Social Security Numbers: Stronger Protections Needed When	 
Contractors Have Access to SSNs (23-JAN-06, GAO-06-238).	 
                                                                 
Recent data breaches highlight how identity theft may occur when 
businesses share individuals' personal information, including	 
Social Security Numbers (SSNs), with contractors. Because private
sector entities are more likely to share consumers' personal	 
information via contractors, members of Congress raised concerns 
about the protection of this information in contractual 	 
relationships. In response, GAO examined (1) how entities within 
certain industries share SSNs with contractors; (2) the 	 
safeguards and notable industry standards in place to ensure the 
protection of SSNs when shared with contractors; and (3) how	 
federal agencies regulate and monitor the sharing and		 
safeguarding of SSNs between private entities and their 	 
contractors.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-238 					        
    ACCNO:   A45457						        
  TITLE:     Social Security Numbers: Stronger Protections Needed When
Contractors Have Access to SSNs 				 
     DATE:   01/23/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Contractors					 
	     Identity theft					 
	     Information disclosure				 
	     Information security				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Privacy policies					 
	     Private sector					 
	     Safeguards 					 
	     Social security number				 
	     Standards						 
	     Information sharing				 
	     Policies and procedures				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-238

     

     * Results in Brief
     * Background
     * Private Sector Companies We Interviewed Routinely Use Third
          * Private Sector Companies We Interviewed Obtain and Use SSNs
          * Private Sector Companies We Interviewed Contract Various Ser
          * Private Sector Companies We Interviewed Only Share SSNs with
     * Private Sector Companies We Interviewed Have Established Saf
          * Provisions in Selected Service Provider Contracts Help Safeg
          * Selected Companies Follow a Common Process in Selecting Cont
          * Some Industry Associations Provide Outsourcing Guidance, and
     * Federal Regulation and Oversight of SSN Sharing Varies Widel
          * Federal Oversight in the Financial Services Sector Is Extens
               * Bank Regulatory Agencies Monitor Compliance with GLBA throug
               * SEC and Self-Regulatory Agencies Also Use Examinations to Ov
          * Tax Preparers Must Follow IRS and FTC Information Nondisclos
          * No Federal Law Requires Safeguards for SSNs Collected or Sha
          * State Laws Also Affect the Disclosure and Sharing of SSNs wi
     * Conclusions
     * Matter for Congressional Consideration
     * Agency Comments
          * Order by Mail or Phone

Report to Congressional Requesters

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

January 2006

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

Stronger Protections Needed When Contractors Have Access to SSNs

SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors Ns and
Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors
SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and
Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors
SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and
Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors
SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and
Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors
SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and
Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors
SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and Contractors SSNs and
Contractors

GAO-06-238

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2
Background 5
Private Sector Companies We Interviewed Routinely Use Third Party
Contractors and Occasionally Share SSNs with Them 9
Private Sector Companies We Interviewed Have Established Safeguards to
Protect SSNs 13
Federal Regulation and Oversight of SSN Sharing Varies Widely Among the
Industries We Reviewed 19
Conclusions 29
Matter for Congressional Consideration 29
Agency Comments 29
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 31
Appendix II Summary of Federal Bank Supervisory Agency Guidance on
Contracting with Technology Service Providers 34
Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 36

Table

Table 1: Aspects of Selected Federal Laws That Affect Private Sector
Disclosure of Personal Information 6

Abbreviations

SSN Social Security Number

CPNI Customer Proprietary Network Information

ERO Electronic Return Originator

FACTA Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FCRA Fair Credit Reporting Act

FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

FFIEC Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

FTC Federal Trade Commission

GLBA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

IRC Internal Revenue Code

IRS Internal Revenue Service

OCC Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

OTS Office of Thrift Supervision

SEC Securities and Exchange Commission

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

January 23, 2006 January 23, 2006

The Honorable Jim McCrery Chairman Subcommittee on Social Security
Committee on Ways and Means House of Representatives The Honorable Jim
McCrery Chairman Subcommittee on Social Security Committee on Ways and
Means House of Representatives

The Honorable E. Clay Shaw House of Representatives The Honorable E. Clay
Shaw House of Representatives

Today, the Social Security number (SSN) is a vital piece of information
needed to function in American society. United States' citizens and legal
residents need an SSN to obtain employment, a driver's license, or
government benefits, among other uses. For these reasons, the SSN is
highly sought by individuals seeking to create false identities or commit
financial fraud or both. In light of the number of reported data breaches
over the past year and the rising reports of identity theft, there are
concerns about the way businesses and other organizations obtain, use, and
safeguard the SSNs in their possession. A recent series of data breaches
has highlighted how identity theft may occur when governments or
businesses share individuals' personal information with contractors. For
example, in 2005, it was reported that one financial service company's
consumer information was compromised when the shipping company it
contracted with lost data storage tapes that contained the account
information, including SSNs, of roughly 4 million individuals. Today, the
Social Security number (SSN) is a vital piece of information needed to
function in American society. United States' citizens and legal residents
need an SSN to obtain employment, a driver's license, or government
benefits, among other uses. For these reasons, the SSN is highly sought by
individuals seeking to create false identities or commit financial fraud
or both. In light of the number of reported data breaches over the past
year and the rising reports of identity theft, there are concerns about
the way businesses and other organizations obtain, use, and safeguard the
SSNs in their possession. A recent series of data breaches has highlighted
how identity theft may occur when governments or businesses share
individuals' personal information with contractors. For example, in 2005,
it was reported that one financial service company's consumer information
was compromised when the shipping company it contracted with lost data
storage tapes that contained the account information, including SSNs, of
roughly 4 million individuals.

Businesses and other institutions routinely use outside contractors to
perform activities or functions related to their operations. In some
cases, the businesses perform a particular function or activity but
nonetheless decide to contract it out-a practice widely known as
outsourcing. In other cases, outside contractors are hired to perform
tasks that a company does not have the capacity to perform itself, such as
computer systems maintenance or doing credit checks. When a business has
collected personal information from its customers and shares that
information with its contractors, the contractors become third party users
of that information. Because private sector entities are increasing their
use of contractors and are more likely to share personal information about
customers with them, including SSNs, you asked that we determine (1) how
entities within certain industries share SSNs with contractors; (2) the
safeguards and notable industry standards in place to ensure the
Businesses and other institutions routinely use outside contractors to
perform activities or functions related to their operations. In some
cases, the businesses perform a particular function or activity but
nonetheless decide to contract it out-a practice widely known as
outsourcing. In other cases, outside contractors are hired to perform
tasks that a company does not have the capacity to perform itself, such as
computer systems maintenance or doing credit checks. When a business has
collected personal information from its customers and shares that
information with its contractors, the contractors become third party users
of that information. Because private sector entities are increasing their
use of contractors and are more likely to share personal information about
customers with them, including SSNs, you asked that we determine (1) how
entities within certain industries share SSNs with contractors; (2) the
safeguards and notable industry standards in place to ensure the
protection of SSNs shared during such contracting; and (3) how federal
agencies regulate and monitor the sharing and safeguarding of SSNs between
the entities they oversee and the entities' third party contractors.

We focus in this report on the uses and protections of SSNs when they are
shared with contractors and subcontractors within the banking, securities,
telecommunications, and tax preparation industries. We selected these
industries because they are known to collect personal information,
including SSNs, and outsourcing and information security experts we
interviewed said these industries were among the most likely to share SSNs
with contractors. We conducted interviews with 12 companies in these
industries, five companies that provide services under contract, and six
associations for these industries to better understand why they use the
SSN and the types of contracts in which SSNs are shared. To identify
safeguards and notable industry practices that were followed, we reviewed
standard contract forms from companies in the four selected industries. We
also asked companies we met with about the safeguards they had in place to
protect SSNs, and we reviewed some of their policies and procedures.
However, we did not verify the extent to which these businesses comply
with their own policies, procedures, and safeguards. To determine the
federal and state laws relevant to the sharing of consumer information
during third party contracting, we questioned federal and state
agencies-such as Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), banking regulators,
and California's Office of Privacy Protection-as well as company and
industry association officials about the relevant laws that govern the
private sector's ability to share consumer information with a third party.

We conducted our work between July 2004 and January 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards. Appendix I discusses our scope
and methodology in further detail.

                                Results in Brief

Officials we interviewed from banks, securities firms, telecommunication
firms, and tax preparation firms all said their companies engaged in third
party contracting, but only share SSNs with their contractors for limited
purposes. Company officials told us that they collect SSNs from their
clients for identification purposes and, in some cases, because companies
are required to by federal law, such as for taxpayer identification
purposes or to verify a customer's identity in an effort to combat money
laundering and other financial crimes. These officials also said that they
used contractors for various reasons, such as financial statement
processing, maintenance services, and information technology management.
In some cases, officials said their companies shared SSNs with contractors
for administrative and data management functions. For example, one tax
preparation company we interviewed said that it shared SSNs with a data
storage company that archived and managed its paper files. Officials from
several banks said that they would share SSNs with contractors to comply
with federal customer verification requirements, while officials from a
securities firm told us they shared SSNs with a contractor that collects
delinquent payments for a mortgage division it acquired. Additionally, one
telecommunication company also told us that it shares SSNs and other
personal information with its customer contact center contractor for
customer verification.

Companies we interviewed in the four industries relied on accepted
industry practices and primarily used the terms of the companies'
contracts to safeguard personal information, including SSNs they shared
with outside contractors. According to our discussions with company
officials and our review of contract documents, most of the companies'
standard contract forms included several types of safeguards to prevent
the unauthorized use or disclosure of their customers' personal
information, which was consistent with documented widespread industry
practices for sharing confidential information with contractors. We also
found that most companies' have developed procedures for identifying and
reviewing suitable contractors, and adopting safeguards for consumer
information shared with those contractors. In addition, 12 companies
reported that their contracts contain audit provisions to evaluate
contractual compliance. Finally, some banking and securities industry
associations have developed voluntary guidance for their members regarding
the sharing of personal information with third parties, although banking
and securities officials said they relied more on generally accepted
practices for protecting personal information and guidance from federal
regulators than from professional associations.

Federal regulation and oversight of SSN sharing varies among the four
industries:

           o  In the banking and securities industries, companies must comply
           with the provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) to
           establish safeguards that protect the confidentiality of personal
           information of customers or clients. GLBA generally permits
           financial institutions to share customers' personal information
           with contractors without customers' permission, provided that
           institutions fully disclose they are doing so and enter into
           contracts requiring the contractor to maintain the confidentiality
           of the information. However, financial institutions may share
           customers' personal information without their permission under
           other limited circumstances. Through periodic examinations of bank
           and securities dealers and service provider exams, the federal
           agencies with oversight responsibility for these entities review
           their compliance with the agencies' GLBA regulations.

           o  Tax preparers are subject to Section 7216 of the Internal
           Revenue Code (IRC), IRS regulations, and FTC's GLBA regulations
           that generally prohibit disclosure of taxpayers' personal and
           tax-related information without the taxpayer's formal consent. IRS
           does not perform routine assessments to determine whether tax
           preparers are complying with IRS requirements. Regulations
           recently proposed by IRS state that tax preparers may, in certain
           circumstances, disclose a taxpayer's information to contractors
           they use, without that taxpayer's consent, for purposes related to
           preparing tax returns.1

           o  There are no clear federal protections for SSNs collected and
           shared by telecommunications firms. Although the
           Telecommunications Act of 1996 limits the ways in which
           telecommunications firms can use and disclose certain information
           about their customers, such as their call records, these
           limitations do not extend to SSNs. Therefore, the FCC-the federal
           agency responsible for overseeing the telecommunication
           industry-does not regulate how SSNs are used by telecommunications
           companies. However, under its authority to prohibit unfair
           business practices and subject to certain limitations, FTC may be
           able to take action against telecommunications firms that do not
           comply with their own company's privacy policies, but cannot
           enforce GLBA requirements on telecommunications companies because
           such companies are not considered financial institutions under the
           GLBA statute.

In addition to federal laws and regulations, company officials we met with
also said that certain state laws affect their ability to share SSNs with
third parties. Currently, California has a law affecting business
interactions with nonaffiliated third parties that requires the use of
reasonable security procedures to protect customers SSNs and other
personal information. Although other state laws the companies cited do not
explicitly regulate the sharing of SSNs or other personal information with
third party contractors, company officials we met with said these laws
indirectly affect how they share such information with their contractors.

1Specifically, the proposed regulations would allow tax return preparers
to disclose tax return information to contractors in connection with the
programming, maintenance, repair, testing, or procurement of equipment or
software used for purposes of tax return preparation only to the extent
necessary for the person to provide the contracted services, and only if
the tax preparer ensures that all individuals who are to receive
disclosures of tax return information receive a written notice that
informs them of the applicability of IRC sections 6713 and 7216 to them
and describes the requirements and penalties of section 6713 and 7216. 70
Fed. Reg. 72954 (Dec. 8, 2005).

Because the differences in the protections for SSNs shared with
contractors have allowed gaps to occur in federal law and oversight for
protection of SSNs, this report includes a Matter for Congressional
Consideration designed to address these gaps. In response to our draft
report, no agency provided a formal written response. However, six of the
seven agencies covered by our review provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate.

                                   Background

In recent years, companies have increasingly relied on the use of
contractors to perform certain activities and functions related to their
business operations. This trend has often been referred to as outsourcing.
However, no commonly recognized definition of outsourcing exists, and
there has been confusion over whether it encompasses only activities a
company originally performed in-house or includes any activity a company
may contract out. According to outsourcing experts, approximately 90
percent of businesses contract out some activity because they find either
it is more economical to do so or other companies are better able to
perform these activities. Some of the activities companies outsource will
require that contractors be provided personal information about the
companies' customers in order to perform those activities; in some cases,
this information includes SSNs.

Originally, the Social Security Administration (SSA) created the SSN as
part of a recordkeeping system to help manage the Social Security
program.2 SSA uses the SSN as a means to track workers' earnings and
eligibility for Social Security benefits and assigns a unique number to
every person as a work and retirement benefit record. Today, SSA generally
issues SSNs to all U.S. citizens, but they are also available to
non-citizens lawfully admitted to the United States as permanent
residents. However, because of the number's unique nature and broad
applicability, the SSN has become the identifier of choice for government
agencies and private businesses and is used for numerous non Social
Security purposes, such as opening a bank account and receiving health
insurance.

2The Social Security Act of 1935 created the Social Security Board and
authorized it to establish a record-keeping system. The board was renamed
the Social Security Administration in 1946.

As shown in table 1, certain federal laws have been enacted that place
restrictions on some private sector entities' use and disclosure of
consumers' personal information, including SSNs.

Table 1: Aspects of Selected Federal Laws That Affect Private Sector
Disclosure of Personal Information

Federal Laws                   Restrictions                                
Fair Credit Reporting Act of   Limits access to credit data that includes  
1970 (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. S:      SSNs to those who have a permissible        
1681b                          purpose under the law.                      
Fair and Accurate Credit       Amends FCRA to allow, among other things,   
Transactions Act of 2003       consumers who request a copy of their       
(FACTA), 15 U.S.C S: 1681g and credit report to also request that the      
S: 1681w                       first 5 digits of their SSN (or similar     
                                  identification number) not be included in   
                                  the file; requires consumer reporting       
                                  agencies and any business that uses a       
                                  consumer report to adopt procedures for     
                                  proper disposal.                            
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 Creates a new definition of nonpublic       
(GLBA), 15 U.S.C. S: 6801 - S: personal information that includes SSNs and 
6809                           limits when financial institutions may      
                                  disclose the information to nonaffiliated   
                                  third parties. It also requires that        
                                  financial services regulatory agencies      
                                  establish standards for the entities under  
                                  their agencies' jurisdiction relating to    
                                  administrative, technical, and physical     
                                  safeguards to:                              
                                                                              
                                     o  insure the security and               
                                     confidentiality of customer records and  
                                     information;                             
                                     o  protect against any anticipated       
                                     threats or hazards to the security or    
                                     integrity of such records; and           
                                     o  protect against unauthorized access   
                                     to or use of such records or information 
                                     that could result in substantial harm or 
                                     inconvenience to any customer.           

Source: GAO analysis of federal legislation.

To ensure compliance with these federal laws, some federal regulators
conduct examinations of their respective institutions' operations. For
example, in the financial industry, federal agencies, such as the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve Board (FRB),
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) regulate banking or securities firms. OCC
charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks, while FRB
regulates bank holding companies and state-chartered banks that are
members of the Federal Reserve System. FDIC regulates banks that are
state-chartered banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System.
These banking regulators examine banking institutions for safety and
soundness and compliance with applicable laws, including the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), and GLBA. SEC regulates and
examines investment advisers registered with the Commission and investment
companies, including mutual funds, that engage primarily in investing,
reinvesting, and trading in securities and that offer their own securities
to the investing public. SEC also regulates and examines other market
participants, including broker-dealers and self-regulatory organizations
(SRO). 3 As part of its examinations, SEC reviews these firms for
compliance with GLBA's safeguard provisions. In addition, SRO's such as
the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and National Association of Securities
Dealers (NASD) examine their member broker-dealers to ensure compliance
with applicable laws, self-regulatory rules, and SEC regulations,
including GLBA's safeguard provision.

In 1978, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)
was created as a formal interagency body authorized to prescribe uniform
principles, standards, and report forms for the federal examination of
financial institutions. The council's membership is composed of the
federal bank regulators-FDIC, FRB, OCC-plus the regulators for credit
unions and thrift institutions-the National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), respectively. The FFIEC
has issued guidance related to outsourcing services that provides a
framework for the FFIEC agencies to examine their banks' contractor
management programs and exercise enforcement options if financial
institutions do not establish and maintain adequate information security
programs. The FFIEC also coordinates examinations of banks' information
technology service providers and separate guidance has been issued for
conducting these examinations.

Along with OTS, the three bank regulators have jointly issued regulations
that generally require each financial institution to develop, implement,
and maintain, as part of its existing information security program,
appropriate measures to properly dispose of consumer information derived
from consumer reports.4 Together, these agencies have also issued
interpretive guidance requiring every financial institution to develop and
implement a response program, including customer notice provisions,
designed to address incidents of unauthorized access to customer
information maintained by the institution or its service provider.5 Under
the Bank Service Company Act, as amended, the federal banking agencies
have authority to regulate and examine certain services provided to banks
by third parties-including contractors-to the same extent as if those
services were performed directly by the bank.6

3A broker-dealer is any individual or firm in the business of buying and
selling securities for itself and others. Broker-dealers generally must
register with the SEC. When acting as a broker, a broker-dealer executes
orders on behalf of his/her client. When acting as a dealer, a
broker-dealer executes trades for his/her firm's own account.

469 Fed. Reg. 77610 (Dec. 28, 2004).

IRS is responsible for ensuring that tax preparers are complying with
certain confidentiality provisions in the IRC, primarily Section 7216. IRC
S: 7216 prohibits the unauthorized use or disclosure of tax return
information by tax return preparers. Tax return preparers are also subject
to GLBA. However, those provisions do not supersede, alter, or affect the
preexisting requirements of IRC S: 7216, although FTC has oversight and
enforcement authority over tax preparers' compliance with GLBA.

FCC is responsible for regulating interstate and international
communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable, and
enforcing the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which
restricts the use of customer proprietary network information (CPNI).7
CPNI is the data collected by telecommunications corporations on a
consumer's telephone calls. It includes the time, date, duration, and
destination number of each call, the type of network a consumer subscribes
to, and any other information that appears on the consumer's telephone
bill. SSNs are not part of CPNI.

FTC is an independent agency whose mission is, in part, to prevent
business practices that are anticompetitive, deceptive, or unfair to
consumers. As part of its responsibilities, FTC enforces consumer privacy
provisions and safeguards of FCRA, FACTA, and GLBA not enforced by other
federal agencies. FTC is also required to collect identity theft
complaints.

FTC statistics currently indicate that identity theft is growing. For
2004, FTC reported that it received about 247,000 complaints from
individuals stating that they were victims of identity fraud, which was up
from just over 86,000 complaints reported in 2001. While the reported
number of victims and likely identity crimes has increased, the extent to
which these statistics represent company security breaches is not well
documented. However, various news reports and identity crime experts have
attributed some identity thefts and credit card fraud to security breaches
involving third party companies.

570 Fed. Reg. 15736 (Mar. 29, 2005). The bank regulatory agencies jointly
issued this as interpretive guidance for GLBA and the joint guidelines
issued by the agencies for implementing GLBA's safeguard
requirements-Interagency Guidelines Establishing Information Security
Standards.

612 U.S.C. S: 1867(c).

747 U.S.C. S: 222.

 Private Sector Companies We Interviewed Routinely Use Third Party Contractors
                     and Occasionally Share SSNs with Them

Banks, securities firms, telecommunication companies, and tax preparation
companies we interviewed routinely obtain SSNs from their customers for
authentication and identification purposes. All the companies we
interviewed contracted out various services, such as data processing,
administrative, and customer service functions. Although these companies
may share consumer information, such as SSNs, with contractors that
provide services to their customers, company officials said that they only
share such information with their contractors for limited purposes,
generally when it is necessary or unavoidable.

Private Sector Companies We Interviewed Obtain and Use SSNs Primarily for
Identification Purposes

Officials from selected banking, securities, telecommunications, and tax
preparation companies told us that they obtain and use SSNs primarily for
authentication and identification purposes related to fraud prevention,
credit verification, and complying with federal law. However, these
officials told us that SSNs were not distinguished from other types of
customers' personally identifiable information.8 Company officials also
told us that the same safeguards applied to SSNs as all other pieces of
their customers' personal information.

Officials from banks and securities firms we interviewed said that their
companies obtained SSNs directly from their customers to comply with
federal law when the customer opened a new account or conducted certain
financial transactions. For example, the Bank Secrecy Act, as amended by
the USA Patriot Act mandates that, among other things, financial
institutions must verify each new account holder's identity when opening
an account, in an effort to curtail money laundering and terrorist
financing. According to company officials we interviewed, other federal
laws and regulations require both banks and securities firms to use SSNs
for tax-reporting and customer-identity-verification purposes. In
addition, some bank and securities firm officials said that due to its
uniqueness, their companies also incorporated the SSN into their fraud
prevention and authentication programs.

8Personally identifiable information refers to any information that
identifies or can be used to identify, contact, or locate the person to
whom such information pertains. This includes information that can easily
be derived, including, but not limited to, name, address, phone number,
fax number, email address, financial profiles, SSN, and credit card
information.

Telecommunication company officials we interviewed said that their
companies are not required by federal law to collect or use the SSN, but
that potential customers are asked to provide their SSN before
establishing an account. These officials explained that their companies
primarily use the SSN to query credit reporting agencies' records in order
to verify a potential customer's creditworthiness, without which their
companies would not be able to extend services to an individual quickly.
In those instances where an individual did not have an SSN or refused to
provide it, company officials said that their companies offered customers
the option of using a pre paid service or providing a monetary deposit.
Telecommunication companies we interviewed also used the SSN for customer
account authentication and verification as well as fraud prevention. For
example, officials from one company told us that they used the SSN as a
key piece of information to ensure that a person inquiring about their
account was the actual account holder.

Unlike the telecommunication companies, tax preparation companies are
required by federal law to collect and use SSNs. IRC requires that
individuals who have been assigned a number include their SSNs on their
tax returns as a taxpayer identification number and that such information
be kept confidential by these companies. Tax preparation officials and tax
industry representatives we interviewed said that they also used the SSN
as the identification number for refund payments to customers and other
internal purposes. For example, officials from one tax preparation company
told us that they used the SSN as the identification number for tracking
any additional taxes owed in the event of an error by the preparer.

Private Sector Companies We Interviewed Contract Various Services

Banks, securities firms, telecommunication companies, and tax preparation
entities we interviewed all contracted out services, such as
administrative, information technology, and customer service functions. We
found that every company we interviewed used contractors for a variety of
services, ranging from maintenance functions to software development. We
found the following examples:

           o  Officials from one bank told us that they contracted
           administrative functions such as financial statement processing
           and shipping services.
           o  Some banks contract out services, such as Internet banking,
           check imaging, telephone banking, and debit and ATM processing
           services.

           o  Officials from a securities firm told us that they contracted
           with software data vendors for the development and maintenance of
           specific data products.

           o  Tax preparation representatives told us that some individual
           tax preparers may contract with or use electronic return
           originators (ERO's).9

           o  Some financial sector regulators and industry representatives
           had conducted surveys to determine the types of services being
           contracted by the financial services industry. In 2004, economists
           from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Missouri, found that
           certain types of banks relied on third-party vendors to provide an
           array of services, such as electronic banking and payment
           processing.10 In addition, NYSE and NASD conducted a joint survey
           in 2004 of a select number of their members. The survey revealed
           that some of their member firms routinely contracted out
           accounting, finance, administrative, and information technology
           functions. NASD has specific restrictions that prohibit its
           members from contracting certain functions, such as supervisory
           and compliance activities.

Private Sector Companies We Interviewed Only Share SSNs with Contractors for
Limited Purposes

Banking, investment, telecommunication, and tax preparation officials we
interviewed said that they share SSNs with their contractors only for
limited purposes and even then, only when it is necessary or unavoidable.
In general, most of the financial services companies we spoke to said they
shared SSNs with contractors to assist with services involving

           o  employee background checks,
           o  debt collections,
           o  fraud prevention,
           o  accessing credit reports, and
           o  information technology, such as data management.

9EROs are individuals or companies that can file and transmit tax returns
to the IRS on behalf of individual preparers. However, ERO's generally do
not prepare the return.

10Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, "Technology Outsourcing: A
Community Bank Perspective." Financial Industry Perspectives (Fourth
Quarter 2004).

Officials from one securities firm said that they shared SSNs with their
contractors who assisted them in complying with federal customer
identification requirements. For example, some financial services company
officials told us that they used service providers to cross-reference
potential customers against a government-provided "watch list" of known
terrorists, suspected terrorists, and individuals being investigated for
possible suspicious activity. Some large financial service provider
officials also told us that in most cases their client only granted them
access to SSNs in those instances where they believed SSNs were needed,
such as when servicing their clients' accounts or storing data.

Telecommunication and tax preparation companies we interviewed also shared
SSNs for limited purposes. Telecommunication companies generally shared
SSNs with contractors for services, such as customer/client contact
centers, debt collection, and data storage functions.11 For example,
officials from one telecommunication company told us that they shared SSNs
and other personally identifiable information with their contracted
customer contact center. The company shared their customers' account
information, including SSNs, with contact center employees so that the
contracted employees could authenticate, identify, and service their
customers' accounts. However, company officials said that these employees
could only access account holder information needed to fulfill specific
requests and SSNs were not needed for some types of requests. According to
tax industry representatives, tax preparation companies shared SSNs with
their contractors primarily for administrative and data management
functions. For example, one tax preparation company told us that their
contractors had access to their customers' SSNs for services involving
data analysis and preparation of reports for internal company use,
tracking, and processing of customer services and archiving and storage of
tax return data.

Company officials we spoke to from all industries told us that they are
cautious about providing third party contractors access to their
customers' personal information, including SSNs. In many cases, company
officials cited multiple risk factors that could result if their
customer's sensitive data were exposed by their service providers, such as
compliance and reputation risks.12 For example, in the last year, several
large banks experienced data security breaches in which their customers'
personally identifiable information, including SSNs, was compromised,
exposing individuals' information to potential misuse. Many company
officials said that in order to reduce such risks, they consider multiple
financial and operational factors before sharing sensitive data, such as
SSNs, with their contractors. For example, bank officials from one bank
told us that they request the financial statements of their prospective
service providers to ensure that each service provider is financially
sound.

11A customer contact center services a company's customers by providing a
focused customer service orientation for priority requirements. For
example, some customer contact centers provide immediate access to
worldwide customers and customer service representatives 24 hours a day, 7
days a week for all supply and logistics problems and concerns.

 Private Sector Companies We Interviewed Have Established Safeguards to Protect
                                      SSNs

The private sector companies we contacted provided us with standard
contract forms they use in contracting with service providers to safeguard
customers' personal information, such as SSNs, from misuse. In general,
the types of provisions these companies included in their standard
contract forms included electronic and physical data protections, audit
rights, data breach notifications, subcontractor restrictions, and data
handling and disposal requirements. We found that most of the companies we
interviewed had established some type of due diligence or credentialing
process to verify the reliability of potential contractors prior to and
during contract negotiations. Furthermore, we found that some industry
associations have voluntarily developed guidance for their members
regarding the sharing of personal information with third parties.

Provisions in Selected Service Provider Contracts Help Safeguard SSNs from
Misuse

Private sector companies we contacted often included provisions in their
service provider standard contract forms to safeguard customers' personal
information, such as SSNs, from misuse. In general, these contract
provisions included but were not limited to

           o  electronic and physical data protections,
           o  audit rights,
           o  subcontractor restrictions,
           o  data breach notifications, and
           o  data-handling and disposal requirements.

12Compliance risk is the risk to earnings or capital arising from
violations of laws, rules, or regulations or from nonconformance with
internal policies and procedures or ethical standards. Reputation risk is
the risk to earnings or capital arising from negative public opinion.

While company officials told us that the extent to which they included
safeguard provisions varied with the type of service being contracted,
most said that they included the above safeguard provisions when sharing
personally identifiable information, including SSNs, with their
contractors. To verify these claims, we asked each company to provide us
with copies of their standard information security contract provisions and
any other policies and procedures associated with such agreements.13 Our
review of the standard contract forms and the associated documentation for
10 companies found that they included most of the above safeguard
provisions, but the level of specificity of the safeguard provisions
varied across company contracts. For example, each standard contract form
we reviewed included provisions requiring contractors to establish both
electronic and physical information security safeguards.14 However, in
many cases, the standard contract form did not require the contractor to
implement a specific type of electronic or physical safeguard, but only
made reference to employing overall administrative, technical, and
physical safeguards to prevent the unauthorized use or disclosure of their
customers' personal information, such as the SSN. Some company officials
told us that the information security safeguard provisions were
intentionally vague to provide the contractor with flexibility in
instituting such electronic and physical safeguards. However, we found
that one large service provider included specific security controls in its
standard contract form, which ranged from physical seals and alarms on
their data centers' exterior windows to the prohibition of printers on
computer terminals with access to sensitive data.

Almost all of the 10 standard contract forms we reviewed also granted
companies the right to audit their service providers with notice, which is
consistent with industry standards.15 For example, one tax preparation
company's standard contract provisions stated that the company had the
right to audit or independently evaluate any security processes or
controls, but would only exercise such rights in a manner that limited
unnecessary interference in the contractor's operations. In addition, most
company standard contract forms required service providers to obtain
written consent from the client company before employing a subcontractor
to conduct any service on the company's behalf. Some industry sector
officials told us that their standard contract forms contain provisions
that explicitly require subcontractors to comply with the same safeguard
requirements that the original contractor was required to follow. However,
some company officials in the securities industry stated that their
subcontractors are rarely granted access to consumer information, such as
SSNs.

13Although the majority of the companies we met with agreed to provide us
with this documentation, only 10 of the companies subsequently provided
it. Furthermore, some of the companies that did provide us with their
contracts only supplied us with excerpts of their contracts pertaining to
information security and privacy.

14In general, electronic safeguards restrict access to system resources
and involve effective control mechanisms that can limit access to key
information system assets. Physical safeguards include protections from
risks, such as physical penetration by malicious or unauthorized people
through the use of detection devices like alarms and surveillance cameras
or damage resulting from environmental contaminants, such as fire or
water.

Most of the standard contract forms we reviewed also included security
breach notification provisions, which typically required the contractor to
notify the company in the event of any information security breach. Also,
the contract language varied on the type of information that would prompt
a notification and the degree to which a contractor should be involved in
rectifying such a breach across industries. For example, officials from
one of the banks we spoke to told us that their company required their
contractors to notify them within 24 hours of any security breach or
suspicious behavior, and they provided their contractors with a 24 hour
telephone hotline. We were also told by most industry officials that any
action taken against the contractor would depend on the extent of the
breach, although in most cases, these companies had established some form
of initial response program to address such breaches. However, we only
found that the financial services companies had included provisions in
their standard contract forms specifically outlining their response
program.

Finally, we also identified companies that included data-handling and
disposal requirements provisions in their standard contract forms. In
these cases, the companies included general language restricting the use
and disclosure of personal information to only those parties involved in
executing the contracted service. For example, one large bank's standard
contract form stated that the contractor had no legal right to access,
receive, accept, transmit, or store any of its confidential information
for any purpose not related to fulfilling the contract unless it was
granted such rights by the bank.

15According to some industry standards, companies should retain the right
to audit their service providers' general controls environment,
implementation of certain policies, adherence to customer-specific
processing policies, adherence to security and customer-information
requirements, and adherence to procedures associated with the
relationships with the company.

Selected Companies Follow a Common Process in Selecting Contractors but
Monitoring of Contractors Varies

The private sector companies we contacted spoke of similar processes for
acquiring and negotiating services with potential contractors. Some
company officials said that before services were contracted, they
conducted some form of due diligence that is part of the overall
contracting process and may include on-site visits and reviews of security
policies. In addition, the due diligence phase may also include reviewing
financial and independent audit statements or reports, in an effort to
shed light on how contractors handle consumer data.

We found that the most sophisticated due diligence among the four
industries, was the multi-tiered, risk-based process used by the companies
in both the banking and securities industries. Officials from two banks
told us that their due diligence practices include administering
questionnaires to ascertain the amount of consumer data needed by the
contractor to perform their duties. After reviewing the contractor's
responses, these banks used their risk based classification system to
assign a priority rating to indicate the level of information to which a
contractor will have access-the higher the priority rating, the more
personal information the contractor is cleared to use. Officials from one
bank said they were in the process of developing a system to share the
information obtained through the due diligence process with other banks.
Bank officials said this collaboration effort is designed to minimize the
disruption contractors' face when their potential clients review them.

Unlike the common process for selecting contractors, we found that
performance review and monitoring practices for contractors varied across
companies. Two companies, from the banking and tax preparation sectors,
stated that they use risk-based audit systems. This means that "high risk"
contractors-which include contractors that have access to SSNs-are audited
more frequently than those that are lower risk. However, a few other
companies stated that they periodically audit contractors, although the
impetus for the audit is not based on degree of access the contractors
have to SSNs, but on other factors such as the size of the contractor. One
company in particular told us that it frequently engages in spontaneous
audits of its contractors when they sense something is awry with the
data-sharing relationship.

Some Industry Associations Provide Outsourcing Guidance, and Safeguards Used Are
Generally Consistent with Established Practices for Safeguarding Information

The banking and securities firms we met with relied on established
industry practices and international standards in developing contract
terms and safeguards. According to officials in this sector, one of the
foremost sources of guidance is from an industry-led consortium consisting
of 100 of the largest financial institutions known as BITS.16 Among other
things, this consortium has developed a framework for developing and
managing outsourced relationships. The framework consists of nine sections
and addresses topics such as: (1) governing the practice of outsourcing
consumer information through information technology, (2) developing due
diligence considerations and, (3) contractual, service level and insurance
considerations.

Financial companies also mentioned an international standard for
information security-ISO 17799-that identifies 10 security controls used
in a range of situations when exchanging consumer information through
information systems. For example, this standard handles scenarios such as
allowing access for traveling data users, as well as those users in remote
locations, to authenticating users and passwords. Additionally, the
banking sector has established a financial services roundtable which
discusses a range of topics including privacy issues related to protecting
consumer information. Bank officials told us that two of their specific
efforts are to develop identity theft assistance and establish shared
assessment centers in conjunction with BITS. The shared assessment center
provides members with information about contractors based on their
practices for security and privacy.

The telecommunications and tax preparation industries have not developed
guidance similar to that developed by BITS. According to officials at a
large telecommunications company, though, their contractors are expected
to abide by accepted industry practices. However, these practices were not
specified in the standard contract form for this company. An official with
the National Association of Tax Preparers (NATP) said that, given the many
types of tax preparers, such as certified public accountants, enrolled
agents, individual practitioners, attorneys and financial planners,
establishing specific guidance on sharing consumer data would not be
worthwhile.

16BITS is a nonprofit, CEO-driven industry consortium whose members are
100 of the largest financial institutions, which includes banks and
securities firms, in the United States. BITS was formed by the CEOs of
these institutions to address issues in financial services, technology and
commerce. BITS also facilitates cooperation between the financial services
industry and other sectors of the nation's critical infrastructure,
government organizations, technology providers, and third-party service
providers. At its inception, BITS stood for "Banking Industry Technology
Secretariat." However, with financial modernization and the emergence of
integrated financial services companies involving insurance, securities
and banking, that term is no longer used.

However, in 2004, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(AICPA) issued a ruling for its members clarifying their responsibilities
to their clients when using third party contractors, including offshore
providers. This action was prompted by congressional and regulatory
concerns about the outsourcing of tax preparation work and maintaining the
confidentiality of personal financial information that is provided to
contractors, especially those in other countries. The ruling applies to
all client services in addition to tax preparation and requires members to
take the following steps:

           o  Inform clients, preferably in writing, that the tax preparer
           may use an outside contractor in providing services to the client
           and share client information with that contractor. Members are not
           required to provide this notification if a contractor is only used
           for administrative support services such as record storage or
           authorized e-file tax transmittal services.

           o  Provide adequate oversight of all services performed by the
           contractor and adequately plan and supervise the services provided
           by the contractor. The ruling does not elaborate on what is
           adequate as it may vary depending on the nature of the service
           provided.

           o  Enter into a contractual agreement requiring the contractor to
           maintain the confidentiality of clients' information and be
           reasonably assured the contractor has appropriate procedures in
           place to prevent the unauthorized release of confidential client
           information. This provision applies to contractors that provide
           administrative support and professional services and does not
           require the member to obtain specific consent from the client to
           share information with the contractor.

In our review, we found that information security policies and procedures
of the companies we contacted were generally consistent with established
industry practices for maintaining the confidentiality of personal
information. For example, 12 of the companies we interviewed had
incorporated or told us that they had provisions in their contracts
restricting their subcontractor's access and use of consumer information,
such as SSNs. In addition company documents included other types of
safeguards that are consistent with considered established practices we
identified such as confidentiality provisions, information disposal
requirements, audit rights, data security breach procedures, and physical
safeguards. In addition, several company officials from the financial
sector said that they also relied on these established industry standards
when developing their internal policies and procedures, although we could
not determine the extent to which the companies had actually incorporated
these established practices.

    Federal Regulation and Oversight of SSN Sharing Varies Widely Among the
                             Industries We Reviewed

Federal regulation and oversight of SSN sharing varies across the four
industries we reviewed, revealing gaps in the federal law and oversight in
different industries that share SSNs with their contractors. Federal law
and oversight of the sharing of personal information in the financial
services industry is very extensive: Financial services companies must
comply with GLBA requirements for safeguarding customer's personal
information, and regulators have an examination process in place that
includes determining whether banks and securities firms are safeguarding
this information. Oversight in the tax preparation and telecommunications
industries' sharing of SSNs is not as comprehensive as it is in the
financial services industry. IRS has regulations and guidance in place to
restrict the disclosure of SSNs by tax preparers and their contractors,
but does not perform periodic reviews of tax preparers' compliance.
Because it believes that it lacks statutory authority to do so, FCC has
not issued regulations covering SSNs and also does not periodically review
telecommunications companies to determine whether they are safeguarding
such information.

Federal Oversight in the Financial Services Sector Is Extensive

In the financial services sector, banks and securities firms, among
others, must comply with the provisions of GLBA to establish safeguards
that protect the confidentiality of nonpublic personal information about
their customers or clients. GLBA generally permits banks to share
customers' personal information with contractors without the customers'
permission, provided that the bank fully discloses it is doing so and
enters into a contract requiring the contractor to maintain the
confidentiality of the information.17 Through periodic bank and securities
firm examinations, the federal agencies with oversight responsibility for
these entities review their compliance with the agencies' GLBA and other
regulations.

17Banks may share customers' nonpublic personal information without their
permission under other limited circumstances. See 15 U.S.C. S: 6802(b) and
(e).

  Bank Regulatory Agencies Monitor Compliance with GLBA through Regulations and
  Examinations for Compliance

The federal bank supervisory agencies jointly issued guidelines to
implement the GLBA safeguarding requirements.18 These guidelines require
banks to establish information security programs that include using due
diligence in selecting contractors, requiring contractors to take steps to
meet the safeguard standards, and, in certain situations, monitoring
contractors to confirm that they are meeting the safeguard requirements.
The three agencies base portions of their examinations and supervisory
practices on these guidelines. The FFIEC has also issued guidance
outlining the following four steps banks should follow in establishing
contractual relationships with technology service providers:

           o  Conduct appropriate risk assessments.
           o  Maintain adequate due diligence procedures.
           o  Closely evaluate all contracts to ensure necessary provisions
           for assuring security and confidentiality are included.
           o  Establish ongoing monitoring and oversight procedures.

These steps are also incorporated into FFIEC's examination procedures
manual for reviewing technology service providers. Appendix II describes
these steps in more detail.

The bank regulatory agencies conduct periodic examinations in which
compliance with GLBA and the guidance for sharing information with
contractors are assessed. The frequency of examinations at a particular
bank depends on a series of risk assessments. For example, OCC examiners
we met with said that, in general, the more a bank shares nonpublic
personal information (as defined by GLBA) with contractors, the greater
its risk potential is, and therefore, the more scrutiny information
security will receive.

OCC performs targeted examinations that focus on specific subjects along
with ongoing supervision activities to assess the banks' overall
operations and performance.19 Information security, contractor management,
and compliance with GLBA and other privacy laws are among the targeted
examinations that have been conducted or planned at the three banks we met
with. The targeted examinations can also include reviews of offshore
contractors. One such examination was aimed exclusively at reviewing risk
management practices and controls of the banks' contractor management unit
in India. FDIC and FRB also conduct examinations of state-chartered banks
and bank holding companies in which two regulators also assess information
security, contractor management, and GLBA compliance.20 We reviewed
examination reports and related workpapers for three large national banks
supervised by OCC that we met with. Our review of the examination reports
found that they draw overall conclusions on whether the bank is
satisfactorily meeting both OCC's requirements for complying with GLBA and
its guidance for sharing sensitive information with contractors and then
the reports discuss any areas of weakness in detail. When there are
findings that require corrective action by bank management, the examiners
will report these as matters requiring attention.21 In some instances,
concerns were raised about banks consistently implementing their
information security policies among all their business units; however, the
reports indicate that the banks' management is addressing these issues.

1866 Fed. Reg. 8616 (Feb.1, 2001).

19Based on our discussions with the OCC examiners for these banks and our
review of related documentation, the process of ongoing supervision starts
with development of an annual examination strategy outlining subjects for
targeted examinations to be undertaken that year. The strategy also
outlines ongoing large bank supervision activities such as holding regular
meetings with bank officials and reviewing internal and management
reports. OCC also has a separate supervisory program for community banks.

Certain bank contractors are also examined periodically under the purview
of the FFIEC, using examiners from all FFIEC member agencies. These bank
service contractors-referred to as technology service providers-often have
access to sensitive personal information. We reviewed 66 bank contractor
examination reports and found the examinations addressed information
security issues including GLBA compliance, the sufficiency of both
internal and independent IT audits, the adequacy of system controls and
written policies and procedures, and the use of or need for risk and
vulnerability assessments.22 About two thirds of the examination reports
concluded that the service providers' overall information security is
satisfactory but make recommendations for specific improvements. Some of
the examinations focused on GLBA compliance, and examiners recommended
improvements that contractors could make to their internal processes to
better ensure they are complying with GLBA.

20We did not review FDIC or FRB examination reports because banks they
supervise were not included in the scope of our review.

21These are typically requirements to improve such things as clarifying
contractor management roles and responsibilities in the bank's
organization, formalizing strategic planning for contractor management, or
adding components to employee training programs.

22Because this sample was not representative, our findings cannot be
generalized. We reviewed the most recent examination reports for 16 large
national service providers and any others that were available
electronically.

  SEC and Self-Regulatory Agencies Also Use Examinations to Oversee Requirements
  for Safeguarding Sensitive Customer Information

Securities firms are also required to meet the GLBA standards for
safeguarding customer's personal information. To implement GLBA, SEC
issued regulation S-P, which applies to the financial institutions subject
to SEC's jurisdiction under GLBA-investment advisors registered with SEC,
investment companies and broker-dealers. 23 Regulation S-P directs these
securities firms to adopt policies and procedures that are reasonably
designed to

           o  insure the security and confidentiality of customer records and
           information,
           o  protect against anticipated threats or hazards to the security
           and integrity to customer records and information, and
           o  protect against unauthorized access to or use of customer
           records and information that could bring substantial harm or
           inconvenience to any customer.

Under Regulation S-P, securities firms, similar to banks, generally may
share customers' personal information with contractors without customers'
permission, provided that the firms notify customers they are doing so,
and prohibit contractors, through the terms of the contract, from
disclosing or using the information for any purposes other than those for
which the information was provided.24

SEC's Office of Compliance, Inspections, and Examinations (OCIE) conducts
periodic exams of securities firms that include compliance with Regulation
S-P. OCIE uses a risk assessment framework to target firms for
examination. Any known concerns or questions about a firm's practices for
protecting customer information are among the components factored into the
risk assessment. OCIE's examination process covers such steps in the
contract management process as due diligence in selecting contractors,
contract provisions for protecting information privacy, and monitoring
compliance with the contract terms including the use of audits or other
reviews of contractors' procedures and performance. 25 Examiners are also
expected to obtain and review certain documents in addition to the
contracts, such as any relating to specific security controls. Although
the bank regulatory agencies have authority to examine contractors, SEC
officials told us that they cannot examine contractors unless they happen
to be another securities firm.

2317 C.F.R. Part 248.

24Securities firms may share customers' nonpublic personal information
without their permission under other limited circumstances. See 17 C.F.R.
S: 248.14 and S: 248.15.

In addition to its ongoing examinations, OCIE initiated two examination
sweeps focused solely on firms' protection of personal information. The
first-performed during 2002 and 2003-focused on large securities firms
policies and procedures for preventing identity theft. The examinations
reviewed how well they complied with the safeguarding requirements and
also scrutinized the firms' vendor management processes to see if they
were designed to ensure compliance with the safeguarding requirements.
These examinations found that, while the firms were generally in
compliance, some were confused about specific things they needed to do to
meet the requirements. In the fall of 2005, OCIE began the second
sweep-examining the outsourcing practices of securities firms. OCIE plans
to conduct these examinations with NYSE at a small number of firms
selected to be as representative of the industry as possible. According to
the procedures developed by OCIE, the examinations will be very detailed
and explore what specific measures have been taken by firms in the areas
of:

           o  Due diligence in selecting contractors;
           o  Adequacy of privacy and security provisions in the contracts;
           o  Contractors' policies and procedures for safeguarding customer
           information;
           o  Oversight and monitoring for compliance with the contract
           terms, including offshore contractors' ability to comply with
           applicable U.S. information privacy laws.

After completing this program, OCIE plans to incorporate the procedures
for examining outsourcing activities into its regular examinations.

25The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and the
Joint Forum (established under the aegis of the Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors and
IOSCO) have issued guidance on the principles of outsourcing in financial
services. SEC is a member of both of these organizations and, according to
agency officials, participated in the process by which these organizations
issued this guidance. SEC does not currently contemplate developing a
separate advisory guidance for securities firms to follow in using outside
contractors.

NASD and NYSE have issued their own guidance on safeguarding customer
information. NASD has issued guidance outlining procedures and safeguards
for sharing customer information with contractors, and overseeing
compliance with any applicable securities laws and NASD rules.26 In
response to concerns about the growing use of contractors in the
securities industry, NYSE has proposed a similar rule governing its
members' use of contractors, which will require member firms to follow
certain steps in selecting and overseeing contractors.

NASD and NYSE also examine member firms to ensure compliance with
Regulation S-P. However, similar to SEC, neither SRO has the authority to
examine or review contractors that are not member firms. NASD officials
said a Regulation S-P review will be included in an examination if their
examiners believe there is a Regulation S-P compliance or information
security issue at a member firm. They added that the examiners review the
firm's procedures and internal controls for monitoring contractors and
review each contract to ensure it includes clauses protecting the
confidentiality of customer information and barring the contractor from
using it for purposes not related to the contracted service.27 NYSE
examinations review third-party contracts to ensure that they contain
confidentiality clauses prohibiting the contractor from using or
disclosing customer information for any use other than the purposes the
contractor was provided the information. We reviewed 10 NYSE examination
reports, documenting each instance of noncompliance with Regulation S-P
found by NYSE examiners since January 2003. We found several cases where
the examiners found that third party contracts did not contain the
necessary confidentiality clauses.

26NASD Notice to Members 05-49, Safeguarding Confidential Customer
Information (July, 2005).

27NASD took one enforcement action in 2005 for a Regulation S-P violation,
but the action did not involve contractors' safeguarding of customer
information.

Tax Preparers Must Follow IRS and FTC Information Nondisclosure Requirements,
but IRS Has No Process for Routinely Monitoring Compliance

Tax return preparers are required to protect the confidentiality of
taxpayer information under IRS provisions and FTC's GLBA regulations.
Under Sections 6713 and 7216 of IRC and IRS regulations, tax return
preparers may, under certain circumstances, disclose tax information to
other tax preparers, including contractors, or to other employees of the
tax preparers' firm. Tax return preparers and contractors who provide
certain services in connection with the preparation of tax
returns-including contractors used in preparing and processing electronic
tax returns--are required to protect the confidentiality of taxpayer
information, and they may be subject to civil and criminal penalties for
the unauthorized use or disclosure of tax return information, including
SSNs.28

Tax return preparers must also follow FTC's GLBA regulations for
maintaining the security and confidentiality of customer information.
Among other protective measures, FTC's GLBA regulations state that
entities such as tax return preparers may use contractors and provide
customers' information to those contractors, but only if certain
conditions are fulfilled. Thus, in the case of tax return preparers, the
preparer must provide its customers with initial notice of its privacy
policies and practices before it shares sensitive information with
contractors, and contracts the tax return preparer enters into with its
contractors must prohibit the contractors from disclosing or using
customers' tax return information for any purposes other than those for
which the information was provided. FTC's GLBA regulations also specify
that entities such as tax return preparers oversee their contractors by
(1) taking reasonable steps to select and retain service providers that
can maintain appropriate safeguards for the customer information being
shared and (2) requiring provisions in the contracts to implement and
maintain these safeguards.

Unlike the bank regulatory agencies and SEC, IRS does not conduct periodic
examinations of tax preparers. IRS monitors and oversees tax preparers,
including how well they safeguard taxpayer information, by investigating
complaints, which may come from clients or referrals from local IRS
offices. IRS officials said the agency has plans to start conducting more
self-initiated reviews of a sample of tax preparers but the agency has
limited resources for this effort. IRS also performs background checks of
applicants who provide electronic return services and plans to review a
sample of Electronic Return Originators each year.

28In 2000, IRS issued clarifying guidance that stated that contractors
used in preparing and processing electronic tax returns are also
considered tax return preparers and are therefore covered by Sections 6713
and 7216 of IRC. Revenue Procedure 2000-31. This guidance was updated and
superseded in August 2005. Revenue Procedure 2005-60.

During the course of our work we found that some IRS and professional
association officials were concerned that IRS regulations did not
adequately cover tax return preparers who submit taxpayer returns
electronically. For example, officials from a professional association for
tax return preparers said there were no explicit provisions restricting
what various third party providers participating in electronic filing
could do with taxpayer information once they possess it. In response to
this concern, however, IRS officials stated that any participant in its
e-file program performing any role that handles tax return data is covered
by IRC 7216.29 IRS has also recently issued proposed regulations intended
to, among other things, clarify that the rules also apply to tax return
preparers who submit taxpayer returns electronically.30 The proposed
regulations also clarify that a tax return preparer may disclose tax
return information to another tax return preparer located in the United
States, including a contractor, without the taxpayer's consent under
certain conditions.31 They also provide that contractors, under certain
circumstances, are subject to criminal penalties for unauthorized use or
disclosure of tax return information. In addition, the proposed
regulations contain a new provision that states that disclosure of tax
information may be made to certain types of contractors, but only if the
tax return preparer ensures that all individuals who are to receive tax
information receive written notice that criminal penalties for improper
disclosure apply to them.

No Federal Law Requires Safeguards for SSNs Collected or Shared by the
Telecommunications Industry

FCC officials told us that they know of no federal law that restricts the
sharing of SSNs by telecommunications firms with their contractors and
that they do not regulate or oversee the privacy of customer information
maintained or shared by telecommunications firms unless the information is
included in customer proprietary network information (CPNI). The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 restricts the use and disclosure of CPNI,
which is defined as information relating to the quantity, technical
configuration, type, destinations, location and amount of use of a
telecommunications service subscribed to, and information contained in the
bills pertaining to telephone service received by a customer. Currently,
the act does not include SSNs in its definition of CPNI. Agency officials
also stated that FCC has enacted regulations governing disclosure of CPNI
(but not SSNs) to certain types of third parties.32

29Revenue Procedure 2005-60, Section 6.01.

3070 Fed. Reg. 72954 (Dec. 8, 2005).

31Such conditions include for the purposes of preparing or assisting in
the preparation of a tax return so long as the contractor does not make
any substantive determinations or provide advice affecting the taxpayer's
tax liability.

Although FCC has authority to take enforcement action against
telecommunications companies for inappropriate use and disclosure of CPNI,
the limited definition of CPNI precludes FCC from taking enforcement
action when SSNs are used or disclosed. It also has no authority to
oversee the use of contractors by telecommunications firms other than its
authority to oversee compliance with its regulations affecting the sharing
of CPNI. Agency officials told us FCC is considering a request by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation to regulate foreign storage of CPNI and
foreign-based access to CPNI based on national security and law
enforcement concerns.

Despite FCC's lack of authority with regard to SSNs being shared by
telecommunications companies, under certain circumstances, FTC may be able
to take action against telecommunications companies for improperly sharing
SSNs. An FTC staff member and representatives from the telecommunications
companies we met with said that under Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices,
FTC may be able to take action against companies that fail to meet the
terms of their own privacy policies in certain circumstances. 33 For
example, if a telecommunications company stated in its privacy policy that
it would only share a consumer's personal information with contractors for
certain purposes and a contractor used the SSNs for a purpose not covered
by the privacy policy, FTC could consider this a deceptive business
practice. However, according to FTC, no actions have been taken against
telecommunications carriers under Section 5 because of a failure to comply
with statements made in their privacy policies about information shared
with contractors.

3247 C.F.R. S: 64.2007(b)(2).

33FTC action is limited to the extent that a company's activities are
covered by the common carrier exemption in Section 4 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. S: 44). Telecommunications companies are also
not considered to be financial institutions under GLBA and therefore, not
subject to GLBA's safeguard requirements.

State Laws Also Affect the Disclosure and Sharing of SSNs with Third Parties

Company officials informed us of laws in 15 states they believe either
affect how they share sensitive personal information including SSNs with
their contractors or limit both their own and their contractors use and
handling of this information. The laws cover areas such as limiting the
use and display of SSNs, specifying record disposal requirements,
prohibiting requiring SSNs to complete a business transaction, privacy
policy provisions, and security breach notification requirements.34

A few of the company officials we spoke to said that California's privacy
laws were particularly significant to the development of their information
confidentiality and security policies. As a result, many told us that
their companies have adapted the requirements of the California laws for
companywide application. The California law that most directly affects how
businesses can share personal information with their contractors was
enacted in September 2004 and requires that businesses incorporate
provisions to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and
practices to protect personal information from unauthorized access,
disclosure, use, modification, or destruction into their contracts with
third party service providers.35 This law identifies SSNs, when used in
conjunction with customer names, as one of several forms of personal
information covered. Some company officials also said California's
security breach notification statute significantly affected their
information security and confidentiality procedures. These officials also
told us this statute was the impetus for formulating their own breach
notification requirements and procedures.

Company officials in each of the industry sectors said that they will
incorporate the requirements of state laws they believe affect how they
share sensitive personal information into their company's security and
confidentiality policies or operations, effectively applying them to all
states they do business in. For example, officials from one company told
us it is more efficient to apply these state requirements nationwide than
to design systems for specific states.

34We found some instances in which the laws cited either did not affect
the industries we reviewed or did not apply to the sharing of personal
information. We did not include these in our analysis.

35California Civil Code 1798.81.5(c).

                                  Conclusions

With millions of Americans at risk of identity theft, it is vital that any
entity with access to personal information, especially to SSNs, take every
precaution to protect this information from misuse. Inadequate database
security and improper handling, disposal, and sharing of such personal
information creates vulnerability to identity theft, with its attendant
costs to individuals and businesses.

Officials from each of the industries we met with clearly felt that
safeguarding SSNs and other personal information was very important and
had taken steps to do so. However, as we found in the telecommunications
sector, companies are not always required to include in their
service-provider contracts provisions that would safeguard SSNs. Gaps in
existing federal law or agency oversight, such as what we found in the
industries we looked at, do not provide incentives for companies to commit
to protecting personal information. Each industry is subject to different
federal oversight and is often left to decide what established practices
for safeguarding SSNs and other consumer information it wishes to follow.
Federal action to strengthen safeguards for SSNs that companies in
non-financial service industries collect could avert disclosures of this
important personal information and better protect Americans from the cost
and inconvenience of identity theft.

                     Matter for Congressional Consideration

We recommend that Congress consider possible options for addressing the
gaps in existing federal requirements for safeguarding SSNs shared with
contractors. One approach would be to require industry-specific
protections for the sharing of SSNs with contractors where such measures
are not already in place. For example, Congress could consider whether the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 should be amended to address how that
industry shares SSNs with contractors.

Alternatively, Congress could take a broader approach. For example, in
considering proposed legislation that would generally restrict the use and
display of SSNs, Congress could also include a provision that would
explicitly apply this restriction to third party contractors. With either
approach, Congress will also want to establish a mechanism for overseeing
compliance by contractors and enforcement.

                                Agency Comments

We requested comments on a draft of this report from FCC, FDIC, the
Federal Reserve Board, FTC, IRS, OCC, and SEC. None of the agencies
provided formal, written comments. With the exception of FDIC, all
provided technical, editorial, and other clarifying comments which we
incorporated in the report as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Treasury, the
Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, FTC, FCC, SEC, the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, the Commissioner of the IRS, and other
interested parties. Copies will also be made available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov . If you have questions concerning
this report, please call me on (202) 512-7215. Key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix VI.

Barbara D. Bovbjerg Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

In this report, we focused on the uses and protections of SSNs when they
are shared with contractors and subcontractors within the financial
services, telecommunications, and tax preparation industries. To describe
the types of services that companies in these industry sectors contract,
we identified and interviewed company officials in the banking,
securities, telecommunication, and tax preparation industries. We selected
these industries because they collect large volumes of personal
information including SSNs and experts in the fields of outsourcing and
information security we interviewed believed these industries were among
the most likely to share SSNs with contractors. We contacted 17 of the
largest companies, based on asset size, from each of the industry sectors.
We also contacted seven large service providers-companies whose sole
business is to provide services to other businesses under contract.1 Based
on the response to our request, we conducted structured interviews with a
total of 17 of these companies-3 banks, 4 securities firms, 4
telecommunication companies, 1 tax preparation company, and 5 service
providers-regarding the types of services they contracted and whether SSNs
were shared between the companies and contractors. The remaining seven
companies did not respond to our request. Furthermore, we conducted
structured interviews with six industry associations. These included three
associations that represented enrolled agents and tax professionals within
the tax preparation industry. We contacted these to obtain more
perspectives from the tax preparation industry since only one tax
preparation firm agreed to meet with us. However, we were unable to
determine the extent to which some of the member's responses were
representative of associations with similar membership. Our interviews
with the companies and industry associations are not statistically
representative of either their industries or the business sector as a
whole, and therefore should not be considered to represent the views of
the sectors as a whole. In addition, we also reviewed academic and
consultant's studies, a professional trade associations' outsourcing
survey, self-regulatory organizations' research, and bank examinations to
determine the types of services that companies from the different industry
sectors commonly contracted.

1We selected the companies we interviewed in the banking, securities and
telecommunications industries from industry sector rankings for the 2004
Fortune 500 list of the largest American companies. However, these
listings could not be used to select tax preparation firms, because too
few were included. We identified other tax preparation firms from
information compiled by professional and industry associations. In
addition, we selected service providers to contact based on our
discussions with company and government officials and published
information about large bank service providers.

To identify company safeguards to protect SSNs during the contracting
process, we conducted structured interviews with company officials from
each industry to gain a better understanding of their safeguards and the
stages of the contracting process. We requested copies of standard
contract forms from each of the companies. Ten companies provided copies
to us. We reviewed the forms to identify specific provisions that
addressed the security and confidentiality of personal information. We
also obtained and reviewed internal security policies and procedures from
companies willing to provide them and compared these security measures
across the different industry sectors. We did not verify the extent to
which these businesses complied with their own policies, procedures, and
safeguards. Finally, we contacted these industries' trade associations to
identify any best practices or notable industry practices for the
safeguarding of customer's personally identifiable information. Because of
the sensitive nature of the information we were obtaining, we agreed not
to identify the companies in our report and to treat any information they
provided, including their standard contract forms, as proprietary.

To identify how federal agencies regulate and monitor the sharing and
safeguarding of SSNs and other personal information between entities they
oversee and their contractors, we interviewed agency officials and
reviewed documents from the following agencies with jurisdiction over the
four industry sectors in our review

           o  Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
           o  Federal Reserve System,
           o  Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
           o  Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council,
           o  Federal Trade Commission,
           o  Federal Communications Commission,
           o  Internal Revenue Service, and
           o  Securities and Exchange Commission.

We also met with officials from self-regulatory agencies--the New York
Stock Exchange and the National Association of Securities Dealers-and
reviewed documents they prepared.

Documents we obtained and reviewed included applicable statutes,
regulations, guidance to regulated entities, examination manuals and
related materials, examination reports and related workpapers, survey
reports, and any other related materials. We limited our review to
identifying steps and procedures the agencies follow in overseeing
compliance with federal requirements for safeguarding personal
information. We did not assess the adequacy or effectiveness of their
oversight and enforcement measures.

For bank examination reports, we limited our analysis to reviewing those
for the three banks we met with. Our purpose was to, in general, identify
what the examinations covered, if they followed OCC's examination
procedures, and the types of issues they found. We reviewed only those
reports relating to GLBA, information security, or contractor management
that were issued since 2002. In addition, we reviewed the most recent
examination report for 66 contractors. Most of the reports are maintained
in the regional or field offices of the bank regulatory agency that had
lead responsibility for the exam. Examination reports for 16
multi-regional service providers-which FFIEC classifies separately-are
maintained in FFIEC headquarters. Because of this dispersion, we requested
the reports for the 16 multi-regional service providers and any other
reports that were available electronically-which were the remaining 50. As
a result, our sample of both the bank and contractor examination reports
is not representative, and our findings from them cannot be generalized.

In order to ensure we obtained complete information from the federal
agencies, we also asked the companies we interviewed to tell us the
federal requirements for protecting personal information they were
responsible for complying with and compared their responses with what we
obtained from the agencies.

Appendix II: Summary of Federal Bank Supervisory Agency Guidance on
Contracting with Technology Service Providers Appendix II: Summary of
Federal Bank Supervisory Agency Guidance on Contracting with Technology
Service Providers

           o  Conduct appropriate risk assessments. When considering
           contracting out a particular activity, banks should evaluate
           factors such as the strategic goals, objectives, and business
           needs of the financial institution; the ability to evaluate and
           oversee contractual relationships; the importance and criticality
           of the services to the bank; defined requirements for the
           contracted activity; necessary controls and reporting processes;
           contractual obligations and requirements for the contractor;
           contingency plans, including availability of alternative
           contractors, costs and resources required to switch contractors;
           ongoing assessment of contractual arrangements to evaluate
           consistency with strategic objectives and contractor performance;
           and regulatory requirements and guidance for the business lines
           affected and technologies used.

           o  Maintain adequate due diligence procedures. Banks should
           evaluate prospective contractors to determine their ability, both
           operationally and financially, to meet the bank's needs, and
           should convey the bank's needs, objectives, and necessary controls
           to the prospective contractor. Some of the specific factors banks
           should consider in selecting contractors include their technology
           and industry expertise, financial condition, and operations and
           controls including the adequacy of their standards, policies and
           procedures relating to internal controls, security, privacy
           protections, and maintenance of records and also determining if
           contractors provide sufficient security precautions such as
           encryption and customer identity authentication.

           o  Closely evaluate all contracts to ensure necessary provisions
           for assuring security and confidentiality are included.
           Consideration should be given to including contract provisions
           that address control over operations. Contracts should address,
           among other matters, the scope of service, performance standards,
           security and confidentiality of the bank's information and other
           resources, controls, audit rights, frequency and type of reporting
           to the bank, and sub-contracting. Security and confidentiality
           provisions should include prohibiting the contractor and its
           agents or subcontractors from using or disclosing the bank's
           information except as needed to or be consistent with providing
           the contracted service, protecting against unauthorized use, and
           requiring the contractor to fully disclose security breaches that
           result in unauthorized intrusions that may materially affect the
           bank or its customers and report corrective actions taken.

           o  Establish ongoing monitoring and oversight procedures. Banks
           should implement an oversight program to monitor each contractor's
           financial conditions and operations, the quality of service and
           support in fulfilling the contract, contract compliance and
           revision needs, and maintenance of business resumption contingency
           plans.

Appendix III: GAOA Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Barbara D. Bovbjerg, Director, (202) 512-7215

Staff Acknowledgments

The following team members made key contributions to this report: Margaret
Armen, Pat Bernard, Richard Burkard, Tamara Cross, Amber Edwards, Michele
Fejfar, Jason Holsclaw, Joel Marus, Sheila McCoy, Jonathan McMurray, and
Amanda Miller.

(130395)

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-238 .

To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Barbara D. Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-238 , a report to congressional requesters

January 2006

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

Stronger Protections Needed When Contractors Have Access to SSNs

Recent data breaches highlight how identity theft may occur when
businesses share individuals' personal information, including Social
Security Numbers (SSNs), with contractors. Because private sector entities
are more likely to share consumers' personal information via contractors,
members of Congress raised concerns about the protection of this
information in contractual relationships. In response, GAO examined (1)
how entities within certain industries share SSNs with contractors; (2)
the safeguards and notable industry standards in place to ensure the
protection of SSNs when shared with contractors; and (3) how federal
agencies regulate and monitor the sharing and safeguarding of SSNs between
private entities and their contractors.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Congress consider possible options for addressing gaps
in federal requirements for safeguarding SSNs shared with contractors.
None of the seven agencies GAO talked to provided formal written
responses. However, six of the seven agencies provided technical comments,
which were incorporated as appropriate.

Banks, securities firms, telecommunication companies, and tax preparation
companies share SSNs with contractors for limited purposes. Firms GAO
interviewed routinely obtain SSNs from their customers for authentication
and identification purposes, and contract out various services, such as
data processing and customer service functions. Although these companies
may share consumer information, such as SSNs, with contractors, company
officials said that they only share such information with their
contractors when it is necessary or unavoidable.

Companies in the four business sectors GAO studied primarily relied on
accepted industry practices and used the terms of their contracts to
protect the personal information shared with contractors. Most company
officials stated that their contracts had provisions for auditing and
monitoring to assure contract compliance. Some noted that their industry
associations have also developed general guidance for their members on
sharing personal information with third parties.

Federal regulation and oversight of SSN sharing varied across the four
industries GAO reviewed, revealing gaps in federal law and agency
oversight in the four industries GAO reviewed that share SSNs with
contractors. Financial services companies must comply with the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) for safeguarding customers' personal
information and regulators have an examination process in place to
determine whether banks and securities firms are safeguarding this
information. IRS has regulations and guidance in place to restrict the
disclosure of SSNs by tax preparers and their contractors, but does not
perform periodic reviews of tax preparers' compliance. Because the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) believes that it lacks statutory authority
to do so, it has not issued regulations covering SSNs and also does not
periodically review telecommunications companies to determine whether they
are safeguarding such information.

Personal Information and Contracting
*** End of document. ***