http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/06/how_the_va_thef.html

"If the Financial Data Protection Act, already passed by the House Financial Services Committee, is approved by the full House later this month, millions of consumers could lose the right to freeze their credit reports. And all those notices consumers now receive after a company loses personal data? Many of those would no longer be required."

My questions:

What's more important, an individual's right to protect their credit or the gov'ts right to monitor people?

Do credit report companies have too much freedom to share our information? Should we be able to sue them in the case they lose our information or give it to the "wrong" people?

As far as I can see, the proposed law has little or no benefit, and could possibly hurt consumers. The two provisions within it seem to make very little sense. Being able to freeze your credit data only after you have been a victim of identity theft is a classic example of locking the door after the horse has been stolen. The second provision seems even worse. Requiring credit companies to report data theft only if there is a "significant risk" of harm opens the door to all kinds of abuse. Who decides what "significant risk" might be?

The first question for debate seems to be a little bit different from the one I might ask. We might ask if a consumer's right to protect her personal information from thieves is more important than convenience to credit card companies. I think the answer to this question is obvious.

The second question for debate may be more relevant. I understand that credit card companies, in return for the services they offer, have a right to share credit information for legitimate business purposes. However, they also have the responsibility that this information be protected. Civil penalties seem appropriate for errors that lead to information reaching the wrong hands. Criminal penalties should apply for the deliberate misuse of such information, or for gross negligence.