WASHINGTON-In the wake of revelations that cell-phone call records are available for purchase over the Internet, the chairman of the House Commerce Committee plans to introduce a bill that will make pretexting illegal.
Online data brokers use pretexting-or impersonating the subscriber whose records they are trying to get-to obtain cell-phone call records. Pretexting is not currently illegal, but it should be, said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Commerce Committee.
“It seems to me that the most sensible action we can take quickly to thwart the buyers and sellers of personal phone records is to make pretexting illegal. I will introduce legislation to accomplish that, and my bill will substantially increase the penalties if telephone companies release consumer telephone records without the permission of the consumer,” said Barton. “The principle behind all of this is simple and straightforward: Our private lives belong to us, not to either the telephone company or the con artists.”
Barton is the latest policy maker to decry the theft of cell-phone call records.
“Stealing someone’s private phone records is absolutely a criminal act and the fact that it can’t be prosecuted as one has got to change. Stealing a person’s phone log can lead to serious personal, financial and safety issues for just about any American,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Schumer too introduced legislation that would make it a federal crime to obtain call records without the authorization of the account holder. The bill also outlaws the sale of such records. The bill is known as the Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006.
The Senate Commerce Committee plans to soon hold a hearing on what legislative remedies are necessary to stem the sale of cell-phone records, said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
The Capitol Hill action comes on the heels of major media focus on the sale of cell-phone records. The CBS Evening News last Thursday condemned the wireless industry at large for not protecting customer call records. The issue came to a head after an Internet blogger, John Aravosis, said he was able to buy his own call records. Aravosis’ carrier is Cingular Wireless L.L.C.. More notably, Aravosis said he bought the records of retired Army General Wesley Clark. Aravosis said Clark’s carrier is T-Mobile USA Inc.’s Omnipoint division. T-Mobile USA released a statement calling the actions of the data brokers deplorable.
Indeed, wireless carriers could be subject to enforcement action if the Federal Communications Commission determines they have not adequately protected customer call records from the prying eyes of data brokers, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told a powerful lawmaker in a letter made public Tuesday.
Wireless carriers too have been voicing their concern over the issue. Late last week, Cingular obtained a temporary restraining order against two companies it believes have sold mobile-phone records online.
And last year, Verizon Wireless sued Source Resources Inc. of Cookeville, Tenn. and obtained an injunction barring Source Resources from obtaining and selling customer call records without consent or a court order.
Despite the recent attention, the issue is not new. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the author of the provision in the Communications Act that requires carriers to protect customer proprietary network information (CPNI), brought up the issue in November. Markey asked both the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission what they were doing about the problem. Markey is the ranking member of the House telecommunications subcommittee.
For its part, the FTC acknowledged that telephone records are afforded less protection than financial records, but the agency said it is considering enforcement actions.
Privacy advocates too have petitioned for stricter rules governing the release of CPNI. The Electronic Privacy Information Center petitioned the FCC last summer to tighten rules to cover third-party data brokers specifically. FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein said Tuesday that the EPIC petition “could be an appropriate vehicle for tightening our rules.”
However, CTIA rallied against the EPIC’s petition, arguing that the cost of implementing such rules would be passed on to consumers.
