Identity Theft: who’s protecting you? VS.

Do you want your financial information in the hands of Big Business?

California and The Federal government have been working to ensure financial privacy BUT Whose plan will protect you the best?

California State Plan  SB-1  Stops consumer information from being shared with business  Info. only released with “express” permission from consumer  Keeps bank balances, spending habits and credit reports private  Protects from Big Business

Federal Government Plan  Fair Credit Report Act  Regulates distribution of consumer credit reports to businesses  Removes any negative information (e.g. bankruptcy, late payments, etc.) after certain amount of time  Only keeps credit reports private  Pro-Business

The Layer Cake  A.K.A. Dual Federalism  California’s bill will be changed to fit Federal guidelines  A perfect example of dual federalism!

Lobbyists: Trouble-makers for Californians Lobbyists for Big Business use their influence to ensure laws pass in their favor Lobbyists for Big Business use their influence to ensure laws pass in their favor California’s privacy acts would stop the flow of consumer information California’s privacy acts would stop the flow of consumer information

The Federal Government wants to create a “uniform national standard” for financial privacy. By doing so, credit becomes easily accessible to the everyday, average Joe.

Why would Congress create a Bill that gives less protection over consumers? California’s SB-1 act would highly restrict Big Business’s information sources, but Big Business has the weapon of money and power. Most likely, the Federal Govt. is doing what it needs to for its own security. The consumer matters, but the consumer cannot compare to influence of Big Business.

What New York Believes…  Sept.2005 Gov. George Pataki signed new identity theft legislation.  Public and private org. are required to inform customers if their personal information has been leaked.  If over 5,000 citizens are affected NY government offices must get involved.

Michael Oxley  Representative from Ohio  Supports Federal Law Allowing different state standards will hurt, not help consumers. This act protects all consumers uniformly.

Michael Oxley is wrong. We believe that states should decide how to handle the relationship between consumers and Big Business. States have a closer relationship with their citizens and could create a privacy law to better suit their needs.

Maxine Waters  Congress woman from California  Against Federal Privacy law If anyone told me I’d be here on the house floor arguing for states’ rights against the conservatives on the other side of the aisle, I’d tell them they were crazy.

Isn’t it Ironic?  As a liberal democrat, Waters is more likely to want strong federal control, instead of advocating states’ rights. In this case, the opposite occurs.  Corporate interests, which are normally favored by republicans, trump states’ rights, which are also normally favored by Republicans.+

This slide show was brought to you by, Mackenzie Millan & Lauren Teplin Period 2 November 30,2007