Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 11:11 am  Let's say you purchase an automobile from me. What authority do I have to run to the credit bureau and report the kind of car your purchased, how you purchased it, and the fact you paid in cash? I don't think that the fact of a purchase and sale necessarily gives rise to a consent to notify third parties of the terms of the contract, or even its performance. Of course, you and I can contract to advise third parties. I can say, I'll sell you the car on credit, but if you accept my terms, I will report your performance to the credit bureau. You have a right to walk away from the transaction, and deal with someone who doesn't report to the bureaus. Conversely, you may want the info reported, so you might see this as a plus. But the point is, the reporting should be voluntary. If I don't give you my consent to report about me, my privacy has been violated, even if the information is truthful. Take a look at Privacy Act litigation. Disclosure of a person's home address has oftentimes been considered a violation of privacy. I know that the credit-granting and CRA context is not privacy act litigation, but the Privacy Ac is nevertheless helpful for its guidance. Has anyone ever challenged a creditor for reporting to a CRA without the specific authority to do so? I would be interested in receiving your views. Here, of course, but give me a heads up at mokane@bellsouth.net. Thanks.
|
| | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 12:28 pm FYI: In your profile you can check to get e-mailed responses to just YOUR postings. Posting your E-mail address here and not keeping it private in your profile will get you on spam lists. Regarding your question, I think that almost all creditors have standard clauses in their disclosures allowing them to report to the CRAs. The only exceptions I've seen are a few cards that advertise that they do NOT report. All consumer data should be private unless the consumer specifically authorizes dissemination of any data.
|
| | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 03:51 pm WELL if you look at it THAT way then for sure the company would have no right to report on what dealings you have with them, how you are doing along those lines, etc. On the other hand you wouldn't have the right to stand up and report that you had a bad experience with, let's say, Sears. After all, don't they have a right to privacy too? In fact you could be violating their privacy just by saying that you were doing business with them at all. What authority do you have to go to bayhouse.com or epinions.com and report that you didn't enjoy their level of customer service? Why you would have none. In fact if you said something like you couldn't get your bill from them or pay them appropriately over the phone you might well get sued ... and lose.
|
| | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 05:28 pm No. That's the fundamental difference between being a private "live" PERSON and public "not alive" BUSINESS. There are already laws regarding "private" PERSONS who become "public." I don't know much about that, but you can say things about stars and politicians that you can't say about "normal" people like you and me. Haha, I think I picked two bad examples here, with regards to normality, but I hope you get the idea.
|
| | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 05:50 pm Well, first, I didn't want an email reply. When that happens the usefulness of the bulletin board diminishes because the responses don't get shared. A 'heads up' (along the lines of hey, look at the board, I responded to your post) was what I was looking for just to remind me. Your view, if I understand it, is that there is no right to report unless specifically agreed. This is my gut instinct as well, yet I would guess that precious few tradelines actually contain such permission. This opens up the tradeline holder to breach of contract suits rather than actions under the FCRA.
|
| | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 07:02 pm Oh Christine -- now I see how it works! I am a person and so I have rights to privacy and protection. But once I decide to become a "business" especially if I decide that I want to limit my liability through a corporation I lose all my rights. Perhaps wanting to provide a good or service for money is a crime of such severity that no trial or conviction is required for a complete loss of rights? That must be it...
|
| | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 08:09 pm Michael wrote: Your view, if I understand it, is that there is no right to report unless specifically agreed. That's my view of what should be. Since I've seen nothing in the FCRA prohibiting reporting without permission, I presume it's legal. If a PERSON doesn't pay me, can I publish their picture and address here with the details? As an individual I cannot report to credit bureaus. If I get a restraining order or judgment against somebody, can I publish it on the web? In that person's local newspaper? I've been wondering about that and I think there are laws prohibiting THAT type of reporting and allowing only reporting to the big 3 bureaus and their affiliates. This is my gut instinct as well, yet I would guess that precious few tradelines actually contain such permission. Maybe it's not needed, but I know I've given my permission MANY times.
|
| | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 08:20 pm Shylock, exactly, you hit the nail on the head! I am a person and so I have rights to privacy and protection. But once I decide to become a "business" especially if I decide that I want to limit my liability through a corporation I lose all my rights. Along with your liabilies, you lose your rights to privacy. Sounds appropriate to me. I can't imagine that you didn't at some point in your life feel pain, joy, love, something! Corporations have no soul, no feelings, no emotions. They're PAPER. Do you think Sears is laying in bed, crying, because I said they didn't send me a bill? Do you think Sears was screaming in pain when I cut up my Sears card today?
|
| | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 04:32 am Corporations are people. Hundreds or thousands of stockholders that have joined together. If enough people cut up their cards and the corporation's bottom line or stock price is affected then yes you bet your bottom dollar that those people are unhappy about it.
|
| | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 06:43 am Matters of public record are just that, public records. So if you get a restraining order against someone, you may certainly publish the court order on the web or in the newspaper. As an individual, you have no greater nor lesser right than a corporation to list a tradeline. Doctors do it all the time. My point is that whenever information is published privacy rights are implicated. Unless you are a public figure, your information is private. Let's say you walk out on the street and I take a picture of you. If we're in a public place, can I do so? Yes. Can I use your picture to sell a product? No, you retain the right of publicity. Now, let's say we're in a private place. Can I take a picture? No, unless you agree. Similarly, if you obtain a court order, that is a public matter and you can publish it. If we enter into a private contract for the sale of an automobile, I don't think I can tell the world you paid $500 for my car. I could, on the other hand, say that the State of California had issued a license tag to you (California has some peculiar privacy laws on drivers license numbers and addresses so I'm not sure if I could disclose your tag number. In my state you could). The point of all of this is that many people despair in trying to clear tradelines that might be factual, but which they never agreed could be made public. This is perhaps an additional avenue to help an individual clear their credit. The fact that this isn't covered by the FCRA is irrelevant, because it would still be a state law claim and the reporter is subject to the jurisdiction of the state courts and their laws.
|
| | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 10:51 am As an individual, you have no greater nor lesser right than a corporation to list a tradeline. Doctors do it all the time. From what I've read here, I understand that it takes a minimum of 50 accounts and an inspection of your business premises to be able to report to the credit bureaus. I have not verified that, but I have NEVER seen a private party reporting on a credit report. A doctor is NOT an individual, but usually a corporation, most definitely a business. The fact that we have 50 States with 50 sets of laws complicates the issue. So I really don't know if any privacy laws were violated. I'm just thinking that if that was the case, one of the gazillions of attorneys would have picked up on that. I've NEVER heard of a law suit to remove tradelines due to privacy law violations.
|
| | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 10:54 am And to Shylock: "Corporations are people." Ok, you're entitled to your opinion! 
|
| | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 05:12 pm Corporations are people. That is no opinion, it is a fact. Perhaps there are some people who rationalize stealing from or defrauding corporations because they will never have to look their victims in the eye, but the fact remains that there are victims. Stockholders are not always rich people. Many times employees own stock in the corporations they work for.
|
| | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 07:40 pm Corporations are NOT people. One of the main reasons for forming a corporation is that corporations can go on forever. The shareholders die, the estate then owns the corporation. The corporation continues to exist until there are fewer than the required officers and the corporation is dissolved according to the articles and/or operating agreement. Shareholders OWN the corporation, but that doesn't mean they ARE the corporation. And since you bring up stealing and defrauding, why don't the shareholders go to jail when their corporation steals MY money and defrauds ME?
|
| | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 03:42 am Shareholders don't go to jail when corporations violate the law because district attorneys know that they couldn't get a conviction. Just because a person owns stock doesn't mean they're not entitled to a fair trial by a jury of their peers.
|
| | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 04:45 pm huh? You lost me. Is there a particular reason WHY you think it's ok to defraud me but it's awful to defraud a corporation, as they are owned by people? What exactly do you think *I* am?
|
| | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 04:54 pm Shylock wrote: "Just because a person owns stock doesn't mean they're not entitled to a fair trial by a jury of their peers" I totally agree with you. I'd like to see a lot of shareholders have their fair trial after their corporations defaud me and steal my money.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |