Banks and insurance companies are profiting by selling our personal information. Often, without expressed permission.
Like most states, Maine allows our personal financial information to be sold unless we specifically deny permission. An estimated 95 percent of consumers would like to guard information, but only 5 percent have signed paperwork protecting it.
L.D. 661 might provide relief by forcing a referendum asking consumers if they’d like to require financial institutions to hold information private unless granted specific permission for sale.
It’s the difference between “opting out” and “opting in.” If voters pass the referendum, banks could no longer assume information can be sold and would have to get written permission to market client files.
Banks have cried foul, arguing this change in consumer option would be unfair because it would be a mandate for in-state banks but not for out-of-state banks, curtailing the ability of in-state banks to sell information.
The Attorney General has since ruled that the statute must be applied evenly, erasing legitimate opposition. New Mexico and Vermont have already made the switch, adopting as state law the intention of the 1999 federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
At a recent work session, the Banking and Insurance Committee voted 11-2 in a room packed with banking and insurance lobbyists to reject the bill. Unfortunately, consumers who would most benefit from this referendum weren’t there in similar numbers. Instead, they were off earning a living.
Despite poor committee support, Rep. Ben Dudley, D-Portland, has vowed to bring this to the House floor and fight for a November referendum. He should.
This is a consumer issue and consumers should be given an opportunity to decide what’s best for them: opting in or opting out. Permitting public sale of personal information or holding it private.
Friend or foe?
The Gulf War was waged largely from the air. The war in Iraq started there, but quickly dropped to the ground, prompting uncomfortable reminders of Vietnam.
Like Vietnam, top military commanders in the United States are prepared for high casualties as troops engage Saddam’s forces in Baghdad. And, like Vietnam, the enemy is posing in civilian clothes, using our innate trust to launch deadly attacks.
Iraqi troops have waved white flags of surrender and, when coalition forces approach, attacked in force. Four Americans were killed Saturday at a checkpoint when a suicide bomber signaled for help just before his taxi exploded.
So, when coalition forces fired on a family Land Rover that refused to stop at a checkpoint despite warning shots, it’s hard to be critical. What was the option? Wait until fired upon?
In just two weeks on the ground in Iraq, the troops have learned tough lessons about the willingness of enemy forces to use deadly deception and about the willingness of the Iraqi military to hide behind a civilian cloak.
Coalition troops are simply responding to the threat.
The Arab world is justifiably angry at the death of civilians, blaming Americans for the error. We share in the sorrow, but the anger is better directed at the Iraqi military and political figures who have purposely muddied the line between friend and foe, putting civilian lives at risk.
jmeyer@sunjournal.com
Send questions/comments to the editors.
