[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1690-H1695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TELEPHONE RECORDS AND PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT OF 2006
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4709) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
strengthen protections for law enforcement officers and the public by
providing criminal penalties for the fraudulent acquisition or
unauthorized disclosure of phone records, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4709
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Telephone Records and
Privacy Protection Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) telephone records can be of great use to criminals
because the information contained in call logs may include a
wealth of personal data;
(2) call logs may reveal the names of telephone users'
doctors, public and private relationships, business
associates, and more;
(3) call logs are typically maintained for the exclusive
use of phone companies, their authorized agents, and
authorized consumers;
(4) telephone records have been obtained without the
knowledge or consent of consumers through the use of a number
of fraudulent methods and devices that include--
(A) telephone company employees selling data to
unauthorized data brokers;
(B) ``pretexting'', whereby a data broker or other person
represents that they are an authorized consumer and convinces
an agent of the telephone company to release the data; or
(C) gaining unauthorized Internet access to account data by
improperly activating a consumer's account management
features on a phone company's webpage or contracting with an
Internet-based data broker who trafficks in such records; and
(5) the unauthorized disclosure of telephone records not
only assaults individual privacy but, in some instances, may
further acts of domestic violence or stalking, compromise the
personal safety of law enforcement officers, their families,
victims of crime, witnesses, or confidential informants, and
undermine the integrity of law enforcement investigations.
SEC. 3. FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH
OBTAINING CONFIDENTIAL PHONE RECORDS
INFORMATION OF A COVERED ENTITY.
(a) Offense.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 1038 the following:
``Sec. 1039. Fraud and related activity in connection with
obtaining confidential phone records information of a
covered entity
``(a) Criminal Violation.--Whoever, in interstate or
foreign commerce, knowingly and intentionally obtains, or
attempts to obtain, confidential phone records information of
a covered entity, by--
``(1) making false or fraudulent statements or
representations to an employee of a covered entity;
``(2) making such false or fraudulent statements or
representations to a customer of a covered entity;
``(3) providing a document to a covered entity knowing that
such document is false or fraudulent; or
``(4) accessing customer accounts of a covered entity via
the Internet, or by means of conduct that violates section
1030 of this title, without prior authorization from the
customer to whom such confidential phone records information
relates;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than
10 years, or both.
``(b) Prohibition on Sale or Transfer of Confidential Phone
Records Information.--
``(1) Except as otherwise permitted by applicable law,
whoever, in interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly and
intentionally sells or transfers, or attempts to sell or
transfer, confidential phone records information of a covered
entity, without prior authorization from the customer to whom
such confidential phone records information relates, or
knowing or having reason to know such information was
obtained fraudulently, shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the exceptions
specified in section 222(d) of the Communications Act of 1934
shall apply for the use of confidential phone records
information by any covered entity, as defined in subsection
(h).
``(c) Prohibition on Purchase or Receipt of Confidential
Phone Records Information.--
``(1) Except as otherwise permitted by applicable law,
whoever, in interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly and
intentionally purchases or receives, or attempts to purchase
or receive, confidential phone records information of a
covered entity, without prior authorization from the customer
to whom such confidential phone records information relates,
or knowing or having reason to know such information was
obtained fraudulently, shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the exceptions
specified in section 222(d) of the Communications Act of 1934
shall apply for the use of confidential phone records
information by any covered entity, as defined in subsection
(h).
``(d) Enhanced Penalties for Aggravated Cases.--Whoever
violates, or attempts to violate, subsection (a), (b), or (c)
while violating another law of the United States or as part
of a pattern of any illegal activity involving more than
$100,000, or more than 50 customers of a covered entity, in a
12-month period shall, in addition to the penalties provided
for in such subsection, be fined twice the amount provided in
subsection (b)(3) or (c)(3) (as the case may be) of section
3571 of this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or
both.
``(e) Enhanced Penalties for Use of Information in
Furtherance of Certain Criminal Offenses.--
``(1) Whoever, violates, or attempts to violate, subsection
(a), (b), or (c) knowing that such information may be used in
furtherance of, or with the intent to commit, an offense
described in section 2261, 2261A, 2262, or any other crime of
violence shall, in addition to the penalties provided for in
such subsection, be fined under this title and imprisoned not
more than 5 years.
``(2) Whoever, violates, or attempts to violate, subsection
(a), (b), or (c) knowing that such information may be used in
furtherance of, or with the intent to commit, an offense
under section 111, 115, 1114, 1503, 1512, 1513, or to
intimidate, threaten, harass, injure, or kill any Federal,
State, or local law enforcement officer shall, in addition to
the penalties provided for in such subsection, be fined under
this title and imprisoned not more than 5 years.
``(f) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is
extraterritorial jurisdiction over an offense under this
section.
``(g) Nonapplicability to Law Enforcement Agencies.--This
section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized
investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law
enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or
political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence
agency of the United States.
``(h) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Confidential phone records information.--The term
`confidential phone records information' means information
that--
``(A) relates to the quantity, technical configuration,
type, destination, location, or amount of use of a service
offered by a covered entity, subscribed to by any customer of
that covered entity, and kept by or on behalf of that covered
entity solely by virtue of the relationship between that
covered entity and the customer;
``(B) is made available to a covered entity by a customer
solely by virtue of the relationship between that covered
entity and the customer; or
``(C) is contained in any bill, itemization, or account
statement provided to a customer by or on behalf of a covered
entity solely by virtue of the relationship between that
covered entity and the customer.
``(2) Covered Entity.--The term `covered entity'--
``(A) has the same meaning given the term
`telecommunications carrier' in section 3 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153); and
``(B) includes any provider of IP-enabled voice service.
``(3) Customer.--The term `customer' means, with respect to
a covered entity, any individual, partnership, association,
joint stock company, trust, or corporation, or authorized
representative of such customer, to whom the covered entity
provides a product or service.
[[Page H1691]]
``(4) IP-enabled voice service.--The term `IP-enabled voice
service' means the provision of real-time voice
communications offered to the public, or such class of users
as to be effectively available to the public, transmitted
through customer premises equipment using TCP/IP protocol, or
a successor protocol, (whether part of a bundle of services
or separately) with interconnection capability such that the
service can originate traffic to, or terminate traffic from,
the public switched telephone network, or a successor
network.''.
(b) Chapter Analysis.--The table of sections for chapter 47
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after
the item relating to section 1038 the following:
``1039. Fraud related activity in connection with obtaining
confidential phone records information of a covered
entity.''.
SEC. 4. SENTENCING GUIDELINES.
(a) Review and Amendment.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the United States
Sentencing Commission, pursuant to its authority under
section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in
accordance with this section, shall review and, if
appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and
policy statements applicable to persons convicted of any
offense under section 1039 of title 18, United States Code.
(b) Authorization.--The United States Sentencing Commission
may amend the Federal sentencing guidelines in accordance
with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of the
Sentencing Act of 1987 (28 U.S.C. 994 note) as though the
authority under that section had not expired.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4709 currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4709, the Law Enforcement
and Phone Privacy Protection Act of 2006. This legislation will protect
the privacy of consumers' cell phone records and create new criminal
penalties for the unauthorized purchase, sale or disclosure of such
records.
Certain unscrupulous companies operating on the Internet use
deception to acquire an individual's phone records and then sell this
personal information. Typically these companies employ a tactic known
as ``pretexting'' to deceive the phone companies.
{time} 1445
By impersonating the actual cell phone account holder, these
companies are often able to obtain significant private information
about the individuals.
This practice not only presents a threat to the privacy of the
average consumer; the Judiciary Committee has also learned that
criminals have employed these services to determine the identity of
undercover law enforcement officers as well as suspected confidential
informants and witnesses. Additionally, stalkers and domestic users can
use such information to track a victim's location and associates.
Amazingly, none of this is clearly illegal under Federal law. H.R.
4709 targets pretexting and other deceptive practices not adequately
addressed by the current law and provides express protection in the
criminal code for the privacy of confidential phone records
information. These important new consumer protections cover the records
and calling logs of cellular, land line, Voice-Over-Internet-Protocol
users, and accomplish this goal on a technology neutral basis. The bill
also establishes specific criminal penalties for the fraudulent
acquisition or disclosure of such records without the consent of the
consumer.
More specifically, the bill prohibits third parties from purchasing
or receiving confidential phone records information without the prior
authorization of the consumer, or knowing or having reason to know that
the information was obtained fraudulently. It exempts use of
information by any covered entity if such use would be permissible
under existing laws governing the handling of such information by
telecommunications carriers. This exception includes any uses by
agents, contractors, or joint venture partners to receive the
confidential phone records acting on behalf of the covered entity to
perform any of the functions permitted under existing law.
The bill also provides enhanced criminal penalties for anyone who
engages in large scale operations to violate the law, or who discloses
or uses fraudulently obtained confidential phone records information in
furtherance of crimes of violence, including domestic violence and
stalking, or to kill, injure or intimidate a witness, juror,
confidential informant, or law enforcement officer.
The bill under consideration today incorporates several technical and
conforming changes to the text that was reported unanimously by the
Judiciary Committee on March 2 this year. This bipartisan legislation
is supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Center For
Victims of Crime, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet
Association, and all of the major land line and mobile telephone
companies.
I commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet,
and Intellectual Property, Lamar Smith, for introducing this important
measure. I also want to thank Judiciary Committee Ranking Member
Conyers, Congressman Goodlatte, and Congressman Scott for their
contributions to this legislation.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 4709 provides consumers with important new
protections for the confidentiality of their calling records without
compromising the legitimate lawful interests of law enforcement,
emergency services and cellular telephone service providers. I urge my
colleagues to support this sensible piece of legislation and hope that
the Members of the other body will consider and pass this bill
expeditiously.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Drake). Without objection, the 20
minutes will be controlled by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I rise with great pleasure and enthusiasm as one of the supporters of
this legislation, Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006,
H.R. 4709; and I am pleased to acknowledge Mr. Lamar Smith and John
Conyers as the original sponsors of this legislation.
I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I add my applause
to legislation that makes several important and noteworthy changes to
current law.
First and foremost, it establishes a new criminal offense against
anyone who knowingly and intentionally obtains or attempts to obtain
the confidential phone records of a third party through any one of the
bill's several enumerated schemes or devices to defraud. Penalties for
violating this prohibition include a fine or a term of imprisonment of
not more than 20 years, or both.
Second, the bill establishes a new set of criminal penalties for
anyone who knowingly and intentionally sells or purchases the
confidential phone records of a third party without proper
authorization or knowing that such records were obtained through fraud.
Violators of either of these two provisions are subjected to a maximum
term of imprisonment of up to 5 years.
Finally, in an effort to offer increased protection to the likely
victims of such activities, this legislation includes a series of
enhanced criminal penalties against any individual who engages in any
one of the aforementioned crimes knowing that such information was
sought in furtherance of or with the intent to commit any one of the
bill's dozen or so enumerated offenses. Individuals specifically
protected under this provision include potential victims of domestic-
violence-related offenses, jurors, criminal witnesses, confidential
informants, and law enforcement officers.
Recent investigations undertaken by State and Federal law enforcement
officials have demonstrated the ease with which an individual can
obtain the confidential calling records of a third party. By simply
contacting one of the
[[Page H1692]]
many on-line data brokers that currently exist, the private records of
anyone sitting in this room could be filtered into the public domain
within a matter of minutes.
And if put into the wrong hands, such information could be used to
commit countless crimes of violence, including acts of domestic
violence, retaliatory acts against law enforcement officers, or acts
aimed at undermining our current criminal justice system.
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to note that as we fight the
crime of identity theft, this new and innovative legislation puts a
dagger in some aspects of that. For example, the records of high-
ranking officials dealing with government business could be secured,
whether it is local, State or Federal, and put various actions of the
government in jeopardy.
And, yes, a law enforcement officer that may be undercover, those
records can be secured and immediately put that law enforcement officer
in great jeopardy of his or her life.
And, finally, for those of us who are parents, we understand what it
means to be able to communicate with a young person through a cell
phone. Just imagine a stalker or a child predator securing those
records of your teenage son or daughter. What a horrific thought to
think.
And so it is important that this legislation be passed for the
protection of Americans all over this country and as well for the
integrity of our technology system.
The bill before us seeks to stop these potential abuses from becoming
a reality, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile
measure.
I am pleased to acknowledge Lamar Smith and John Conyers as the
original sponsors of this bill. This legislation makes several
important and noteworthy changes to current law.
First and foremost, it establishes a new criminal offense against
anyone who knowingly and intentionally obtains, or attempts to obtain,
the confidential phone records of a third party through any one of the
bill's several enumerated schemes or devices to defraud. Penalties for
violating this prohibition include a fine or a term of imprisonment of
not more than 20 years, or both.
Second, the bill establishes a new set of criminal penalties for
anyone who knowingly and intentionally sells or purchases the
confidential phone records of a third party, without proper
authorization or knowing that such records were obtained through fraud.
Violators of either of these two provisions are subjected to a maximum
term of imprisonment of up to 5 years.
Finally, in an effort to offer increased protection to the likely
victims of such activities, the legislation includes a series of
enhanced criminal penalties against any individual who engages in any
one of the aforementioned crimes knowing that such information was
sought in furtherance of, or with the intent to commit any one of the
bill's dozen or so enumerated offenses. Individuals specifically
protected under this provision include potential victims of domestic-
violence related offenses, jurors, criminal witnesses, confidential
informants and law enforcement officers.
Recent investigations that have been undertaken by State and Federal
law enforcement officials have demonstrated the ease with which an
individual can obtain the confidential calling records of a third
party. By simply contacting one of the many online data brokers that
currently exist, the private records of anyone sitting in this room
could be filtered into the public domain within a matter of minutes.
And, if put into the wrong hands, such information could be used to
commit countless crimes of violence, including acts of domestic
violence, retaliatory attacks against law enforcement officers, or acts
aimed at undermining our current criminal justice system.
The bill before us seeks to stop these potential abuses from becoming
a reality. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile
measure.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the author of the bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, since I introduced this
legislation, I rise in strong support of the Telephone Records and
Privacy Protection Act of 2006, the TRAPP Act. And I want to thank
Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership and continuing support of
this bicameral and bipartisan bill.
Madam Speaker, few things are more personal and potentially more
revealing than our telephone records. Who we call can reveal much about
our business and personal lives, including intimate details about one's
medical or financial condition. Calling records can even be used to
identify a caller's location. In some cases the unauthorized release of
personal information like a phone record can lead to a tragic result.
Unfortunately, existing Federal statutes that could be used to target
data thieves are inadequate. These statutes have clearly not deterred
data burglars from treating confidential phone record information as a
commodity to be bought and sold over the Internet without the consent
of consumers, sometimes for as little as $100.
The underlying bill targets companies and individuals who traffic in
fraudulently obtained confidential phone records and provides new
protections for the privacy of calling logs themselves. It establishes
a new section, 1039, in title 18 of the United States Code, that will
provide explicit penalties for those who use fraud to obtain
confidential phone records.
Madam Speaker, the bill imposes a prison sentence of up to 10 years
and a fine of up to $500,000 on any person who, in interstate commerce,
sells, transfers, purchases or receives confidential phone records of a
telephone company without the prior consent of the consumer.
The bill includes enhanced penalties for cases where the information
is used in furtherance of crimes of domestic violence or a threat to
law enforcement officials or their families.
We need to pass this bill to demonstrate that we take seriously the
obligation to protect the confidentiality of consumer telephone records
and to make clear to data thieves that their conduct will result in a
felony conviction.
This legislation supports crime victims, prosecutors, and companies
and individuals who have been the targets of this fraud. A companion
measure is expected to be introduced soon in the Senate.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, at this time I have no further
speakers, and I am prepared to yield back if the gentlewoman from Texas
will yield back.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I include the following
letters of support for this legislation:
Consumers Union,
Washington, DC., February 8, 2006.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Schumer, Specter and Nelson: Consumers Union,
the publisher of Consumer Reports, supports the Consumer
Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006, S. 2178, and
applauds your leadership on this critical consumer issue.
The Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act would go far
in protecting consumers' private telephone records. Consumers
have a reasonable expectation that their calling records will
not be released to anyone other than themselves. Congress
must meet that expectation by preventing stalkers, identity
thieves, and shady data-brokers from accessing consumers'
personal telephone calling records. Subjecting to criminal
penalties the selling of those records and the practice of
pretexting to obtain them will serve as a strong deterrence.
Importantly, instead of simply reaffirming Federal Trade
Commission authority to enforce penalties against unfair and
deceptive trade practices, the Consumer Telephone Records
Protection Act ensures that other federal entities are
empowered to protect consumers' calling records.
Additionally, the bill covers all wireline, wireless and VoIP
services, protecting the rights of consumers to keep their
phoning records private regardless of which platform they
use.
We look forward to working with you toward adoption of S.
2178 as well as other complementary measures required to
protect consumers phone records. These include stronger
enforcement powers and penalties for FTC and the Federal
Communications Commission; mandatory consumer notice when
calling records have been requested or provided to any party;
requirements that consumers affirmatively opt-in before any
of their records are shared, even with affiliates of the
phone company; and finally, provisions strengthening carrier
internal processes for safeguarding consumer information
under Section 222 of the 1934 Communications Act, with tough
penalties for noncompliance.
We applaud your swift action and thank you for your
leadership to protect consumers. We look forward to working
with you toward effective, enforceable consumer phone record
privacy legislation.
[[Page H1693]]
We look forward to working with you toward enactment of
this important legislation.
Respectfully,
Jeannine Kenney,
Senior Policy Analyst.
____
Verizon Wireless Applauds Cell Phone Privacy Bill
Bedminster, NJ.--Senators Charles Schumer of New York,
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Bill Nelson of Florida
proposed legislation in the U.S. Senate today to make it a
crime for someone to obtain cell phone customer calling or
billing information under false pretenses or for a wireless
company employee to sell such customer information. Verizon
Wireless issued the following statement from Steve
Zipperstein, vice president of legal & external affairs, in
response to the filing:
``As the first wireless company in the U.S. to take legal
action to protect cell phone customers' private account
information from so-called online data brokers, Verizon
Wireless applauds the efforts of Senators Schumer, Specter
and Nelson to protect our customers' privacy from the crooks
and predators who we've been hauling into civil court. The
criminal penalties in this bill will provide another powerful
weapon in the legal arsenal that the private sector and the
government can use to protect consumers. We believe this
legislation will give federal prosecutors and others in law
enforcement the tools they need to crack down on this
despicable practice and help defend the privacy of U.S. cell
phone customers.''
Verizon Wireless' record of aggressively protecting
customer privacy has put the company at the forefront of the
U.S. wireless industry.
On September 15, 2005, Verizon Wireless secured a permanent
injunction against Source Resources Inc, a Tennessee-based
company, to halt its illegal practice of obtaining and
selling confidential customer telephone records. Verizon
Wireless brought the lawsuit, believed to be the first of its
kind, after one of its customers reported that his
confidential wireless phone records had been secured without
his permission by Source Resources. http://news.vzw.com/news/
2005/09/pr2005-09-15.html
On November 9, 2005, Verizon Wireless obtained an immediate
injunction against Global Information Group (GIG) of Temple
Terrace, FL after the company made ``thousands of attempts''
to gather confidential information without proper
authorization and used various fraudulent ``schemes'' to do
so, including impersonating Verizon Wireless employees and
posing as Verizon Wireless customers. The suit is pending.
http://news.vzw.com/news/2005/11/pr2005-11-09a.html
In other actions to protect customer privacy: Verizon
Wireless won permanent injunctions to stop two telemarketing
firms--Intelligent Alternatives of San Diego, CA, and Resort
Marketing Trends of Coral Springs, FL,--from making calls to
Verizon Wireless customers by using auto-dialers and recorded
messages. Federal consumer protection law prohibits use of
auto-dialers or pre-recorded messages in calls to cell
phones--http://news.vzw.com/news/2005/12/pr2005-12-09.html
Verizon Wireless filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction
against Passport Holidays of Ormond Beach, FL for violating
federal and state laws after it sent more than 98,000
unsolicited short text messages to Verizon Wireless customers
informing them they supposedly had won a cruise to the
Bahamas and asking them to call to claim their prize--http://
news.vzw.com/news/2005/11/pr2005-11-23.html
In August 2004, Verizon Wireless obtained an injunction
against Rhode Island resident Jacob Brown, a known spammer
who had been sending numerous text message solicitations to
Verizon Wireless customers--http://news.vzw.com/news/2004/08/
pr2004-08-30.html
In June 2004, Verizon Wireless broke with the wireless
industry by becoming the first to announce it would protect
customer privacy by refusing to participate in a national
wireless phone directory--http://news.vzw.com/news/2004/06/
pr2004-06-21.html
____
Sprint Nextel Sues To Shut Down Online Services That Illegally Obtain
and Sell Confidential Telephone Records
Reston, VA.--(Business Wire)--Jan. 27, 2006--Sprint Nextel
Corp. (NYSE:S) announced today that it has filed a lawsuit
against the parent company of four online data brokers that
use illegal and deceptive practices to obtain and sell
wireless customer call detail records. Sprint Nextel states
within the Complaint that 1st Source Information Specialists
Inc., parent company of www.locatecell.com,
www.celltolls.com, www.datafind.org and
www.peoplesearchamerica.com, employs fraudulent tactics, such
as posing as customers seeking information about their own
accounts, to access cell phone logs and phone numbers.
In the suit filed today in Florida, Sprint Nextel states
that the schemes conducted by these fraudulent online
services invade the privacy of Sprint Nextel's customers.
Sprint Nextel has requested both temporary and permanent
injunctions against 1st Source Information Specialists Inc.
``Protection of confidential customer information is our
number one priority and we are taking aggressive action to
ensure that any threat to privacy is eliminated
immediately,'' said Kent Nakamura, vice president for telecom
management and chief privacy officer for Sprint Nextel. ``1st
Source Information Specialists continues to display egregious
disregard for privacy, and previous industry-driven actions
do not appear to have deterred their illegal activities. We
can assure our customers that we will make every effort to
put these services out of business.''
To further demonstrate its commitment to protecting
consumer privacy, Sprint Nextel is supporting federal
legislation that seeks to increase criminal and/or civil
penalties against third party companies that fraudulently
seek to obtain, sell or distribute customer records. In
particular, Sprint Nextel hails legislation crafted by
senators Charles Schumer of New York, Arlen Specter of
Pennsylvania and Bill Nelson of Florida for its provisions
that make it illegal to obtain telephone customer records,
and that stiffen prison sentences and fines for those
companies fraudulently selling information. Sprint Nextel
looks forward to working with these senators and other
members of Congress to pass the legislation that best
protects consumers and ends this fraudulent practice.
In addition to launching a legal assault on these illegal
activities, Sprint Nextel's corporate security and customer
care teams employ safeguards to protect confidential customer
information from unauthorized access. Sprint Nextel customer
service agents have been made aware of the fraudulent tactics
used by online data brokers, and they are trained to follow
detailed authentication procedures when responding to
customer inquiries. Sprint Nextel's security practices were
validated in 2005 when the company was awarded the ``Best
Practice in Security for Governance'' by the Aberdeen Group.
Sprint Nextel strongly encourages its customers to take
precautions to protect themselves. In particular, Sprint
Nextel recommends that customers regularly change passwords
used to access account information on the Sprint.com web site
or when calling customer care, and select unique passwords to
access voicemail messages on Sprint phones. For additional
customer privacy tips, please go to www.sprint.com/privacy.
____
County of Los Angeles,
Monterey Park, CA, March 29, 2006.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
United States Senate Bill 2178--Support Consumer Telephone Records
Protection Act of 2006 as Introduced on January 18, 2006
Dear Senator Schumer: The Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department is proud to support your United States Senate Bill
2178 (S. 2178). This Bill would prohibit the obtaining, by
fraud or other unauthorized means, of confidential phone
record information.
Recently, there has been a lot of media focus regarding the
sale of another's cell phone records over the internet. Many
companies, charging as little as $20, offer to research and
provide a month's worth of cell phone call information, no
questions asked.
With the above in mind, S. 2178 seeks to correct this
serious situation by prohibiting another from obtaining this
information under false pretense or selling such information
by any person, including an employee of the provider.
As Sheriff of Los Angeles County, I support S. 2178. Should
you need further assistance regarding this issue please do
not hesitate to contact me directly at (323) 526-5000, or my
Legislative Advocate, Sergeant Wayne Bilowit, at (323) 240-
5696.
Sincerely,
LeRoy D. Baca,
Sheriff
____
T-Mobile Sues Cell Record Brokers for Criminal Profiteering
Bellevue, WA., January 23, 2006--In an effort to restrain
the unlawful activities of entities that attempt to
fraudulently obtain confidential customer information, T-
Mobile USA, Inc. is bringing legal action against online data
brokers the company believes are involved in illegitimately
obtaining and selling call records. Acting under Washington
State criminal profiteering laws, T-Mobile today filed suit
in King County, Wash., Superior Court seeking an injunction
to stop Locatecell.com, as well as related companies and
individuals, from engaging in such illegal behavior. T-Mobile
also is prepared to take similar legal action against other
believed violators.
``To further safeguard the privacy of our customers, T-
Mobile is taking action to prosecute these online data
brokers to the fullest extent permitted by the law,'' said
Dave Miller, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, T-
Mobile USA. ``For the protection of all wireless customers,
their illegal actions must be stopped.''
T-Mobile also endorses the need for federal legislation
making it a crime for anyone to obtain, sell or distribute,
through fraudulent means, the private calling records of
mobile phone customers.
``T-Mobile supports adoption of federal legislation making
it clear that fraudulent activities by third parties to
obtain, sell, or distribute call records is a crime,'' said
Tom Sugrue, T-Mobile's Vice President of Government Affairs.
``Legislation should address the deplorable and deceptive
actions of these third-party brokers who illegitimately
obtain and sell call records without the knowledge or consent
of wireless customers. We
[[Page H1694]]
applaud the FCC's recent citations against brokers that have
defied its subpoenas.''
Legislation introduced by Sens. Schumer, Specter and Nelson
and co-sponsored by Sens. Burns and Reid, takes particular
aim at these perpetrators, defined as anyone who sells or
obtains confidential customer information through deception
or unauthorized access to a telephone company's data. T-
Mobile commends this bipartisan group of Senators for
targeting privacy predators such as online brokers in an
effort to bolster protections for consumers. T-Mobile looks
forward to working with members of Congress to resolve this
important privacy concern.
As a result of data uncovered during a continuing, thorough
internal investigation, T-Mobile had issued numerous cease
and desist letters against companies that were believed to
have illegally obtained and sold phone-calling records of
some of its customers.
T-Mobile reiterates that it is important for customers to
continue to take steps to protect their accounts by utilizing
passwords. T-Mobile urges all users of mobile phone services
to take the following password protection steps:
Create separate passwords for voicemail, online access, and
for use when calling customer care about your billing
account.
Set complex passwords using both numbers and letters where
appropriate.
Avoid common passwords such as birth dates, family or pet
names and street addresses.
Change your passwords at least every 60 days.
Memorize your passwords.
Don't share passwords with anyone.
``T-Mobile takes customer privacy seriously. Customer
protection is a primary concern. We have invested millions of
dollars to help protect customer information, and we continue
to further reinforce our systems. Our customer phone records
are not for sale,'' said Sugrue. ``We encourage Congress and
the FCC to act swiftly to bring the illegal activity of
online data brokers to an end.''
____
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, since I introduced this
legislation, I rise in strong support of the ``Telephone Records and
Privacy Protection Act of 2006 (the TRAPP Act).''
And I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership and
continuing support of this bicameral and bipartisan bill.
Madam Speaker, few things are more personal and potentially more
revealing than our phone records.
Who we call can reveal much about our business and personal lives,
including intimate details about one's medical or financial condition.
Calling records can even be used to identify a caller's location.
In some cases, the unauthorized release of personal information like
a phone record can lead to a tragic result.
Unfortunately, existing Federal statutes that could be used to target
data thieves are inadequate.
These statutes have clearly not deterred data burglars from treating
confidential phone records information as a commodity, to be bought and
sold on the Internet, without the consent of consumers, for about $100.
The underlying bill targets companies and individuals who traffic in
fraudulently obtained confidential phone records and provides new
protections for the privacy of calling logs.
It establishes a new section 1039 in Title 18 of the United States
Code that will provide explicit penalties for those who use fraud to
obtain confidential phone records.
The bill imposes a prison sentence of up to 10 years and a fine of up
to $500,000 on any person who in interstate commerce sells, transfers,
purchases or receives confidential phone records of a telephone company
without the prior consent of the customer.
The bill includes enhanced penalties for cases where the information
is used in furtherance of crimes of domestic violence or threat to law
enforcement officers or their families.
We need to pass this bill to demonstrate that we take seriously the
obligation to protect the confidentiality of consumer telephone records
and to make clear to data thieves that their conduct will result in a
felony conviction.
This legislation supports crime victims, prosecutors, and companies
and individuals who have been the targets of this fraud.
A companion measure is expected to be introduced soon in the Senate.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4709,
the Law Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act. I was pleased to
join with Representatives Smith, Conyers and Scott to introduce this
important legislation to protect phone records from thieves and
opportunists.
The sale of confidential phone records is a serious problem. for
approximately $100, anyone can buy an individual's private cell phone
call history. These histories catalogue every outgoing and incoming
call a customer makes or receives. This information should not be
available for unauthorized sale on the Internet.
The primary method thieves use to obtain this information is known as
``pretexting''. This involves an individual with some key information--
a cell phone number or possibly a Social Security Number--pretending to
be the subscriber to get information about an account. The Law
Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act puts a stop to this by
imposing criminal penalties for ``pretexting,'' As well as other
methods of seeking to obtain such records through the use of fraud.
Furthermore, this legislation will provide additional punishment for
those who illegally sell or obtain phone records knowing they will be
used in a criminal act. This is extremely important for the protection
of law enforcement officers and potential victims of domestic violence,
whose call histories may be particularly desireable to those who wish
to do them harm.
We all use telephones and cell phones with the assumption that
information about who we receive calls from and make calls to will not
fall into the wrong hands. I urge the members of the house to support
this legislation to ensure that phone records are protected.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Law
Enforcement and Phone Privacy Protection Act of 2006.
As America continues to prosper, cell phones are becoming
increasingly central to our everyday lives. We use this technology to
keep in closer contact with our families, manage our livelihoods, and
stay in touch with friends. We trust that the records of private
conversations remain safe. Law enforcement must have the tools
necessary to ensure the privacy of our cell phone records and prosecute
those who invade our lives.
Today, criminals can use our cell phone records to expose a
government informant, steal our personal information, or commit other
forms of fraud.
This bill takes strong action to protect the privacy of American's
cell phone records. By providing tough new protections, we can better
ensure the privacy of confidential cell phone records. Law enforcement
and prosecutors can impose serious criminal penalties on those who
unlawfully invade and use our cell phone records.
Congress has a duty to protect all Americans and their confidential
cell phone records.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be an
original cosponsor of this bill. I believe it provides critical privacy
protections to the more than 180 million Americans who use cell phones.
It will also protect the privacy of more than 100 million American
homes with wired telephones. And it will protect Voice over IP users,
now more than 2 million Americans and rapidly rising.
I think we've heard too many stories of how easy it is to
fraudulently obtain cell phone call records and even cell phone
locations. We've heard of how one political blog bought Wesley Clark's
cell phone records, but the fact is lots of ordinary Americans have
reason to be concerned about the privacy of their phone records.
Imagine what a criminal organization could do with the cell phone call
records of an undercover law enforcement agent, or what an abuser could
do with a spouse's cell phone location. No one should be able to get
another person's phone records through fraud, and this bill makes it a
crime to purchase or use phone records obtained through fraud.
I want to thank Chairman Smith of the Intellectual Property
Subcommittee and Ranking Member Conyers of the Judiciary Committee for
their leadership in drafting this legislation, which I believe
represents a sensible, bipartisan solution to a growing problem. I urge
my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask the support of this
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4709, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
[[Page H1695]]
____________________