Slashdot Mirror
"Opt-Out" Of Financial Data Sharing
michael: If you check around there have been a lot of news stories written about this law. Until this law was passed, there were laws in place that separated banks from the insurance and securities industries. That is, your bank couldn't also be your stock broker or your insurance company. The main law creating this situation was called the Glass-Steagall Act, and was passed in 1933 right in the middle of the Great Depression. Speculation in the stock market by banks was a major cause of the stock market crash of 1929, and the goal of the law was to prevent another such crash. Scores of banks failed when their stock investments turned sour at the same time as depositors wanted their money out. When these three industries are combined into single corporate entities, society is putting all of its financial eggs into one basket - a crashing stock market leads to rising insurance claims and makes the bank insolvent precisely at the time that it needs to have lots of cash on hand. We as a society have learned this lesson, and due to this law, sometime in the future we will learn it again.
Fast-forward to the present. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 got rid of most of those restrictions, freeing banks and securities firms and insurance firms to consolidate. Gramm, Leach and Bliley are three Republican Congressmen who have all received huge bribes (sometimes called campaign contributions) from the banking industry. Essentially, like the 1996 telecommunications law which paved the way for the return of Ma Bell (the seven Baby Bells have merged into four, while stifling all possible competition in any way possible), this law will eventually result in a financial services industry dominated by a very few mega-institutions. The law was written to override not only the old Federal law, but also state laws which would have prohibited these mergers. It was strongly supported by the Republicans and lightly supported by the Democrats, after massive lobbying from the banking and financial industries. The securities firms and insurance firms loved this, because "having a lot of money in your bank account" is a good indicator that you'd be willing to invest in the stock market, and now they can simply purchase the data from your bank, or better yet, merge with it, to get access. The banks loved it because insurance and securities represented new revenue streams that were previously untapped. Additionally, it allows all sorts of conflicts of interest - advising customers to buy stock in company A while the bank itself is selling it, etc. etc.
Anyway, one of the weak additions to the bill insisted on by Clinton were the provisions affecting privacy. In a nutshell:
- Banks can share any and all information about your financial doings with any corporation that they have a business relationship with or are otherwise associated with. They can sell anything they know about you - Social Security numbers, account numbers, who you write checks to, what you buy with your credit card, etc. A Washington Post column sums it up nicely.
- You can't opt-out of that.
- Banks can also share any and all information about your financial doings with anyone else.
- You can opt-out of that.
- But the business relationship mentioned at the start could be something like "We are in business with company X for the purpose of selling your financial information", so the exception totally swallows the rule.
- Ha-ha, you lose.
So now the deadline is approaching, and lots of financial institutions are sending out privacy notices as required by law. Some small percent of institutions are sending out opt-out notifications, allowing you to "opt-out". I believe that most institutions are not sending opt-out notices, because frankly, they don't need to - any use of your financial data can be covered under the no-opt-out-required if the bank sets it up properly. None of the several institutions I do business with provided me with any opportunity to opt-out, although all warned me that they would sell my financial information. Here's a direct quote from one:
"We do not share any personal information about you or our former members with third parties except as permitted or required by law, and as necessary for business purposes."
So they share my information "as permitted by law", for any business purpose. Translation: they promise not to violate the law, and to attempt to make money. Wow, what an incredible commitment to privacy. Of course, you might not get to this sentence if you only read the beginning of the notice, which starts out "[Bank] is committed to protecting the privacy of your personal information."
My guess is that very few of these notices contain any meaningful commitment to privacy. Read them carefully. If you get an opt-out notice, do it - it won't have any effect on what actually happens to information about your bank account, credit history, credit card purchases, etc., but the industry is using the low return rate of opt-out notices as a statement that customers don't care about privacy (when in fact, most people probably just throw away these tiny-print legalese forms). I don't really have any other advice - I very much doubt that you'll be able to locate any banking institution that would be reasonably convenient for you to deal with that will in any way respect your privacy.
Actually it takes place the first business day after July 1.
*Every* time there is something that favors big business, there is a segment of the population that gets screwed. And when they do, that opens up a new market.
For example, Blockbuster opened in our area. Put mom and pops out of business. Blockbuster got lax and started up with bad service, no available rentals, and high return fees, now new mom and pop shops open up. They do pretty good business nowadays.
When credit checks became the norm a decade ago, the big real estate apartment and townhouse renters in the area grew enormously. And I mean enormously--before the area was full of single family detached homes, now it's full of townhouses and apartment complexes (also due to the economy and population influx of my area). Entire swaths of farmland become renters land for a *single* real estate dealer/builder.
What happened? The big guys got overselective. They could rifle through renter application upon application and do credit checks. Those that got "rejected" by the process, by and large, are good, decent people that have had run into some problems. So my parents get them and rent to them. Oddly, our best tenents are often the ones with credit history problems (theory is that they've learned their lesson).
The caveats are this: There is certainly a trickle down effect from these laws. There is a population that doesn't want to deal with "big" businesses--that's why credit unions, coops, etc. have sprung up a lot more recently.
The problem is, these laws hurt not the big guys, the middle guys--they hurt the lower end people the most. Most of the people that got rejected rental applications got so unduly--these people renting from us should really be paying their mortages for their own homes. But they can't get a loan due to bad credit, or otherwise pay unreasonable rates.
The other problem with these laws is that it shifts power more and more to the bigger guys. Right now, there is still room in the middle. But as these laws are passed, you sit there wondering if the next law will be "any business making less than $50,000 a year is illegal." Of course, when they pass the law, it'll be something like "to do business in this area, an application must be processed which costs X amount", where X will be some unreasonable fee. Or raise property taxes with a minimum commercial district fee (which is already done, I should add). These laws will squeeze out the middle guys and make the already incredibly difficult affair of starting a business or entering the business world (for the less economicly fortunate) impossible.
Pet peeve: I am a conservative in thought and voting. But when it comes to big business, I'm more middle. But one thing I hate from the stereotyped "liberal" viewpoint is the push for majority rules voting. I should note that the BEST defense to the worse case scenarios is a checks and balances system. If there is ever a change away from the electoral college to a purely populist (majority rules) voting scheme, your rights will be pissed away incredibly quickly. To some, this is counterintuitive. But anytime you go to a straight majority wins voting scheme, the little guys get silenced and are never even given the opportunity to talk. Think of it this way--MS has the dominant OS right now. If all the people who "voted" the MS way, everything would be MS based....as it is, we already have big business eroding our choices, I don't want to give the mass population the right to make choices over me either.
I don't get paid in cash, but I don't go to a bank. I go to a check cashing service. I pay my bills (rent, utilities) with postal money orders. I bought my used car from a neighbor, paying cash over three months. I rent movies from the 20-20 Video down on the corner. Within easy walking distance, there are many mom-n-pop-type grocery stores, and some major chains. I shop at them with cash.
I'm not saying it's nice or easy -- it isn't. And I look forward to working my way out of the hole. But I can do a lot of things. I haven't rented a car lately, but back when I was married we rented several times, paying a cash deposit instead of using a credit card (we had already lost them). You just have to shop around. There are plenty of small outfits that want your business.
Don't bother doing it through the Republicrats or Democricans in office.
You sound so zippy. Did you just get out of your high school debate team meeting?
With this very illegal bipartisan system, nothing can get done anyway. So might as well take the power of the Internet and go, man, go
Man, oh man, you just don't fucking QUIT do you?
Yeah yeah yeah... We, the individuals have the power. Boycots work. Ethical consumerism is saving the planet right now.
Get a grip, man.
we now have the FDIC, which means that up to $100,000 of the money you have in the bank is insured by the full faith and credit of the US Government
So, then, how much of what you say will really make a difference? Why in the world should I trust I'll get my $100,000 back when the Fed screwed things up so much last time? Because I know we all trust the government to do the right thing, right? *cough* Social Security *cough*
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Very bad example. The freedom being discussed here (freedom to control your financial records) will not result in people getting killed by bad drivers.
::gets buried under piles of flamebaits and offtopics::
Find a small family run FDIC insured bank, or better yet, a credit union that promises not to do it.
...
Name one.
Oh, too bad, maybe you can't use your credit card now
That will eliminate about 95% of the places you can do business.
Do your research, stop trying to control "big business."
Do your research and stop defending big business.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
It's a free market, companies should be able to do what they want to do, and if you don't like it, don't use that company.
Agreed. In principle at least. However, there are a couple issues at hand. For one, you are almost required to have a bank account somewhere. Try cashing a check that the government gives you without having a bank account in that bank or ind an employer that pays in cash (legally). One bank wanted to charge me 3 dollars! There are other issues such as Car Insurance (required by law if you want to drive). Since these are basically required, you can now advocate the government to issue some basic guidelines.
Another example is what people call the "Information Age". It's not that we just have more information, it's that it's all about information. The government as well as basic institutions rely on identifying you by your personal information. Thus, people say that it should be offered the same protection that your body has. Imagine a someone was to create fingerprints and go all over the place placing them everywhere, while excersing individual rights to do so. Who you also say that he is within his rights, or would you prevent him on the basis of society agrees to certain laws governing their behaviour in order to live more "normally"?
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Have you read my journal today?
Fortunately, the bulk that I had to do all has 800 numbers that you called, and used an automated system to process everything. Only one (which I didn't have my customer # at the time) required an operator to complete.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
In other words, *today* get on the phone and web sites and figure out how to get on the lists.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
The mom and pops rent porn and Blockbuster doesn't.
--
In two ways:
--
Not that that'll happen. The EU courts have zero actual power, and the national courts are as corrupt there as everywhere else. Not that the EU courts aren't corrupt, also, they're just uselessly corrupt.
IMHO, personal information is NOT an asset, as it is NOT seperable from the individual to whom it is attached. Unlike a wallet, or a jacket, how much money you have is how much money you have. The money can be given, but the fact simply is. It has no independent existance.
As such, the transfer of such information is more akin to someone ripping out part of your brain and handing it to someone else, without even bothering to ask.
IMHO, this fits firmly under the category of GBH. Rather than being exempt, financial organizations should be fined every cent they posess, have all licences revoked, and be forced to play bit-parts in Australian soap-operas.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Why the f**k should we have to "opt-out"? It should be "opt-in". Opt-outs are only in citizen's interests if there are a very small number of these lists. Every time a new opt-out list is created for some other type of business, the chance of people actually using the mechanism decreases. Why the hell should we do the running around to protect our privacy when really, protected privacy should be a basic right? Most people don't have the time it takes to educate themselves on *all* the things they have to opt-out from, and then actually go to the time and expense of doing it. These opt-out laws are just a cynical way of appeasing citizens without really changing much for businesses. Opt-out mechanisms are really easy for a business to implement (although, they don't always seem to work very well). If businesses want to make money from our personal information, they should work for it and do what it takes to convince us to opt-in.
A cleverer store would be one that says.
"We honor all bonus cards"
That would allow them to gather information without adding to the number of cards, and also get some idea of what other stores people use.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
"You know, stuff like this will keep getting passed until several (hundred) congresspeople wake up and find that their bank accounts have been cleaned out, and their credit cards maxed out, because you can buy anyone's personal info for $39.95."
Not so easy, I am afraid. Congress usually adds sections to these laws that povide special treatment for current and former members of Congress. I would be willing to bet that there is a section in this law making it a federal crime with a billion $ fine to misuse information about Congress-critters and their families. With no "opt-out", and with the burden of proof on the financial institution.
sPh
"Yes, that is what I am saying, unfortunately
IF YOU CARE, then you will have a clue. If you don't care (and don't read the 17 pages of literature that come with every account you open ANYWHERE, Insurance, Bank, Credit, etc), then you pretty much deserve to be rolled over"
Which is exactly the sort of "war of all against all", resulting in a life which is "nasty, brutish, and short", that Thomas Hobbes cited as a legitimate reason for the weak to band together to form a government to protect them from powerful forces. Sort of where this discussion began.
sPh
* You work in Los Angeles, and your employer's bank is in New York (or San Diego for that matter). Pretty long walk since you don't have a car.
* If you establish a pattern of withdrawing cash or money orders on a regular basis, that will be classified as "suspicious activity", and you will be reported as with the single $10,000 transaction.
Sorry.
sPh
"Not really. You cannot own information, since it is not a tangible thing. Even normal ownership of physical things are just a social contract we mostly abide by. However, as a social construct I agree that corporations shouldn't share or sell information about their dealings with you"
The problem being that the same entities which lobbied hardest for the DCMA are the ones which want to buy and sell information about you and me. So if they claim to own information, it is a bad thing to violate that claim and anyone not following rules must be prosecuted under the DMCA.
But if I claim to own information about myself, that is also a bad thing, and I must not be allowed to place limitiation on the above organizations making use of it.
Not sure I follow the logic there, toodles.
sPh
Has anyone tried sending the Nader letter to a financial institution, in place of that institution's preprinted form? What was your experience? Did you receive any sort of response, positive or negative?
One thing that occurs to me is that most form letters I have received have included a specific address to use in returning the form (and typicall, that address is very bizarre and complex, and must be copied by hand onto a separate envelope). If you send the Nader letter to a company's general address, will it be processed, or will it just be shredded. Would it be better to send it to the address the company lists in its incorporation papers for accepting legal correspondence?
sPh
"You CAN pay cash for nearly everything. Don't get a car loan, save up $400 a month for 5 years, and then go buy a car cash, and while you drive that car for 5 years, save up another $20,000 (plus interest) to buy your next car."
If you pay for a car that costs more than $10,000 in cash, the car dealership is required, under penalty of imprisonment, to report your purchase to the federal government. Similarly if you store this cash in a savings account (whether at Citicorp or your brother's neighborhood bank). This is because people who use cash are presumed to be drug dealers.
And while I do understand what you are saying, I would also ask that you respond to the word "realistic" in my post. While it might be possible for a few hundred privacy nuts (such as you and I) to live this way, it isn't realistic for the majority of the population.
Or are you saying only the really clueful deserve to be protected from forces beyond their control?
sPh
"Where's the problem? It's a free market, companies should be able to do what they want to do, and if you don't like it, don't use that company. Find a small family run FDIC insured bank, or better yet, a credit union that promises not to do it. If they do share, then leave."
50 years ago, that might have been true. It was possible to live a quiet life, taking your paycheck in cash, paying rent in cash, riding the bus/trolley everywhere, shopping at the local mom-n-pop grocery.
That is essentially no longer possible in the Western world, today. Employers no longer pay in cash, so you have to have an account with some sort of financial institution, which in turn is required to report various information about you to other organizations. Public transportation no longer exists, and where it does it doesn't reach the majority of jobs. Mom-n-pops no longer exist. You MUST have a credit card to rent a car, or even a movie.
And so on. For any one of these actions, you could say, "Well, don't do that. Or go to another provider". But when EVERYTHING you do requires providing information, there are only a few institutions for critical services (hint: Visa), and you realistically must do certain things to stay alive, then you don't really have a choice.
The wilds of Montana can only support a few hunderd thousand people; most of the population is forced to live where they can actually make a living. And there are no realistic options to giving up information about oneself in many circumstances. This is why people form govenrments, BTW (read Hobbes).
sPh
This phone number just got slashdotted. busy signal. figures :-/
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
OK, please be patient & help me understand this. Isn't there an upside for consumers in letting the companies freely shop the data around? Aren't you more rather than less likely to become aware of errors companies have in their databases, for example? What is the potential downside of not opting out, if you don't see the companies shopping around your data as a big deal? I ask this as a guy who has bar-code tags from three different grocery stores hanging off my key ring, so they know every time I've bought a copy of Maxim from the magazine stand and the two brands of beer I like best.
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
That's actually quite an interesting notion, but if congresscritters wanted to spend most of their time in their own home districts where their constituents could come around and bug them in person all the time they wouldn't run for office in the first place.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Out here on the west coast several of our employees sent letters to the SF Chronicle which did do a minor write up. Also the JULY deadline is NOT for you to OPT-OUT but for the companies to notify you. You can OPT OUT at any time, that is the LAW. Believe me I share your frustration, when so many of their employees reacted badly and that did not send a message I should have known :(
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
and they quietly notified us employees of this several months ago, and then seem ASTONISHED at the incredible response they received, like 85% of the employees responded in writing that they would not allow the sharing of confidential info. :(
Not that it seemed to matter one bit, nor did the Management seem to learn anything. They consider your information an asset these days which is true, it is JUST YOUR ASSET not theirs. Some sharing of info MUST happen for banks and such to function, but the wholesale data marting of all your info is what NCAG is looking for, and the won't be happy until the believe they know everything about you
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I got that, too, last night. I looked at the privacy stuff by following the link, but didn't click the "I Agree" link.
This morning, my stock quotes are back. Looks like I don't actually have to agree to anything... just having viewed the page is enough. Wonderful.
The GLB act does repeal Glass-Steagal. That is true. However, the cause of the depression was only proximately banks -- in fact it was the banking system, inflating the money supply wildly during the twenties. This was completely under the control of, and the fault of, the Fed.
The effect of pumping all that new money into the system was a boom: interest rates were artificially lowered, signalling entrepreneurs that goods were needed in the future. And so the entrepreneurs borrowed money directly, or obtained money via the markets (IPOs and bonds), and built productive facilities. However, a good fraction of this production was not needed, and hence, in time, businesses failed. Recession. That recession was then plunged into depression by more bad policies of the government. The Smoot-Hawley tariff is one large culprit. Another is the fault of the Fed, which panicked and started drastically contracting the money supply. Finally there was the problem of the continuing socialist ploys of FDR. Failing businesses needed to go bankrupt, and wages needed to adjust downward, in order for the labor market to clear. But the Federal government fought such market adjustments tooth and claw.
Meanwhile, the scapegoating search (which always follows government failure) was on, and it lit upon banks as culprits. Which is true, in the sense that they were all collectively responsible for the inflation that really caused the problem. But that's not what they were blamed for, of course. Glass-Steagal even at the time was known to be a crock. Politically popular, though. FDIC was a much more successful and meaningful intervention.
So all those years since then, America alone in the world has forbidden itegration of the financial sector. (So contrary to our local chickens little predicting a new depression, the question must be: where were all the depressions you would have expected in every other country in the world?)
With globalization, Glass-Steagal was finally starting to seriously affect the competitiveness of American insurance and banking. And so they agitated to get things changed. And so they did. In this case generally a good change.
HAHAH.
i read your post, and then i read this
seems that BankOne, the owner of wingspanbank.com, decided to close it because it wasn't making enough money.
maybe you should change banks again.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
--
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
Wells Fargo...
And I think another bank I have an account at.
It really pisses me off that again you have to 'opt out' of this crap rather than 'opt in'.
It should be noted that just because this is a new law does not mean that it holds any weight. If someone sews a financial institution for giving this info or selling this info away they can overturn this law. Of course there has to be 'wrongful' damage as well as proof that the company was responsible.
The real question I have is what kind of info do they sell / trade?
So how long do you think it will be before someone decides to pretend to be a financial institution and buys this information to use it for fraudulent purposes like identity theft? Hey in the US if they get your social security number they get your identity nowadays.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Of course, then you've got more ads to throw away, so you look like a bigger consumer, so you get more ads, and so on...
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Because democracy was founded on the idea of one person == one vote, not one dollar == one vote. I'm certainly not thrilled with a system where Bill Gates gets several million more "votes" than I do.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
That's good... I trust you are also paying attention to the privacy guidelines that you aren't getting, because the banks have put such massive loopholes in the privacy law that they don't even feel the need to send them to you?
Where exactly will you draw the line? If, say, companies started planting listening devices on the street in front of your house so they could learn more about you, would that be okay with you as well? After all, any sounds that come out of your house is information you are 'giving out', and they are just trying to make money, right?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
FYI This is to stop the credit bureaus from releasing information about you for pre-approved credit offers. (888-5-opt-out) 1-888-567-8688 is the number to dial.
For more information about this number, please see this site.
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please email me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Thanks for the letter.... now what are you going to do about that President you put into office?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Hi Im Troy McClure you might remember from such posts as Why Business hates the GPL and when the hell did all of Slashdot become commies. But I want to talk to you today about decentralizing the power of our government. We have come to a point in our nation's history both politically and technologically that putting everyone together in one big place is a "bad" thing. We have advanced to the point communications wise where it makes no sense to put all our representatives in one place where they can effectively be lobbied and the views of their constituietnts be thrown by the way side. I am not calling for total anarchy; what I am calling for is a Work-At-Home program for Congress. Drag a T3 into every congresspersons and senate members office in their home state or district and have them work there. No more buddy buddy sessions with other members just plain old video conferencing. Give them the resources to still do their job (legislation hunting, underlings, a nice office), but all in the home district.
I predict if this were used that the will of the people of the district and the lobbying efforts of many orgainzations on BOTH sides of the aisle would be curtailed dramatically.
Just a thought,
HT
I work for someone, sure. I also get paid justly for it. I do not feel that I am in a master/servant relationship, nor am I treated as such. I have the option of going into the bush and fending for myslef, but I choose not to. I pay my taxes willingly, for the most part, because I believe in such things as universal health care, a social safety net, good roads, and organized society. Without taxes, these things don't happen (or at least, you end up paying Guido protection money, same thing).
The anti-corporate argument is not that corporations should not exist, but that corporations are changing laws into their favor, which is NOT in the favor of the citizens themselves, and that's the problem. no matter what, people should be more important than corporations.
It made perfect sense at the time, as the man says, the banks were hugely responsible for the depression.
Do you realize how banks work? Do you know why they are regulated, what part they play in the economyu? How a bank acts in creating new money and injecting it into society?
I'm sorry.. that's bullshit. Yes, if you made it a mission, and were willing to give up a lot of convenience everyone else has, you COULD get away with cash only. And as a matter of personal philosophy, I've tried this.
I've been: refused admission to a hotel, because I didn't have a credit card (had lots of ID though)
refused a rental car, even though I was willing to put down the entire insurance deposit in cash.
The power company's agent refused to accept my cash payment, she is only authorized to take cheques or credit cards.
Unable to pay my telephone bill at the main telephone office because they no longer accept cash.
Man, we aren't saying the movie place shouldn't know where you live and all... we're saying that, as you need a credit card and bank account in this society, that banks are basically a necessity, so why should they get carte-blanche to do what they want with our personal information?
I'm a consultant.. when I do business with someone, I keep all infromation strictly confidential. Shouldn't the same be expected of a bank? Hell yes.
Listen to all of the prompts. I hate to say "trick" but at one point it asks you if you wan to be removed for only two years and later in the choices you can opt-out perminately.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Note that a contribution from the CEO of a bank is a "private" contribution.
Opensecrets.org shows that about 1/6 of Leach's campaign funding comes from the finance and insurance industries.
Except it prevented another complete economic collaspe by preventing banks from transfering your savings into some risky dot-com because the investment wing thinks is a cool idea. (Remember the Savings and Loan junk bonds could of been a whole lot worse. What if all the banks had all their money in the stock market in 1987 when it just hemorraged cash.) Do you really want your checking to be on the whims of the stock market or you stock broker needing to sell more stocks to you, not because they are cool, but because the bank needs more money to cover the loans it's given out? These institutions must be seperate for the safety of the economy. Economies of scale be damned. I guess I should learn how to be a hobo now, so I'll have a leg up on everyone else when it all comes crashing down even harder. We used to not be so dependant on banks back in the 30's, but now we just can't live without them. Stupid global economy. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them, guess we just don't have enough old folks around who remember the depression.
Well, after spending quite a bit of time mucking about on their web site, I found the proper information to opt-out... here's a link and a number... Bank of America Privacy Policy 888.341.5000
The July 1 deadline is solely for the financial institution. G-L-B permits you to opt out anytime, and requires the institution to comply. DO NOT ACCEPT any mealy-mouthed suggestion that your opt-out was untimely.
So, do not despair that you probably have already left half a dozen of your G-L-B notices on the floor.
Also, read the opt-out language carefully if you aren't writing your own. Some of these notices are "carefully" drafted to confuse you. "Yes" may mean "no," and so forth.
And, even though you CAN opt out later, make CERTAIN you opt-out ASAP.
I moderate every couple of weeks; in fact, I have moderation points right now, but I'm not moderating this story so I can reply to this.
If you had read the FAQ, you would know all this.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
Morons.
Whip out your wallet or purse, pull out any credit cards, bank cards, credit union cards, etc - and look on the back - most (if not all) will have a phone number for customer service - call it!
I just did this - it took a little time, but most of the time I didn't wait more than 5 minutes. I also called the institutions I worked with for auto loans, even the one I had paid off a couple of years back.
Suprising thing I learned while on the phone? Most of the customer service people didn't even know what I was talking about until I explained it - then they understood what I wanted - many reffered to it as another thing, or had a message stating their policy "to not share information" but that "policy could change at any time" - with these, I explicitly got a representative on the line and told them I wanted it noted in my account that I was "opting out" - and waited on the line until they did it. Out of all the institutions I called, only one knew what I wanted instantly (Retailers National Bank - Target and Mervyns cards). Even my bank was coy about it!
Many kept telling me "oh, we never share private info, blah, blah" - but I told them I wanted it noted in my account.
I also asked them, as consumers, if they had opted out as well (education, you see) - most didn't, wondering why it was a bad thing...
For the auto loans, I looked up the numbers on the web to call. I am not sure if they take these calls seriously, but it would be impossible to get letters out to all of these companies in under the deadline of July 1st (short of FedEx'ing overnight the letters, and even then, I think it is too late) - I might still send out the Nader letter - I like it!
Anyhow, that is what I did - I had or could get the phone numbers easily, and it took only a little time. I think it is near-criminal that we have to opt-out, when it should be an opt-in only, instead.
I hate what America has become - I HATE IT!
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Perhaps - a lot of my news does come from /. - a bit from k5 (which I didn't read anything about this on, either). Sometimes I read "norm" sites (cnn, msnbc, etc), though not that often. Sometimes I even get the paper.
I wonder why we are only really hearing about it now - instead of back since 1999? Why didn't they send out these privacy statements every month for a year? Why wasn't there a big cry about it? Why are people so damn apathetic.
I should have read at least one of the statements - true. I kept them all - thinking maybe I had at least a few months - and not just two weeks - to act. I have a busy life - and mailing letters just isn't a big part, unless I am really fired up about things.
After I made this post, I called the various institutions, and talked to them about it, and opted out at all of them. I had opted out at equifax about a week ago.
Finally, I object to your name calling: I am not ignorant (though I plead the 5th on the lazy portion - let's just say I take my time) - I recognized that when I got the statement, I needed to do it, which is why I kept all of them. I guess the laziness portion got the better of me - but in the end, as I noted, I did it - under the deadline as well.
And for the record, I do write my congressman (ok, maybe I email them) when I see fit to do so (and before you moan about a letter being better than an email, which I concede at this point most likely is true - it is only because our congresscritters are so ass-backward when it comes to tech that it is like this - information, ideas, and opinions are worthy regardless of the medium of expression - I wish they could get that through their skulls - some have, most haven't)...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
This morning I went to my Yahoo page and instead of quotes for stocks it had a request to confirm that I agree to their privacy statement.
http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/all.html
Thats a whole lot of privacy statements!!
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Telemarketers!
http://www.ago.state.mo.us/nocalllaw.htm
it works great is is real quick. Choose option 3 for permenant (opt 1 is for only 2 years)
Nobody will be standing on the roofs, because nobody gives a shit.
Don't shatter my illusions!
Wouldn't it be an interesting experiement to use a portion of federal tax dollars to fund an institute with the sole mandate to further democracy domestically? Americans do an awful lot of preaching abroad, but never take our own medicine (eg: Florida elections). A Federal Pro-Democracy Institute (despite the obvious temptation to create a double-speak agency) should be demanded by people who truly value democracy, because democracy is torn apart by the ignorance of the masses and the malice of the selfish. Both should be detected and corrected in organized, situation appropriate and well-funded campaigns.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
If all that money came from individuals (Microsoft's donations to both the repubs and the dems coming instead from Bill G and Steve B), it would be a lot more obvious that these were quid pro quo and not generosity. The public, which has a hard time swallowing corporate involvement in the government as it is, would stand on their rooftops and revolt if the donor list came out and Bill Gates's contribution dwarfed theirs by tens of orders of magnitude.
The axiom that he who has the gold makes the rules would come and hit everyone like a ton of bricks.
It also raises the possibility that hideously wealthy would find something more worthy to put their money towards than influencing government--like altruism--if the alternative meant being hated by their countrymen because their *personal wealth* made them more equal than everyone else. This is harder to see behind the veil of corporate donations.
Ban corporate donations. Make every donation have a name attached (over a certain amount, pegged to inflation). Small donors may remain anonymous, large donors forfeit any claim to anonymity when they decide they want to run the country. Remove the corporate veil. Publish the list. The people have a right to know who government is actually protecting and profiting.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Because the Fed (The Federal Reserve) is not the Government.
Because the Fed (2001) is not as dumb as it was in 1929.
Because banks have minimum capital reserve requirements, and if they don't meet them, their shareholders will know about it, and the SEC will come down on them like a ton of bricks.
I've worked in the financial sector. As hard as it may be to believe for an outsider, financial institutions care deeply about their stability. The lessons of the S&L crisis of the 80s have been burned into the minds of today's bank CFOs with red-hot nichrome wire.
That oughta do for starters.
Absofrigginlutely correct, IMNSHO.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley is a great law when it comes to allowing financial services companies to wear different hats, and it's been a long time coming.
The people objecting to GLB on Slashdot are objecting to the (weak) privacy rider attached to the bill, not the principal reason for the bill itself.
In defence of GLB's weak privacy provisions, better the right to opt-out than no right to opt-out at all.
I believe we need a stronger privacy bill that calls for opt-in practices as opposed to opt-out practices. But I don't have enough money to buy the kinds of campaign finance donations that the DMA lobbyists can, so that'll never happen.
But to your original point, the main thrust of GLB - allowing banks, brokers, and insurance companies to merge - is a great step forward... It's just not anything the Slashdot crowd gets excited about ;-)
Gramm, Leach and Bliley are three Republican Congressmen who have all received huge bribes (sometimes called campaign contributions) from the banking industry
Why is it that everyone calls a campaign contribution a bribe? So three people believe that banks, insurance companies, and stock brokerages should be allowed to combine. Is this a huge shock? Is it simply unfathomable that intelligent people would fell this way? No, intelligent people often have differing opinions. So, who is the banking industry going to give money to? The politicians whose views will make the bank more money or the politicians whose views will make the bank less money? It's not a bribe if it doesn't affect how the person acts, there's no reason to believe these are bribes rather than money spent to get someone already on their side into office.
THE MARK OF THE BEAST
Just take this tiny, invisible, high-tech, WindowsPowered(tm) device and implant it into your arm or forehead. Every time you walk into Wal-Mart, Disney amusement parks and stores, ExxonMobil, or any other of our 666 monop^H^H^H^H^H friendly retailers, you'll receive up to 66.6% discounts... on every thing in the store! All we need is your SSN, mother's maiden name, home phone number, and your soul. It's a done deal! Even AOL Time Warner is our partner, so you won't have to remember your pesky password anymore! Just wave your arm or bob your head at the screen and "You've got hell^H^H^H^Hmail!(tm)" Call NOW!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
This is great! The phone call takes 5 minutes, there are options to opt-out for 2 years, opt back into the system, and opt-out forever (as long as the information you provided is accurate).
They ask for the following information:
- Name (and spelling)
- Street Address
- Zip code
- Phone number
- Social Security Number
I did this a few years ago and the amount of junk credit card offers dropped by 90% . Since I last opted-out, I moved to another city, so I get more CCard offers now. So I opted out again (and I'm moving in 3 weeks, so I'll have to do this *again*).
Now if there was only an 800 number to allow you to opt out of all bank-financial-info-sharing systems (Since I'm with 4 banks right now).
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Blame it all on having to track people via way of their social security numbers. Nobody asks for a lot of things when it comes down to passing info from business to business, but heck look at TRW and Equifax. It's shameful that the U.S. is so dependant on the Social (In)Security system, especially with so much identity theft going on.
Want Root?
Actually i've found a strong economy benefiting the richest 5%.
Nice that everyone seems to have a tv. Except that the number of people living in poverty in this country has been rising sharply the last few years. So while they may have a tv, they may not have food. TVs are so common i hardly call them a luxury..more like a comodity, especially when you can get a pos tv really cheap.
But as the article states, most institutions are not even sending the notices due to the loophole in the law. And do you think that everyone is even aware of the changes in the law?
People will find out... it just takes a few banks advertising that they'll "guarantee your privacy" or a couple network news pieces. It's kind of like an airline price war: a single price drop can ripple across the system.
Every financial institution I do business with save one sent out notification with a form letter attached that I just had to sign and send back. That one that didn't send the form letter had an 800 number to call with an automated system. naturally, I sent back all my form letters within a couple days after receiving them, so I've got nothing to worry about. (well, nothing beyond the normal worries.)
-
Addlepated - punk & metal
Let's see if I understand the discussion here:
People are talking about their loss of privacy from banks selling on personal data they have automatically collected. Some of these people are also saying that they have no choice but to go along with this because of the crap (yes, they are crap) provisions about opt-out in the new law.
OK - but why do you need a bank account at all?
Here are the main reasons I've seen it to be a necessity:
1. To get access to credit cards for ID purposes.
This isn't a necessity - get a passport and a Driver's License - if those stop being ID something is seriously wrong with the world.
2. To be able to borrow money.
Fair enough - but by asking for money from someone you have to pay. If it turns out that the market rate is 6% plus your personal information, then that's what the market rate is. If no-one offers 7% and no personal information cost, well there's not a lot you can do about it.
3. To conveniently keep your money in a 'safe' (well, reasonably safe) place and not on your person.
OK - this is a service that current (cheque/checking) accounts and savings accounts
provide. It's a service - the banks are under no obligations to provide it for free.
4. To earn interest on your money.
Again - if the rate of interest happens to be 6% in exchange for your personal information, that's the market rate.
Points to note:
None of the above uses are essential - you can survive without them.
The information you give up is an asset to somebody - it therefore has some value which is implicitly factored into the relative merits of these transactions.
If you do choose to go without banking services to protect your personal information, it will cost you (no interest-free credit card periods, no savings account interest) and so that personal information must have some value to you as well.
I deplore the way the Act was written to deny people the ability to opt-out effectively despite appearing to offer opt-out rights. However, those who believe there should be a blanket ban on information selling are denying those who can place a value on their personal information the right to take advantage of that value.
If we saw a bank offering:
4% 12-month CDs*
*4% only if you consent to give out your personal information, 3.8% if you opt to retain privacy rights
what would we say?
Can any 'privacy is an intrinsic right' people come up with a debatable argument (i.e. one where they do not revert to their basic axiom) as to why the above offer is wrong?
Can I just add another criticism to the line:
You cannot own information, since it is not a tangible thing.
I guess that means I can't own stock in a company in the UK either - almost all the shares in the UK have been dematerialised (i.e. just tracked on computer in a central database at the depository institution).
It also probably means I can't own the money in my bank account - after all the total value of deposits in any developed country is a significant multiple of the amount of notes and coins in circulation, so the odds are that that money in my bank account cannot be directly representative of a set of notes and coins.
Perhaps there is another reason why the author of that quote believes information cannot be used?
Yes, and Democrats never get campaign contributions from groups who don't have the public's best interest in mind.
Your subject line says it all. This is Nader's protest here, not the money-bathed politicos. Remember the guy who "stole" Gore's votes. He didn't steal Gore's votes, Gore gave them away for playing up to the large corporations. Nader is the one looking out for the everyman, and not big brother, who is trying to buy and sell your dirt.
Maybe it's not Michael that's doing the duping, but finger-pointing dissenters in the ranks of people seeking privacy.
What could possibly be next? The Garbage, Recycling and Sanitation companies installing meters to watch how much of my products I actually use (am I a good consumer?) and selling that info to big brother as well?
- passion
I buy as much as possible with my credit card, because the CC company gives me frequent flyer miles for every purchase. Because of that, I only have to pay for half the flights I take every year. And since I pay my bill in full every month, the interest rate is irrelevant. Plus, I make more interest on my money, because it can be up to 7 weeks before I actually have to pay for the item I bought (if I buy something on the 1st of the month, the CC bill for that purchase won't be paid until the 3rd week of the following month). I'm also better protected if an item I purchase is defective. On top of that, since I don't carry a lot of cash, I don't pay as many ATM fees for withdrawing cash, and if I ever get mugged, I won't have as much cash to lose.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
What could possibly be next? The Garbage, Recycling and Sanitation companies installing meters [...] ?
While not (yet) for marketing reasons, this isn't that strange an idea. I do know of one system designed to weigh trash as it is picked up - I almost worked on it. The idea is to then bill by weight of refuse rather than charge a flat fee. It wouldn't be a great leap to sell a list of 'trash producers' with total weights to marketing types since more trash means a household likely makes more purchases and is a suitable target for 'family' advertising. I suppose low-volume households would be targets for 'singles' product or environmental solicitations.
Further off topic: The town I live in neatly deals with payment for garbage collection service by not dealing with it -- sort of. What happens is that two competing garbage pickup services each sell their own specially colored trash bags at the local stores. The price for these bags is high (they ain't just Glad bags) but covers the collection costs. Don't like yellow service? Buy the blue bags (or vice versa). I like this as it allows competition, privacy (no one selling info on how much junk I toss out), and does somewhat encourage wiser us of resources.
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
Incorrect. Higher profits means more money in the bank - but doesn't necessarily mean a stronger economy.
Assuming that the strength of an economy is measured by the width & depth of the money flowing through it, then a stronger economy is actually characterized by the amount of SPENDING occurring by all of its elements. There is also an underlying assumption that all of those elements are earning enough revenue to keep up with their expenses - you'll note that they don't actually have to be making a lot of profit to be part of a strong economy, they just have to be making enough to be stable.
Well, the super magical telepathy identifier software for them identify you with is broken this week.
How, exactly, would you expect a credit bureau to figure out WHO was opting out if they didn't get your SS#? It is the primary key identifier in each of their databases.
What now?
How do I determine that one of them has violated the law, if and when that happens? It's not like the marketdroid who calls during dinner is going even know, much less tell me where his company got my information.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Reading your posts makes me realize I would never buy your products. Not just that, but that you're part of the problem. A tiny little wheel in a big machinery; that dares not take a look at the whole picture. You don't care about other wheels but yourself, which is the problem with most of the machinery to begin with.
I'm not saying I'm better than you. It just dawned to me. Hint: People are born to this planet for other reasons than being kept in the dark and raped over by corporations. Aren't they?
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Yeah, but I HAVE RIGHTS TOO. It is _MY INFORMATION_, not theirs.
Not really. You cannot own information, since it is not a tangible thing. Even normal ownership of physical things are just a social contract we mostly abide by. However, as a social construct I agree that corporations shouldn't share or sell information about their dealings with you. But only as a good precaution against misuse and economic collapse (not sure if I buy the argument in the header though).
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I don't think you were knee-jerky, perhaps I was. My intention was to shed light from a bigger perspective. Though, any discussion may become meaningless in a bigger perspective. However, that doesn't mean the discussion is wrong. Neither does it mean that copyright is wrong. Wrongness is just a label we apply on stuff around us anyways.
;). We label things as bad, but in the long run they might actually be good for us as a people. That is just another label though, so you can imagine that in an even bigger sense you become detached. Everything just is, like a movie or a dream. It's not impossible to be aware of many perspectives, but you can get rather confused at times, or sound like it. Disagreement often arise when talking about two different things anyways ;*)
/. than IRC anyways... ;)
Copyright exists for many reasons. For example, if you write a game and want to show a game-company. You don't want that company to be able to copy your source from your floppy/CD and start selling the game. So we invent laws to control our environment so that bad things stop happening to us, and so that the community at large can benefit. I would apply the same argument to copyright (*sigh*, it's an "information wants to be free"-argument), but not as "the final solution" to "world-evilness" or selfishness. More like a guide, a goal, a point we should- or could strive for. It would demand an entire different society and mindset to be completely free. In a limited world, it's much harder to be/stay nice.
Also keep in mind, just to bring in a new topic, free software. Actually, the GPL has nothing to do with freedom. Since it forces how to distribute it. It ignores that you need to change _people_ in order to prevent abuse. People will just find loopholes around rules. (It's impossible to _force_ a change for the good though)
Let's step up on perspective a little (I'm in the mood
Sorry for all this talk. Just got in the mood. There's more chatter on
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
But if I claim to own information about myself, that is also a bad thing, and I must not be allowed to place limitiation on the above organizations making use of it.
There's a subtle difference between information that has been created by someone, and information that is just a small collection of information already there. For instance, your name, address, phone number is usually not even created by you. Neither does anyone claim to own actual knowledge, but the information stored as-is on a CD/DVD-platter for instance. The latter usually involving alot of hard work, thus is why it has value.
So what you should be complaining about is your _privacy_, not that you _own_ information/knowledge about yourself. Because anyone can- and should be able to compile information databases based on observation of the world. Well, there's always exceptions in society though.
Not sure I follow the logic there, toodles.
There's no logic to follow. Law is patched and applied where it hurts most. Sadly, nowadays it seems more like law is bought and paid for where it benefits big corporations.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Actually, most libertarians are self-eco-conscious. We want to make money ourselves, and do with it as we please, and only distribute it to the have-nots if we want to and how we want to. We don't want the government telling us who should have our money.
That sounds all nice and dandy, but it would mean just bigger corporations running our lives in the end. Why do you think corporations merge? To kill off competition, so they have to merge too.
You seem to believe that anarchy is the way, because everyone should decide for themselves. However, where does the bigger picture go in? What education should we have? Goals to strive for? Minimum wage? What? What? I don't hear you giving ANY solutions, because you'll have enough money to fool people into buying crap they regret buying. Calling it self-eco-conscious is just a nice word for egoism.
In no way do I want to retreat from the evils of modern society! I was Devil's Advocating the idea that if people want their privacy, its readily available - by relieving ourselves of modern day capabilities. I find it funny that computer geeks want privacy at all when 99% of them don't even GPG their e-mails each and every time.
Well, that was a good point of yours I have to agree. But you'll be put into gazillions of databases anyways, just because you exist or happen to walk in the streets of UK. Also, you miss out on the new technology. Why be afraid of technology? Because it sounds like you are. We should define the acceptable infrastructure of technology instead.
In the end, you seem to believe that a system can evolve randomly into something magnificent. I believe that you need direction, not necessarily centrally controlled, but there need to be a direction. Where do you want to go?
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
"Mom-n-pops no longer exist"
I hope you are referring just to banks, which is not true there are very successful local banks where I live in Virginia. Small business is thriving, if you don't believe me go take a look downtown in most medium sized towns (say.... 30+ thousand residents). Most of the shops where I live are locally owned and we have a low poverty rate.
If mom-n-pop shops cannot compete price-wise with WalMart then so be it! If WalMart has better prices, better return policies, better service and the like then it deserves to win. WalMart and other big business despite the socialist myths to the contrary can't just waltz into town and take over. They have to convince people to buy from them and not mom-n-pop shops. People don't just say, "hey there's a big business, I'm gonna buy from them just because they're big!" they buy from them because they are cheaper, have better service, better return policies and things like that. In other words they get a better deal than they would from the mom-n-pop shop. You may not like that, but that's the way it works. Let those that do a better job enjoy their rewards in peace.
I hope no one who has posted so far against corporations sharing their info is in the Information Wants to be free camp. If you want to be able to share files on napster with no charge or to hack DTV signals then why can't companies share your buying history free of charge. I don't remember any record companies opting-in to having their music traded for free. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You know, funny thing is, that's right out of Michael Moore's "Downsize This." Except he said GM, not just 'big business.'
While I'm sure he would approve of what you say, his point was that companies shouldn't be allowed to destroy lives - bringing us back to his inescapable Flint obsession. He made a good point, and you seem to have hocked it.
Why dont people realize there is such a thing as 'your dollar vote'.
Not every finance instution will be doing this just becuase they can.
What you need to do it find the ones that are not, drop any you have that do, and use your dollar vote.
That is one of the fundemental concepts in a Free-Enterprise society.
To many people put up with crap from businesses, and are unwilling to change where they bank, shop, what they buy, etc..
And as for not having a choice with the whole Ma-Bell thing.. I know several people that have dicontinued standard telephone service in favor of only using a Cell Phone. Also, there are many many ILEC's around that are not Ma'Bell puppets.
Oh, and if you every heard/visitied Clark Howard ( http://clarkhoward.com ) he points out alot of this type of thing.
----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
"That is essentially no longer possible in the Western world, today. Employers no longer pay in cash, so you have to have an account with some sort of financial institution,...."
I'm sorry but that is crap. You can receive you paycheck as a check, and cash it at the bank your employeer uses. Then you have cash, and are much much much less trackable.
If you want to be private, you can.
----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
If the FDIC didn't give you your money, the US Government's credit rating would suffer, and as a result the interest rates they would have to pay for debts (and this is important, as debt payments make up some 15% of our annual budget) would increase. This would be a catastrophe, and will not happen in any sort of a reasonable scenario.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
B. No, the Fed is an arm of the federal government. Unless you have a very peculiar definition of "private," then a bank whose chairman is appointed by the President, and gets its funding from Congress, sounds awfully public to me. I agree, it should be more accountable, they have far too much power, but that's a seperate issue.
C. Now you're moving into conspiracy theories.
If The Creature From Jekyll Island is filled with this kind of crap, then I beg to differ.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
EVERY profession is like that. When a company goes bankrupt, all debts (such as the promise to pay you back) may be voided by a bankrupcy court. Instead, in the case of banks, the FDIC will ensure that, even if liquidating the company's assets is not enough to pay back outstanding debts, all account holders will still get up to $100,000 back. Then, this will be paid back through taxes. The advantage is, when the US Government incurs debt, they float bonds with the lowest interest rates available, thanks to their AAA credit rating. So, instead of you having to borrow money from another bank, at a rate based on your credit rating, society as a whole is borrowing money at a much lower interest rate.
In my ideal libertarian utopia, I would not have the FDIC around. However, if the Government is going to raise spending during a recession, I would rather they do it by paying back those who lost their money in a bank than by increasing farm subsidies, or some crap like that.
As for the Federal Reserve issue, I would like to see that decision, but whether the SCOTUS declared it legally private or not, it was broght into existence through a law, the chairman is selected by the president, its internal workings are prescribed by more laws, and they print our paper money. It is little more independent than the Post Office is.
Posting your comment as AC suggests you may not be so certain of yourself...
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Yes, the banks made poor investments, but that happens sometimes, and the purpose of the Federal Reserve was to act as the lender of last resort in these cases. They have, fundamentally, ONE task, and they failed miserably at it. So, what would otherwise have been a recession turned into the worst depression ever in American history.
Furthermore, even if the banks were to fail again in the future, we now have the FDIC, which means that up to $100,000 of the money you have in the bank is insured by the full faith and credit of the US Government (AAA credit rating).
So, allowing banks to invest money is not going to lead to another Great Depression. For that matter, banks ALWAYS invest your money, through loans and the like. That's why they can afford to give you interest. Allowing them to use different instruments is not much of a change.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Anyway, just thought I'd let you know, you don't have to resort to stuffing money under your mattress if you don't want your info going to telemarketers. Look around, I'm sure other firms operate the same way we do.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Now then, from http://www.federalreserve.gov:
The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system.
There you have it. It was created by Congress. If you read the .pdf document on their General information page, there are such illuminating quotes as the following:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was established as a federal government agency. It is made up of seven members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
and
The Board of Governors exercises broad authority over the operations and activities of the Federal Reserve Banks and their Branches. This authority includes oversight of the Reserve Banks? services to banks and other depository institutions and of their examination and supervision of various banking institutions. Each Federal Reserve Bank must submit its annual budget to the Board of Governors for approval.
Got it? The Board is appointed by the President, and the Board controls the Banks. Finally, even if you were right, which you're not, I would still sleep comfortably. Quite frankly, I'd trust private banks just as much as governmental ones to run our monetary policy.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Ah! The old Libertarian standby -- if you don't like what corporations are doing to you, don't do business with them. Everyone is free to do business only with those corps who respect their privacy and behave in ways that the customer finds ethically acceptable.
One question: How the hell am I supposed to find out what companies are doing behind closed doors? What little information we do get is generally required by law. And even then, businesses are not usually required to dispense of that info in language that the average human being can understand. Are we supposed to bring all of our mail to an attorney to decipher it for us, or what? Most people don't have the time or the money to engage in such nonsense.
And if we followed the advice of the Libertarian party and elliminated all laws governing corporate behavior, we would get even less information (or, rather, more disinformation). Nobody in business (NOBODY -- not even the small ones) is looking out for the consumer. Businesses look out for themselves and tell the rest of us what they want us to hear.
Free markets might work according to the Libertarians' idealized version of reality if consumers actually had reliable information with which to make decisions, but we don't and never will without strict laws with severe penalties that require corporations to tell us what it is that they are really doing. Free markets require free information in order to function, and that's a far cry from what we are getting now.
even though banks are attempting to comply by sending out notices which will allow you to opt-out of information sharing, these letters often arrive looking like junk-mail, or worse.
i'm not trying to say that some banks are being two-faced about this (ok, i am). but as long as they are complying with the letter of the law (sending out the notices without giving mention of their importance) the banks are legally in the clear.
check your mailboxes!
_f
...it's that all these "modernization" laws usually use such a term to cover up for the dirty work that it's really doing. Such as pecking away at privacy or other little freedoms, such as the freedom to decide whether or not I may talk on a cell phone in my car or not (bad example - just attempting to make a point).
Try this.
Think about it, if we took the campaign contributions out of politics, we would become an aristrocracy, with only those people who have enough personal wealth to run for office would govern us.
I doubt anyone wants to eliminate campaign contributions completely, what needs to be eliminated is influence peddling, huge campaign contibutions given with a wink and a nod. Think about this, I give a couple hundred dollars a year to campaigns, mostly local and state, this usually gets me a nice form letter reply. When Michael Dell or Bill Gates gives hundreds of thousands to campaigns, you can bet they do it in person and make it very clear what needs to happen in order get another huge contribution. As for an aristrocracy, isn't that what we have now ? Both the Senate and Congress are full of very wealthy encumbents who are backed by other wealthy people such as Michael Dell and Bill Gates, and belong to a Royal Family (the Republicans and Democrates) this pretty much constitutes an aristrocracy in my book.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Here is the URL: http://www.chase.com/pages/privacy/optout This is buried on chases web site.
The phone number: (800) 935-9935 -- To skip recorded markettroid speak press 9 to speak to a human. Tell the person about the opt-out.
Also make sure that you specify that you do *not* want any chase marketing phone calls either. This is shown on their sample web page "form", but most people wouldn't notice it, and they don't mention it when you want to "opt-out" either. They aren't happy, but thats tough. :)
Hmm, which one's worse? Violation of Pauli Exclusion, or illegal possession of a non-quantum spin?
sorry
TomV
This is absurd. You should be opted-out by default, and banks could only share your data if they get your permission in writing. I can only imagine the trail of dirty lobbyist money following this law.
love is just extroverted narcissism
> It's a free market, companies should be able to do what they want to do
Yeah, but I HAVE RIGHTS TOO. It is _MY INFORMATION_, not theirs.
I'm with Nader on this one all the way.
It should be OPT-IN rather than OPT-OUT.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
You'll get no argument from me.
;)
Well, maybe just a little one. I think the GPL
has everything to do with freedom. I would argue
that the GPL gives the freedom to the software,
not to the people. It forces (as much as
possible) distributors/users to keep the software
free.
Anonymous posts are filtered.
According to a print Newsweek article I'm looking at, you can notify all three credit bureaus with the following phone number: 1-888-567-8688 (1-888-5 optout).
The following statement is true. The preceding statement is false.
You do not understand the nature of vast amounts of accumulated power. You cannot fight it. Individual consumers are very disorganized. They cannot collectively act together unless it is done conciously. Just as Galileo could not have avoided being burned at the stake, we are at the mercy of large comanies without adequate, organized power to offset their control of the marketplace.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Bingo. And in return for these wonderful priviledges, you give up some privacy. Big f'ing deal, right?
You're one of few though who don't carry a huge balance, don't care really what the cc company does with the information, as long as you get your priviledges.
I don't think the privacy breaches are that bad even. If you get something good out of it, then who cares?
And that is EXACTLY what I said in my post. We (the 'weak') have the Internet. The best form of Government for us is to boycott or ban companies we don't like, VIA the Internet, to show that we indeed are all powerful as a group of "one."
Thomas Hobbes was right but could NEVER have foresaw the Internet and the power that it gives us as individuals within a group. If you know of a company who doesn't comply with their posted privacy statement, then tell others! Get the word out. Form a team, a group, a society of people with like interests and let them know.
Don't bother doing it through the Republicrats or Democricans in office. With this very illegal bipartisan system, nothing can get done anyway. So might as well take the power of the Internet and go, man, go.
No, wait.
The businesses are doing what is within the law for them to do.
The Libertarians want to change that. Right now, I can log on to the Internet and see how much money "big business" gives to both side of the political system. We want to get rid of the bipartisan imbalanced system where NOTHING can get done.
Big Business wants to help its shareholders, which may number in the millions. When a big business gives $5,000,000 to a candidate, its really giving maybe $5 per shareholder, isn't it? How is that unfair?
If you want to counter big business, get your own PAC together and counter it by giving your own donations. Oh, don't have enough people to form a PAC? Then I guess not enough people agree with you enough to give up a few dollars to fight so called "big business."
In America, we do vote with our dollars. But the PACs aren't voting with billions for one group, they are voting with a few dollars per member. Why is that bad?
Hmm. Interesting that you said you read my previous posts. It doesn't seem that way.
People are born to this planet for other reasons, then why do they get credit cards, car loans, home loans, why do they try to "save big money" by using frequent shopper cards or enter raffles or drawings to win items that they weren't put on this planet to really need?
People are born to this planet to browse the Internet and enter free lottories, right? They're born to this planet to buy buy buy as much as they can as quickly as they can.
How about the idea getting family land and living on it through all your generations so your kids don't each need a mortgage? That idea is long gone. What we were born to this planet to do and what we really do rarely coincide, depending on your beliefs.
I am not even REMOTELY part of the problem. You having your 7 credit cards with an average of $8,000 in debt per capita are part of the problem. YOU wanting more and more for less and less work art part of the problem. Not me.
Actually, most libertarians are self-eco-conscious. We want to make money ourselves, and do with it as we please, and only distribute it to the have-nots if we want to and how we want to. We don't want the government telling us who should have our money.
In no way do I want to retreat from the evils of modern society! I was Devil's Advocating the idea that if people want their privacy, its readily available - by relieving ourselves of modern day capabilities. I find it funny that computer geeks want privacy at all when 99% of them don't even GPG their e-mails each and every time.
You're absolutely wrong.
And the more I think about it, so is anyone who thinks we DON'T opt-in.
When you open ANY account, in the fine print its basically opting you in. If you don't want to opt-in, DON'T OPEN THE ACCOUNT.
If you want to opt-in with the account and immediately opt-out, then say so to whomever is opening the account and force them to acknowledge that you're opting out. They can say "It's a requirement to opt-in to have this account" and you can EASILY say "Ok, I don't want the account."
BOOM. No more worries. YOU OPTED IN WHEN YOU OPENED THE ACCOUNT. Read the fine print.
You opted into the credit reporting agencies also when you opened an account. No one repors without you ALLOWING THEM by opening the account and accepting the terms and limitations.
Where's the problem? It's a free market, companies should be able to do what they want to do, and if you don't like it, don't use that company. Find a small family run FDIC insured bank, or better yet, a credit union that promises not to do it. If they do share, then leave.
Sure, big business is tough to fight, but that's why we have the Internet, to share this information. Do you work at a bank that says they respect privacy but is brokering out your information? Then post it, anonymously, to some forum where others can find out and then ignore the bank.
Its quite simple. You pick the companies you do business with, knowing full well now that they CAN share your data. So don't give them any data. Oh, too bad, maybe you can't use your credit card now to run up a 50,000 debt you'll never pay. Boo-hoo.
Or better yet, invest out of the country in smaller privately insured banks. There are huge insurance companies out there insuring lesser known foreign banks up to $500,000 per account (more than the FDIC) and you can sometimes get away with very little personal information posted to open such an account.
Do your research, stop trying to control "big business."
Do your research, stop trying to control "big business."
All these draconian 'rules' and 'laws' totaly interfere in profit-taking. I mean really, whats with that anyway.. I mean take crack for example.. Do you know what the profit margin is on crack? Its tremendous! And yet 'big business' is not 'allowed' to sell crack to school-children despite its huge potential for earnings. sheesh. commies.
air and light and time and space
Anyways, I received those cryptic letters, like everyone, and read thru them, and had no idea what they are talking about, being unaware of any "modernization act". I think I'm above an average Joe SixPack, when getting myself informed about this kind of craps. But I haven't heard of this obscure act to allow companies to legally whole-sell my personal and financial information.
Honestly (don't lie please), how many people on /. (if you live in the US) didn't understand the cryptic letter and throw away?
Great, now personal/financial wholesale is legal. I'm just eagerly waiting for the next election to have another president who might listen to the population's concern (fat dream!
).... oh shit, I'm an american citizen and have no intention to be one, and I can't do anything about this crap. The only choice is to move out then...Ah well, I guess I just need another coffee.
The banks and financial institutions could make a convincing argument that they are all affiliates of each other through contol of MasterCard and Visa. There are over 21,000 member institutions in Visa and over 22,000 member institutions in MasterCard. This may mean that almost any bank will be able to freely share information with any other bank provided they issue the same credit card.
Frylock: That's not a toy!
Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
There are other sources for world and national events than Slashdot. Also, reading those statements (or at least calling the bank for an explanation) would help. Stop being a slashdot puppet, turn on your brain, and think for yourself. Ignorant, lazy people like you are the reason that laws like this are allowed to pass. I'll bet you never even write your congressman.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
This may depend on the bank, but my experience with this is that Wells Fargo has a call-in number that 1) allows you to opt out of their internal sharing (contrary to Michael's assertion), and 2) allow you to do it over the phone ("in writing" no mandatory).
Props to E*Trade, by the way... they sent me an e-mail yesterday with instructions on how to opt-out (just an e-mail to do it).
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
science is a religion
Money isn't speech. Money is property.
And giving a public official property in influence their vote is bribery .
I don't care what the professional sophists on the Supreme Court say. They're as much a part of the problem as anyone.
I protest the blatantly ideological moderating that is being done on this topic. Posts about the ill effects of money on politics are moderated down, while posts of similar length and relevance that equate campaign contributions with speech are moderated up.
Slashdot's cannot be an open forum of free debate if the moderators tilt the playing field to benefit their own ideology.
By now it should be clear to even the most dense, libertarian, free-market theologian on slashdot that we in the US do not live in a democracy.
The People overwhelmingly want their privacy protected, business wants it to be defined as a commodity (and one that they own) to be traded. Privacy is not protected.
The People overwhelmingly want to know if their food contains genetically modified ingredients, business doesn't want them to know. There is no labeling for this and the US government is trying to overturn the food-labeling laws in European Union and Japan through challenges at the World Trade Organization.
The People overwhelmingly want health care financing taken away from private insurance companies and a Canadian-style single-payer plan instituted in the US. Business wants to continue to make profits off of people's illness even if that means organized denial of care through HMOs and that 40 million people are without health insurance entirely. Our health care system remains in the hands of private insurance companies.
I could go on all day, but I won't. Face it you all, we live in a plutocracy.
As for your "free market." It doesn't exist. Two years ago the CEO of Archer Daniels Midland said in an interview in Mother Jones Magazine, "There isn't a single product on earth that is traded on a free market."
If you will think back to economics 101 a "free market" isn't just one that is free of government intervention. A free market is one in which no one competitor has market power, defined as the ability to influence prices. A free market only exists where no one competitor, or group of competitors in collusion, in that market is large enough to be able to set the price. This situation probably has never existed anywhere, and it certainly doesn't exist now where mergers and acquisitions have lead most industries to be dominated by a few large concerns.
Through incredibly lax enforcement of anti-trust regulations and through the back door of international trade treaties consolidation proceeds barely and rarely checked in the US.
The Justice Department broke up AT & T in the '80s. But in just the past few years our local phone company US West has been bought by Qwest, which may soon be bought by Deutche Telecom.
As John Dewey said 100 years ago, "Politics is just the shadow cast by business."
MBNA, one of the larger banks in the country, has their opt out phone number (toll free 1-866-751-1255) listed on this page. It seems to be a little misleading, you have to opt-out for both internal and external sharing. So stay on the line and do both.
www.privacyrights.org has a section dealing with these issues. They also have a useful list of contact addresses (although most are snail-mail).
This kind of thing is sickening. What with the continuing erosion of consumer rights and abuse of the patent office, this country is rapidly becoming a place where unless you're a big business, you're screwed.
Strags
That would explain the bombardment of random privacy statements I've received in the mail this past week. The first was from Mellon bank with nothing in the envelope but a one page privacy statement, and I *know* I don't have any accounts with Mellon.
Er, no.
State funding of political parties puts everyone on a level playing field. It's a basic tenet of democracy in Sweden and other advanced countries.
It lets citizens judge issues on the arguements presented, rather than by the law of who shouts the loudest.
I think that there were more communists in the USA than people in Scotland until your so-called Bill of Rights failed to prevent the removal of their free speech in the 1950s.
But you fail to understand state funding of political parties anyhow. Every political party who can meet a certain membership criterion receives - as their only form of income - money from a central source to fund their administration, campaigning and electioneering.
Fear not, oh capitalist running-boy lackey. This doesn't prevent fervant lobbying, or independent, 'non-afiliated' interest groups from mounting their own campaigns. What it does prevent however, is big buisness literally buying political parties wholesale. This can only be a good thing.
And BTW, how does a choice between the Democrats and GOP represent of choice of any kind whatsoever?
A big misconception greens/socialists have about libertarian policies is that we don't like rules because they prevent "profit increases".
This couldn't be furthur from the truth.
So far the two explanations for almost every attack on a economic regulation from a libertarian go as follows:
1) The regulation should be removed because it prevents a free market society.
2) The regulation should be removed because it only furthurs big business reach into our government.
Remember, it isn't until we start passing regulations that affect big business that big business starts interfering in governmental issues.
Congressmen who have all received huge bribes (sometimes called campaign contributions)
Yes, and Democrats never get campaign contributions from groups who don't have the public's best interest in mind. I'm sure trial lawyers, unions (especially the NEA), and the Chinese government are all out to protect us little guys.
You're really something of a dupe aren't you, michael?
The real DunkPonch is user 215121. Everyone else is Bruce Perens.
And there are no realistic options to giving up information about oneself in many circumstances. This is why people form govenrments, BTW (read Hobbes).
Actually, Hobbes argued that people flock to governments out of fear, so I don't know if that applies here, unless you're suggesting that a NEW government be formed, in which case I wholeheartedly agree.
Still, Hobbes provided a defense for what would become the modern nation-state without the foresight to see how people of his class--the "aristocratic intellectuals"--would so completely capitulate in the face of the security apparatus such states have erected to maintain their control, even to the extent that most of that class become de facto criminals with little or no privacy. Though Hobbes might feel secure in today's world, I doubt that he would feel all that comfortable (but then again, what crypto-totalitarian ever does?)
Regarding this particular issue, have no illusions about where the impetus for this comes from--the people who own the land should determine who manages it, to paraphrase one of the gentry that we're taught to call "Founding Fathers", and by god, they're gonna do it THEIR way, whether you opt-out or not.
Are you up to slaying the dragon?
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
That financial companies share informtaion. I really hate filling in the same information on these credit card forms and then posting it off.
Wouldn't be great if you just got unsoliciated credit cards through the post. You could just choose to use them or not to use them. I like having 20 plus cards in my wallet so I can impress the blondes down my local bar.
Just another example of the sensible use of technology which helps consumers and corporates. Just like those friendly 'Smart Tags' in future versions of XP.
When UP sent me thier privacy policy I emailed them my own privacy policy. I informed them that I would collect all of the personal information that I could,within the law, about the employees at my local branch and distribute it where ever I could, within the law. I would also be informing the branch employees of what I was doing. A few days later I got a responce straight from one of the VPs expressing his concern over my comments blah blah blah.
Simple people talk of people, better people talk of events, great people talk of ideas.
That was one of the most stupid things of the last 60 years. Personally i wouldn't mind having one company to deal with instead going thru 20 differerent statements and a money management program to watch my finances. What's wrong with banks being stock brokers and insurance salesmen?
Oh wait, the governement needs to control us stupid little ordinary people. We are too dumb to figure out what's best for us.
Sorry. While the rest of this article is factually correct, Leach accepts only private contributions to his campaign fund. He can, however, afford to self-finance. The reason his name was on the bill? He is the former house banking committee chair.
Yeah ... But then again, you live in Finland.
Time to start our own financial company, one that doesn't blow... First National Bank of /. sounds fine. Bank for Nerds, customers that matter... :)
"Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
I called the Citibank representative and asked him if in plain English how this policy affected anything. He said that it pretty much didn't do anything. But, while on the phone I specifically asked to opt-out, which they honored. So the little pieces of paper do nothing, but you can call and ask to avoid the vending of your information. I then received in the mail, a sheet that said I should call the top five credit agencies because they sell information. But the notice also said that there were many more agencies I would have to contact to completely avoid the vending of my info. At this point, you just have to live with it.
Playboy had an interesting article about protecting your privacy and the different levels of identity cloaking about a year ago, as well as the legal tradeoffs. I wish I had more info on it to share.
It is important that everyone opt-out. Currently the rates are below 10%. Now Citibank will lobby Congress to say that people do not really care about their privacy and that further costly legislation is not merited. People, you vote with your dollars and your actions, not your words.
A friend of mine suggested that this debate will settle out with a compromise in which individuals will have ownership rights over their personal data, and users will be forced to compensate the owners for use, but a system of "compulsory purchase" will replace current opt-out privileges.
So you'll get a micropayment everytime your personal data changes hands, but you won't be able to stop the trade.
I'm pessimistic enough to give this credence.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
After reading this I decided to review my banks privacy policy and I must say they were up front in their privacy policy about what they share, who they share it with and they give you a phone number you can call to opt-out.
I've always been quite pleased with them in general, despite the fact that they have no brick 'n' morter office. Check 'em out if you're unhappy with your banks policy: wingspan
. Just thought I'd let y'all know...
It seems that there is some confusion over with whom an institution can share information. The act gives consumers the ability to opt out of the sharing of their information with "non-affiliated third parties." Contrary to Michael's assertion, this does have some teeth. The act defines an affiliate to be:
(a)Affiliate means any company that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with another company
This actually makes it pretty limiting, and in the briefing I attended on the act, several retailers present were quite concerned with how it would limit their marketing efforts.The concern was actually raised that if companies can't obtain the types of data they can get these days that show spending habits, income, etc, their marketing dollars can not be focused effectively. The net result is a broader, more expensive marketing effort (which results in higher prices).
The upshot of all this is that if you're the paranoid type, this bill will actually help. It is actually a good piece of legislation for consumers' privacy. But if you're looking to get away from junk mail...you may want to try a lean-to deep in the woods.
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
It's the most expensive kind of "free" speech there is :]
But seriously folks!
Another option to having campaign contributions and personally funded campaigns would be publically financed campaigns. There have been a few publically financed campaigns in the US over the past few years. I dont know the exact mechanism they use though, so I cant really provide any more details.
I do agree that campaign donations qualify as free speech. I also think it's pretty much the same thing as bribery. But, I guess freedom trumps bribery.
On the other hand, a corporation shouldnt be given the same rights as an individual. I think only individuals should be given the rights of individuals, and corporations should not have the same rights as individual, actual, living & breathing people.
-J5K
p.s. We already pretty much live in an aristocracy. Yes, there are exceptions, but overall (especially in the higher levels of govt, but even locally) it's the wealthiest who get elected.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Personal information has become a commodity to be bought and sold.
Even with your phone number, you have to PAY for the privilege of not being listed.
How can you consider yourself to be a "free speech advocate" and "anti-censorship" when you condemn one of our most fundamental means of expression as Americans, Michael? One of the best parts of our capitalist, free market economy is that we have money left over from paying all of our taxes to donate to worthy causes. Some donate to food banks, some donate to UNICEF. I donate to my local congressman, to make sure that he stays in office to continue to provide his excellent services to the country.
While some people are in favor of taking away our free speech (the liberals, and others who give their hypocritical support for "freedom" to kill a baby, but not freedom to choose what to do with your money.), I figured that at least here at Slashdot, among a group of reasonable and intelligent people, I could find libertarian authors who would at least support my right to express myself.
Think about it, if we took the campaign contributions out of politics, we would become an aristrocracy, with only those people who have enough personal wealth to run for office would govern us.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush
I saw this on ABC the other night and I'm just glad that the story was managed to be put in full on slashdot. First this law, then passport, and who knows what else is going on. Who in the world is guiding these types of actions. It doesn't seem like the people can do anything about them. So whats next, the health record of my pets being up for sale so they can advertise specific pet products straight to my door? They used to have a state law where I live that allowed the sale of social security and drivers license information, fortuantly it was stopped. Now the companies can just and get half of the info from my bank, and I can't even opt out from this.
-------------------
Insert Witty Remark Here ===>____________________________
I Just received this today from our corporate attorney. I've removed the letterhead and personal information. ANNUAL DISCLOSURE NOTICE TO CONSUMERS With Whom This Firm Has Any, On-Going Relationship After July 1. 2001 This document is an annual notice that may be required pursuant to the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Pub. Law No. 106-102, and any rules issued by the Federal Trade Commission regarding privacy of consumer financial information, 16 C.F.R. 313, irrespective of how unbelievably expansive (and possibly impermissibly expansive) those FTC rules may be. As a law firm, this firm collects non-public information about you from you, from others as permitted by law, with your authorization, from third parties such as court clerks, banks and government agencies, and from others. This firm does not disclose any non-public personal information about clients or former clients or others except as permitted by law, as required by law, or as otherwise authorized. If authorized, required or permitted by law, this firm may disclose non-public personal information to unrelated third parties. Such unrelated third parties may include court clerks, court reporters, expert witnesses, process servers, and others. During the course of litigation, court rules may require public disclosure of otherwise private information (such as your address and social security number); and this is unavoidable. This firm restricts access to non-public personal information about you to those employees and agents of this law firm who need to know the information in order for this firm to provide appropriate legal services to clients. This firm maintains physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations and applicable rules of ethics to guard your non- public personal information. This notice is written and mailed out of an excess of caution and not as an admission that such rules apply to this firm. If you have any questions, objections, or other statements about this notice, please write to (deleted)immediately. This firm does not believe that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (The Act) should apply to law firms. The Act is generally meant to apply to banks, insurance companies, brokerage houses, and other large financial institutions that do not have "attorney-client" relationships. Under The Act, consumers should be entitled to certain protections from their banks that were not previously required under federal law. So, the purpose of The Act is good and this firm generally supports such privacy protections. However, law firms and lawyers have always been under a duty to protect client information and continue to be under such a duty. The lawyer's duty of confidentiality in this State provides much better protection than the putative protection in The Act. Those duties are set out in this State's ethical rules, in case law, and in certain other rules and statutes. But the federal bureaucrats who write the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Rules to enforce the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act have done what they could to make their Rules and The Act extend as far as possible (to include any banks, pseudo banks, on-line banks, non-bank banks, insurance companies, financial institutions, and others). In doing this, the FTC's Rules may be read to include lawyers, so you are receiving this Notice just in case they do. Even if the FTC's new rules don't apply, however, please be assured that your confidential information is protected. We regret any inconvenience. This firm will continue to protect your privacy under this State's law even if the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act does not apply to this firm.
There are exceptions, though, to the notice requirements in Gramm-Leach-Bliley, for fraud prevention and law enforcement and a few other choice purposes. If you're interested, check out Article V of the GLB.
On a related note, look out for the upcoming Financial Services Antifraud Network Act (H.R. 1408) which is currently in the House Committee on Financial Institutions. If passed, any complaints, investigations and other suspicious activity information (even if unsubstantiated), plus background checks and criminal records could be shared by 200 or so "regulators" (including some private entities) in the insurance, banking, and securities industries in the name of fraud prevention.