starting to get sick of all of the lies and deceit.

Let's face it, deregulation has failed our economy and our nation. Voting for John McCain would be putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

here is the research providing the links.

Frederick J. Zimmerman, PhD and Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH. "Associations Between Content Types of Early Media Exposure and Subsequent Attentional Problems" PEDIATRICS Vol. 120 No. 5 November 2007, pp. 986-992
L. Rowell Huesmann, Jessica Moise-Titus, Cheryl-Lynn Podolski, and Leonard D. Eron. "Longitudinal Relations Between Children's Exposure to TV Violence and Their Aggressive and Violent Behavior in Young Adulthood: 1977-1992" Developmental Psychology 2003, Vol. 39, No. 2, 201-221.
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Public Education. "Media Violence" PEDIATRICS Vol. 108 No. 5 November 2001, pp. 1222-1226
Ben Berkowitz "Most U.S. teens play violent video games-study." 02/26/2008. http://www.benberkowitz.com/Reuters/0903.htm
ESRB Ratings Guide. 03/01/2008. http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp
Aaron R. Boyson and Stacy L. Smith, "The Relationship Between A Predisposition to Think About Killing and Media Violence Exposure: Exploring A New Measurement Model"
Federal Trade Commission prepared statement 02/29/2008. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/09/violencerpttest.htm
Dave Cullen. "The Depressive and the Psychopath: At Least We Know Why The Columbine Killers Did It." 02/29/2008. http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/
Terry Bosky. "Interview: Dr. Cheryl K. Olson co-author of Grand Theft Childhood." 02/29/2008
  http://www.gamecouch.com/2008/02/interview-dr-cheryl-olson-co-author-of-grand-theft-childhood/
Freedman, J. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression: Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
CBS News "Study: Abuse And Genetics = Aggression: Gene May Explain Why Some Abused Boys Turn Violent" 03/1/2008. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/01/health/main517241.shtml

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/07/newspamemail.shtm

uce@ftc.gov is no longer in service. The above link describes the new email address, spam@uce.gov
Before you blast me for telling you about this new development, take a look at the date on the announcement (July 28, 2004).

and I couldn't see any change to the laws that made them responsible for money mysteriously disappearing from my account.

I think you mean "made them less responsible." I thought consumers are protected from all charges beyond the first $50 in the case of fraud. (Scroll to bottom.)

So, $50/year is a total ripoff unless you get defrauded more than once a year. It's basically guaranteeing you lose that $50 bucks annually, even if you never experience any fraud. Nice.

There's also no reason for them to be hard to read. See, for example, the FTC's privacy policy: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm.

Governments (well some governments anyway) seem to be outstandingly good at providing comprehensible, sensible privacy policies. Look at the one from the Australian Institute of Criminology for example or the New Zealand Police (those sites chosen because they're organisations that some people would be a bit nervous about :-). They tell you exactly what they collect, how they collect it, why they collect it, what they do with it, and how to disable some of it (e.g. cookies) if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

Now compare it to Telsta's policy which more or less says "We'll do anything we feel like with your personal data" - is there anyone in Australia that isn't included in some manner in their list of organisations that they'll hand your details to?.

They're mandated by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

There's also no reason for them to be hard to read. See, for example, the FTC's privacy policy: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm

Unfortunately, with Internet T&C, there are a few times where the requirements to be legally binding are at odds with being readable to the layman. For example, if you want to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability, you generally need to put that disclaimer in all-caps and specifically mention that warranty. But, "Warranty of Merchantability" is really a term of art, and a lay person may not understand what it means.

But, absent those times, the fact that a websites T&C are hard to read is really a problem with the lawyer not drafting them for the appropriate audience. Sometimes that comes from the site operator, who doesn't want to be billed for the extra legal time.

That said, I'm not a big fan of your suggested law -- that's a lot of money spent on documents that nobody really reads. More often than not a typical user who slogged through the T&C will conclude "Yeah, that's about what I expected."

Funny story: my kid signed up for the Ty Beanie Baby on-line service. At the end of the sign-in process (which was clearly intended for children to read), there was a cartoon character that said "Be sure to read the terms and conditions and click accept!" The T&C were in a separate scrolling 4-line text box, and was written in absurd legalese. I have no idea how Ty things that's going to be binding.

Know this site and this is the ONLY tuly free credit report direct or start here. The other "free" credit report websites are just trying to sell you stuff that you don't need.

To be truly safe from someone opening credit in your name is to freeze your credit - monitoring services are NOT as good. Here's a great guide on how to do it.

On another note and something positive about credit, check your credit card. They may offer to double or more the manufacturer's warranty. Meaning, if you're actually considering an extended warranty, your credit card may give you the same coverage to you for free.

But other than that, the whole credit industry seems to be geared towards sucking us in. I mean, unless you're going to drive and stay with friends and relatives, is it possible to travel without one?

Is it possible to get a job without a credit rating now? They background checks with Choicepoint who gets their data mostly from the credit bureaus.

What about flying? If you don't have a credit rating, are you automatically flagged as suspect?

And as far as SSN is concerned, we're stuck with that beast. I kind of hope it does go bankrupt then maybe we can burn the things!

Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.

Except as provided in section 804, the placement of telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller's identity

Furthermore, at any time a person may send a letter to the collection agency asking that all telephone communications cease. Afterwards, the collection agency may only send letters to the person updating them on any actions being taken towards the debt.

CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except-- (1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated; (2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or (3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/maintain.htm

While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete. A single firm may commit a violation through its unilateral actions, or a violation may result if a group of firms work together to monopolize a market.

A common complaint is that some companies try to monopolize a market through "predatory" or below-cost pricing. This can drive out smaller firms that cannot compete at those prices. But the lower prices a large retailer offers may simply reflect efficiencies from spreading overhead costs over a larger volume of sales. Because the antitrust laws encourage competition that leads to low prices, courts and antitrust authorities challenge predatory activities only when they will lead to higher prices.

While I agree that Verified by Visa is a marketing joke, encountering it doesn't prevent me from completing the transaction or make me switch banks/cards. After all, banks and credit card processors are the ones with far more liability, so why not let them take whatever steps they feel are necessary to protect the transaction.

Under the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), credit card holders have a limit of $50 of liability for just about any charge you disagree with. This means "I didn't make it.", "I bought it, but never received it", "I don't remember it and you can't provide documentation that I made it". It's very consumer-friendly legislation.

What's more, even though the law doesn't cover charges less than $50 or more than 100 miles from you home address (an antiquated provision that didn't anticipate charges made by phone or internet), both VISA and MasterCard have zero liability policies that apply to all U.S.-issued cards anywhere they're accepted. This is way better protection than cash. If you pay in cash and the item is defective, but the store refuses to accept a return, then you're SOL. If you pay by credit card, you just dispute the charge. This is especially useful for car repairs that end up not really fixing the problem. For those saying they only use their card when they have to, that's stupid. If you have a card at all, you could end up with fraudulent transactions on your account, so having a card and not using it doesn't really protect you.

One important note about VISA's and MasterCard's fine print: VISA's policy only excludes PIN-based transactions not processed by VISA. MasterCard's excludes all PIN-based transactions. The FCBA only applies to credit transactions and therefore excludes ALL debit transactions (PIN-based are usually debit). Did you know that the credit card companies charge merchants about half as much for PIN-based transactions? Why do you think the machines at your supermarket ask you for a PIN by default? This is partly because using a PIN makes fraudulent transactions more difficult, but probably more due to the difference in legal liability the processor holds.

Seriously though, I've disputed numerous transactions under the FCBA. My bank (WellsFargo) handles disputes quickly and easily, and I've always either received all my money back or had the merchant fix the problem. I even had my card stolen in Mexico (copied, actually, since I still had the card but card was supposedly present at the transaction), and all charges were easily resolved.

Note that accounts under FCBA dispute are marked on your credit report, but I've never received a notice that I'm entitled to a free report because of it, so it must not affect your credit score.

So remember, kids:

• Under the Uniform Commercial Code, there's an implied warranty of merchantability on everything purchased in the U.S. unless otherwise stated.
• Always buy with a credit card.
• VISA is better than MasterCard (a.k.a. the Evil-O's. No, I don't work for VISA, but I used to work for a VISA subcontractor.).
• Avoid cash for anything you might ever consider returning
• Avoid debit and pin-based transactions like the plague. They're a conspiracy to shift legal liability onto consumers. If banks and credit card processors really cared about security, they'd PKI chips, PINs, and cardholder photographs on the actual card. But implementing these things is simply more expensive than simply shifting the liability to the card holder.

Not a lawyer, but yeah. I was in Potter fandom for a while and remember COPPA coming up in the weirdest instances, and kids coming on the forums and bragging about being 12 (and wondering how they got out of instant ban.) End result was that most of the big sites that allowed kids under 13 already had a legal staff. Here's the actual bill: link

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/P034305FY0dncreport.pdf I'm still reviewing it, but for doing what it's defined role is, it seems to do it well (notwithstanding the exceptions for politicians, charities, etc).

All those who want the "convenience" of one card for everything will soon learn the inconvenience of dealing with a debit card fraudulent charge

This just isn't true. My debit card was stolen once, and one quick phone call reversed the fraudulent charges.

Before you think that I just got luck with a friendly bank, realize that the Fair Credit Billing Act requires banks to refund disputed charges, even on debit cards. The bank then has 90 days to investigate.

This is essentially the same rules as a credit card. While it is true that you always have the back-up option of not paying your credit card bill, in reality the CC company has the power to wreck your credit report, preventing you from owning a home or even getting a job.

... perhaps I would have legal recourse should I need to exercise my warranty rights after having personally upgraded the memory.

Yes you would (sorry to steal the first guy's link, but it bears repeating): http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.shtm

"Tie-In Sales" Provisions Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions.

In order to keep your new Plenum Brand Vacuum Cleaner warranty in effect, you must use genuine Plenum Brand Filter Bags. Failure to have scheduled maintenance performed, at your expense, by the Great American Maintenance Company, Inc., voids this warranty.

While you cannot use a tie-in sales provision, your warranty need not cover use of replacement parts, repairs, or maintenance that is inappropriate for your product. The following is an example of a permissible provision that excludes coverage of such things.

While necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company, we recommend that you use only authorized AudioMundo dealers. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair voids this warranty.

So unless the company can prove that you improperly or incorrectly installed RAM, then you are safe.

You were modded down because just about everyone knows that it's unlawful to void warranties merely because service wasn't performed by an authorized vendor.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.shtm

"Tie-In Sales" Provisions

Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions.

In order to keep your new Plenum Brand Vacuum Cleaner warranty in effect, you must use genuine Plenum Brand Filter Bags.

Failure to have scheduled maintenance performed, at your expense, by the Great American Maintenance Company, Inc., voids this warranty.

I reckon you've got a few options:

1. point him towards your country's relevant legislation: UK (and in non-legalese) or US
2. explain why spam is so annoying because it's intrusive and it makes it harder to read wanted messages in your inbox
3. explain that spamming 1000 people may get him 1 extra sale, but it will piss off the other 999 to the extent that some of them will go out of their way to avoid trading with you

Ok, so you're dealing with a sales-focussed person here, the only one likely to carry any weight is going to be last one and even then, you may be onto a losing streak. Assuming this person controls your pay packet, you're either going to have to put up a token resistance and then keep your mouth shut; or perhaps if you have the option, consider whether you want to be working for someone like that...

Using credit cards on the Internet is actually extremely safe. If you spend a couple minutes scanning your monthly statements for suspicious charges you won't ever lose a cent. From the FTC website,

If someone intercepts your credit card number online (or by any means of having only the number), you are not responsible for any charges whatsoever. Unless it is an unusual circumstance, the only thing you really have to deal with is the time to report it and waiting for a new card to arrive in the mail. The credit card company will deal with tracking down whoever is responsible, if they want to.

Not that you should get careless and put your credit card number on your blog or something. Also, as a note, that $50 fee for physically stolen credit cards is almost always waived by the credit card company.

Yes, but the "Electronic Signatures in Global National Commerce Act" was not intended to refer to scanned images of a physical signature, but rather more like a personal key that the owner controls by password, physical token, or some such McGuffin. You could, I suppose, write out your e-signature with a pen and fax it, or scan it and mail it; or you could generate an e-signature from your scanned physical signature (hey why not?) but it wouldn't be what was intended. See: "Electronic Signatures in Global National Commerce Act"

OK, you're (or your friend's) fundamentally confused.

1) Most of the people defaulting on loans are not, in fact, minorities.

2) All the anti-discrimination provisions of federal housing law are public. Try http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/homes/rea08.shtm for a start. None of it has anything in it about lowering standards, only prohibiting discrimination.

3) People can accuse of discrimination all they want; if they can't prove it who cares? There's no way defending those cases would be as expensive to mortgage companies as having the loans blow up.

So, sorry, but this problem cannot be blamed on the economic actors in the situation who had the LEAST control over what was happening. Aim Higher!

Here's a shorter and easier-to-remember link that also includes warnings about scam sites:

http://www.ftc.gov/freereports

Thanks for posting this. Those commercials really annoy me, in part because that punk driving the car has a face you'd love to beat with a baseball bat, and in part because Experian acknowledges that their entire operation is a scam (they've already settled with the FTC once already) but they're still at it.

There are some pretty straightforward things you can do to protect yourself from identity theft, without paying any money.

You can opt out of getting unsolicited credit card offers at optoutprescreen.com. (Here is a link to them from an FTC web page so you can tell they're legit.)

You can also make a habit of getting an annual free credit report from annualcreditreport.com. This can help you to detect if something goofy is going on. (Link from FTC. It's run by the credit reporting companies, and as you go through the process, they'll try hard to sell you on getting non-free services as well. You have to watch carefully, and not accept the defaults.)

IIRC there is also a process for locking your credit reports completely, but it costs money unless you can demonstrate that you've already been a victim of fraud.

There are some pretty straightforward things you can do to protect yourself from identity theft, without paying any money.

You can opt out of getting unsolicited credit card offers at optoutprescreen.com. (Here is a link to them from an FTC web page so you can tell they're legit.)

You can also make a habit of getting an annual free credit report from annualcreditreport.com. This can help you to detect if something goofy is going on. (Link from FTC. It's run by the credit reporting companies, and as you go through the process, they'll try hard to sell you on getting non-free services as well. You have to watch carefully, and not accept the defaults.)

IIRC there is also a process for locking your credit reports completely, but it costs money unless you can demonstrate that you've already been a victim of fraud.

Patentable Subject Matter. Assuming the criteria described in the next section are also satisfied, any new and useful process, machine, manufac- ture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement of these things, can be patented. These cate- gories are quite broad, but the courts have identified certain types of subject matter that cannot be patented, including laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.

(from Can You Patent That?")

2. You are entitled to at least ONE free credit report per year and depending on your state maybe more. Federal trade Commision's site is the ONLY truly free credit report. Those other sites are trying to sell you other stuff and they're not on the up and up.

3. Check ALL of your bank and credit card statements every month.

4. Any fishyness, file a police report (they won't do anything about it because they have "more important things to do"). That way you'll have a legal document stating that this has happened.

5. Contact a lawyer to see what you can do to penalize such incompetence.

I think if you read the actual proposed regulation that's published at http://www.ftc.gov/ you'll see that that's exactly what happens. This regulation does not appear to apply to businesses who merely accept credit cards, but rather to those who issue credit cards or other forms of credit.

The FTC page that the original article links to

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/10/redflag.shtm

Only talks about financial institutions and creditors. It doesn't seem to indicate that Mary's Online Potpourri Barn has to do a background check on everybody that orders a lemon scented candle.

Bad form... replying to self... get over it.

Not paying enough attention, I missed this link from TFA. This notice is all about identity theft, while the summary indicates that companies will be required to check customer lists against known criminals.

If someone steals my identity and uses it to buy something, it will be my name in the customer database, not the criminal's. How would checking the customer list help? As far as I know, I'm not a known criminal or terrorist.

Although, I guess I would (incorrectly) end up on the list after a hypothetical incident.

OK, I'm just a bit confused. A quick search for FTC Red Flag returned this site, which exclusively talks about misleading weight loss claims. What does this have to do with vetting customer lists against known criminal lists?

While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete. A single firm may commit a violation through its unilateral actions, or a violation may result if a group of firms work together to monopolize a market.

Screw that... I followed the instructions at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/prescreen.shtm

and I get practically 0 junk mail... One place to call/visit, as opposed to haveing to call capital one... amex... etc. etc.

SITE NAME: www.optoutprescreen.com

SSL CERTIFICATE
STATUS: Valid (28-Sep-2006 to 18-Oct-2008)

COMPANY/
ORGANIZATION: CONSUMER DATA INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Washington
District of Columbia, US

        Encrypted Data Transmission This Web site can secure your private information using a VeriSign SSL Certificate. Information exchanged with any address beginning with https is encrypted using SSL before transmission.
        Identity Verified CONSUMER DATA INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION has been verified as the owner or operator of the Web site located at www.optoutprescreen.com. Official records confirm CONSUMER DATA INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION as a valid business.

Seems fairly simple to me - they're handing you something but still asserting that it's theirs. So long as no money is transferred, that seems somewhat reasonable.

I mean, you wouldn't claim the library is gifting you books when you check them out, would you?

So the question is whether the unsolicited nature makes a loan impossible. I'm not a lawyer but I briefly read the EFF's responses, and they seem to assert that the CD couldn't have been a loan but I didn't see where they provided any sort of precedent for that.

The basic question here is the same as most of the cases you see on daytime judge shows - is it a gift, or is it a loan?

Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?
A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didnâ(TM)t order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.