Slashdot Mirror
Feds Check Credit Reports Without a Subpoena
An anonymous reader points out that, by using National Security Letters, the FBI and other agencies can legally pull your credit report. The letters have been used by the FBI (mostly) but in some cases by the CIA and Defense Department. From the article: "'These statutory tools may provide key leads for counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations,' Whitman said. 'Because these are requests for information rather than court orders, a DOD request under the NSL statutes cannot be compelled absent court involvement.'" Recipients of the letters, banks and credit bureaus, usually hand over the requested information voluntarily. A posting at tothecenter.com quotes the Vice President on the use of the letters: "It's perfectly legitimate activity. There's nothing wrong or illegal with it. It doesn't violate people's civil rights... The Defense Department gets involved because we've got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets."
He would never spy on American citizens unless he had a really really good reason to.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Why is this any different than any other organization pulling my credit report? I check my reports every 3-4 months, and I see all sorts of people yanking my credit report. Mostly to send me junk mail that i throw away.
Its not like the government is going through my mail or listening to my phone calls...
OK, bad example.
we've got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets
And we don't want those bases blown up by terrorists with bad credit.
I'm absolutely gobsmacked that the current US government continues doing things which shouldn't even be remotely constitutional, and claiming that it's perfectly legal.
I mean, every time I hear a legal opinion coming out of the White House, I'm forced to conclude that it, or something like it, has been struck down by the courts in the past. I don't believe there is any mechanism whereby the DoD can be pulling credit checks on citizens on the preteext that with so many bases, they need to protect them. This is crazy.
I'm glad my passport expired. I won't be travelling to your country any more -- your gestapo scares me.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Another step towards the perfect big brother society.
'These statutory tools may provide key leads for counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations,' Whitman said. 'Because these are requests for information rather than court orders, a DOD request under the NSL statutes cannot be compelled absent court involvement.
Is that how they get around the privacy angle? Just rename it to an "information request", and somehow that makes the problem go away. Just like torture is "creative interrogation".
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The reason this is a problem is because the article summary has it wrong. TFA says "credit records" not "credit reports" which means they're not just looking to see, for instance, what your FICO score is, but looking at your actual purchases, etc.. *ugh*
The power of investigating certain financial records (such as credit reports) without a warrent was around before PATRIOT, most notably for suspected drug dealers.
It would be silly for the government not to exercise that same power against potential terrorists as long as the power was legal.
So don't thank PATRIOT, thank precedent set by the older drug-fighting legislation.
This shouldn't be anything of a surprise. The law doesn't enter into it: every traceable activity that any citizen [or non-citizen] of this country engages in is surely monitored by the government where it is practical for it to do so.
Perhaps life really is full of possibilities.
"If the president does it, then it's not illegal"...
stuff |
I have two questions:
When I think about it, everything in my credit report is the result of a public transaction. While I believe credit reports are being used inappropriately by employers, etc... I can't see how anyone believes this information to be private. In fact, most corporations who report to credit reporting agencies publicize this fact because they believe it deters fraud.
Now, whether or not the credit reporting agencies should be gathering this information, and how society depends on it, are a whole different matter.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
In my experience credit reports are horribly inaccurate because there appears to be no validation at all. My mortgage application was put on hold when my credit report revealed an unpaid Macy's credit card from 1968. I wasn't even born yet. So at the top of the page is my correct birthday with obviously incorrect information below it. The credit agency refused to fix the data. I had to call Macy's and find someone who would send a letter to the credit agency to say I didn't open an account before I was born.
I also know someone who has the exact same name as someone else with just a one digit difference in SSNs. Bad info about this other stranger shows up on his credit report every few years. The credit agencies refuse to fix the data problems themselves.
So the last thing I want is the federal government flagging me as a potential terrorist because of some type-o that no one is willing to fix. Not only should these queries require court oversight, but they should be made directly to the institutions where the accounts are held so they're very specific and more likely accurate.
Developers: We can use your help.
Has nothing to say abut Credit Reports. Anyone with 100USD can get your credit report pulled. Take a look.
This
Relax, it's not like they're constantly tracking you, reading your e-mail, at least not without probably violating the law, and the government would NEVER violate the law, right? So relax!
... if you have nothing to hide. Right?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Let's assume that by some random craziness that they are telling the truth and it is legal to do this..
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
As time goes on I think we are finding both sides of both lines - the legality line and the morality (for lack of a better term) line. There are things that fall on both sides of both lines. Sometimes just because it's illegal doesn't make it immoral and just because it is legal it doesn't make it moral.
The whole thing is that it tells you that the government doesn't always run things through their own personal sanity checks..
1) Federal Constitution. Don't see it as an enumerated, delegated power.
2) Amendments to Federal Constitution. Don't see it as an enumerated, delegated power.
So, WHY is the Federal Government wasting OUR VALUABLE TAX DOLLARS on things not explicitly delegated to them?
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
If Countrywide Mortgages can pull my report when ever they feel like it, why does the government need a subpoena?
Or, look at it this way: If the government needs a subpoena to look at my credit report than why the heck is everyone else allowed to look at it whenever they want?
Clear, Dark Skies
National Security letters (NSLs) have been around a while and the Bush administration has used them extensively. a little over a year ago the Washington Post had a huge story about the extensive use of these with little valid result. The kicker about the NSLs is that there is always a provision to remain secritive that you are handing over the information. If the FBI give my boss an NSL wanting records of all of of my outgoing phone calls, he must give the records and INFORM NO ONE that this happened. If me boss refuses to had over the records or "squeals", he goes to jail.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
It sounds to me like some banks and credit companies need to be rebuked for this. Credit and bank statements can contain substantially private information about an individual, as personal as medical records or intimate phone conversations.
In the only example given in the article of the successful use of this technique, Aldrich Ames, he was under careful surveillance by the FBI, and well known to be living beyond his stated income. There should have been no difficulty obtaining a search warrant as described in that constitution thing that law enforcement officials seem to find so inconvenient. And the banks and credit companies should EXPECT and DEMAND that law enforcement officials provide this search warrant as standard process, as much as most individuals would expect and demand this before letting police read ones private love letters.
The Bill of Rights loses its power if all the major corporations just voluntarily ignore it on behalf of their customers.
Cheney snarling: "I'll do what I want to. I'm the real president! The Chimp is just a figurehead!"
Jack: (smash) (smash) (smash) "Asshole" (rips out Cheney's stents with his teeth)
Now that we have THAT settled...
Why is it that we have groups like CAIR and many others with known links to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah operating freely? Because few of the "anti-terrorists" really care about security. We have a situation with funding Islamic development and education in America with Saudi Wahabi oil money that is akin to allowing the KGB to openly recruit domestic operatives during the height of the Cold War--but you never hear a damn thing from democrats or republicans at high enough levels to do anything. It's all because... surprise, surprise... these people are invariably too stupid to understand the issue or too corrupt to care.
What blows my mind is that true subversives are allowed to operate freely. Groups like CAIR who have openly stated that their goal is to end constitutional government and replace it with Sharia are even courted. They are FUCKING SUBVERSIVES, not legitimate dissidents. Their goal is to subvert American government and end it as it currently exists. *Cue handwringing about McCarthyism, despite the fact that one of my relatives was actually on the blacklist...*
I recall a few years back that there was a news story about a memo going around the CIA. It was a reminder for all undercover agents to avoid using their credit cards when making purchases at the CIA gift shop.
The insecurity of credit records has been public knowledge for so long that I'm wondering if the gov't doesn't have some ulterior motive in bringing it to the public's attention. Perhaps even nothing to do with terrorism.
Have gnu, will travel.
You don't own your account information with your bank unless your bank explicitly tells you they don't share it with anyone - but they won't, because they regularly share this info with law enforcement.
If I were, for some wierd reason, sit across the street from you and record each day when you leave and when you return, I could give the info to anyone and the government would not need a warrent to use it in court. Observing someone's behavior in either commercial or otherwise public transactions is legitemate.
Do you think the IRS needs a warrent to go after you for a fraudulent tax form - just to see the tax form?
I'm completely fine with anybody in the government checking out my purchasing activities. You have nothing to hide, so why should you be concerned with this? It's not like government has a history of abusing power, and if they did abuse it, there's no way it would hurt me or you.
/. why this is a bad idea that there's no excuse anymore to see it as anything short of troll.
There, now it's out of the way, and we can mod down anybody else that says it. It's been explained so many times on
There should not be ANY inquiries that you did not specifically authorize.
There are lots of circumstances where a company will ask for your authorization to pull your report. Renting, credit app, loan app, etc. But you should have authorized each of those.
If other people are pulling your report, that is a HUGE problem because your report has information about account numbers, balances and just about everything they'd need for "identity theft".
Check the original article, not the title. The title says "credit report", but the original article says "banking and credit records", which includes a complete list of all money in and out, and who that money came from or goes to, which usually gives information about the types of things you are spending money on. This can reveal what type of magazines you buy, how much you drink, whether or not you're seeing a shrink, whether you're seeing medical specialists, what you pay for on the internet, etc... So yes, it is equivalent to going through your mail and listening to phone calls.
I don't have a thing to hide, and I'm sick and tired of terrorists getting away with things. It's high time that the citizenry of the U.S. enable the government to do its job.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
It really sucks when the people at work post something on your account while you're not looking! There goes my karma.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
- Paving the potholes in the highways. Don't see that as an enumerated, delegated power in the text of the Constitution or its amendments.
... and I can think of countless other examples. You're right! This government is totally out of control!
- Delivering the mail. Don't see that as an enumerated, delegated power in the text of the Constitution or its amendments.
- Building prisons. Don't see that as an enumerated, delegated power in the text of the Constitution or its amendments.
- Establishing and operating the U.S. Coast Guard. Don't see that as an enumerated, delegated power in the text of the Constitution or its amendments.
Breakfast served all day!
Well if all it takes $100USD I say we all chip in and get Bush and Cheney's Credit reports pulled and see if we get stopped or not. If they can pull ours then we have EVERY right to pull theirs!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
There are at least two kinds of requests for a credit report. There are requests initiated by you to get credit - like when you apply for a loan. These requests actually count in your credit score (make lots of requests for credit and your credit score goes down.) Then there are promotional/screening requests, which can be made by anyone. These don't include all of the information that would be there if you requested a report yourself, but anybody can ask for these and get them (after paying a fee to the agencies, of course.) It's these kinds of requests that are the basis for all of those "prescreened" credit offers you get in the mail.
paintball
Sweet! All I have to do is forge a letter from the FBI and I can get my credit report for free, if only that was legal...
Also, is anybody reminded of those Nixon tapes where the guy laments that the "jews" at the IRS would not release his political opponents' tax returns to the President (IRS being)
As today, I would guess back then Nixon wanted the info to stop the terrorists and keep America safe...
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Let's apply the same logic to other threats to our armed forces. For example: speeding on our nations highways. There are almost 2 million military personell in this country, and they're exposed to risks on our highways just like the rest of us. Statistically, on average each of us has about a 1 in 10,000 risk of being killed each year in an auto accident. That would mean that just since 9/11, probably over 1000 of our troops have been killed in accidents, not to mention thousands more serious casualties. This is a bigger loss to our military than almost any conceivable terrorist threat to our military bases would be, and about 1/3 as much as we've lost in Iraq.
Now, we can presume that most accidents involve excessive speeds. Clearly, to mitigate this huge drain on the nation's defenses, we must fight speeding. I say that it's high time that we took advantage of the assets we have to cut down on this threat. We should task the Air Force to use their fleet of unmanned drones to patroll the skies over our highways. With the advanced imaging technology, they should be able to track and evaluate nearly every vehicle on our major freeways. Once people start getting tickets with a NORAD return address nearly every time they violate the law, they're going to start thinking twice about putting our troops at risk on our roadways. It would be a huge tragedy if we as a nation are unwilling or unable to use every tool at our disposal to protect our troops.
1. Fake bad democratic credit records. 2. Pull democrat credit histories using new powers. 3. Get them arrested for false records. 4. PROFIT !
Using GNU/Linux -- Windows-free zone!
"Cheney's Law" is "I am the Law".
I just watched Sen Feinstein (D-CA) telling the (probably empty, except the C-SPAN camera) Senate floor about how Chief Inqusitor^W^WAttorney General Gonzales has been firing US Attorneys in various districts, without any just cause (except "just 'cause I say so"), replacing them with "interim" Attorneys to last the rest of Bush's administration, avoiding the required Senate confirmation, to determine the outcomes of specific cases in their calendars. Like the "recess appointments" of Bush admin hacks like UN bomber^WAmbassador John Bolton and others. A "loophole" designed into the Patriot Act II (With a Vengance) voted in by the Republican Congress in 2006, which threw away the old "120 days maximum" for "interim" Attorney appointments, in favor of... as long as the Attorney General pleases, with whoever he pleases, whenever he pleases. Pleases himself, that is, not people interested in justice or Constitutional rule.
And this morning I read how Republicans want courts martial to try civilians. I expect they'll lock up trying war profiteers like Halliburton, find them "not guilty/liable", and use our Constitution's "no double jeopardy" rules to exclude real courts from trying them and exposing the evidence to shareholders and citizens. Then I won't be surprised when Bush/Cheney/Gonzales find excuses to apply military courts all over the globe. From US occupations like Afghanistan and Iraq, to battlegrounds in other countries like probably Iran and Syria, to anarchies where they're bombing like Somalia. Then widening to other Terror War territories, wherever they can find them. All in defiance of international laws, US treaties, and our Constitution itself, which is universal, yielding only in the face of sovereign foreign jurisdiction.
After all, Cheney/Gonzales/Bush don't even have any use for the required FISA court that bends over backwards to grant warrants, even after the fact, when spying on Americans. Why shouldn't this gang of "Conservatives" use the laws they've passed the past 6 years with their wholly-owned Congressional subsidiary to do whatever they want, regardless of how tyrannical?
After all, there's no law against Cheney lying to us on TV talk shows - as far as Cheney cares, anyway.
--
make install -not war
The problem isn't the feds pulling your credit report, the real problem is that the credit bureaus are allowed to compile a file on you without your consent. It even more wrong that they are allowed to sell *your* information to others without paying you or even checking the accuracy of the information/allegations in the file.
On second thought, I guess the credit bureaus aren't the bad guys here, the bad guys are the banks, cc companies etc who sell your info in the first place.
And the bums in the White House can't lift a finger to stop illegal immigration.
I'm constantly getting junk mail from people who don't know me, I don't do business with them, and they have no reason to know my credit level- but they do. In periods of time where I can't pay, the flow trickles. When I can pay, the flow fills trashcans. They know.
:)
;>
Now, if my credit score is common knowledge, and the government CAN'T get to it, there's something wrong.
The more direct question about why they'd care about my credit score- I can't imagine what it would help them with...all the guns I run are in cash, the white slavery I do is in bearer bonds, and the drug money is in pesos.
Wait! Can you GET credit to buy cocaine?
[No, this is all absurdity to illuminate the point...]
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
For folks saying "big deal":
This is the problem. This what makes it different from legal inquiries of your credit record by the government.
What I want to know is what are they really looking for? Does anyine think that terrorists, and by that I mean the ones smart enough to plan and carry out an attack of substance, are going to buy that 1,000 tons of fertalizer on their credit cards? A truck rental, sure, they have no choice, but explosives, ammunition and whatnot? No. Terrorsim, like the drug trade, is a cash and cary environment.
So, if terrorists are not their real target, who is? What are they looking for? What do they really want to know? How much data mining are they going to employ and to what purpose? These are the questions that make me uneasy.
Sure, some of you argue, this isan't all that big of a deal. Your records aren't really private. How about stepping back and looking at the big picture. Look at all of the other "non-private" records they want access to sans warrant: telephone records, email exchanges, web logs, library records, bookstore purchases, etc... This is just another in a long line of data mining projects.
At the risk of Godwinning my post, my government is starting to remind me of foul, loathesome, corrupt Evil Empire we spend decades toppling in the Cold War. The though of teh KGB being reborn in my country sickens me.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
What every one of us seems to be missing is the bigger question. Why are financial institutions allowed to provide your private financial records to another private organization? If I were to ask my bank for another customer's financial records they'd laugh. Why? Because it is ILLEGAL to provide that information to me. Why do we allow these institutions to give our private data to the credit bureaus in the first place. Find the administration responsible for allowing that to happen and you'll find the root of this problem
So if someone runs a credit check on you, your credit score gets lowered. When the government does it, does my credit score gets lowered to?
please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
These letters are not NSLs, they purport to be NSLs, but they're non mandatory. The letter quotes a lot of legal mumbo jumbo related to the National Security Letters, but never actually says that it is an NSL.
The company that receives them has no way of knowing these are not legal instruments, but a phishing letter from the FBI, so they don't know they can refuse. With NSLs the common perception is that they can't seek legal advice as notifying anyone about the NSL is a federal crime. So they don't get legal advice on it, and think they are forced to comply.
This is what makes it so incredible. There is no legal manner under which that information can be claimed, other than the FBI asking for voluntary compliance, only in this case the company is being duped.
Time to party like its 1984!!
I think the REAL issue here is that we have a credit system at all. Some nebulous number that your worth as a human being is judged on. Combined with the Patriot Act, Federal Reserve, and the illegal income tax, the future looks bleak in my eyes. Unfortunately most people don't seem to see a problem as we sign our life away.
This is doubleplusungood.
is that this is news.
Almost anyone can check on anyone's credit report. All you have to do is contact one of the three credit reporting companies and ask. They'll name a price.
I cant imagine anyone being surprised that government agencies use commercially available data. It's like being surprised that the D.A. has a Lexis-Nexis subscription, or reads Groklaw (ok, that might be surprising), or reads the newspaper. Once we were aware that credit checks were being factored into job interviews it should have become common knowledge that this is information that is de facto in the oublic domain for anyone to use.
And so it continues. It's just sad that each day, more and more of this information is published. We'll have no rights/freedom shortly.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
Freedom has a price....your freedom.
When ever I hear about initiatives to build mega-databases by pasting various public and private databases together.
They are simply not accurrate. Example 1, about 10 years ago I moved and applied for a new drivers license. A person with the same name popped up with a warrant. Good thing he was 5ft 6in tall at 140 lbs and I am 6ft 1inch tall and 210 lbs. Otherwise I might have spent a night in jail.
Example 2, the social security office has some inaccurrate information on me. I recently started applying for financial aid for grad school and so now I have to sort it out before I can apply.
Lord knows what is in my credit reports, I haven't seen any in years. Note the plural in reports. The best way to lose consistency is to have multiple versions of the same info.
This is also why I hit the roof when so called IT professionals so not understand that the most import aspect of a database is data integrity. It is not ease of development or speed or XML (don't get me started on that topic) support or whatever. The main function of a DB is to insure accurrate data.
I better stop before I start ranting and raving again.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Divorce Lawyers! Your soon-to-be ex-spouse will know all! and you may not know how!
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
What took you so long?
What?
That's because they know what's behind door #2.
Bush == Nixon
Cheney == Agnew
Iraq == Vietnam
2007 == 1974
Oil == Oil
Firstly it's not your credit report, it's your bank statement and credit card statement we're talking about:
" look at the banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans "
Secondly, if you (or HP) did it would be called phishing and is a crime.
Thirdly, if the FBI does it WITHOUT A WARRANT they are under the same legal rules as you or I. They have a legal route and it's via a warrant. It really is that serious, any FBI agent that's done this and tried to pass off a request for information as a NSL is committing a phishing crime, no different than if you printed off a fake NSL and tried to get the bank records with it.
But the biggest part of this story is the part they're not printing. The particular FBI office that issued these fake letters is full of direct Gonzales appointees and it's likely to be a slimy political muck gathering.
> > we've got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets
> And we don't want those bases blown up by terrorists with bad credit.
Especially since "All you base are belong to us".
Credit report agencies collaborate with criminal organisations/corporations and collection agencies/goons as a matter of routine.
Credit report agencies take corporations(criminals) at their word that you owe them money. They require no proof whatsoever. They empower goons to harass and violate your property and character.
Try it and see, you can ruin anyone, easy as pie.
My credit report is abysmal because Rogers Cellular violated our contract and failed to provide service, therefore I did not pay them and never will. They are in breach of contract, yet credit agencies take them at their word that they are in the right and I have no recourse whatsoever.
This has made me unemployable as it is routine for employers to check your credit record as a measure of "reliability".
Credit agencies are parasitic and evil, accepting fallacious information without question and then providing it to anyone who asks.
It is unbelievable that they get away with this, it is absolutely criminal and extremely damaging to society as a whole.
The solution? For me, just drop out, forget it altogether, go underground.
...ever since "Suicide Bomber Monthly" went out of business. I used to charge my subscription on my Visa card, but they closed up shop. Something about not being able to maintain a long-term subscriber base. I guess everyone was signing up for the 30-day free trial and then not subscribing. Huh...
In cases such as yours and your acquaintances where the information is bad on the face of it, a phone call should be all it takes. Even if it the agency doesn't immediately remove the disputed information, it is required to immediately list the information as being disputed and the reason for which you are disputing it.
Perhaps you misremember and it was the lendor who required you to send the letter from Macy's in order to validate your claim that you bore no responsibility for the account. After all it is not all that unusualy for someone to have finanical liability for an account created before he or she was born. One of your grandparents could have opened the account before you were born and later added you as a joint account holder. As a joint account holder, you would then have been jointly liable for any missed payments for an account opened before your date of birth.
Another possibility is that your anecdote predates the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The reason Congress first passed the act ten years ago was precisely the type of abuse contained within your anecdote.
Writs of Assistance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writs_of_assistance
This sig is false.
If Major League Baseball can copyright the performance of its games, why can't I copyright the "expression" of my credit worthiness? i.e. the amount I spend and the bills I pay off?
Situations like these are not all that uncommon. It isn't unusual at all for a parent to add a child as a joint account holder for a credit card so that the child gets a card with his or her name on it. In cases where the parent conscientiously makes the payment, this also helps establish a credit history for the child. Regrettably, if the parent is not so responsible, it lies a bad foundation for the child.
An administration that thinks they're above the law and justifies any indignity by simply declaring anything they want to do legal and constitutional? Or the right wing apologists sticking up for them? These are the same people who used to threatened revolution over the assault rifle ban and background checks for buying handguns. They'll fight to the death to be able to buy a gun at a flea market, but it's okay for the military and government check their credit report at will, bug phone calls without a warrant and military tribunals for criminal suspects. They've got no problem with all that!
What's wrong with this picture?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
How is this different than what the IRS does? When it comes to the ability to track spending, income, and lifestyle, I would imagine that IRS would have an easier time obtaining and analyzing this data. Who needs a warrant when you can flat out audit suspected activity?
"Does this wine taste funny to you?" -- Socrates
the Vice President on the use of the letters: "It's perfectly legitimate activity."
I would have called it "cromulent".
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Most of these things get worse under every president. Yet another to stop voting for BOTH big parties. Also a reason to slap the stupid off the face of anyone that suggests that voting for either the Democrats or Republicans is anything other than a vote for tyranny.
Credit bureaus are allowed to offer very limited versions to other companies without your consent. These mostly just contain your credit score and your contact information. Further, you're allowed to opt out should you contact the credit bureau.
The easier it is to make up some very credible sounding falsehood about you.
You may not have done anything wrong, but a very credible but entirely false accusation can still ruin your life. Sort of like the way the FBI ruined jean Siberg's life
seen your credit reports in years?
You should be able to see them, once a year each, for free at annualcreditreport.com... Which, while it will try to convince you signing up for some service is a good idea, does not *require* you to as did/does the misleading freecreditreport.com.
Well, the president is the leader of the nation. And you should always follow your leader -- that's what a good patriot does. So if the president sees laws as extraneous when they conflict with getting what he wants, so should you.
It gets even worse when you note that the "leaders" are all complete jackasses. I mean seriously, what kind of nation would the US be if people actually followed the example of guys like Clinton (lie about everything and cheat on your wife!), Dubya (stupidity is cool! war rocks! muslims all need to die!), Nixon (deny everything! never take responsibility! it's only illegal if you get caught!), Carter (giving deadly weapons to violent savages is a great idea! let terrorists get away with anything they want! being a nice guy makes incompetence okay!)
It may be true that as a matter of practicality that anyone with a federal tax id can get a copy of your full credit report, unless they have permission from you they are breaking the law in doing so. There are some exceptions to this such as the limited version (mostly your credit score and contact information) of the credit report provided to third parties who regularly pay the credit bureaus for mailing lists of people in a certain demographic target market.
At least in the US, if you dispute any item on your credit report, the credit bureau has thirty days to investigate. Unless the entity that placed the negative information sends proof of its claim, the item has to be removed. In a case like yours where Rogers most likely has a signed contract, the onus of proving that they breached the contract is on you. If you never received service you ought to have taken them to court rather than simply not paying.
Actually, they have more power than the government. When you apply for a car, they run your credit report. You apply for an apartment, they run a credit report. You apply for a job, they run a credit report. All of these companies that are running credit reports can use them against you. The Gov't can't.
Two problems with this, one businesses can legally only get your credit report if you allow it. Two everytime someone requests your report that requests gets listed on the report. Conceivable your credit score, FICO, can be damaged with the government listed. Besides the score is negatively impacted for each request listed, each request lowers the score. That's a good reason people should not apply for credit or allow others to request your report if you're going to apply for a morgage, the more requests and the lower the score the higher the interest on the morgage will be, that is if it's not approved. It may also look bad to a creditor or potential employer if there's a government request on the report as well, afterall why would the government request it if there was nothing wrong?.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Seriously -- everytime someone says that it's a two-party system, democracy dies a little bit. If Americans had even a fraction of the guts of the folks that founded the colonies, you'd all vote for third parties and independents ON PRINCIPLE -- just to avoid having some enormous shadowy organization wielding power over them.
And it's getting worse. I wish there was a way that I could be present everytime someone starts on some anti-authoritarian rant and them proudly declares that they are a republican. I would PAY to be present, just so that I could give them the caning they deserve for being so goddam retarded. I think the videos of "Jesus Camp" showing kids smashing mugs labelled "government" and then praying to portraits of George Bush says it best: somehow these schizoid maniacs are sufficiently steeped in their doublethink that they don't realize that Dubya is heading up the largest government in American history, and running a more authoritarian government than ever before. Democrats of course are no better, given that they've rubber-stamped essentially everything that Bush has done. And many of Bush's more heinous policies are simply continuations of Clinton's. Funny how that works. And what do Democrats plan for the future? There's no talk of canning the PATRIOT act or the DMCA. No talk of scrapping medicare (how many people actually get helped by this program anyway? I'm all for social programs ... but technically, to qualify as a "social" program, at least some portion of society should benefit.) Their big idea? Raise minimum wage (something that should be a state-level issue) and dither about what to do in Iraq. Real useful.
Americans are a depressing people... they have a fascinating history, but the present reality is enough to completely destroy one's faith in democracy.
They pulled your credit report without a warrant too. This is not private data, unfortunately.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
No bank would give out your bank statements when the Pentagon sends a writ of assistance. They do when they receive what appears to be a National Security Letter (an NSL).
Cheney is arguing that as long as they only *appear* to be NSL's and don't explicitly *say* they are an NSL, then it's not illegal. If the bank mistakenly thinks it's been issued with an NSL then that's their lookout and their mistake. It's not true though, it's no different from any Joe Sixpack sending out fake NSLs to obtain information. Without a warrant the army has no special powers and is subject to exactly the same laws as Mr Sixpack. Even though they're claiming the involvement of the FBI, it makes no difference, the FBI can't issue fake NSL letters either.
But only if the Gov wants to regulate the reporting industry to make sure they have the correct information. The reporting companies have the power to totally destroy someones life, yet they have no inclination to verify that information is correct, and when it is found to be wrong, it takes an act of god for them to fix it. If the Gov wants to pull my information and use that for any reason other then providing me with financial services, then they should also make the reporting companies liable for any misinformation. I think execution by firing squad on public TV for reporting company execs would be a great deterant.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Small claims caps vary from state to state, but there aren't many states where the full value of even a two year mobile contract surpasses the limit. In some states the cap is as high as 15k USD.
So you'd be okay with security cameras in public bathrooms? After all, you have nothing to hide, and terrorists have to use bathrooms sometimes. What better way to track them than by catching them on camera when they "check-in" every few hours?
...
... say ... bees. Bees kill a few Americans every year. Domestic terrorism has only managed a handful of incidents in all of US history. Maybe you should develop some perspective and think abuot what the real threat is: terrorists that just want the US to stop interfering with the affairs of their home country, or a government that is fully ready to take every single freedom that you possess in order to create an illusion of safety. One affects every single American and will have effects that last for lifetimes, the other has never affected more than a few thousand people and is an extremely rare occurrence. Decide quickly, because the point-of-no-return is coming.
The system could build up dynamic biometric profiles of people based on the way they stand, how they move, how many times they shake it out afterwards, whether they hum or not, the kinds of trace chemicals in their urine, etc.
Hey, and think of all the drug dealers that you could catch! This idea is sounding better and better.
Or maybe you should just notice that domestic terrorism is less dangerous, on average, than
4th Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" does Dick Cheney not understand.
A government can arrest you, imprison you, and even kill you. Governments all around the world are waging wars, rounding people up, and torturing them. What business can do that?
You mean like the government contractor Blackwater? Or Coca Cola? Or Exxon?
FalconShould there be a Law?
The police can say to your wife, "We thing your husband did something wrong, can we search your house?" If she says yes, no warrant is needed. They can search it. That is completely within their rights. Likewise, the government can ask your bank to share your financial records. That is completely within their rights. The problem is not that the government is asking. The problem is that the banks are saying yes.
There are two kinds of pulls when your credit is pulled. A hard pull, and a soft pull.
A hard pull is when you apply for a car loan, credit card, etc. These affect your credit score and are visible when your credit is pulled.
A soft pull is when you open a bank (deposit) account, rent an apartment, go through a background check, etc. These do not affect your credit score and are only visible to you when your credit is pulled.
I would assume that when the NSA or DoD pulls your credit report, it is probably done through backdoor channels and wouldn't appear on your credit report, even as a soft pull. After all, it just wouldn't do to have you be aware that the DoD is investigating you, no would it?
Summary: It won't affect your score if the NSA pulls your credit.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
In order to obtain someone's credit report legally from one of the 3 bureaus (who, by the way, are not going to deal with an individual anyway), one must abide by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The FCRA states that you have to have permission of the person whose credit is being pulled or be pulling it for a permissible purpose. "Just for the heck of it" is not a permissible purpose listed in the FCRA.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Care to provide an example of Coca Cola rounding someone up and torturing him or her?
They don't have to, they pay government, the military, and paramilitary organizations to do the dirty work. As in Colombia, Coke sued over death squad claims. How about the Campaign to Hold Coca-Cola Accountable in India. Google has a directory of more unethical things Coka Cola has been accused of.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The analysis over at The Volokh Conspiracy seemed to make sense. In particular "...instead of just informally requesting information in a context that would make clear the request is voluntary, the DoD and CIA seem to be issuing their requests using letters that look a lot like "real" National Security Letters. If that's right, the government would know that the letters have no legal effect, but they would be written so as to try to trick the recipients into thinking that they do."
This looks like more bending of the current administration's penchant for the rules to the breaking point (or past), using the excuse of a drastic threat to society. While I'm slightly sympathetic to such for dire threats, there is no evidence of this being for the unimaginably rare (dinosaur killer asteroid heading for earth) or for even the horrifically unthinkable (better than 50-50 chance of a million plus deaths). Instead, it's an attempt to covertly and permanently expand domestic intelligence powers when the legislature has refused to endorse such expansion.
Everyone should remember: "defending the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic" can include defending against yourself and your own darker impulses, and against any of lesser honor who may come to serve after you.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
... the same information Cable TV and every credit card company in the world has access to.
Clearly you don't understand what the word "liberal" means. I mean, Castro is very left wing: do you think he never spys on his subjects?
Hardly anyone uses the right mneaning for "liberal" today. A Liberal used to be someone who stood for Liberty and Small government. They stressed the "importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, constitutional limitations of government, the protection of civil liberties, an economic policy with heavy emphasis on free markets". Today's liberals or neoliberals seem more like socialists with bigger government, bigger public ie government programs, and penalizing businesses.
FalconShould there be a Law?
While the Dems in congress did finally pass the 9/11 recommendations, the following paragraph is gag-worthy;
"
Recipients of the letters, banks and credit bureaus, usually hand over the requested information voluntarily. A posting at tothecenter.com quotes the Vice President on the use of the letters: "It's perfectly legitimate activity. There's nothing wrong or illegal with it. It doesn't violate people's civil rights... The Defense Department gets involved because we've got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets."
Note that, Dubai has purchased at least 7 defense manufacturing plants as well has snuck in as running ports when the public quit looking. Apparently, American Union members are more of a threat than a government that routinely launders drug/terrorist money.
Then we have The WayneMadsenReport.com -- constantly criticized because it tells the truth, and you know it because the bad guys own our reporting agencies. A quick Google of all the media outlets and even the AP Newswire will show that; the Moonies, AIPAC, Saudi Arabia, Australian NeoCons and perhaps Blackbeard's Ghost own our media. But, having gotten that out of the way (please, my tin-foil hat is at the dry cleaners, please refrain from those comments -- they are a dead giveaway that you have nothing for rebuttal), I'd like to present this information, that seems like it is more of an issue than letters, if protecting "targets" is actually a mission;
January 16, 2007 -- More on Philly covert arms shipment facility. According to State Department sources, the U.S. subsidiary of an Israeli company has been involved in shipping sensitive military-related equipment to China from Penn Terminal in Eddystone, Pennsylvania. This is the same terminal that was the subject of our Jan. 12 report that rockets and rocket launchers of the variety that can be fired from the back of pickup trucks were recently shipped to China (according to the manifest documentation). The terminal is also part of the original Sun Shipyard that was allegedly taken over by the CIA in a fraudulent deal in 1980 to serve as a "carve out" for clandestine arms shipments.
Yeah, the war on terror is the same racket as the war on Communism. While the USSR was an actual nuclear power; they could barely hold themselves together for that last 20 years, much less invade anyone. Robert Gates, it seems, fabricated most of the paper tiger threat. Al Qaeda is just a go-between with the Russian Israelis mob (Poppy exports are doing well this year), and Bin Laden is the Goldstein of our age. Much better to have lurking in the shadows as a boogie man. Invade any oil-rich country you want, just season first with a little Al Qaeda, pepper with a few vague WMD threats, and dig in! Bon Appetittite.
Meanwhile, cowardly American's drop their civil liberties and expect a totally corrupt FBI/CIA to protect them. Yeah, and keep track of all those "data thefts" going to Poindexter.
Oil is now at $52 dollars a barrel. What do you want to bet that the price of oil and inflation, are now hinged to Democrat initiatives to leave Iraq? If you want to speculate on futures -- I could think of no better barometer than how Pelosi offends or pleases the House of Saud.
No this is not Flame Bait. It is much more towards the heart of this "security issue" than discussing what the FBI thinks is pointless about our Constittution. They have access to all our information, and businesses must retain all email, while "whoops" any oversight or evidence of wrongdoing amongst our leadership is understandably swallowed by the Doberman Pincher.
America will not retain any "security" until we get control of our energy dependence. Carter understood it, and that's why we had an oil embargo those many years ago. If the Democrats are serious about it -- they will weather the storm of a Saudi Embargo by making friends with Venezuela, and learning from Brazil. We could be energy Independent in 10 years if serious.
If you
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Any two-bit used car salesman can "pull your credit report," in about 30 seconds while he is making a copy of your driver's license so you can take that test drive. and they don't ask if it's okay either. What is the big deal?
So returning Elián González to his father who had legal custody was wrong? BS, just because people don't like Castro or how Cuba is run doesn't give them the right to kidnap a child and keep him away from his father. On the other hand maybe someone should of been fried for the Brqanch Davidian fiasco, and not the ones who actually did fry but the ones responsible for frying them. And let us not forget Ruby Ridge either.
FalconShould there be a Law?
All you say may be true however nowhere in the article does it say the admin is only issuing these security letters for those work or have applied for security or classified employment. The word root "class" doesn't even appear in the article and the only places "security" appears is where they mention the National Security Letters and the National Security Act.
FalconShould there be a Law?
or how about a Visa Check-Card with Informant Rewards!
there'll be a surcharge for the amount of paper/toner required to print nearly 8 trillion dollars of debt in full figures.
I expect that before long the banks and financial institutions will be sharing their complete databases with the government simply because, from the perspective of the banks and financial institutions, there's nothing illegal about them requesting this information - because no warrant is needed.
That a government currently has such power is no argument in favour of it. Why not take it away, make it illegal?
There are many reasons to do so. For one, it seems to me that the potential and risk of government abuse of this information far outweighs the benefits. The information WILL be used against you, with or without your consent or knowledge, whether you are innocent or guilty, and with no means for you to challenge or correct anything.
Yes this is ugly.
Keep in mind the next steps.
The lists of every thing you have ever purchased with those accounts
The lists of everyone whom you have ever shipped a package to via FedEx or UPS
The lists of everyone who has ever paid money into your account.
It gets ugly fast.
As much of a critic as I am of this administration, the individuals cited in this article are persons with clearance who are being investigated as part of the process of revoking clearance at the very minimum.
Can you show me where it says anything about clearance? I've read, reread, and searched for "clear" but haven't found it. Nor have I found "revok".
FalconShould there be a Law?
They use this to help nail Aldrich Ames in 1994.
Based on the hysteria in this thread, why haven't people been complaining about it for the past 12 years?
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
If someone agrees to take a US Government security clearance, they agree the US Government can investigate their finances at any time without a court order (e.g. to detect whether someone has too much income -- from bribes or such like).
All the examples in the article are of people who had security clearances. And the numbers also line up nicely with people who have security clearances.
So there is really no news here. They don't care about normal folks credit information; they just want to be sure that our spies are not being subverted by their spies (whoever they might be).
All those offers you get are supposed to have a section saying something like:
You can choose to stop receiving prescreened offers of credit from this and other companies by calling [insert toll-free number].
That toll-free number gets you the place behind that web site.
I haven't seen it but then again I don't read any of the material. I just set them aside for later, then I'll either use a maker to blackout name, address, and such then rip it up or I'll burn them.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I am willing to bet an excellent bottle of wine sent to the charity or NGO of your choice that you are unwilling to write a piece _opposing the use of credit reports and other personal material for the purposes of finding out if people are dodging taxes_.
In fact, I would believe you actually support the idea of a massive tens-of-thousands department with a massive central database for the purposes of spying on the ameri^W^W^W^Wchecking that people have paid the taxes they should.
Am I wrong?
helps
Yeah, I thought of getting a shredder. My brother in law suggested that if I get one to make sure it crosscuts. It would make less work using one but it almost seems ovekill. Not the shredding but the cost and considering how much use it would see which isn't much. Other than credit card offers I wouldn't really use one. All other financial records, bank and credit card statements and such, I get I file and I don't have anything else I'm particularly concerned about. As for those credit card offers, I may followup on opting out.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I have heard this sort of "first order rhetoric" many times from members of the Bush regime. There seems to be a stragegy of stating the exact opposite of what something actually is, and then repeating it several times in several slightly different ways - as if saying something enough can make it seem true. It is the 180 degree contradiction that kind of scares me - I had not noticed this technique used much in the good years before Bush.
-Ramen
-cookies
-Vegi's
-Crackers
-new head for toothbrush
Trader Joes: 44.99-74.99
Frozen Pizza
Chinese Food
Vegi's
Dick Cheney, the bush family and friends er I meen ConeCo/Shell
-2.95 [per a gallon for middle of the road unleaded ]:* 10 gollons (when I remember to fill up my nissan at half a tank): 20.95+ tax +> 23.95*2 weeks a month:46 a month.
-Electric 40 USD
-Phone 30 USD
-Gas to heat house 80 USD (It's 7F at night here).
Insurance for car (Dick and friends must think nationalized insurance is a bad thought): 295USD + 10USD for installements.
TV 41.95
Internet: 29.99 + 5 pages of asorted fees.
TaXes: assorted.
who's side are you on?
The Feinstein appearance (live) on C-SPAN is now making real news. You can read more details, watch the YouTube, and discuss it somewhere that isn't Slashdot.
--
make install -not war
Opting out of pre-screen credit offers should clear up most or all of the "random" credit checks that appear on your credit reports. You can opt-out in several ways that are listed at http://www.creditsourceonline.com/opt-out.html.
Hey, I don't fully understand why the CIA has a gift shop! I mean, that implies that tourists can visit the CIA building...
But I think it's true. America does not hide where the CIA building is. Tourists can go there and buy souvenirs; presumably the tourists often use credit. Undercover spies can pretend to be tourists--hey, it might even look less suspicious for them if not everyone entering the CIA building actually works for the CIA. They just had better not take things too far.
Of course, there are people working for the CIA who can admit it without blowing their cover: for instance, whoever is in charge of the CIA right now.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
What does one have to do with the other?
Clear, Dark Skies
Yeah, I remember Reagan. Many say he was conservative, meaning he supported small government (which is really liberal), but he really expanded government. And the fake "War on Drugs". He had a mixed bag on regulations, he cut some but came up with others. Between him and Bush Sr, they created the biggest national deficit the USA had known up to that tyme. But by the end of Clinton's terms in office, the deficit was transformed into the USA's biggest budget surplus. However it wasn't because of Clinton but because the economy boomed through the '90s increasing tax collection. Bush Jr turned back around and we have the biggest deficit again, though this one is much bigger than Reagan and Bush Sr's.
If anything moves, the liberals tax it. It it keeps moving, the liberals regulate it. And when it finally stops moving, they subsidize it!
They aren't real liberals. They might be so called neoliberals but really they lean more towards socialism and want to expand government. The only difference between today's censervatives and liberals is what part of government they expand and what part they shrink. The conservatives want to expand the military as well as shrink welfare programs for the poor. The so called liberals today want to expand welfare and shrink the military. I won't say all of them but some also want social health insurance. They both act tough on drugs.
FalconShould there be a Law?
They're great fun - not worth it for credit card offers, but nothing is more fun than shredding some paper and having the three year old put your AMEX card into the card shredding slot...
In most states in small claims court, the parties have to represent themselves. While a corporation that sues may very well send a lawyer to represent them, it can't be outside legal counsel and her or she won't be acting as a lawyer but as a representative of the company. There are quite a few good books on how small claims court works. Consider searching your local library for some.