Consumers need to protect personal data and they need to know the difference between a legitimate debt collector and a fake scam being conducted to steal personal information.
“Who we call, how often we call them, and how long we speak shows the government what groups we belong to or associate with, which political issues concern us, and our religious affiliation. Exposing this information –especially in a massive, untargeted way over a long period of time– violates the Constitution and the basic First Amendment tests that have been in place for over 50 years.”
Any consumer with debt (credit card debt, mortgages, auto loans, medical bills, etc.) can now take their complaint to CFPB.
. Warrantless domestic surveillance has the potential to be abused at all levels of government.
The United States government and the NSA needs to come out and provide the American public with a comprehensive list of the ways in which we are being watched. We need to know when our phone lines are being tapped. We need to know when our mail is being monitored and we need to know when our Internet access is being followed and documented.
On August 2nd the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was defeated by the US Senate. This bill would have allowed big companies to track what we do on the Internet and then give that information to the government. While this is great news for the cyber community, this does not mean that this is the end of this type of legislation.
The argument that civil liberties advocates use is that social media is becoming an indispensable freedom of speech.
Is the ability to obtain credit really that important or necessary for a stay at home mom or dad? There are certainly those who believe it is and some have already taken action to initiate reform.
Would forcing internet businesses to allow back- door surveillance really help law enforcement agencies like the FBI, or would citizens simply find a way to get around them?
According to the ACLU: “The sad truth is that debtors’ prisons are flourishing today, more than two decades after the Supreme Court prohibited imprisoning those who are too poor to pay their legal debts. In this era of shrinking budgets, state and local governments have turned aggressively to using the threat and reality of imprisonment to squeeze revenue out of the poorest defendants who appear in their courts.”