Home > 2012 > Identity Theft

The New American Pie: Breached, Tracked and Strip Searched

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 0 Comments

For those of us who care about privacy, these past seven days have truly sucked.

With relatively little fanfare in the midst of a cacophonous (that means “noisy” Senator Santorum) parade of news, three significant events seriously undermined our constitutional right to privacy and highlighted (in a muted sort of way) the extent to which new business practices and perhaps the second oldest human inclination (criminality) have continued the relentless assault on our individual rights and liberties. The worst part is that it seems we’re all becoming accustomed to it. Indeed, these affronts to our privacy seem to be becoming part of the country’s genetic makeup… perhaps even as American as apple pie.

First, credit and debit card processor Global Payments, Inc. acknowledged it is the yet the latest flavor of the month in the data breach derby. It took the company three weeks to notify customers and law enforcement officials that there had been an “unauthorized access” to its systems, and that the card numbers and sensitive data of as many as 10 million consumers may have been compromised. MasterCard, Visa and American Express confirmed that they were affected, along with banks and other institutions that issue cards bearing their logos. But then something happened rather suddenly — almost magically: the impact of the breach was downgraded. Within hours of the initial release, the number of “exposed” consumers dropped from 10 million to “only” 1.5 million. It was pointed out that Global Payments has but a paltry 3.5% share of the market, servicing “only” 800,000 or so merchant accounts.

So, are you having a “here we go again,” or a “who cares if it didn’t happen to me” moment?

I realize that it feels like just another swell in an ocean of data breaches that have washed over (and drowned some of) us in the past few months. However, that this breach was minimized so quickly — and so quickly disappeared from the news cycle — is a matter of grave concern.

Breaches of this magnitude have become accepted as “oh well, just another day in paradise.”

I’m afraid that the breach notification minstrels have so inundated us with countless tales of database compromises we have come to accept them as little more than white noise in the village square — the voice of the town crier droning on in the background. The media has become numb, perhaps not understanding the seriousness of the situation. But the parts of government tasked with law enforcement surely could take greater notice of instances where numbers are quickly and drastically altered (one could be forgiven for jumping to the conclusion that these things happen in order to assuage consumer anxiety in the interest of business as usual). The jury is still out as to this particular compromise.

Meanwhile, as the Global Payments media “perp” walk was picking up and then losing steam, an article appeared in the New York Times that was truly chilling. The Times report was based upon 5,500 pages of documents provided to it by the American Civil Liberties Union from over 200 police departments across the land. These internal records detailed a clandestine practice that state and local police departments seem to have adopted as standard operating procedure — cell phone tracking. So my friends, like the authorities did to the citizen-sheep in Orwell’s 1984, it’s time to erase your preconceptions. It’s not just the CIA, the NSA, Apple, Google, or Murdoch’s marauders that are following you around anymore.

Don’t believe that stuff you see on “The Wire.” By and large these intrusions are carried out without a search warrant or any kind of judicial or civil oversight. In fact, according to the Times, the practice has become so widespread and routine some wireless carriers are actually offering a catalog of “surveillance fees” to police departments to determine a suspect’s location, trace phone calls and texts or provide other services.

And then, as icing on an ever growing constitutionally compromised cake, the Supreme Court ruled in yet another 5 to 4 decision that strip searches could be conducted by police prior to the incarceration of any person arrested, for any reason–including minor traffic violations. The specific case the court decided had to do with the arrest of a man who was a passenger in a car driven by his wife which was pulled over for speeding. Somehow the traffic cop determined that the gentleman in question was the subject of an arrest warrant based on his failure to pay a fine—indeed, a traffic fine–some years earlier. Get this — not only had the victim paid the fine, but he actually had proof of that payment in his possession in the car. However, while the New Jersey DMV in its infinite wisdom was figuring out what was going on, the innocent passenger spent a week in two jails, and he was–now legally–strip-searched in both.

“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority. The Court seemed to be unperturbed by certain facts, such as: at least 10 states have laws preventing this kind of thing; federal policy precludes it; and according to an amicus brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedure.

Is this still United States of America, the land of the free?

I believe we are witnessing a remarkable conspiracy of the profane, accomplished with no communication among the co-conspirators, and perhaps without any evil intent whatsoever — and certainly without much thought. No matter how much it costs or how often it happens, the private sector seems to be unable to effectively protect our data, and thus our privacy. And many companies within that private sector have found a way to profit from that lack of privacy, by collecting information on us and selling it to advertisers, or even to our friendly local police department. And at the very moment when it is most needed to protect an absolutely essential element of our personal freedom, the Supreme Court seems quite willing to strip us of our privacy, and our dignity, quite literally, even if our arrest was false or the charge against us was trivial.

Maybe I made a mistake and took Soma last night instead of Sominex, and this morning I awoke in Aldous Huxley’s dystopian “World State.” It certainly feels like “everyone belongs to everyone else,” doesn’t it?

Image: StevenDePolo, via Flickr

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team