Using Your Privacy Against You

guttentag writes: "Christian Science Monitor Reporter Warren Richey suspects he may have stumbled onto a credit card fraud ring that uses Internet merchants to quietly funnel night-vision rifle scopes to Middle Eastern terrorists and privacy policies to cover their tracks. Even if these are isolated incidents, it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us."

Comments

RTFA please

[Em Emalb]

Dude was in a foreign country. In Amman, Jordan to be exact. This is a sensationalist version of basically what amounts to standard fraud, except dude was in a middle-eastern country where a lot of people aren't friendly to the US and West in general. Granted, sucks that this occured, but is it news?

Synopsis: Journalist travels to Middle Eastern country. While there, orders stuff on his Amex. Amex receipt (I assume? Article not too clear on this) was used to purchase military equipment. Sucks, but such is life. This doesn't have anything to do with Privacy in the US, as far as I can see.

As a side note, when I was in the Middle East, (USMC--Oohrah!) we were instructed to make purchases only in their currency, so scams (which is all it really is) wouldn't happen.

Lastly, why the hell wasn't his card cancelled? Is he that stupid?

I seriously doubt this story is real at all, come to think of it.

Article's Real Issue

[_Sprocket_]

Its pretty hard to find something worthy of discussion in this article. Lets cut throught the fluff real quick:

1. Freud is being used to purchase weapons - hello and welcome to the world of gunrunning. You were thinking that the weapons seen in civilian hands on CNN were purchased at the Wal-Mart in Al Kars?
   
2. Two reporters from the same newspaper get their card info lifted at the same restaurant - same racket is ran in the US on occasion. No mysterious conspiracy there.
   
3. Terrorism might involve crime - terrorism IS crime... or at least was according to US Military doctrine. At least, until the War on Terrorism.
   
4. The FBI didn't jump on the opportunity to track down a set of night scopes headed for Saudi Arabia - those involved with the security of US citizens and forces in the Middle East are probably rather resigned to the fact that terrorist forces in the area already have access to such equipment. They might have one lead that could eventually uncover something, but hardly drop-everything-else valuable. Its likely a dead-end.
   
5. ccnow, identified as the "vendor", wouldn't give the reporter details citing privacy policy - amazing, an absolute stranger on the phone claiming some connection to a transaction can't get details? Its obviously a front!
   

Actually, the ccnow bit might be the only interesting piece of the entire article. The fact that the reporter couldn't get information is probably a good sign that the policy is actually being followed as promised. But it hardly means the information is not available to appropriate parties. CCNow's privacy statement reads in part:

We treat this customer information as private and confidential, and we will not disclose this information to other individuals or organizations unless required by law.

There is more detail in their client agreement which notes in Section 7 (emphasis mine):

While CCNow generally treats Client and Customer information as private and confidential, including contact information (name and address), personal data, sales data, product data, credit-card information, and E-mail addresses, Client agrees that CCNow may, without notice to Client, divulge or share any Client or Customer information with law enforcement or regulatory authorities in response to a valid subpoena, court order, or other similar order issued by any law enforcement official, regulatory official or any Federal or governmental agent or body of the United States or of International Countries. Client agrees to deliver, acknowledge, execute or produce any documents, information, instruments, data (financial or otherwise) or certificates, and to cooperate and do such other acts and things as may be required by law, or as may be reasonably necessary for the compliance with the requirements of any federal, state, local or international law, or any regulations of any governmental agency or authority.

So really - what we have is another non-issue. If / when the FBI, CIA, or other lawfull agency makes the appropriate request for this information, CCNow will apparently present it (and furthermore requires their clients to also comply with such requests). The privacy policy is not inhibiting this case at all, despite the reporters horrified whispers and hand-wringing over waffles, weapons, and Al Qaeda.