1993-07-24 - Credit Reports and NS

Header Data

From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
To: CYPHERPUNKS <CYPHERPUNKS@toad.com>
Message Hash: 945bdbe97ee64df2c9c9ff501fb4bcdc5d700e9b241deb1357f25628a44ec4c8
Message ID: <00541.2826315450.4450@washofc.cpsr.org>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-07-24 03:47:31 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 20:47:31 PDT

Raw message

From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 20:47:31 PDT
To: CYPHERPUNKS <CYPHERPUNKS@toad.com>
Subject: Credit Reports and NS
Message-ID: <00541.2826315450.4450@washofc.cpsr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


  Credit Reports and NS
Here is the letter opposing the provision to allow for easier access to
credit reports. As you can guess,  the Senate Intelligence Committee (which
generally acts as the biggest supporter of the agencies on the Hill) did not
address our concerns at all and approved the provision.

 I was unable to easily find the actualy text but will get it after I come
back from vacation.

Dave




                           July 12, 1993


 The Honorable Dennis Deconcini
 Chairman
 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
 United States Senate
 SH-211 Hart Senate Office Building
 Washington, DC  20510-6475

 Dear Chairman DeConcini;

      We are writing to voice our strong opposition to the
 Administration's legislative proposal to amend the Fair Credit
 Reporting Act (FCRA) to allow the Federal Bureau of  Investigation
 (FBI) to obtain consumer credit reports in foreign
 counterintelligence cases.

      The FBI seeks a national security letter exemption to the
 FCRA to obtain personal information from consumer  reporting
 agencies without a subpoena or court order. A  national  security
 letter gives the FBI the authority to obtain records without
 judicial approval and without providing notice to the  individual
 that his or her records have been obtained by the Bureau.
 Similar FBT proposals were rejected in previous years  after
 Congressional leaders expressed concern over  the  civil  liberties
 issues raised.

      Although the current draft proposal is more comprehensive
 than those circulated in previous years, the changes and
 additions do not alter significantly the central character of  the
 proposal. The Administration's 1993 proposal  includes  explicit
 limits to'dissemination of obtained information within the
 goverrment, penalties for violations including punitive  damages,
 and reporting requirements.  These provisions are positive
 changes from the legislation put forward in previous years,  but
 they do not save the proposal from its intrinsic flaws.

      Therefore, the reasons for our fundamental opposition to  the
 current proposal remain the same: 1) the FBI has not  demonstrated
 a compelling need for access to consumer credit reports; and  2)
 legislation that implicates civil liberties should be  addressed
 separately and not as part of the authorization process.

       There are only two instances in which Congress has
 authorized the FBI, in counterintelligence investigations, to
 obtain information about individuals pursuant to a  national
 security letter but without a subpoena, search warrant or  court
 order. First, the Electronic Communications Privacy  Act  (ECPA)
 of 1986 included a provision requiring common carriers to
 disclose subscriber information and long distance toll records  to
 the FBI in response to a national security  letter.  Second,
 congress included in the 1987 Intelligence Authorization Act  an
  amendment to the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA) that
  requires banks to provide customer records to the FBI in  response
  to a similar letter. In that case, the FBI presented  to  Congress
  its case for obtaining financial records in foreign counter-
  intelligence cases and the difficulty of obtaining  those  records
  without a court order.

       in both instances when congress has previously  authorized
  the national security letter, Congress recognized that  the
  procedure departs dramatically from the procedure necessary  to
  obtain a court order.

        The FBI's current proposal seeks similar access to
  individuals' credit records held by consumer reporting  companies.
  The FBI has yet to adequately justify its need to add such  highly
  personal, sensitive information to the narrow category of  records
  subject to the national security letter exemption.
       The Bureau claims obtaining credit reports will allow  it  to
  more easily determine where a subject of an investigation  banks
  -- information the FBI claims will help them effectuate their
  ability to access bank records under the RFPA. We  opposed  the
  national security letter exemption in the RFPA and do not  endorse
  the FBI's slippery slope approach to ensuring that they  can  more
  easily obtain financial information in foreign
  counterintelligence cases. This information can be  and  is
  routinely gained without credit reports.  We do not believe
  convenience is a sufficient justification for this  significant
  exception to the law.
       The FBI further argues that obtaining banking  information
  through a credit report is preferred because it is  actually  leas
  intrusive than those investigative methods that would  otherwise
  be used.  While we too are frustrated that other information-
  gathering techniques are frequently too intrusive, our  objections
  to the other techniques do not lead us to endorse yet another
  technique that is also intrusive and that weakens  existing
  privacy law.
       Finally, we object to using the authorization process as  the
  vehicle for pursuing this change. The national  security  latter
  exemption, because it diminishes the due process and privacy
  protections for individuals, must be given the most careful
  consideration. The FBI's proposal should be  introduced  as
  separate legislation on which public hearings can  be  held.  only
  in this way can the Committee test thoroughly the FBI's  case  for
  the exemption and hear from witnesses who object to the change.


      We urge you to reject the FBI's proposal in its current
 form.  We are available to work with you on this issue.

                          Sincerely,



 Janiori Goldman                                   Michelle Meier
 Privacy and Technology Project          Consumers Union
 American civil Liberties Union


 Marc Rotenberg                                 Evan Hendricks
 Computer Professionals for              U.S. Privacy Council
 Social Responsibility






 cc:  Members, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

      The Honorable George J. Mitchell
      Senate Majority Leader

      The Honorable Donald W. Riegle, Jr., Chairman
      Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs

      The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman
      Subcommittee on Technology and the Law










Thread