Stealing Steele's Credit Report: How Safe Is Yours?

Two researchers working for Charles Schumer at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, (DSCC), used the social security number of Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, an undeclared senatorial candidate, to illegally obtain his personal credit report last July. The researchers, Katie Barge and Lauren Weiner, reported their actions at the time and were suspended with pay until they resigned this month. Both are under federal investigation. Since they received paid suspensions rather than being fired, it does not appear that their employer took this violation of privacy very seriously.

How much privacy can a public figure expect? Public figures have fewer rights regarding the use of their names and images than average citizens and face a higher burden of proof when alleging libel or slander. The public has right to information about public officials, but how much information? In 2004, Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan dropped out of the race after his divorce records were unsealed and intimate details made public. Earlier this year, the New York Times was looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Now we learn that the DSCC has been looking into Steele’s credit report. None of the information indicated that these men had violated any law. Divulging this information would violate the privacy of these men’s families and the information isn’t anybody’s business. Many people have details of their lives they want to keep private whether it is their medical records, their financial records or details of their divorces. If everything is fair game, it may become very difficult to persuade capable candidates to run for public office or accept nominations for prominent positions.

Aside from the political ramifications, privacy issues should be of concern to all. How safe are our records? A 2003 Federal Trade Commission Report stated that 4.6% of Americans, were victims of identity theft in a one-year period. Thieves use victims’ identities to obtain credit cards and loans in their names. In addition to financial losses, the burden of proof is on victims, so they must spend time and money correcting their information and demonstrating that they did not apply for the credit used by thieves. Identity theft is the theft of victims’ reputations and the financial lives they have worked hard to build. It can affect whether a victim can purchase a home or pay for his child’s education.

People are told to shred documents containing personal data and to check their credit reports and credit card statements. These things may not be enough. Personal information, including social security numbers, can be stolen from health care providers and other businesses authorized to possess it. An identity thief can open new accounts in days, so one’s annual free credit reports may not catch it in time – frequent monitoring of one’s credit reports can get expensive. Thieves generally use new addresses to open accounts in victims’ names so victims never receive those credit card statements.

All responsibility should not fall on consumers. Credit card companies, banks, reporting agencies and data mining companies make money from consumers’ information. It seems they should have a duty to determine that a person is who he purports to be. Doing so can be as simple as telephoning the consumer at his telephone number of record and asking if he made applied for credit or authorized an agent to receive information.

The question not addressed in the articles about the illegal acquisition of Steele’s credit report was how the researchers obtained his social security number in the first place. How private are our social security numbers? Often, that number is all one needs to apply for a birth certificate, a driver’s license, credit, etc. Shouldn’t more information be required and verified for identification documents and credit to be provided?

It is difficult to catch identity thieves. The thefts usually occur without the victims’ knowledge. By the time a victim learns someone else is using his identity and has his information flagged, the criminal has usually stopped using it and has moved on to other victims’ identities.

If someone is prosecuted for identity theft, penalties appear to be light. In his April 26, 2005 article, "Ex-Blockbuster employee charged in identity thefts," Washington Times reporter Chris Baker reported that a former Blockbuster employee stole the identities of 60 customers, charged $117,000 to them and "could face a sentence of three to five years" for charges of conspiracy, fraud and misuse of a social security number. One can only hope that sentence is per incident. The two DSCC researchers who obtained Steele’s credit report face a maximum sentence of two years and a $250,000 fine. In his article, "Democrats Scrutiny of Steele Assailed," Washington Post reporter John Wagner writes, "Lawyers familiar with the case said that if a crime occurred, the penalty would be less severe, however, in part because the disclosure did not damage Steele financially." So that makes it ok? It appears that the government only takes identity theft and privacy violations a little more seriously than the DSCC.

Invasions of privacy should still be stiffly penalized even in cases where the victim was not financially harmed. People should have the right to keep personal information private. Every part of everyone’s life should not be everybody’s business.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 09/25/05, all rights reserved