X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The banking industry is reaching out to Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and lawmakers in search of federal help to block state consumer privacy laws that bankers argue will hinder their efforts to spot terrorists. Industry lobbyists have been arguing that state laws that prohibit banks from sharing consumer information without permission might preclude them from alerting law enforcement to potential crimes. “We would have trouble communicating with law enforcement … and it would be extremely chaotic. We need a uniform privacy standard,” said David Liddle of the Financial Services Roundtable, an industry lobby. Some state officials don’t buy the argument, maintaining that state laws have adequate exemptions for law enforcement. They suggest the bankers are using national security to disguise their true intention of winning free rein to sell customer information for profit. “What they ultimately want is the full use of the financial information of their customers for marketing purposes. This is about money,” said North Dakota state Rep. Jim Kasper, a Republican who wants to toughen his state’s privacy laws. The national security argument is the latest twist in the banking industry’s long-running fight against information-sharing restrictions cropping up in consumer protection legislation around the country. A handful of states permit banks to share or sell customer information to outside companies only if accountholders approve it first. These “opt-in” laws in states like Alaska, Illinois and Vermont are tougher than a recently enacted federal law that allows financial institutions to share information unless consumers instruct them not to. Banking lobbyists have defeated opt-in legislation in several states and now have their sights focused on California, where Democratic Gov. Gray Davis is expected to sign a proposed opt-in requirement if lawmakers approve it. “If California were to pass a privacy bill, it could set the stage for other states to follow suit,” Liddle predicted. As one of Washington’s biggest political donors, the financial services industry has plenty of friends to call upon. It donated some $300 million to Republicans and Democrats in the 2000 elections, the most of any economic sector, and routinely tops all other industries in lobbying spending, according to studies by the Center for Responsive Politics. Roundtable members recently asked Ridge to step in, telling President Bush’s homeland security chief they fear state laws would prevent them from tipping federal authorities about suspicious customers as required under new federal anti-terrorism laws. Ridge hasn’t decided whether to intervene. “We will work with the states and private corporations in order for both sides to be able to meet their various obligations,” Ridge spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. The Roundtable also is lobbying for two proposed bills in the House that would block or supersede the state laws. One would place a moratorium on state financial privacy laws while a task force studies how they affect the flow of information that affects national security. The other would set federal standards that would supersede state financial privacy laws. The legislation’s first stop would be the House Financial Services Committee’s financial institutions subcommittee, whose chairman has already heard from the industry. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., said he doesn’t plan to act on either bill immediately — unless Ridge or law enforcement officials raise concerns. “Right now it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist,” Bachus said. “I’ve not heard from any law enforcement or regulatory agencies that the privacy laws are a hindrance.” Privacy advocates say state privacy laws and federal law already contain broad exemptions for law enforcement, and there’s no reason to weaken the state laws. “There is no element of security in having a bank or other financial industry sell or share or lease information to any source,” said Tena Friery of the San Diego-based Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. The banking industry lobby, however, is trying to convince federal officials that the state exemptions aren’t enough. “So they say if the feds come to you and ask for information, then you give it. If everybody’s opted out of it, what can you give them, ‘We lost the trail of XYZ somewhere in Vermont?”‘ Liddle said. At least two other industry groups, the American Bankers Association and the Financial Services Coordinating Council, are also concerned about some of the state restrictions. “I don’t think that explicitly a legislator would try to hurt the exchange of information that would allow law enforcement to do what they need to do, but it’s the ultimate unintended consequence,” said Jim Pitts, executive director of the Financial Services Coordinating Council. Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.