Death of Call Records - Part 2
After posting my blog "Death of Call Records in Texas" I had the opportunity to read many well written, educated and professional responses from a number of my colleagues. I feel it is the best interest of this subject that I share some with you.
We can not save call records!! However, as an industry we can try and help! It is up to each and every one of us to be vigilant, involved and ultimately help ourselves, our associations and most importantly the private investigation industry, fight to keep the necessary tools we need to make a difference.
Rick Wrote:
I believe that call records have a place in our industry too. However, I also believe that they are a consumer privacy breach. This is why I am a proponent of having a system in place where the people in the professions that need them and have a legitimate immediate need to obtain them; could have access to them under some type of a permissible purpose clause.
There is a point that I would like to comment on. With all due respect, I think it is unfair to suggest that it would be appropriate to obtain these records without some type of authorization by saying "this only affects the people that have something to hide". That has long since been a recognized way of trying to "trick" someone into giving up one or some of their privacy privileges. It's kind of like asking someone to strip naked, and when they refuse to do so, then saying "Well why not, if you have nothing to hide?".
I think we are better off acknowledging that obtaining consumer call records by someone other than who these records belong to or who has an account that these records go to is in fact a breach of personal privacy, However, I believe the right approach to this issue is that in some cases there is a need to have consumer call records which is greater than and outweighs any consumer privacy concerns.
Bob wrote:
We already have legal access to them on a case by case basis where their relevancy and importance can be demonstrated. It's called a subpoena.
That's quite loose enough for me, thank you. If you have a legitimate need, open the case and get a subpoena. If not, mind your own business, not mine!
Sue wrote:
I do disagree with you on this one. The police and the municipalities do not need SDT's. Why should we for the same case for the same evidence? Why should we be forced to show our hand in advance robbing us of ANY opportunity for surprise or impeachment? Also, at least here in CA, a consumer notice has to be sent to the party prior to sending a subpoena and if they say NO, the court might side with them. Many hundreds of thousands of dollars later, the Supreme Court after the Appellate Court will send it back and grant the SDT.
Not only is this such an outrageous waste of money, it is also a totally unfair disadvantage to our side.
If you read most State's PUC laws you will see that LEO's (law enforcement officers) do not need subpoenas. Disclosure to them is permissible.
Excellent points from everyone. Maybe, we (private investigators) can collectively come-up with a generalized statement that can be used on our blogs, emails, websites, etc. that helps educate the uninformed of the serious and sensitive predicament we are all in. These links can direct people to a central website/URL that will inform, offer sample text for emails/letters and more importantly list direct links, addresses and fax numbers to the various government agencies that are investigating and/or making these laws.
The main issue I was trying to point out was the fact that we simply can not stand still and watch the tools in our arsenal be taken away from big brother, in doing so government officials (on all levels) are simply helping the criminals and deadbeats.
If the government continues this practice the industry hit the hardest will be the financial industry. We will witness the demise of skip tracing altogether. This industry will no longer have the tools to effectively contact, locate or even communicate with the very people that owe them money. What does that mean to 95% of the people that pay their bills, higher interest rates and less money in our pockets!!
Just a thought....
Patrick Baird
I preface my sharing of the comments from fellow private investigators (listed below) with this statement:
We can not save call records!! However, as an industry we can try and help! It is up to each and every one of us to be vigilant, involved and ultimately help ourselves, our associations and most importantly the private investigation industry, fight to keep the necessary tools we need to make a difference.
Here are some of the comments posted:
Rick Wrote:
I believe that call records have a place in our industry too. However, I also believe that they are a consumer privacy breach. This is why I am a proponent of having a system in place where the people in the professions that need them and have a legitimate immediate need to obtain them; could have access to them under some type of a permissible purpose clause.
There is a point that I would like to comment on. With all due respect, I think it is unfair to suggest that it would be appropriate to obtain these records without some type of authorization by saying "this only affects the people that have something to hide". That has long since been a recognized way of trying to "trick" someone into giving up one or some of their privacy privileges. It's kind of like asking someone to strip naked, and when they refuse to do so, then saying "Well why not, if you have nothing to hide?".
I think we are better off acknowledging that obtaining consumer call records by someone other than who these records belong to or who has an account that these records go to is in fact a breach of personal privacy, However, I believe the right approach to this issue is that in some cases there is a need to have consumer call records which is greater than and outweighs any consumer privacy concerns.
Bob wrote:
We already have legal access to them on a case by case basis where their relevancy and importance can be demonstrated. It's called a subpoena.
That's quite loose enough for me, thank you. If you have a legitimate need, open the case and get a subpoena. If not, mind your own business, not mine!
Sue wrote:
I do disagree with you on this one. The police and the municipalities do not need SDT's. Why should we for the same case for the same evidence? Why should we be forced to show our hand in advance robbing us of ANY opportunity for surprise or impeachment? Also, at least here in CA, a consumer notice has to be sent to the party prior to sending a subpoena and if they say NO, the court might side with them. Many hundreds of thousands of dollars later, the Supreme Court after the Appellate Court will send it back and grant the SDT.
Not only is this such an outrageous waste of money, it is also a totally unfair disadvantage to our side.
If you read most State's PUC laws you will see that LEO's (law enforcement officers) do not need subpoenas. Disclosure to them is permissible.
Excellent points from everyone. Maybe, we (private investigators) can collectively come-up with a generalized statement that can be used on our blogs, emails, websites, etc. that helps educate the uninformed of the serious and sensitive predicament we are all in. These links can direct people to a central website/URL that will inform, offer sample text for emails/letters and more importantly list direct links, addresses and fax numbers to the various government agencies that are investigating and/or making these laws.
The main issue I was trying to point out was the fact that we simply can not stand still and watch the tools in our arsenal be taken away from big brother, in doing so government officials (on all levels) are simply helping the criminals and deadbeats.
If the government continues this practice the industry hit the hardest will be the financial industry. We will witness the demise of skip tracing altogether. This industry will no longer have the tools to effectively contact, locate or even communicate with the very people that owe them money. What does that mean to 95% of the people that pay their bills, higher interest rates and less money in our pockets!!
Just a thought....
Patrick Baird
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< A1 Blog Home