Consumer Group Gets Private Ashcroft Data

Associated Press ^ | 8/27/2003

[sinkspur]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Almost everything is for sale on the Internet - even the Social Security numbers of top government officials like CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft, consumer advocates warned Wednesday.

The California-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights said for $26 each it was able to purchase the Social Security numbers and home addresses for Tenet, Ashcroft and other top Bush administration officials, including Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser.

That illustrates the need for stronger protections of personal information, the group said.

The CIA declined to comment, and calls to the Justice Department were not immediately returned.

Specifically, the foundation is concerned about legislation in the House that would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The bill, sponsored by Reps. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., Darlene Hooley, D-Ore., and dozens of other members, aims to prevent identity theft and improve the accuracy of consumer records, among other things.

While backing the overall goals of the bill, the group's executive director, Jamie Court, objected to a portion of it that would continue a current pre-emption of tougher state privacy laws.

California Gov. Gray Davis signed such legislation Wednesday, which allows consumers to block companies from sharing personal information with affiliate businesses.

``Banks and insurers should not be able to go to Washington as an end-run around the most protective state privacy laws,'' Court said.

Bankers say the industry highly regulates the sharing of personal information. Even so, Diane Casey-Landry, president and CEO of America's Community Bankers, said there is support for a national standard for privacy. She said states adopting a patchwork of different rules could lead to new barriers for consumers seeking loans and increase the cost of loans because of the additional paperwork.

The Bush administration has urged Congress to act quickly to strengthen the nation's credit laws and has praised the House bill. It is expected to come up for a vote in the first few weeks after lawmakers return from their August recess.

A spokesman for Bachus, Evan Keefer, said the legislation has important new provisions that will be tough on fraud. He said the issue raised by the foundation is something lawmakers would look at in conference, after votes in the House and Senate.

The foundation wants to see a strong national law on credit reporting, but Court said that should not preclude states from passing even stronger privacy protections.

He said stopping trafficking of information among corporate affiliates is key because some companies have hundreds of businesses under the family umbrella. For example, a banking corporation might have a number of insurance, securities and real estate affiliates it does business with and financial data might be swapped among all.

``If you cannot stop the traffic in your information among corporate affiliates, you don't have privacy in this nation,'' Court said.

In addition to Social Security numbers, he said some online sites will give out a person's bank account balance for about $300.

Beth Givens, director of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse based in San Diego, said there are at least a dozen sites that provide Social Security numbers and other private data.

``If you're willing to spend a little money, you can get this type of information very easily on the Internet,'' said Givens.

[sinkspur]

Title should read: "Consumer Group..."

[thoughtomator]

LMAO! Well now that the bigwigs are at risk, something might be done.

[caisson71]

And we're making a big deal about the Patriot Act? I've signed more privacy statements for banks, hospitals, mortgages, funeral plans, etc, etc. in the past three years and yet more is known about me and my home, car, credit cars, etc than ever before. Do we really think we have any privacy anymore? Heck, my SSN is on my license and stores still ask for it on my checks!!

[John Beresford Tipton]

I hope they post it on the internet,
give the bastards a taste of their own medicine.

[The Electrician]

This is a confused and misleading article. The issue of whether or not it should be possible to obtain any person's SSN is only tangentially related to the issue of sharing of financial info between affiliates, which appears to be the primary concern voiced by the California-based "Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights".

Getting Ashcroft's and others' SSNs is merely a stunt which would not have been prohibited under the California statute alluded to in the article, whether or not the Fair Credit Reporting Act changes go into effect or not. The AP writer(s) should (but apparently don't) have the intelligence to distinguish between the two.

[Brian S]

If they have nothing to hide...they have nothing to fear! ;)

[The Electrician]

Which "bastards" are you referring to, and what part of "their own medicine" are you referring to?

[John Beresford Tipton]

Those members of Congress and the Administration that vote for, with or without reading, things like the so called Patriot Act and fund projects like Poindester's Total Information Awareness, wherein they glory in their ability to gather info about mere citizens.

They might feel a little more empathetic if their own data were "out and about"

[The Electrician]

OK, I thought that you might be referring to the Patriot Act and TIA. The point that I was trying to make in an earlier post would seem to apply here, as well. This article concerns proposed changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act which would seem on the whole to be good for consumers, and, according to the article, it is supported by the Bush administration. It is not opposed by "those bastards".

The restriction against stricter state laws would seem to be a natural application of the Constitution's interstate commerce clause (you know, penumbras and all that), and it is not even a new restriction which is being added to the bill, it is merely a continuation of something that was already in the law. And so, it appears that your invective is misplaced (in this context, anyway).

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Ashcroft will eventually be remembered as a great Attorney General, and Poindexter a martyr to societal ignorance."

Yes, and on the same day you will be called wise.
Don't hold your breath, even for one out of three.

[eno_]

Ashcroft deserves his private info splashed all over the Internet because he argues for taking away our last shreds of privacy.

If you saw Lon Horiouchi on the street, would you snap his picture on you phone cam and post his location?

If you came across the list of Elian Raiders, would you out them?

I would.

[eno_]

What "existing" privacy?

Do you have any communications privacy, or can any asshole LEO ask for and get all your telecom records WITHOUT A WARRANT?

How about your major assets? WITHOUT A WARRANT.

How about you ISP's logs? YUP NO WARRANT.

How about your bank records? NO WARRANT.

Privacy? What privacy?

To hell with John Ashcroft.

[eno_]

I think the ISP records and bank records are an Ashcroft innovation.

Exactly how many of these atrocities should I tolerate?

Free country my ass. Pass the "VICTORY" act and the effing sand monkeys can have it for all I care.

[thoughtomator]

Identity fraud... and confidentiality of personal data