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."
Credit *Records* not *Reports* (Score:2, Interesting)
"from the thanks-Patriot-Act dept" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Hmph. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:"from the thanks-Patriot-Act dept" (Score:3, Interesting)
Notice a pattern here, citizen?
Oh, you mean the unconstitutional illegal-search-and-seizure RICO redefinition dreamed up by Bush #1 to fight the terrible horrible drug merchants?
Say, didn't we invade Panama, (to take out a foriegn leader we didn't like) too?
Again, notice a pattern here, citizen?
Re:Absolutely stunning .... (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? As I read the ABC article, it said nothing about citizens who hold any clearance. It merely references people who show up in investigations.
I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't know which is correct, but I see nothing to indicate that all of the people being examined like this are government personnel who have clearances. If it was purely ongoing verification of people with clearances, fine. But, if it spills over into "hmmm, he spoke to a brown man on the corner, let's pull up his records", it's a bad thing. And, one which I believe would be completely illegal
I'm just not 100% sure that the articles seem to indicate it's limited to ongoing verification of people who hold security clearance. I interpret it to be "whoever becomes a 'person of interest'".
Cheers
Re:Statements, not report. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Absolutely stunning .... (Score:1, Interesting)
...hand over the requested information voluntarily (Score:2, Interesting)
Bush == Nixon
Cheney == Agnew
Iraq == Vietnam
2007 == 1974
Oil == Oil
Security (Score:3, Interesting)
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