Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

1 posted on 11/24/2012 9:37:02 AM PST by prplhze2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]

To: prplhze2000

Link, article, something?

2 posted on 11/24/2012 9:58:02 AM PST by citizen (We get the government we choose. America either voted for Obama or handed it to him by not voting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: prplhze2000
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (abbreviated FACT Act or FACTA, Pub.L. 108-159) is a United States federal law, passed by the United States Congress on November 22, 2003,[1] and signed by President George W. Bush on December 4, 2003,[2] as an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The act allows consumers to request and obtain a free credit report once every twelve months from each of the three nationwide consumer credit reporting companies (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion). In cooperation with the Federal Trade Commission, the three major credit reporting agencies set up the website,, to provide free access to annual credit reports.[3]

The act also contains provisions to help reduce identity theft, such as the ability for individuals to place alerts on their credit histories if identity theft is suspected, or if deploying overseas in the military, thereby making fraudulent applications for credit more difficult. Further, it requires secure disposal of consumer information.



[edit] Provisions

The FACT Act contains seven major titles: Identity Theft Prevention and Credit History Restoration, Improvements in Use of and Consumer Access to Credit Information, Enhancing the Accuracy of Consumer Report Information, Limiting the Use and Sharing of Medical Information in the Financial System, Financial Literacy and Education Improvement, Protecting Employee Misconduct Investigations, and Relation to State Laws.[4]

[edit] Identity Theft Prevention and Credit History Restoration

This title of the act contains provisions that deal mainly with the prevention of identity theft. In particular, it establishes new regulations concerning 'fraud alerts' and 'active duty alerts', establishes new limitations on the printing of customers' credit card numbers on receipts, and prescribes that new regulations be established by certain government agencies regarding the detection of identity theft by financial institutions and creditors.

[edit] Fraud alerts

The title requires that consumer reporting agencies, upon the request of a consumer who believes he is or about to be a victim of fraud or any other related crime, must place a fraud alert on that consumer's file for at least 90 days, and notify all other consumer reporting agencies of the fraud alert. Furthermore, such consumer may request an extended fraud alert, in which case requires the reporting agency to disclose this fraud alert in any credit score that it issues for the consumer during a seven-year period. An extended alert also requires the reporting agency to exclude the consumer from any list distributed to third parties for the purpose of extending credit or offering insurance to that consumer. The title also provides for any active duty member to request an active duty alert, which requires the reporting agency to disclose such alert with any credit report issued within 12 months of the request and to exclude the active duty member from any list distributed to third parties for the purpose of extending credit or offering insurance for two years from the request.[5]

[edit] Truncation of credit and debit card numbers

The act also prohibits businesses from printing more than 5 digits of any customer's card number or card expiration date on any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of sale or transaction. This provision is enforced with statutory damages ranging from $100 to $1000 per violation, and when claims are aggregated in a class action (brought by all the customers of a retailer that failed to truncate credit card numbers) the amount of damages can be massive.[6] The provision excludes receipts that are handwritten or imprinted, where the only method of recording the credit card number is by such means. The act did not become effective for three years after its enactment for any cash register manufactured before January 1, 2005 and did not become effective for one year after its enactment for any cash register manufactured after January 1, 2005.[7]

[edit] Identification of possible identity theft (Red Flags rule)

The act established the Red Flags Rule, which required the Federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Trade Commission to jointly create regulations regarding identity theft prevention applicable to financial institutions and creditors. The Red Flags Rule also address how card issuers must respond to changes of address.[8] Regulations that were established as a result include[9]:

  • One that requires financial institutions or creditors to develop and implement an Identity Theft Prevention Program in connection with both new and existing accounts. The Program must include reasonable policies and procedures for detecting, preventing, and mitigating identity theft;
  • Another that requires users of consumer reports to respond to Notices of Address Discrepancies that they receive; and
  • A third that places special requirements on issuers of debit or credit cards to assess the validity of a change of address if they receive notification of a change of address for a consumer’s debit or credit card account and, within a short period of time afterward they receive a request for an additional or replacement card for the same account.

Another key item was the requirement that mortgage lenders provide consumers with a Credit Disclosure Notice that included their credit scores, range of scores, credit bureaus, scoring models, and factors affecting their scores. This form is typically available from credit reporting agencies, and many will send this directly to the consumer on the lenders' behalf.

[edit] Confusion with the scope of the Red Flags rule

Financial institutions faced a mandatory deadline of November 1, 2008, to comply with the Red Flags Rule,[10] section 114 and 315 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions (FACT) Act. However, due to widespread confusion over coverage under the act, specifically whether the term "creditor" applies to particular businesses, members of Congress have repeatedly requested that FTC postpone the deadline for compliance with Section 315 until after December 31, 2010.[11]

According to a Business Alert issued by the Federal Trade Commission in June 2008,[12] the Red Flags Rule apply to a very broad list of businesses including "financial institutions" and "creditors" with "covered accounts". A "creditor" is defined to include "lenders such as banks, finance companies, automobile dealers, mortgage brokers, utility companies and telecommunications companies". However, this is not an all-inclusive list.

The regulations apply to all businesses that have "covered accounts". A "covered account" includes any account for which there is a foreseeable risk of identity theft. For example, credit cards, monthly billed accounts like utility bills or cell phone bills, social security numbers, drivers license numbers, medical insurance accounts, and many others. This significantly expands the definition to include all companies, regardless of size, that maintain, or otherwise possess, consumer information for a business purpose. Because of the broad definitions in these regulations, few businesses will be able to escape these requirements.[13]

[edit] Protection and restoration of identity theft victim credit history

[edit] Summary of rights of identity theft victims

Provisions in this title require that the Federal Trade Commission, in consultation with the Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Agency, "prepare a model summary of the rights of consumers ... with respect to the procedures for remedying the effects of fraud or identity theft...". Beginning sixty days after the summary of these rights were established, all reporting agencies are required to provide a copy of this summary to any consumer that contacts an agency and states that he believes he has been a victim of fraud or identity theft.[14]

[edit] Blocking of information resulting from identity theft

The Act also allows requires any reporting agency to block the reporting of any information in a consumer's file that the consumer identifies as information that originated from an alleged identity theft. Such agency must block the information within four days of receiving proof, a copy of an identity theft report, the identification of the information by the consumer, and a statement from the consumer that the information is not a result of any transaction he participated in.

Agencies are not required to block any information (and may rescind any existing blocks) in the case that the block was found to be made in error or based on erroneous information as provided by the consumer, or that the consumer "obtained possession of goods, services, or money as a result of the blocked transaction or transactions.[15]

[edit] Coordination of identity theft complaint investigations

This section requires that all consumer reporting agencies develop a means of communicating to each other consumer complaints regarding fraud or identity theft, or requests for fraud alerts or blocks. Furthermore, the section requires that each consumer reporting agency release a report each year to the Federal Trade Commission of fraud alert requests and complaints involving fraud or identity theft received by the reporting agency. Finally, the section requires the Federal Trade Commission to set up a means by which consumers can contact the reporting agencies and creditors with a complaint involving identity theft or fraud.[16]

[edit] Criticism

After its enactment, some consumer advocacy groups criticised the FACT Act claiming that it preempts some stricter and already-existing state regulations, and provides exceptions that are 'far too generous' to new regulations regarding disclosure of personal information by banks as found in the act.[17] Furthermore, an article in the Washington Post criticised the difficulty in retrieiving the credit reports in some of the states that were first eligible under the act.[18]

[edit] Pre-emption of state laws

Vermont, Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California had all established laws by 1994 requiring credit bureaus to provide a free credit report on demand. However, according to U.S. Pirg, "[w]ith the FACT Act, the financial industry won its primary goal: permanent pre emption of stronger state credit and privacy laws.".[19]

[edit] Difficulty in obtaining credit reports

An article dated March 13, 2005 and published in the Washington Post stated that while "[r]esidents of six East Coast states—Maryland, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Vermont—are already eligible for free reports from all three agencies as a result of state laws", the phone numbers provided to request these reports connected to automated systems that the article described as "maddening in their complexity and unforgiving if your circumstances vary from the system's programming.". Furthermore, the article criticised automated systems for forcing consumers to "navigate a thicket of recorded information -- including sales pitches for their products, such as a credit 'score' (an evaluation of your creditworthiness) or a 'monitoring' service to help guard against identity theft".[18]

[edit] The Red Flag rule as a cause of identity theft

As the Red Flag rule widely defines creditors, many businesses (such as utilities)[20] are not required to collect personal information (such as SSN and driver's license numbers) that they do not need and have no use for. This policy is precisely contrary to the FTC's advice to consumers that they should disclose their social security number to companies only when absolutely necessary.[21][clarification needed] This aspect of the Red Flag rule has the unintended consequences of increasing the number of businesses that hold consumers' Social Security numbers, thereby putting consumers at greater risk for identity theft through data theft.

3 posted on 11/24/2012 9:58:15 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Labor unions are the Communist Party of the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

FR really needs your help!

Please Donate Today!

FReepathon Day 55

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: prplhze2000

As a matta facta, no.

8 posted on 11/24/2012 10:39:07 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: prplhze2000
I think you're talking about FATCA (not FACTA):

Try this post by Karl Denninger at market-ticker:

So You Think You'll Just Up And Leave, Eh? Maybe, and maybe not. FATCA—the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act—generally takes effect in 2013 and the IRS will start penalizing foreign banks in 2014 for failing to comply. The law was enacted in 2010 but remains in the ramp-up phase. Yet foreign banks and governments are on board and more of the law is being applied right now. See 5 nations joining U.S. in tax evasion crackdown. Institutional Reporting. FATCA requires foreign banks to report U.S. account holders to the IRS. After identifying them, institutions must impose a 30% tax on payments or transfers to any who refuse to step up. Foreign financial institutions (FFIs) must file IRS reports by September 30, 2014. Oh really? Foreign financial institutions must do something? And what if they don't? This is an amusing law, really. The United States has no means of compulsion to enforce an order (other than by deciding to engage in armed invasion, obviously) across a national boundary. So exactly who has the right of complaint here? Let's look at the facts shall we? Foreign nations are no more "freedom havens" than is the United States. These financial institutions in allegedly-sovereign lands are voluntarily complying with the IRS and its US-centric and US-limited laws, since the IRS cannot compel performance across a national boundary. If you think otherwise then talk with me about the kid who is abducted by his or her parent that flees to another nation. Oh sure, there's an alleged treaty on that. But if you think the nations that stick up their middle finger are limited to those such as Saudi Arabia (which does, by the way), you'd be wrong. In point of fact Germany, one of our alleged "best friends", is one of the worst offenders in this regard! Their argument? "The kid will have a better life here -- so screw you." Yep. So let's cut the crap, shall we? Freedom isn't free and there is no solace to be found in trying to run away from the jackboot of government. The fact of the matter is that it has long been the law that you had to report foreign investment and property holdings and it has been illegal to transport more than $10,000 in negotiable anything in or out of the US without declaring it for quite some time. The US Government holds that it has the right to tax income no matter where earned and held if you are a US Citizen, but it lacks the ability to enforce that law without the voluntary cooperation of other nations and their institutions. It's all fine and well to argue against FATCA, but that misses the point. The real question is much simpler: What leads you to believe that you will find freedom -- whether financial or otherwise -- in a nation and/or institution that voluntarily disrespects your financial privacy? Perhaps -- just perhaps -- this will wake you up to the fact that trying to run is a futile gesture, and that so-called "more-free" foreign lands really aren't. And that, perhaps -- just perhaps -- might lead you to the conclusion that the only real options for change, assuming self-delusion isn't part of your agenda, are to put your effort toward making that change stick here instead of running away.

13 posted on 11/24/2012 3:07:21 PM PST by shhrubbery! (NIH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: prplhze2000; All
Although this is not necessarily easy to do, patriots need to get themselves up to speed on Congress's Article I, Section 8-limited powers where treaties are concerned.

Regarding Section 8 versus disturbing treaties that corrupt Congress is currently negotiating, please consider the following. Note that Thomas Jefferson had officially written that Congress cannot use its constitutional power to negotiate treaties as a back door to forcing citizens to comply with foreign laws based on powers which the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constitution.

"In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

"Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." --Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812.

Next, since we're discussing international banking laws (and international gun laws, and international children's rights laws, and international environmental protection laws, as examples) did you look in Section 8 but not find any clauses which reasonably give Congress the specific power to regulate banking? Well there's a good reason for that. Note that James Madison's daily journal of Convention debates indicates that the delegates had discussed the idea of granting Congress the specific power to regulate banking, but had decided against it.

"Mr. KING. The States will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it. In Philada. & New York, It will be referred to the establishment of a Bank, which has been a subject of contention in those Cities. In other places it will be referred to mercantile monopolies." --Madison Debates, Tuesday September 14, 1787.

So why is Congress now not only regulating banking, the Federal Reserve based on constitutonally nonexistent federal government powers, but also trying to force US citizens to comply with international banking laws regardless that the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constitution the specific power to regulate banking?

It turns out that traitor Alexander Hamilton had backedstabbed his fellow delegates to the Con-Con by being the first DC bureaucrat to wrongly encourage Congress to overstep its Section 8-limited powers and establish a national bank against the intentions of the delegates after the Constitution had been ratified.

In fact, regardless that George Washington, president of the Con-Con, had evidently slept through (gone fishing?) discussions which decided against a national bank, when Washington officially asked Jefferson for clarification about the constitutionality of a national bank, Jefferson simply borrowed material from James Madison's daily journal of Convention debates to refresh Washington's memory.

"Mr. KING. The States will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it. In Philada. & New York, It will be referred to the establishment of a Bank, which has been a subject of contention in those Cities. In other places it will be referred to mercantile monopolies." --Madison Debates Tuesday September 14, 1787.

And where using its treaty power as a back door to find "hidden" powers in Section 8 is concerned, it turns out that Constitution-ignoring justices of the early 20th century ignored Jefferson's writings about Congress not being able to use it's treaty powers to force the states to comply with foreign laws that are based on powers which the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constitution. More specifically, Section 8-ignoring Congress successfully snowed the Supreme Court to force the states to comply with a treaty which protected wildlife. The case was Missouri v. Holland.

Note that Wikipedia indicates that Missouri v. Holland is the case that inspired the idea of the "living Constitution."

As a side note to Congress's Section 8-limited powers, please consider the following. There arguably needs to be a federal law requiring foreign diplomats to pass a course on Congress's Section 8-limited powers and Article V before being allowed to negotiate treaties with federal lawmakers. Then Constitution-impaired federal lawmakers will at least learn about their Section 8-limited powers and Article V from foreign diplomats since they evidently don't want to hear about these power-limiting constitutional statutes from the voters.

Also, we need to consider the pros and cons of requiring Congress to put time limits on some or all federal laws, possibly time limits also on constitutional delegations of specific powers to Congress.

Finally, as I've ranted elsewhere, patriots are probably not going to hear the specifics about our corrupt federal government from Section 8-ignoring Fx News. I'm convinced that Fx News is a part of the Left's propaganda machine.

14 posted on 11/24/2012 3:37:06 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: prplhze2000

I meant FATCA. Sorry.

16 posted on 11/24/2012 9:13:49 PM PST by prplhze2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson