See other Business/Finance Articles
Title: Capital One says it can show up at cardholders' homes, workplaces
Source:
L.A. Times
URL Source: http://www.latimes.com/business/la- ... 0,2211926.column#axzz2uBbzHMLc
Published: Feb 17, 2014
Author: David Lazarus
Post Date: 2014-02-23 17:21:28 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 118
Comments: 6
Ding-dong, Cap One calling. Credit card issuer Capital One isn't shy about getting into customers' faces. The company recently sent a contract update to cardholders that makes clear it can drop by any time it pleases. The update specifies that "we may contact you in any manner we choose" and that such contacts can include calls, emails, texts, faxes or a "personal visit." As if that weren't creepy enough, Cap One says these visits can be "at your home and at your place of employment." The police need a court order to pull off something like that. But Cap One says it has the right to get up close and personal anytime, anywhere. Rick Rofman, 71, of Van Nuys received the contract update the other day. He was spooked by the visitation rights Cap One was claiming for itself. "Even the Internal Revenue Service cannot visit you at home without an arrest warrant," Rofman observed. Indeed, you'd think the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, would make this sort of thing verboten. Apparently not. "It sounds really invasive, but I don't think it's a violation of your 4th Amendment rights," said Daniel E. Kann, a Santa Clarita lawyer who specializes in illegal-search cases. He explained that the amendment applies primarily to searches and seizures by law enforcement, not civilians. A credit card company, in theory, could reserve the right to visit your home or office without a court order, Kann said. But he emphasized that there are laws against harassment, not to mention stalking, and Cap One could be held accountable under such statutes if, say, it took to inviting itself over for dinner or hanging around your cubicle. Incredibly, Cap One's aggressiveness doesn't stop with personal visits. The company's contract update also includes this little road apple: "We may modify or suppress caller ID and similar services and identify ourselves on these services in any manner we choose." Now that's just freaky. Cap One is saying it can trick you into picking up the phone by using what looks like a local number or masquerading as something it's not, such as Save the Puppies or a similarly friendly-seeming bogus organization. This is known as spoofing, and it's perfectly legal. As I've written before, the federal Truth in Caller ID Act makes it a crime to use a phony number or caller ID message to commit fraud or cause harm to others. But it's not against the law to engage in what courts have called "non-harmful spoofing," which includes businesses wearing digital disguises to penetrate a consumer's phone defenses. Such corporate spoofing is employed primarily by telemarketers. It's weird, to say the least, for this practice to be so publicly adopted by a major credit card issuer. Emily Rusch, executive director of the California Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy organization, said it's especially troubling for Cap One to declare itself a spoofer as people grapple with recent security breaches involving Target, Neiman Marcus and other businesses. "Now more than ever, consumers need to be able to trust companies," she said. So what does Cap One have to say? Pam Girardo, a company spokeswoman, told me that Cap One isn't quite as much like Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" as the company's contract lingo might suggest. "Capital One does not visit our cardholders, nor do we send debt collectors to their homes or work," Girardo said. The exception to that, she said, is when it comes to big-ticket sporting goods. Cap One has partnerships with makers of gear like Jet Skis and Snowmobiles. "As a last resort, we may go to a customer's home after appropriate notification if it becomes necessary to repossess the sports vehicle," Girardo said. So Cap One is saying it's more "Repo Man" than "Fatal Attraction."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
A banker's agent showing up on a destitute and disgruntled cardholder's doorstep. There's not enough kevlar in the world to get me to take that job.
Support bacteria. (The world needs more culture)
Who's pillaging now?
This is known as spoofing, and it's perfectly legal. As I've written before, the federal Truth in Caller ID Act makes it a crime to use a phony number or caller ID message to commit fraud or cause harm to others. But it's not against the law to engage in what courts have called "non-harmful spoofing," which includes businesses wearing digital disguises to penetrate a consumer's phone defenses. Did the Fed's word the Truth in Caller ID Act to allow for a spoofing loophole? Did some corporate $ go into some gubment pockets? Oh say it ain't so.
Did some corporate $ go into some gubment pockets? Oh say it ain't so. Just remember: it's Obummer's FedGov and Congress is in on the shenanigans, too.
#2. To: Obnoxicated, X-15 (#1)
#3. To: X-15 (#0)
Now that's just freaky. Cap One is saying it can trick you into picking up the phone by using what looks like a local number or masquerading as something it's not, such as Save the Puppies or a similarly friendly-seeming bogus organization.
#4. To: scrapper2 (#3)
Did the Fed's word the Truth in Caller ID Act to allow for a spoofing loophole?
-Alex Kurtagic
#5. To: scrapper2, X-15, 4 (#3)
TWCable has a cool caller-ID app for the internet that I've come to love. If a number or name that I don't recognize pops up, I don't answer; and most of the time, no message will be left on the answering machine.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#6. To: X-15 (#0)
I really doubt that they will do this because they have a bigger obligation to protect their employees. What they suggest puts their own people in danger serious danger. Attack dogs, gun owners, alarm systems, what they suggest is just way too big a risk to themselves in terms of liability ... It makes a scary threat but viewed objectively I see no way for the to safely commit to this kind of lunacy in collections.
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest