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."

Comments

Re:So what?

[Spritzer]

The difference is the data that is available to them. AFAIK banks and credit card companies get basic info concerning your current debt load and payment history. As you would know, a full credit report reveals full account information including creditor info, account numbers, and relatively current debt load for each account. Over time this information can reveal increases in account activity and other very personal bits of information.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this any different than any other organization pulling my credit report?

Maybe because, contrary to recent efforts to make you think otherwise, the government isn't "like any other organization"?

Of course, those things the government can't do themselves, they just hire contracted corporations to do for them.

Nothing New with NSLs

[flogger]

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.

Re:Absolutely stunning ....

[m0rph3us0]

Clinton didn't pull your credit reports, he just used the army against citizens in violation of the posse comitaus act.

Statements, not report.

[zCyl]

Why is this any different than any other organization pulling my credit report?

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.

Re:Absolutely stunning ....

[MeauxToo]

I want to preface my comments by saying I am card carrying member of the ACLU, a Jeffersonian libritarian, and am no fan of this administration and its tactics. Furthermore, my comments are based on the fact that every example cited in the various press outlets has been a cleared individual (Aldrige Aimes and the Army chaplain at Gitmo). My comments do not to apply any cases that involve non-cleared citizens.

People involved in these investigations have clearances. As such, they have voluntarily signed away portions of their civil liberties related to wire tapping and regular background checks for counter intelligence purposes. If you have a clearance from US government, you have elected to restrict your civil liberties and rights to serve the country. Pulling your credit report is the least invasive action they can do without consulting the courts. At worst, they can revoke your clearance through an administrative procedure which has the net effect of a criminal conviction on your record.

As an aside, most US government clearances are issued through the DoD agency known as DISCO. Some agencies (e.g. Treasury, State, and Energy) have their clearance agencies, but most others use DISCO (e.g. Homeland Security, CIA, NSA). Since most clearances are administered by DoD, it then makes since that DoD would be the source of the most investigations into cleared people. All DISCO investigations are performed by the FBI.

While it may seem swarmy, everyone involved has elected to be placed under higher government scrutiny. Furthermore, as someone who has previously held a clearance, I can attest to the fact that you are advised at numerous points in the process that you are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. These are the types of procedures that are the first steps in identifying the Richard Hanseens and Aldridge Aimes in a world that legally operates under a stricter set of rules with potentially grave consequences for violation. Most importantly, no one forced these people into that world, they volunteered for it with full knowledge of the constraints.

Cheney's Law

[Doc Ruby]

"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.

Re:Cheney's Law

[Dachannien]

to determine the outcomes of specific cases in their calendars

Last I checked, juries determined the outcome of cases, and judges determined the outcome of appeals.

Also, changing a legislative loophole is in the purview of the legislature. The consent of US district attorneys is provided for by statute, not by Constitutional mandate, and if the law says that the executive branch can make these nominations without Senate approval, then they can:

and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. --Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2.

Your accusations regarding attempts to try Halliburton execs under courts martial are ridiculous. You have zero evidence that this is the plan, and your logic is flawed, besides. If, as you say, trying civilians in a court martial is unconstitutional, then double jeopardy will not apply, because the accused will never have faced true jeopardy backed by the force of law in the first place.

I agree concerning the FISA court, by the way. Ignoring a facility put in place to accomplish the very things the administration wanted to achieve - namely, obtaining warrants in secret - never made sense to me, and it is likely that their actions violated the law. But, just like the Democrats aren't going to put their votes where their mouths are concerning Iraq, they're not going to take action on this matter, either.

Re:So what?

[bunions]

> 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.

Yeah, but you give them permission to those people.

Still, of the players in the Cavalcade Of Civil Rights Abuses we've been priviledged to be audience to over the past few years, this one definitely plays a bit part.

Re:Does it affect my credit score?

[serial_crusher]

When I applied for a job with the NSA, I pulled my credit report a few days later and there was some vague item on there that basically said "Federal Investigation". I hope it didn't get mistaken for a criminal investigation.

reasonability

[brokeninside]

It's is also perfectly reasonable for them to assume that the data is correct until told otherwise. There are many ways that a person can be liable for an account opened prior to their birth. For example, a parent or grandparent could have opened an account prior to some-one's date of birth and then later added that person to the account as a joint holder. As a joint account holder, that younger person would be financially liable for an account opened before they were born.

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.

what can business do?

[falconwolf]

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?

Falcon

Re:So what?

[Johnny5000]

Care to provide an example of Coca Cola rounding someone up and torturing him or her?

I did, but in case you didn't click on the link, here's some text from the article:

In January 2004, the New York City Fact-Finding Delegation on Coca-Cola in Colombia[39] confirmed the workers' allegations. They found:

        To date, there have been a total of 179 major human rights violations of Coca-Cola's workers, including nine murders. Family members of union activists have been abducted and tortured. Union members have been fired for attending union meetings. The company has pressured workers to resign their union membership and contractual rights, and fired workers who refused to do so.

        Most troubling to the delegation were the persistent allegations that paramilitary violence against workers was done with the knowledge of and likely under the direction of company managers. The physical access that paramilitaries have had to Coca-Cola bottling plants is impossible without company knowledge and/or tacit approval....

The bottler and The Coca-Cola Company deny these allegations. Specifically, The Coca-Cola Company stated in its 2004 proxy[40]

        Two different independent inquiries in Colombia--a judicial inquiry by a Colombian Court, and an inquiry by the Colombian Attorney General's office--examined the specific issue of whether managers at a bottling plant were complicit in the murder of a trade unionist. They found no evidence to support the allegation. Further, based on internal investigations conducted by our Company and by our bottling partners, we are confident that allegations the bottlers engaged paramilitaries to intimidate trade unionists are false.

        The allegations made against us in Colombia are not merely false; they are repugnant to all of us at The Coca-Cola Company. We agree with the proponents that our Company must clearly demonstrate that we and our bottling partners support human and labor rights and oppose all forms of violence. Our desire is for Coca-Cola to be seen as part of the solution to some of the business issues in Colombia today. We are convinced our current approach will allow for that outcome.

Critics argue that, whatever their source, these assassinations seem to have been helpful to Coca-Cola in eliminating troublemakers from their bottling plants.

There's the allegations and the company response.
You can make up your own mind about which side you believe.

Re:Of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like government has a history of abusing power ...
What about banning child pornography ?

what liberal means

[falconwolf]

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.

Falcon

Re:credit reports

[ptbarnett]

BTW, ever read those preapproved credit card offers? Somewhere in small type you'll find it says it preapproved from a preliminary credit report but they can still withdraw the offer if they don't like your full credit report.

Technically, the company making a "pre-approved" offer hasn't actually seen your credit report. They simply ask the reporting agency to give them a list of names/addresses for people that meet a certain criteria. You give them permission to make the full inquiry when you return the application.

You can exclude yourself from the pre-screen lists at http://www.optoutprescreen.com/. I'm a bit concerned about the legitimacy of the site, but I've found multiple referrals to it from legitimate sources, including the FTC. If you aren't convinced, you can download the printed form from the site and snail-mail it to the three reporting agencies. The snail-mail method is required for permanent opt-out, anyway.

You can opt-out of pre-screen credit offers

[adrenaline_junky]

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.