Invasion Of Privacy - Part I

[Michael Harris]

INVASION OF PRIVACY – Part 1
Why personal secrets are no more. In digital age, information can be a matter of life and death

Editor's note: This is the first of a three-part serialization of Michael S. Hyatt's blockbuster new exposé, "Invasion of Privacy: How to Protect Yourself in the Digital Age." © 2001 Regnery Publishing

Amy Boyer was being tracked. The beautiful young girl was soon to graduate from college. Not yet 21, Amy was still living at home with her family, whom she loved greatly. She and her boyfriend were planning to purchase a home and begin the next stage of their life together. A hard worker, she held two part-time jobs while she attended school. With many friends and a loving family, she had no reason to think she had any enemies.

Liam Youens was a young man who had gone to school with Amy. From at least the 10th grade, he had been obsessed with her. Eventually, he began a Web page to chronicle the ways in which he watched her. He discussed how he planned to kill her, her family and then himself. But he had difficulty keeping tabs on Amy. He had dropped out of college after a year and was living at home, which afforded him limited use of a car. Amy often wasn't home when he was driving by to spy on her – she was probably working – and Youens needed to find out where she was if he was going to carry out his plan.

He was able to find Amy because she was being tracked – just as we all are. Youens simply needed to know who could pull together the information available in public documents and elsewhere. Using the Internet, he paid for several public-record searches for personal information about Amy. He then obtained her Social Security number from Docusearch.com, a private investigation agency in Boca Raton, Fla. Finally, he paid $109 to get the address of Amy's workplace.

At 4:30 p.m. Oct. 15, 1999, Amy left her job at a dental office. As she was getting into her car, Youens pulled up, jumped from his vehicle and fired 15 shots into her. Her injuries included a fatal head wound. Youens used the 16th bullet to shoot himself in the head.

Amy Boyer was unique in many ways, but her vulnerability was anything but atypical. There was nothing about her that made her especially easy to track. She had a Social Security number, just like you do. She lived in a society in which private investigation firms advertise over the Internet and perform investigations for customers they never meet, just like you do. Her place of employment and other details of her life were available to anyone who wanted to spend a few dollars, and the same is undoubtedly true of you. Amy was a victim precisely because it has become relatively cheap and easy for anyone to get the information necessary to track a person down. Her stalker found out everything he needed to know without her ever knowing she was the object of his study.

Amy's tragic death has spurred some late, but important, discussion of the need for privacy in modern life. There has even been a bill proposed that would forbid companies from refusing services to someone who will not reveal his Social Security number. Another proposed bill would, as New York Times columnist William Safire points out, "[prohibit] individuals from 'displaying to the public' anybody's Social Security number without consent." But even that legislation would exempt the "information brokers" that gave Liam Youens the information he needed to find and kill Amy Boyer.

Although such efforts to protect privacy are a start, in truth they do not take into account the deep-rooted nature of the problem. For instance, even while the use of Social Security numbers has proved so dangerous, many states still prominently display them on their drivers licenses. We are coming closer and closer to living in the "panopticon" – a world of total surveillance.

In 1787, Jeremy Bentham, a British philosopher, made a proposal for prison architecture called a panopticon – (literally, "the all-seeing thing"). The idea behind the panopticon was that a prison would be most secure when the jailors watched the prisoners at all times. Since that was not possible, the next best solution was a structure where the guards could watch the prisoners at all times and where the prisoners never knew if they were being watched. That way, the prisoners would always behave appropriately.

Bentham never sold the British government on his plan, but he has proven to be something of a visionary nonetheless. Our society has become a sort of panopticon. It is all too easy to monitor someone without his knowing about it. We never know when the civil government, corporations or predators are watching us.

Unlike Bentham's prison, which had only one set of watchers, we are now in a situation in which any number of people might be watching us in different ways and at different times. We are being tracked, or at least we can never know for sure that we're not being tracked.

As tragic as Amy Boyer's death is, it probably won't be enough to galvanize the public. Why? Because even though stalking is a growing problem in our society, being killed by a troubled youth – certainly a terrifying possibility – is still not all that likely. The fact is, however, that there are many other ways in which we can be victims of the panopticon. Indeed, even after her death, Amy was a victim of yet another invasion of privacy. The August before she died, Amy's pocketbook had been stolen, so she canceled her credit cards and checks, thinking that was the end of it. But two days after her death made the news in New England, the thieves, who had gotten her Social Security number, were able to assume her identity. They managed to spend $5,000 by using checks in her name.

Whether you realize it or not, you are being tracked, just as Amy Boyer was, and it can cost you time, money, freedom – even your life.

[Michael Harris]

INVASION OF PRIVACY – Part 2
Who's tracking you? Government, businesses, just about everyone

Editor's note: This is the second of a three-part serialization of Michael S. Hyatt's blockbuster new exposé, "Invasion of Privacy: How to Protect Yourself in the Digital Age." © 2001 Regnery Publishing

You are being tracked by just about anyone who thinks he can sell to you, steal from you or control you. This includes government agencies and big businesses; banks, credit reporting agencies and other financial information resellers; insurance companies, pharmacies and other health-related organizations; political and extremist groups; local retail outlets and marketers; employers and fellow employees; spouses, ex-spouses and potential spouses; lawyers and private investigators; and even common criminals, hackers and practical jokers.

This is not merely an Internet problem. It is true that technological progress in data storage and data transfer has made it possible for others to monitor you more easily and to gather your personal information more speedily. It is also true that communication over the Internet has brought about new ways in which you can be scrutinized. These problems are real.

Nevertheless, the issue is not the Internet per se. Even if you don't use a computer, your activity is still being tracked, and your identity is vulnerable to those who wish to learn about you for whatever reason. In 1989, long before the Internet was a reality, a stalker was able to find and kill "My Sister Sam" sitcom star Rebecca Schaeffer by using motor-vehicle registration records in California.

Advances in technology are only making the problem worse. We are being tracked with increasing efficiency. We are being tracked more affordably. And we are being tracked more uniformly as various institutions share information with one another.

Many different groups offer rationales for why we need to expect all our personal information to be available to whoever wants it. The two main legitimate proponents of the panopticon are business interests and various government agencies. But professional criminals also benefit from this situation.

Here's an overview:

Within the law: The corporate perspective

Businesses obviously want to gain new customers and keep the customers they have. To do this, they need information. It is the fuel that drives modern industry. The more information a business has about a prospect or a customer, the more likely it can meet that customer's needs or shape its promotions to appeal to those needs.

The information about a customer is called a "profile." It contains both demographic and psychographic data – not only who the person is but also what he does and why he does it. As a business collects more and more data about its customers, it soon discovers that such data are an asset that can be sold on the open market. Businesses now routinely sell customer profiles to anyone who will pay for them. This has become a big problem in some industries, such as financial services. As a result of deregulation, one company can offer a full range of financial services: banking, insurance, investment brokerage and direct marketing. Thus, the lure of "one-stop shopping" allows a single company to know a customer 's entire financial situation.

This information can be, and sometimes is, used to exploit the customer. For example, U.S. Bancorp in Minnesota sold the personal account information of its customers to a telemarketing company for over $4 million plus a 22 percent commission on whatever sales were generated from the database. As the Minnesota attorney general's office reported:

"[U.S.Bancorp] provided MemberWorks Inc. with the following information for its customers: name, address, telephone numbers of the primary and secondary customer, gender, marital status, homeownership status, occupation, checking account number, credit card number, Social Security number, birth date, account open date, average account balance, account frequency information, credit limit, credit insurance status, year-to-date finance charges, automated transactions authorized, credit card type and brand, number of credit cards, cash advance amount, behavior score, bankruptcy score, date of last payment, amount of last payment, date of last statement, and statement balance."

Above the law: The government's perspective

In our society, government is responsible for punishing criminals, protecting citizens and preventing crimes – and for any number of other services. The government has used this as a rationale for all sorts of information gathering and surveillance. We are constantly being tracked by Big Brother through a variety of means – birth certificates, tax forms, motor vehicle registration, marriage certificates, voter registration, property records, court records, arrest records, divorce records, death certificates and on and on.

Even where the government is entrusted to protect privacy, it does not reliably do so. Laws protecting privacy are helpful only if they are obeyed and enforced. For instance, an Ohio public school sold information to a bank about some of its students, enabling the bank to solicit business from the parents – despite the fact that it is illegal for public schools to provide such information to anyone without the parents' consent.

Casual record keeping and failure to comply with the law are just part of the problem. Various government projects systematically invade our privacy. The National Security Agency (NSA), for example, has developed Echelon, a comprehensive spy network that monitors communication around the world. The Treasury Department has formed FinCEN, a network for retrieving personal financial information in real time. The FBI is now deploying Carnivore, a program that intercepts and reads e-mail on a mass scale.

Of course, many would not argue with the government's desire to protect us by stopping violent crime before it happens or to prevent money laundering, drug trafficking, tax evasion and so on. But what happens when government agencies invade our individual rights? We are losing our privacy to the government, and in the process, we are falling under its control.

More and more we find that we must simply depend on unaccountable government agencies not to violate our rights.

Outside the law: The criminal perspective

The government and even some private industries consider access to our personal information an important way to prevent, detect and solve crimes. But even if that were true, a concern is that the information superhighway is not restricted to authorized drivers. Criminals can, and do, use the panopticon to gain the information and control necessary to exploit others. In other words, the very means that the government and businesses employ for security purposes can actually lead to crime.

Perhaps the most egregious example of this sort of "safety equals vulnerability" equation is the ubiquitous Social Security number and its use in stalking and identity theft. as we saw with Amy Boyer, the Social Security number is a magic key that gives stalkers access to almost any other information they wish to have. (The other key is the target's name plus date of birth.) The Social Security number – which predators can get through theft, fraud or hacking – also allows identity thieves to impersonate their victims, putting them into debt and committing other crimes under their names. The information superhighway, so efficient at spreading information, ruins the reputation of victims of identity theft; reports are spread to credit and law enforcement agencies of debts the victims never incurred and crimes they never committed.

Victims report that both police and credit officials often treat them as perpetrators. One victim wrote: "I sent them a signed statement. Then they wanted a notarized statement so I sent them that. Then they wanted copies of my driver's license and my passport or Social Security card. After I would send each item, they would demand more and more. I didn't want them to have copies of my driver's license or passport. I felt they were careless in letting anyone open an account in my name, and I didn't feel safe giving my personal information to them. It took three years before they finally removed the negative rating they had placed on my credit. I couldn't buy a car or get a student loan, and I was in school. I was considered guilty until proven innocent. Finally they removed it, but only because I called them for the thousandth time and lost it over the phone."

When 19-year-old Sarah learned that she was being accused of trying to cash stolen checks, she did not understand how it could have happened. Her purse had been stolen 10 days earlier, but everything had been returned to her. Later, it occurred to her family that their car had been stolen the previous year, and Sarah's license had been inside the car. However it had happened, Sarah's identity had been stolen. Using false identification based on Sarah's Social Security number and possibly other information from stolen credit cards or checks, someone was now able to pass herself off as Sarah and use her identity to commit other crimes.

Even though Sarah had testimony corroborating her whereabouts, and even though she did not look like the woman posing as her, the police put more trust in the identification than in eyewitness testimony or any other evidence and insisted on pressing charges. For over six months, Sarah's family had to endure these criminal accusations. A judge finally dropped the charges, but not before the family had had to incur the expense of an attorney, and not before her mother was forced to see a specialist to treat a painful case of lockjaw that resulted from the stress of watching her daughter's name dragged through the mud.

Lest you think that Sarah's is an isolated case, be aware that identity theft is an increasingly common crime, one that feeds off the environment of surveillance in which we live.

[Michael Harris]

INVASION OF PRIVACY – Part 3

Is technology the problem? Personal awareness, responsibility is first step back

Editor's note: This is the final installment of a three-part serialization of Michael S. Hyatt's blockbuster new expose, "Invasion of Privacy: How to Protect Yourself in the Digital Age," which is available at WorldNetDaily's online store. © 2001 Regnery Publishing

Technology inevitably becomes the focus of most discussions about privacy because it is the means by which individuals and institutions find out what they want about us. We must keep in mind that technology is just that: a means, and not the basic impulse for the invasions on our privacy. Still, technological innovations have undeniably made privacy invasions possible in ways never before envisioned. The problem is particularly acute because we often embrace new technologies with naive optimism before they are really understood. Privacy is being eroded because of cheap information, ignorance about new technology, technological glitches and more intrusive surveillance.

Once businesses and governments had to keep all records on paper. But the bureaucratic days of filling out forms in triplicate and dusty rooms filled with filing cabinets are long over. Information is much less expensively and far more efficiently stored, and it is much more accessible. Not long ago, someone seeking information about an individual had to phone the proper institution and cajole or bribe an employee to dig up a physical record. Now databases can be accessed without any need to interact with other people, and duplicate information can be stored in a laptop computer. In addition, different pieces of data about a person can be merged together almost effortlessly to form a single, exhaustive profile.

A widespread lack of understanding of new technology is another cause of the problem. The way we use e-mail is a good example of this. When you send mail through the post office, you put it in an opaque envelope and seal it shut. Why? Because you want the contents to remain private – you don 't want someone other than the intended recipient reading your mail. But with e-mail, most people are doing exactly what they would never do with regular mail. Few realize how easily a third party can read their e-mail.

This widespread naiveté often prevents possible technological solutions to these problems from working effectively. Consider this statement from Kevin Railsback, the West Coast technical director of the InfoWorld Test Center:

"For some time now, I've been using [e-mail] security products such as PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) and its open-source version, GPGP (Gnome PGP). I have a public key, and I have the public keys of a few friends, but the technology isn't too useful for everyday use. The basic problem is that until a critical mass understands how public its information really is on the Internet and decides that privacy is important enough to protect, then the majority won 't use the technology. Public key encryption, the building block that PGP and such products are built on, has been around for years. It works great, makes your e-mail virtually impossible to break in to, and isn't that tough to set up."

With all of the technological advances in data storage and transmission, glitches can now mistakenly make public all sorts of personal data. On Sept. 15, 2000, for example, First Virginia Bank's online service allowed customers to view other people's account information, including deposits, balances and cleared checks. In this case, the glitch did not affect actual balances or reveal personal identities. But earlier in the year, NetBank had sent a slip to one customer containing another customer's personal information, including his Social Security number. And as CNET News.com reported, H&R Block "shut down its online tax filing service after the company accidentally exposed some customers' sensitive financial records to other customers."

A New Zealand man confessed in court to nine counts of using his "shoe-cam" to take video footage up the skirts of thousands of unsuspecting women and girls at public events. The device was unnoticeable on his shoe, linked by a wire running up the leg of his pants. The man then loaded these images on his computer and posted them on the Internet. This is but one example of the avalanche of new technologies: video cameras that fit on a shirt button; audio receivers that can be inserted seamlessly into a telephone, a fountain pen or a potted plant; scanners that can pluck telephone conversations out of the air and effortlessly trace them to their source; and much more.

Not only can criminals use these technological innovations, but governments and businesses can use them as well.

Just a month after Amy Boyer's death, Forbes magazine ran a cover story on the lack of privacy in our society. Although the story was unrelated to the Boyer case, it featured Docusearch.com – the company that enabled Liam Youens to track down his victim. Forbes writer Adam L.Penenberg dared Dan Cohn, the head of Docusearch.com, to dig up all the information the investigator could find about him, starting with nothing but his name. Two days later Cohn had discovered Penenberg's birth date, his mother's maiden name, his address and his Social Security number. (Cohn said it took him only five minutes of actual investigation.) Penenberg was even more shocked at what Cohn was able to dig up in less than a week. He wrote: "In all of six days Dan Cohn and his Web detective agency, Docusearch.com, shattered every notion I had about privacy in this country (or whatever remains of it). Using only a keyboard and the phone, he was able to uncover the innermost details of my life – whom I call late at night; how much money I have in the bank; my salary and rent. He even got my unlisted phone numbers, both of them."

People are justifiably outraged at Docusearch's role in Youens' murderous actions. But while Docusearch and other investigative services profit from the destruction of our privacy, they are not the ones primarily responsible for it. Indeed, it is all too easy simply to blame such companies – or government, or big business – for our present situation. But the fact is that we have enjoyed many of the benefits of the information revolution without really counting the cost. As cartoonist Walt Kelly wrote in Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Until we acknowledge that we are responsible for our present situation and have willingly exchanged our privacy for convenience or comfort, we will not take the steps necessary to regain control of our privacy – or our lives.

We have lost power over our lives because we want to enjoy the convenience offered us, because we try to exercise control over our lives. We are open to dealing with anyone who has a way of bringing us something quickly, conveniently, or cheaply – but in exchange for a little information.

Because of the convenience we gain, we tend to celebrate uncritically every technological innovation, be it e-mail, the Web, or whatever. As technology critic Neil Postman points out: "It is a mistake to suppose that any technological innovation has a one-sided effect. Every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either-or, but both-and. Nothing could be more obvious, of course, especially to those who have given more than two minutes of thought to the matter. Nonetheless, we are currently surrounded by throngs of one-eyed prophets who see only what new technologies can do and are incapable of imagining what they will undo. They gaze on technology as a lover does on his beloved, seeing it as without blemish and entertaining no apprehension for the future."

We are so content with the blessings we receive from the new technologies that we fail to realize just how much of our privacy we are giving away.

We are being tracked. Vast amounts of personal information are being collected and stored. The question is: Can we do anything about it?

We can – if we take the initiative. In fact, until more people are willing to show by their actions – by the way they live, communicate and budget their money – that they value their privacy, no reforms in government, or in business, or in law enforcement, are likely to do much good. We can and must protect our privacy, and this book is written to show you how to do it.

[Colleen L Hayes -]

Hi Michael,

That story sent chills down my spine. That is unbelievably scary. But, it will be people like you and me that change this. I know I will certainly try as I know you and everyone else in these forums will.

Thanks for finding that, it puts what we will be doing into perspective.

[Michael Harris]

Colleen,

I posted this so that the good guys - you and me - can stop the bad guys . :cool: :D :)

[Colleen L Hayes -]

Hi Michael,

I like being the good guy. Question, are we the only ones awake at unreasonable hours?

:D :cool: :p :p :D :o :)

[Mr Jose Bonavich Jr]

Michael,

Excellent article. :)

It certainly makes you think about who might be requesting information and why..when it comes to accepting jobs. I realize that as investigators it is our job to obtain information but I also feel that we have a responsibility to verify the need for that information. (referring to the tragedy of Amy).

I will certainly look into the encrypt programs, not something I was even aware of :)

Thanks for posting this information.

[Michael Harris]

Originally posted by Colleen L Hayes
Question, are we the only ones awake at unreasonable hours?

Colleen,

We might be. My daughter goes back to school after Labor Day (did you notice the gas prices???!!!???) and we are practicing reasonable hours. I get up to make breakfast for her. :cool:

[Michael Harris]

Leisl,

Privacy, what privacy? It is scary how much is out there available to the bad guys.

On the other hand, when we get out there to protect the public and help people, we need the smae kinds of information.

This is what is know as a double-edged sword.

[Kathleen Padgett]

Very interesting article, it's scary how much is known about people's private information:(

[Kristine King]

I was riveted to the three part article on privacy issues. Unfortunately, some of the books I have read that propose making yourself "invisible" are very discouraging: "dead drop" mails boxes, no listed phones, no address on your house, etc. I don't want to be a victim, but am not ready for full-blown paranoia...yet! Hope it doesn't come to that!

Thanks for the great information!:)

[Michael Harris]

Kris,

I have a book in my library, The Modern Identiy Changer, that tells you how to disappear.

Do I want to disappear? No. I have spent my adult life trying to get my name and lilkeness out there.

Why is the book of interest and value to me? I now know many of the tricks that a "bad guy" might use. I know how to read through some of the misinformation. I might be able to find these people now that I know how they tried to hide.

Privacy is sacred (almost) and I do not want to change my life to avoid the evil people out there. :(

[Colleen L Hayes -]

Michael,

Very well said!!!! Let me know where to find that book.

[Michael Harris]

Originally posted by Colleen L Hayes
...!! Let me know where to find that book.
Colleen,

I believe that I bought it on-line at Barnes & Noble (http://www.bn.com). I have a Readers' Advantage card and I make good use of it.

When I go into WaldenBooks, they all know me. I do not even have to show my card to get the discount there. :)

[Colleen L Hayes -]

Thanks Michael,

There is no better reading than 'How to Get the Bad Guy'.

[Michael Harris]

Colleen,

And there are SO many 'bad guys'. ;) :(

[Chris A Brandt]

Michael

Great article thank you so much for sharing it with us.
Let the good guys live forever...

Chris A Brandt:)

[Michael Harris]

Chris,

You are welcome. :)

[Diane Jarosz]

Hi Michael,
I read the story that you posted. This gave me chills to every fiber of my being!
DJ

[Michael Harris]

Diane,

Sometimes we need the scary stuff to bring us back to reality. Since we all want to be investigators and fight the bad guys, we have to know about the bad guys.

Scares me sleepless some nights. :(

[Brenda Muller]

Michael,
Awesome articles, Made me think more about what's going on in our world and the deception. Our Family here will hopefully be able to work on getting it stopped. I know that is a strong HOPE.
Brenda Muller

[Lisa Hawkinson]

Hi Michael,

Yes indeed an extremely unsettling story.

It just so happens that I have also just read the following from one of our fellow members. I don't recall reading a question like this before (though I know I have not everything yet), have you? If so, I know we would all enjoy your reply. If our photo credential card fell into the wrong hands we would be in a heap of the foul stuff......


Originally posted by Kristen George
In addition to faxing a copy of my driver's license to IPIU to have the name on my credentials changed to align more appropriately with my license, is there anything that can be done to eliminate the personal information on the Photo Credentials? For security reasons, my driver's license does not contain my social security number. I would prefer that the SS# not be included on my credentials card either. Can this be changed?

Thanks for your help.

Click here to visit the thread:

http://www.ipiu.org/forums//showthread.php?s=&postid=121169#post121169

Sidebar: For what it's worth, as a loan officer we/I have just been required to fill out a form, as part of the USA Patriot Act, that contains the following language:

To help the government fight the funding of terrorism and money laundering activities, Federal law requires all financial institutions to obtain, verify, and record information that identifies each person who opens an account.

This means that when you open an account, we will ask for your name, address, date of birth, and other information that will allow us to identify you. We may also ask to see your driver’s license or other identifying documents.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENTS NAMED ABOVE AND THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND COMPLETE



Obviously because of 9/11 banks and lending institutions are trying to protect "us" with respect to banking. Though this is an industry that can be regulated, it unfortunately doesn't protect us against our own dumb luck.:mad:

On a lighter note, I too have been known to keep some awful hours....if only I didn't like coffee so much. It gets chilly here in the Northwoods in the evening....

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Michael,

Two days ago I started a new topic for this forum - "Patriotic Act".
It contains some aspects related to this topic. As a new member I did not have enough time to explore all topics and comments, in order to post some references from the "Patriotic Act" directly here. Now, it is too late.

Dragos

[Lisa Hawkinson]

Dragos,

Hello.

I'm not sure if you were asking us a question or making a statement about trying to post some references here???

It shouldn't be too late. If the "quote" feature doesn't seem to be cooperating, you can simply cut and paste anytime.

Try it and see if it works.:)

Or go to the forum where you can practice. It is the "free tutorial": click here (http://www.ipiu.org/forums//showthread.php?s=&threadid=13)

I will do a search on Patriot Act so that I can read what new topic you posted regarding this. It would be interesting, because I merely know a small piece of it due to my job requirements.



:D

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Hello Lisa,

Thank you for your post.

I did not ask a question, neither made a statement. I just wanted to know the opinion of Michael Harris, who started this topic. (In the meantime I came to the conclusion that "Patriotic Act" and this topic should remain independent).

I have a question related to the "Patriotic Act" and the PI , which will be my next posting for that topic.

I believe that your search about the "Patriotic Act" will be more than wellcomed for the topic.

Dragos

[Nancy C Medved]

Hello Michael Read your articles on privacy being slaughtered and I applaud you for the time you took to inform everyone of it!
[Edited by Moderator - Moved to another forum topic]

Thanks:)

[Kanda Force]

Nancy,

I moved part of your post to another topic discussion I've replied to. It's a level 4 forum.

Click here: http://ipiu.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=122617#post122617

[Michael Harris]

Nancy,

Thank you. when I get nice, encouraging responses, I feel that the effort was worth it and try to find another good topic.

I will check out the other part of the message later.

[Dragos Sfinteanu]

Nancy,

You are right, you can certainly applaud Michael Harris. He has been a pillar in supporting and encouraging dozens of new (and older) Forum members of this wonderful community that is IPIU.

Michael is a highly professional and he has a big heart. Some people do not have a big heart, since this is a special gift given to special people. I believe that such people, as Forum members, should be professionals and I am sure you agree with me.

I am delighted that the solid structure of IPIU stands inflexible against any force, like a tornado or Russian bear.

Dragos

[Tana Fritts]

This article really makes you open your eyes and see some of the stuff you do. This article makes me want to check on my stuff to make sure it's still doing good and doesn't have a new user.

[Valerie Roach]

Michael, thank you again. Thank you for posting this awful article. Soon it will be necessary to put hair and fingernail trimmings into a device that will melt them to keep our DNA out of trashbins. Oh!
:eek:

[Sylvia Buetow]

Thank you Michael. I never realized how much anyone interested was capable of knowing about me.

[Michael Harris]

Sylvia,

Try running a check on yourself sometime. Some of the information is bogus, but most of it is valid. I have run a few checks on myself just to validate the search capabilities of some of the fee-based and free services. SCARY! :o

[Nancy C Medved]

Hi all:
Pray tell just how does one check on oneself. I know there's the copy of credit report from 3 credit bureaus, but other than that I'm kind of confused. :confused:

[Michael Harris]

Nancy,

I believe that you are entitled to one free report every year.

The last time - a few months ago - I contacted all three for free reports because I thought I was the victim of identity theft.

The only other was is to show that you have been denied credit based on their information. In spite of all the offers for free credit reports, I would not use any of them. It is just a way of targeting you for spam.

[Nancy C Medved]

Hi Mike Been there, done that, many times. Is there any other way of checking on oneself, or to see if someone else has checked up on you? :)

[Michael Harris]

Nancy,

There are firms (usually workign through one of your credit card companies) that send you a report of all inquiries and activity on a quarterly basis. It costs, but it might be worthwhile.

I would contact the sales or marketing office at one of your credit cards. Let them know that you are trying to ensure that your credit information does not become damaged or that no one is trying to steal your identity. Be up front with them and they will get you what you need.

[Debra Lewis -]

your information is sooooooo helpful

[Rick Patterson -]

Michael, thanks a million for your wonderful article. Hopefully that will act as a wake up call to those who still believe in the illusion of privacy.<p>
This issue is precisely the reason that I have chosen to pursue a career as a private investigator in the first place.
<p>To paraphrase Einstein, "We will not be able to solve our problems with the same level of consciousness that we used to create them". <p>
Any advice or suggestions as to how I can tailor my career to working specifically on these types of cases will be greatly appreciated.<p>
Thanks again for such a great article!

[Michael Harris]

Rick,

Thank you for caring enough about privacy. I was reading about the "expectation of privacy" recently and found that we do not have that right when we are out of our own homes (not 100% true, but close enough for this discussion).

The issue was "up-skirt" photography or imaging. If some sleazy pervert wants to stick his digital camera up your daughter's or wife's skirt, he can without fear of prosecution. There is no "expectation of privacy" in public, even to you underclothes.

We have so few freedoms left that cannot be abused with impunity by sleazy people, we need to fight to preserve the ones we have.

While we are looking out for ourselves in our private lives, we cannot fail to examine our behavior as investigators. We are limited by other people rights just as we would like to be protected from others.

We, as investigators, have to know where the line between good investigation and criminal act is so that we do not cross it. Once the investigator crosses the line, all the evidence he/she has collected is inadmissible in court.

[Scottie Vinson]

This was an interesting article on "Expectations of Privacy." I had no idea once out in public you basically have no rights of privacy!

[Marvin Watts]

Michael,

Awesome article, really put a dose of reality in what I will be doing. Keep up the good work.

[Michael Harris]

Scottie,

The laws are against the good guys.

[Ivan Delgado-Orlic--]

Michael,

Thank you very much for this three part article. Although I am very much aware of the problems we face today with identity theft and other relates identity problems, reading the examples you gave brings home the fact that just taking care of our own may not be enough. To realize that someone can buy my information for about $100 or that my bank may decide to seel it to telemarketers is almost unbelievable.

You mentioned that we need to be more active and ask our government to do something about this problem. Do you have a suggestion about how to pursue this?

Thanks,

Ivan

[Dabra J Grant -]

These 3 articles are a real eye opener. Thank you Michael for sharing them. Unfortunately as long as their are criminals, there will be victims. What is interesting to note however is that the new criminal society is big business. Corporations more than individuals are perpetrating crimes against other humans and have all the money, legal counsel, and political backing they need to play the game from their ivory towers, and undetected at that.

Enron, Exxon, and so many others have successfully cheated people and continue to commit great crimes against humans and nature. Make no mistake.... the real enemy is not one person it is a nameless faceless entity that ends in "Inc." The solution??? Unity. Only a united effort can raise a voice loud enough and strong enough to overcome the largeness of the problem in treating people and their information as a commodity to be bought and sold in the marketplace of the unscrupulous. One person can not stand alone against such formidable opponents.

United we stand --- Divided we fall.

[Latisha N Smith]

Outstanding article on " Invasion of Privacy ". Everyone to a certain degree deserve some kind of privacy no matter who you are. Certain things no one else should be allow to get without the consent of that person.

[Flora Porter]

Diane,

Sometimes we need the scary stuff to bring us back to reality. Since we all want to be investigators and fight the bad guys, we have to know about the bad guys.

Scares me sleepless some nights. :(

Thanks for sharing
Mike this helpful information.

Greatly appreciated :cool:

P.I. Trainee
Flora Porter

[Michael Harris]

Flora,

I think I will keep you around, you say the nicest things about me.

[Brenda Templin]

Michael,

Thank you so much for posting these articles. They were really eye-openers for me. Your posts in others forums have always been very helpful also. You are definitely a credit to IPIU and its members.

Make it happen!
Brenda

[Michael Harris]

Brenda,

Thank you for your kind words. I see that you are fairly new - W-E-L-C-O-M-E!!!

[Flora Porter]

Rick,

Thank you for caring enough about privacy. I was reading about the "expectation of privacy" recently and found that we do not have that right when we are out of our own homes (not 100% true, but close enough for this discussion).

The issue was "up-skirt" photography or imaging. If some sleazy pervert wants to stick his digital camera up your daughter's or wife's skirt, he can without fear of prosecution. There is no "expectation of privacy" in public, even to you underclothes.

We have so few freedoms left that cannot be abused with impunity by sleazy people, we need to fight to preserve the ones we have.

While we are looking out for ourselves in our private lives, we cannot fail to examine our behavior as investigators. We are limited by other people rights just as we would like to be protected from others.

We, as investigators, have to know where the line between good investigation and criminal act is so that we do not cross it. Once the investigator crosses the line, all the evidence he/she has collected is inadmissible in court.
Now, are you saying that i will be wrong to ""SLAP"" :o
the pervert b4 my..brother finds out? :mad:

P.I. PORTER

[Michael Harris]

Flora,

I might suggest that the SLAP is assault and battery if you do it because of the camera up your skirt. If you did it because of the pervert touching you (sexual battery on his part), then it is okay to SLAP the pervert.

Since the pervert has a legal right to stick a camera up your skirt, you cannot assault him for that, but you can protect yourself from an unwanted touch. The pervert could then end up as a registered sex offender - a fitting end to his activities.

To help you understand some of the problems of dealing with bad people, I offer the following (not my idea, but I like it anyway). Since the use of Mace is seriously restricted, as is the use of pepper sprays, what protection does a lady have in her own home. I suggest you consider keeping a can of hair spray near the door or elsewhere convenient. If someone tries to push his way in, the hair spray is a good deterrent if sprayed in the face. There are no restrictions on the use of hair spray as a defensive weapon that "just happens to be handy". The same kind of thinking is needed to protect yourself from up-skirt photographers.

Disclaimer: I never gave you legal advice, I just thought "out loud".

[Michael Harris]

Flora,

As an afterthought, you would be saving the prevert from your brother and your brother from any possible criminal charges. :D

[Flora Porter]

Flora,

I might suggest that the SLAP is assault and battery if you do it because of the camera up your skirt. If you did it because of the pervert touching you (sexual battery on his part), then it is okay to SLAP the pervert.

Since the pervert has a legal right to stick a camera up your skirt, you cannot assault him for that, but you can protect yourself from an unwanted touch. The pervert could then end up as a registered sex offender - a fitting end to his activities.

To help you understand some of the problems of dealing with bad people, I offer the following (not my idea, but I like it anyway). Since the use of Mace is seriously restricted, as is the use of pepper sprays, what protection does a lady have in her own home. I suggest you consider keeping a can of hair spray near the door or elsewhere convenient. If someone tries to push his way in, the hair spray is a good deterrent if sprayed in the face. There are no restrictions on the use of hair spray as a defensive weapon that "just happens to be handy". The same kind of thinking is needed to protect yourself from up-skirt photographers.

Disclaimer: I never gave you legal advice, I just thought "out loud".
The pervert has a legal right to stick the camera up skirts :confused: This can not be legal..Just cant be :mad:

[Ivan Delgado-Orlic--]

I believe that the law protects a person that sticks a camera up someone’s skirt, but I find it ridiculous. I do not understand why there is no law to protect a person’s personal space. Such a law could be voided if the individual did unlawful things, such as if he or she was a criminal, but to let someone stick a camera up your skirt and letting that be legal is the same reason why paparazzi terrorize people and even lead to some people’s deaths.

Oh well, I guess there are worse things going on in this world.

[Flora Porter]

I believe that the law protects a person that sticks a camera up someone’s skirt, but I find it ridiculous. I do not understand why there is no law to protect a person’s personal space. Such a law could be voided if the individual did unlawful things, such as if he or she was a criminal, but to let someone stick a camera up your skirt and letting that be legal is the same reason why paparazzi terrorize people and even lead to some people’s deaths.

Oh well, I guess there are worse things going on in this world.
Hi Ivan,

I cant believe the laws protect this action of invasion of privacy :confused:

That is exactly how Diana died. :mad:
By being a public figure the media have their rights to interview and terrorize until you died.

Thanks Ivan for your input. :cool:

P.I.Trainee
Flora Porter

[Susan R Roesch]

Mr. Harrris,
Thank you for posting this article and all of the other links, etc. many of which I have come across while reading the Forum. I really appreciate your sense of sharing and gentle guidance your presence offers the Forum.

One disturbing thing I have noticed, with reference to privacy pirates and identity thieves is that these practices of criminal activity is often a 'gateway crime' that leads to more serious crimes, such as the murder of young Amy. When these perpetrators are finally brought to justice, it's the more serious crimes which are prosecuted, especially federally (IRS) speaking, and the lesser crimes are 'swept under the rug', leaving victims of identity theft, etc. bearing the burden of proof that their financial identities are a mess because of perpetrators who might have been given prison sentences for the serious offenses, but not identity theft or forgery.

It's a terrible shame that honest, hard working citizens have to battle with fervent tenacity to clear their names, if they get clear at all. I saw a 'cold-case file' program on cable that profiled a serial murderer who had stolen the SSN#s of different working men and over a period of years, had racked up IRS debt in some of those men's names. One fella from Louisiana was financially ruined and set back for 10 years because of this man, who ultimately went to prison for the murders, but was never prosecuted by the IRS for fraud.

Terrible, terrible shame. :mad:

Once again, thanks for sharing so much of your hard work with us! :D

[Ivan Delgado-Orlic--]

Hi Flora,

You are welcome. I personally would like to know if there was a way to correct this problem. If I remember correctly there is a movie coming out that attacks paparazzi. Maybe that will increase awareness as some movies seem to do lately (Super size me, Farenheit 9/11, ...)

Sincerely,




Hi Ivan,

I cant believe the laws protect this action of invasion of privacy :confused:

That is exactly how Diana died. :mad:
By being a public figure the media have their rights to interview and terrorize until you died.

Thanks Ivan for your input. :cool:

P.I.Trainee
Flora Porter

[Brenda Templin]

Where does it stop? Now credit card info is being found posted on the web.


Google queries provide stolen credit cards
Published: August 3, 2004, 4:24 PM PDT
By Robert Lemos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Simple queries using the Google search engine can turn up a handful of sites that have posted credit card information to the Web, CNET News.com learned on Tuesday.

Read the entire article:
http://news.com.com/Google+queries+provide+stolen+credit+cards/2100-1029_3-5295661.html?tag=mainstry

Brenda

[Daniel K Grubbs]

An interesting and disturbing article, Brenda. At least there was some semblance of a solution. Not to say that Google allowing sites to remove pages that contain credit card or SSN information will stop this. It just an attempt to take the responsibility off Google in my opinion.
Daniel K Grubbs

[Michael Harris]

Daniel,

The first responsibility of a corporation (e.g., Google) is to protect the shareholders' interests - thier money. If this means limiting liability, that is okay. Most corporations will not do something for the common good unless the shareholders also benefit.

In the article cited, Google is limiting their own liability and not helping to solve the problem. However, if all companies tried to limit their liability in a comparable manner, the bad guys would have nowhere to go. Food for thought.

[K Morse]

I came upon this article by accident, searching for something else - but of course got sucked in. I witnessed this type of identiy theft in a friend, who's brother married a woman with his sister's exact name and birth date (go figure). Just by the nature of the sister-in-law's bad credit and spending habits, and the same names/dates, my friend had to go through incredible measures and loss of daily functioning at a point, to remove the incredible problems. Amazing!

Thanks for the three-part series!!

[Patti Schubert -]

Thanks for the articles. It was an eye opener and very scary to know how much information the bad guys can get their hands on. :eek:

Patti

[Tiffany Eichor]

Michael, thanks for the series. This is definitely a catch-22 being in this line of work. I didn't realize just how easy it would be to become someone else. It's a good thing I'm an upstanding citizen, huh.

Tiffany

[Michael Harris]

Tiffany,

We see that most of what the PI does is on that fine edge. PIs have no more rights than ordinary citizens, but are expected to know more than anyone else.

Privacy is a thing of the past(?).

[Carl Oaklund]

Mr. Harris,
An excellent and informative series of articles. I enjoyed them immensely, they are well worth reading. I agree with your assesments, people should be extremely wary concerning their private information. Thank You

[J Ginsberg -]

It is now 2005. Some improvements have been made, but I think, to limit my liability and that of others, I will probably inquire as to what purpose any background investigation I perform is for. One thing I like about being independent--I may refuse a request to perform services if I know or suspect the results of same will be used for illegal purposes. Thank you for posting this article, Michael. It is a real eye opener, even for this day.

John