On Twitter

About this page and the author

The author of this blog, David T.S. Fraser, is a Canadian privacy lawyer who practices with the firm of McInnes Cooper. He is the author of the Physicians' Privacy Manual. He has a national and international practice advising corporations and individuals on matters related to Canadian privacy laws.

For full contact information and a brief bio, please see David's profile.

Please note that I am only able to provide legal advice to clients. I am not able to provide free legal advice. Any unsolicited information sent to David Fraser cannot be considered to be solicitor-client privileged.

Privacy Calendar

Links

RSS FEED for this site

Blogs I Follow

Small Print

The views expressed herein are solely the author's and should not be attributed to his employer or clients. Any postings on legal issues are provided as a public service, and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein or linked to. Nothing herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.

This web site is presented for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and David T.S. Fraser. If you are seeking specific advice related to Canadian privacy law or PIPEDA, contact the author, David T.S. Fraser.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Equifax says it's Un-American to be required to provide free credit reports to consumers

Mike at Techdirt has some pretty strong things to say about comments from Equifax's CEO, reported in Wired.

Techdirt:Equifax Says It's Un-American For People To Know What Equifax Knows About Them "
It's tough to figure out where to start on the various comments from Equifax boss Thomas Chapman, who claims that the new law requiring the big credit companies to let people see what data has been collected on them for free at least once a year "unconstitutional and un-American." His argument is that it "cuts into the profits" of his company. First of all, cutting into someone's profits isn't unconstitutional or un-American by itself. Second, they're not asking him to "give away" some random product, but to let anyone check the info that his company has collected on that person to make sure it's accurate. ... The article also gets amusing towards the end where Chapman puts his foot in his mouth big-time by basically saying they've had a bunch of data breaches which haven't been announced, and then trying to pretend he never admitted that, first by saying: "I don't think you've seen our name in the news," then by refusing to answer more pointed questions on the issue with: "I'm not going to go there. I'm not going to answer that question. We have been notifying and engaging in communication with customers, consumers, for a long time. We're known for that. We're known for our stand on privacy." Yup. Your stand on privacy is apparently that you don't believe in anyone's ability to check on their own private data to make sure it's accurate -- unless they first pay you."

Labels: information breaches