Identity Theft - What's to be done??

For investigating identity theft.

Would it be safer? I've seen numerous horror stories recently about people that applied for jobs and the company then went to a 3rd party to do background checks and reported back all sorts of incorrect info on the applicant. Those 3rd party companies are the ones who are the biggest problems IMO.

We know who the 3 credit reporting comapnies are and we have the ability to see what they have on us. Other databases like Lexis-Nexis or Zabasearch (and a few hundred others) also collect data they can find on you and you have no way of knowing what's in there, who is accessing it and how the information is being used.

fishin' wrote:

Would it be safer? I've seen numerous horror stories recently about people that applied for jobs and the company then went to a 3rd party to do background checks and reported back all sorts of incorrect info on the applicant. Those 3rd party companies are the ones who are the biggest problems IMO.

We know who the 3 credit reporting comapnies are and we have the ability to see what they have on us. Other databases like Lexis-Nexis or Zabasearch (and a few hundred others) also collect data they can find on you and you have no way of knowing what's in there, who is accessing it and how the information is being used.

You see fishin, here is the problem: no company should be allowed to
have insight into your credit history or background, period. If a company
is requesting such information, than they have to ask the prospective
employee to gather these information and supply them.

In Europe, every citizen can request and obtain a police record for
themselves to give to whoever request it. That is sufficient. No employer
needs to know the credit history of its employees unless they're applying for a government position.

Usually, banks collect credit data from clientele and will exchange these data among other banks, but never to individuals.

Postal inspector just defers to the SS.

Police just hang around the donut shop dreaming up new ways to give you traffic tickets.

Been there done that.

cjhsa wrote:

Postal inspector just defers to the SS.

Police just hang around the donut shop dreaming up new ways to give you traffic tickets.

Been there done that.

False. I worked for the Secret Service and know exactly what they will and won't handle.

For example, under German law the telephone company isn't allowed to keep a record of who you call or when you made calls. Your bill is based on "units" of phone time used. As a result the phone company doesn't have a database full of records that details who you call, your calling patterns, etc.. so they aren't selling that data to other companies.

This is the sort of thing I anticipate as proposals from this commission but I wonder if we in the US would accept it. If you got a phone bill for $300 next month (lets assume your normal phone bill is $50/month) and no details as to who was called or when would you pay the bill or would you fight it? Whne you called the phone company to complain that you were being overscharged and wanted more info to determine if teh calls were valid and they told you that the law prevented them from keeping any such records what would your reaction be? Could we, in general, adapt to not having the information ourselves? Would we be willing to sacrafice that sort of thing in order to better secure our privacy?

You're talking abouth Highway police here, cj - they have little to
do with this subject.

Unfortunately, this is true too. You cannot monitor who is calling whom, however, I haven't heard of anyone that got a $ 300 bill unjustified and wasn't able to check it out with the phone company and work out something. Mistakes like these do happen but are rare though.

Actually, I don't think we need to give up an itemized phone bill, we just need to restrict the various phone companies from selling the
private information to other vendors.

No, I haven't been a victim, but I do take precautions. I only have 2
credit cards, rarely give out my SS#, and do most banking online to
avoid any potential mail fraud.

Sure someone could hack my computer, but I took precautions there
as well.

Well, fishin, the phone company wasn't so wrong there

....proposals to limit data in that sort of manner would be rejected by the US public even if it greatly increased their privacy.

fishin wrote

Quote:

....proposals to limit data in that sort of manner would be rejected by the US public even if it greatly increased their privacy.

Well, you can't have one without the other. But frankly, I would put
it on a ballot - probably first on a state level, not federal, and let the
people decide. I gather, by now, we're so fed up with Homeland Security
and Bushingers preying on us and spying on our private phone conversations, that the outcome would be quite favorable. Call me an
optimist!