Say Anything Blog

Privacy is an important issue but before we get carried away with legislation limiting access to personal information we need to consider the people and businesses such limitations effect.

Mighty slippery slope.  You seem to be saying individual privacy is secondary to profit.

I think there’s a balance that has to exist.  Privacy is important.  But so are background checks.  So is debt collection.  We’re talking about our safety and our economy here.

Now, obviously, that doesn’t mean that your private details should be open to the whole world, but they should be opened to pre-screened individuals like myself who are accessing the information for certain specific and permissible purposes.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Now, obviously, that doesn’t mean that your private details should be open to the whole world, but they should be opened to pre-screened individuals like myself who are accessing the information for certain specific and permissible purposes.

Why?  Look, I hate to break it to you but getting a PI license isn’t receiving infallibility from on High.

In fact, in many states, a PI license involves little more than paying a fee.

You’re in business; thus, you’re likely very susceptible (as are most for profit businesses) to cutting a few corners to achieve expected results.

Why? Look, I hate to break it to you but getting a PI license isn’t receiving infallibility from on High.

Nor does privacy give one the right to hide from creditors or hide your criminal past from prospective employers.  See what I mean?  There has to be a balance.

I’m not saying my PI license gives me any sort of special privelege when it comes to this sort of thing.

My point is that we already have a system for regulating access to priveleged information.  They are called the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the GLB Act and HIPPA.  We do not need further restriction.  Doing so is harmful to society.  In addition to the examples I’ve already mentioned, who do you think does investigative work for citizens defending themselves against criminal accusations?  Private investigators, of course.  But we can’t do our jobs if we can’t access the information.

And you mentioned how easy it is to become a PI in some states.  I agree.  That’s why I belong to organizations like NALI and NCISS and advocate for stricter and more thorough licensing procedures.

Finally, I’m more than a little offended that you would even attempt to sully my professional reputation by suggesting that I cut corners.  I follow every applicable law when conducting the investigations I’m involved in.  My firm has a long and fine reputation in the industry.  If you insist on making comments like that about my professionalism (without a single shred of evidence) I will ban you from this site immediately.

I will not tolerate any such accusations period.  If you so much as make a snide remark about it you’re gone.  This isn’t just my opinions about social security or something we’re talking about.  This is my job.

Got it?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Finally, I’m more than a little offended that you would even attempt to sully my professional reputation by suggesting that I cut corners.

Why? If you don’t get results, you don’t get repeat business.

Before you get self-righteous about your professionalism and honesty--remember every business likes to believe it adheres to the strictest ethics and professionalism.

The problem with organizations like NALI and NCISS are that they’re self-regulating associations, that means if you do commit some ethics breach or other misconduct--they take away your membership.  You still get to stay in business.  Customers are results-oriented; they’re not really all that concerned that you have NALI on your letterhead or business card.  What they’re more interested is getting the info they want to see.

NALI and NCISS are advocacy groups, not licensing groups.  You obviously do not know what you’re talking about. 

Licensing is handled through the state.  I can assure you that many states, though unfortunately not all states, take such licensing very seriously.  If you are caught violating the FCRA you will lose your license.  Period.

It is better enforcement of the FCRA and other limitations that we need, not more limitations on access.

And as for this statement:

Why? If you don’t get results, you don’t get repeat business.

Before you get self-righteous about your professionalism and honesty–remember every business likes to believe it adheres to the strictest ethics and professionalism.

Excuse me for being a bit angry here, but screw you.  You don’t know me or my business nor do you have any right to imply, even obliquely, that I don’t adhere to every ethical and legal requirement.

Now we can debate this privacy issue all you want, but one more comment about my professionalism and you’re gone.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Doh.

I fixed it.

Of course, that’s one that the spell checker wouldn’t pick up.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob:  This story is one that heavily effects my livelihood

I think that should be affects, being as there’s a 50 cent charge now for misspelled words on this blog.

I don’t care how difficult that may be. I don’t care how expensive it is. I don’t care if it slows productivity and lowers profitability. That’s the price you pay for being in the business you’re in.

I’m aware of that, which is why I advocate for stricter licensing laws and a better vetting process for those allowed access.

In your PI work have you ever gotten the ‘right’ information on the ‘wrong person? Ever confused John Smith #1 with John Smith #2? Did that confusion ever create a problem for the innocent John Smith?

Yes, many times confusion happens, but no its never created a problem other than a few phone calls to the wrong house.  But mistakes do happen, but clamping down on things like SSN’s and DOB’s for people like me only increases mistakes.  Better access to those things makes identification easier, thus far fewer mistakes.

I deplore ChoicePoint’s evident selectivity in choosing which customers it’s now going to penalize. Profit motive will spur the company to make the fewest changes at the least cost to quell the public outcry.

Couldn’t agree with you more.  Unfortunately, private invesitgators like myself account for only a small portion of ChoicePoint’s overall business.  So its very easy for ChoicePoint to offer up its investigative clientele as the “sacraficial lamb” to make this go away while maintaining the majority of its business.

For some reason Private Investigators have a hard time finding friends in the realm of public opinion.  Too many movies, I think, have cast us as shady and etically-challenged characters.  And nothing could be further from the truth.  We provide an important service to the community, its just that nobody realizes it until they need to track down somebody who owes them money or need someone to look into the facts when they’re accused of a crime.

My real concern is not with ChoicePoint or you. It’s with a system that allows both to traffic in my personal information with virtually no regulation oversight for either.

I certainly see where you’re coming from and welcome more oversight and regulation.  I just don’t want to see access for legal and licensed individuals like myself go away.  Like I said, people like myself provide a valuable service to the public.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I’m not questioning anyone’s professionalism or ethics (now comes the infamous ‘but’ monkey), but…

What both ChoicePoint and you do, Rob, is perfectly legal--and you’re both dealing with my (very) personal information.  That puts the onus on ‘you’ to protect that information.

I don’t care how difficult that may be.  I don’t care how expensive it is.  I don’t care if it slows productivity and lowers profitability.  That’s the price you pay for being in the business you’re in.

In your PI work have you ever gotten the ‘right’ information on the ‘wrong person?  Ever confused John Smith #1 with John Smith #2?  Did that confusion ever create a problem for the innocent John Smith?

I deplore ChoicePoint’s evident selectivity in choosing which customers it’s now going to penalize.  Profit motive will spur the company to make the fewest changes at the least cost to quell the public outcry.

My real concern is not with ChoicePoint or you.  It’s with a system that allows both to traffic in my personal information with virtually no regulation oversight for either.

Most of the problems associated with confidentiality of personal information and security of that information could, IMHO, be addressed with a shift in paradigm.  To wit: information about me--other than that required by law for use by the goverment and the government ONLY, should be considered MY LEGAL PROPERTY.  Thus, if any use of that information--or even caching/storage of that information--violates MY notions of fair use, I have the right to sue the living daylights out the perps.  Or perhaps even seek criminal prosecution.

[NOTE: I work in a hospital, and know just how full of holes HIPAA is.  It addresses stupid issues, without in any meaningful sense protecting private information up front--it at best weakly addresses breaches of confidentiality AFTER THE FACT, once the damage is already done.]

The fact that information is available from government sources that have legitimate uses for that data and subsequent legitimate reasons for collecting/storing it, does not seem--to my mind--to justify the use of the information by ANY private entity, without my express permission and full knowledge of who/what/why.

I fully expect, though, to die without any such paradigm shift being implemented.  And, yes, a large part of the reason for that is the profit motive.

The fact that information is available from government sources that have legitimate uses for that data and subsequent legitimate reasons for collecting/storing it, does not seem–to my mind–to justify the use of the information by ANY private entity, without my express permission and full knowledge of who/what/why.

So then you would require that collection agencies get the permission of the person they’re trying to collect from in order to obtain informatin to locate him or her?

No, you’re wrong. The private sector has a number of legitimate and permissable reasons for needing this information.  Your suggestion would make even the publiction of a phone directory nearly impossible.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If that’s true–that only header information is trafficked–why are 147,000 ChoicePoint customers presently at risk?

Because their SSN’s and DOB’s were exposed.  That’s all you need to sign up for a credit card.

Finally, about the ‘collection agencies’ that you’ve mentioned several times. The vast majority of them simply ‘buy’ bad debts that have already been written off, then attempt to collect whatever they can in order to make their money. By the way, I have no problem with legal and legitimate debt collection, but ‘collection agencies’ don’t fit that description.

This displays your naivitie to the workings of the collection industry.  Some large debts are bought by collection agencies who then use information from companies like ChoicePoint to collect the money.

But smaller businesses, like apartment renters and used car dealerships, don’t have debt accounts large enough for things like this.  So they hire private investigators like me to track down the debtor and have civil process served upon them initiating a lawsuit.

Just two weeks ago my firm got a “not guilty” verdict for a man in Alaska who was accused of raping a young girl.  We were able to effectively defend that man and get the verdict from the jury in under 10 minutes in part because we had access to information about the plaintiff which allowed us to look into her past and find that she had a history of accusing her rich lovers of rape and collecting the money.

In the type of privacy environment you seem to be advocating for things like this would not be possible.

Now, as I’ve pointed out again and again, I am all for thorough vetting process and strict oversight, but you cannot restrict access to this kind of data for the public.  Period.  Its detrimental to society.

Please, read all of my posts on this matter before we go any further.  I think that if you read more you may get better understanding of some of the issues at play here.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

At the risk of broadening the discussion, I think Jeff H. raises an excellent point.  Why is it automatically assumed that some of my personal information is ‘private while other information is ‘public’?

Two quick examples of how things can go wrong.

1 - My elderly widowed grandmother was being inundated with calls attempting to con, scam, shame, scare her into purchasing all manner of policies, products, etc.  We had her phone # changed (unpublished and unlisted) and the calls fell off dramatically for about 4-6 weeks, then the volume picked up again as her new private number became common knowledge to the scammers.  I wonder how that happened?

2 - A friend divorced her abusive husband and he began threatening/harassing her.  She went thu the legal process (restraining order, etc), but he was both inventive and persistent.  As a last resort she took advantage of a company relocation with her employer and moved halfway across the country.  Her ex hired a PI who located her.  The ex moved to her new location and started up all over again.

In both cases where are the individual safeguards on who has access to personal information from an an information trafficker?

In an recent post, Rob, you said, “People purchasing the info do not see your credit rating nor do they see your account numbers. All they see is your name, address history and phone number. The same sort of information you’d find in a telephone book, though obviously more accurate and more in-depth.”

If that’s true--that only header information is trafficked--why are 147,000 ChoicePoint customers presently at risk?

Next to last, why is it I can place my name on a no-call list that limits sales calls to my house, but can’t limit CreditPoint’s or Rob’s ability to sell/buy my phone at will?

Finally, about the ‘collection agencies’ that you’ve mentioned several times.  The vast majority of them simply ‘buy’ bad debts that have already been written off, then attempt to collect whatever they can in order to make their money.  By the way, I have no problem with legal and legitimate debt collection, but ‘collection agencies’ don’t fit that description.

"Because their SSN’s and DOB’s were exposed. That’s all you need to sign up for a credit card.”

And as a ChoicePoint customer you don’t have access to my ssan and dob?  If you don’t, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.  If you do, then please drop the innocent ‘phone book’ analogy.

“But smaller businesses, like apartment renters and used car dealerships, don’t have debt accounts large enough for things like this. So they hire private investigators like me to track down the debtor and have civil process served upon them initiating a lawsuit.”

My point exactly.  The above are not collection agencies, but rather private businesses.  They are trying to collect money legitmately owed them, not trying to collect on a debt that’s already been written off by the ‘lender’.

“Please, read all of my posts on this matter before we go any further. I think that if you read more you may get better understanding of some of the issues at play here.”

I have read all of your posts, Rob, and I understand the issues at play.  What we have is a legitmate disagreement over a couple of the issues.

Finally,

“Now, as I’ve pointed out again and again, I am all for thorough vetting process and strict oversight, but you cannot restrict access to this kind of data for the public. Period. Its detrimental to society.”

I can certainly demand restricting access UNTIL there a thorough vetting process and strict oversight provisions (and penalties) are in place.  As long as information traffickers are allowed to keep operating ‘while’ they fix things, things aren’t going to be fixed.  I know that and so do you.

And as a ChoicePoint customer you don’t have access to my ssan and dob? If you don’t, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. If you do, then please drop the innocent ‘phone book’ analogy.

Yes as a licensed, insured and fully vetted investigator I do have access to your DOB and SSN.  If I have a permissible purpose.  And you obviously didn’t understand the phone book analogy.  The type of privacy restriction you are suggesting would make even the publication of a phone book nearly impossible.

My point exactly. The above are not collection agencies, but rather private businesses. They are trying to collect money legitimately owed them, not trying to collect on a debt that’s already been written off by the ‘lender’.

Ok then, how do these businesses go about collecting their debts if not allowed access to certain types of information?  Like property ownership?  Criminal and civil records?  Address histories?

I have read all of your posts, Rob, and I understand the issues at play. What we have is a legitimate disagreement over a couple of the issues.

Fair enough.

I can certainly demand restricting access UNTIL there a thorough vetting process and strict oversight provisions (and penalties) are in place. As long as information traffickers are allowed to keep operating ‘while’ they fix things, things aren’t going to be fixed. I know that and so do you.

There you and I agree, and disagree.  I want things fixed just as much as you do.  Every time crap like this happens it tarnishes the image of my industry.  Its hard enough to make a go of it as a PI without the bad PR.

But I am of the opinion that things can be fixed while keeping access to this information open to private investigators like myself.  I make annual, and large, donations to both the National Association of Legal Investigators and NCISS.  These are advocacy groups pushing for just the sort of reform you are talking about.  We don’t want credit card companies running credit reports on whoever they want.  We don’t want telemarketing companies looking up unlisted phone numbers, though I’d point out that getting an unlisted phone number is harder than getting an SSN.  Most of these telemarketing companies are getting the phone numbers off lists sold to them by banks, magazine companies, occupational organizations, etc.

Anyway, you get my drift.  You and I just disagree on whether or not access should be allowed while things are fixed.

Kindly point out where I stated they were licensing activities.

Jadegold, I took this to mean that you were suggesting that NALI and NCISS were in charge of licensing:

The problem with organizations like NALI and NCISS are that they’re self-regulating associations, that means if you do commit some ethics breach or other misconduct–they take away your membership. You still get to stay in business.

I must have misunderstood your meaning.

As such NALI or NCISS membership isn’t required for anyone to hang out a shingle and call themselves a PI.

You’re exactly right.  Which is why every state should have decent licensing requirements.  Unfortunately, not all do.  That is one thing NALI and NCISS are pushing to get fixed.  We don’t want a bunch of un-licensed yahoos giving our industry a bad name.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

NALI and NCISS are advocacy groups, not licensing groups. You obviously do not know what you’re talking about.

Kindly point out where I stated they were licensing activities.  I stated they were associations which are, by definition, lobbying/advocacy groups.

As such NALI or NCISS membership isn’t required for anyone to hang out a shingle and call themselves a PI.

A couple of final thoughts here.

Rob, in your ChoicePoint Update piece you said, “...Their business, that which applies to this situation, is the selling of credit header information. This means that the people who purchase the information get address, name and telephone information off of credit reports… All they see is your name, address history and phone number. The same sort of information you’d find in a telephone book, though obviously more accurate and more in-depth.” You made no mention there of SSANs and/or DOBs.  Perhaps you didn’t mean to, but you made the available information sound much more innocuous than it is.

Please don’t think I’m against ANY of my personal information being available (although I can make the case someone shouldn’t be able to ‘sell’ it without my permission).  For legitimate purposes (governmental or law enforcement) I can accept the need for it.  After that, tho, things begin to get fuzzy.  Defining what is a ‘legitimate’ purpose, what are necessary (and legally required) safeguards, etc. isn’t simple.

I don’t have an issue with you accessing information to find me for a jeweler to whom I owe money.  I do have an issue with you finding me for my ex-wife--to whom I no longer have any financial obligations--so she can call and harass my current wife about what an s.o.b I am/was.

ChoicePoint (and you to a much lesser degree) is saying, “Hey, trust us.  We’re really concerned about your privacy and we’re ethical and we’ll do right by you.”

Unfortunately there are curently no protections for me on personal information that is NOT financial in nature.  That’s what concerns me.  If the information trafficker isn’t going to vett the legitimacy of it’s customers purpose--and in some cases, such as with a PI, the legitimacy of it’s customer’s customers’ purpose--then who will?

I don’t think we’re that far apart on this, Rob.  Your chosen livlihood dictates that you want the issues addressed as we go along.  My personal concern dicates that the issues be addressed before my personal information ever gets sold again.

Regardless, I’ve really enjoyed the exchange of ideas.  You’ve given me a couple of new thoughts to mull over and that’s always a good thing.

Regards…