AFS Cinema
Protect Private Information
RECEIVED Mon., March 7, 2005
Dear Editor,
The recent ChoicePoint and Bank of America data losses and identity thefts illustrate that politicians and businesses are not intelligent or concerned enough about my private information. If someone suffers identity theft because these data pimps are inept and politicians are in the pockets of these pimps, they should both pay restitution to the unfortunate victim (who isn't even allowed to see the data in his own file, and that's just not fair).
This is what politicians can do: allow a security freeze. A security freeze allows me to stop anyone from looking at my credit report for purposes of granting credit unless I choose to allow it. I actually get to be in control of who looks at my own personal information, and in an ownership society shouldn't I be the one who is in control of information about me? If the file is frozen, the creditor will deny the identity thief's credit application, preventing identity theft. When I apply for credit, I lift the freeze so creditors can see my credit file. When I am not seeking credit, the security freeze prevents an identity thief from perpetrating identity theft, which costs U.S. consumers about $5 billion a year, and U.S. businesses about $47.6 billion annually.
Under this proposal I have the right to decide for myself whether to place a security freeze. A state law allowing a security freeze option will allow individual consumers to make their own personal choices, to take a responsible ownership position.
There are other things states can do to prevent identity theft, such as requiring that people who have had their personal credit information stolen be informed of the thefts. Right now, only California requires the data pimps to notify the victim if an identity thief steals their information, and that's just not right.
The recent ChoicePoint and Bank of America data losses and identity thefts illustrate that politicians and businesses are not intelligent or concerned enough about my private information. If someone suffers identity theft because these data pimps are inept and politicians are in the pockets of these pimps, they should both pay restitution to the unfortunate victim (who isn't even allowed to see the data in his own file, and that's just not fair).
This is what politicians can do: allow a security freeze. A security freeze allows me to stop anyone from looking at my credit report for purposes of granting credit unless I choose to allow it. I actually get to be in control of who looks at my own personal information, and in an ownership society shouldn't I be the one who is in control of information about me? If the file is frozen, the creditor will deny the identity thief's credit application, preventing identity theft. When I apply for credit, I lift the freeze so creditors can see my credit file. When I am not seeking credit, the security freeze prevents an identity thief from perpetrating identity theft, which costs U.S. consumers about $5 billion a year, and U.S. businesses about $47.6 billion annually.
Under this proposal I have the right to decide for myself whether to place a security freeze. A state law allowing a security freeze option will allow individual consumers to make their own personal choices, to take a responsible ownership position.
There are other things states can do to prevent identity theft, such as requiring that people who have had their personal credit information stolen be informed of the thefts. Right now, only California requires the data pimps to notify the victim if an identity thief steals their information, and that's just not right.
David Porter