Feds Check Credit Reports Without a Subpoena 290
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."
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not like the government is going through my mail or listening to my phone calls...
OK, bad example.
Absolutely stunning .... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
fun with words (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Two Questions... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
US Consitution (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's check the Documentation.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you have a bank account who's number is just one digit off from a terrorists. One mistyped number and you'll change your opinion.
Re:Absolutely stunning .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely stunning .... (Score:2, Insightful)
During wartime, civil liberties always get pushed back. But now we've got an open-ended "war on terror" that's lasted for five years already, with no end in sight. And Bush & Co are pushing the envelope as far they can in the direction of rolling back 4th Amendment protections on unreasonable searches. They do it because they figure they can get away with it, and they probably can, unless the Congress or the Supreme Court suddenly acquires a spine.
Not a rights violation or unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Um... (Score:3, Insightful)
- 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.
Re:US Consitution - lets get Bushes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Agreed. (Score:2, Insightful)
MOD parent UP please (Score:4, Insightful)
As today, I would guess back then Nixon wanted the info to stop the terrorists and keep America safe...
Needs to go Further (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-- George Washington
The Real Privacy Violation (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it affect my credit score? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sanity checks (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they do sanity check things. The trouble is, an organization like a government (or a corporation, even) does not operate with the same moral concepts as individual humans. (Should they? Many think so - but the point is that they don't.) A government's view of the country is that in order to do their job better, they need more control. Nearly any power-vested entity has a similar outlook. (That sounds like a rant, I don't mean it to.)
Our moral outlook is that our privacy is important to us. A government's fear-based outlook is that our "private" lives could potentially hide threats to their wellbeing, or to "society" in general. A corporation's perspective is that the most important thing to do is Whatever Makes More Money for Shareholders. This is why "Don't get caught" seems to be more of a governing rule for many non-individuals.
To them, we are a statistic -- 1 of 298 million. If 1% of your constituents (or customers) gets royally screwed by the system, who cares? Mistakes, accidents, etc harm more than that, and besides -- how many of that group actually deserved such screwing?
As individuals, the potential screw-ees, we obviously care a lot more. We see the marginalization of rights, "security theater", and inconveniences which make our individual lives harder, with little noticeable increase in safety, satisfaction, or other intangibles which we value. We see how it impacts US.
For example: Whenever I walk into many stores (e.g., Best Buy, Fry's, Costco), there are security people (or even employees) monitoring the exits, assuming that I could be the next shoplifter. So, they want me to show receipts, walk through a detector, etc. Great - I am not having to prove that I'm not a thief, every time I leave a store. From their perspective, it reduces shoplifting by X%, and thereby reducing their losses and increasing profits -- it's hard to see the business sense in NOT doing it (especially when all your competitors are too).
Similarly, when we go to the airport, we're herded as cattle, and need to produce ID and other documentation at many stages, all because it's viewed as "making travel more secure". Honestly, I imagine it might
So yes -- rest assured that many people have "sanity-checked" the practices and systems by which the government operates. They just are operating with different goals and values, so their sanity checks will return different values than yours or mine.
Re:Two Questions... (Score:2, Insightful)
What gives you that idea? Each transaction made between myself and some business or financial institution is a private transaction unless we both agree otherwise. The nature of the data provided by credit card companies to data collection agencies is spelled out in my card agreement and it is limited to data useful in determining my creditworthiness. There is no place in that agreement that allows them to release details of individual transactions to any third party. This includes law enforcement not in possession of a warrant.
On a side note: Credit reports can reveal people living beyond their means and general patterns indicating income from suspect activities. Since credit reports do not contain details of individual transactions, they would be useless for detecting a single large purchase of ammonium nitrate or tuition at the local flight school. Its not likely that the average suicide bomber is going to blow money on Ferraris, yachts, high end hookers in Las Vegas, etc. in a pattern likely to call attention to himself. So, either the gov't is getting something more than just credit reports or they aren't only fishing for terrorists.
Privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Needs to go Further (Score:3, Insightful)
The key flaw in your argument is that accidents are ACCIDENT'S.
Apart from the vague possibility of a meteorite hitting the car, there's pretty much no such thing as a car accident. If someone makes a choice to carry out a particular act and they know (or should know) that that act may endanger other people, the results are not "accidental". At best, you could term it negligence.
PS. Surplus apostrophe.
It's phishing and it's a crime (Score:1, Insightful)
" 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.
Re:Absolutely stunning .... (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean most invasive without consulting the courts. The least invasive would be to do nothing.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Halliburton.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shell [wikipedia.org], Coca Cola [wikipedia.org], Union Carbide [wikipedia.org], DeBeers [wikipedia.org], ExxonMobil [wikipedia.org]...
should I go on?
access to credit reports is legislated (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:fun with words (Score:3, Insightful)
That means the banks, financial institutions, etc. who are are asked to provide this information have the right to refuse, no? (IANAL, so I would welcome confirmation or clarification from someone who is). My wrath isn't directed at the government (this time)--it's with the financial institutions that think it's okay to give out my confidential data just because someone with a shiny badge asks for it >:(
Re:Absolutely stunning .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignoring for the moment that this particular program was not in fact operating under Clinton, I certainly wouldn't assume anything Clinton did was OK in any case. Given that you automatically brand those who disagree with you "ignorant left-wingers", I'm a bit surprised you consider Clinton the gold-standard of morality and/or legality.
Anyway, the Bush Administration has been in control for a little bit now, I'd think were past any transitional stage, yes? Can we start holding them responsible for the governments actions sometime soon?
CokaCola (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [bbc.co.uk]. How about the Campaign to Hold Coca-Cola Accountable [indiaresource.org] in India. Google [google.com] has a directory of more unethical things Coka Cola has been accused of.
FalconConspiracy theory (Score:4, Insightful)
The analysis over at The Volokh Conspiracy [volokh.com] 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.
Re:Accuracy (Score:3, Insightful)
abuse of the information is certain (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Primitive Psychological Technique? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.