[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Correction to Feb. 2 notes

  Gary Friend sent me a note by fax, which was bounced from the listproc, 
  which corrected my reference to his mention of the Federal Credit 
  Reporting Act (FCRA).  Gary was describing "anectodally, the processes 
  business information companies, such as D&B, and consumer credit bureaus 
  follow in response to a data subjects request for correction or 
  verification of information."  While there may have been some lessons to 
  be learned from the experience of the FCRA, Gary did not say 
  that the current bills were "tied" to the bill in any way, and I'm sorry 
  that I implied otherwise.  (The text of the reference in my Feb 2 notes 
  is given below).
  On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, James Love wrote:
  > We then turned to Sec 102 of the bill, the "CORRECTION OR
  > and Bradstreet (D&B), representing the IMS subsidiary, said that
  > S. 1360 had built upon the lessons from the Fair Credit Reporting
  > Act, which regulates credit bureaus (a comment which was not
  > entirely reassuring to some).
  There is one minor point that I thinks clarification.  Most of my 
  comments about the legislation refer to the Senate Bill, S. 1360.  Unless 
  I specifically mention the Condit bill (as in the references to the way 
  the Condit bill may have done something different), I am refering S. 
  1360.  The Sec 102, 112 ...etc, references are typically about S. 1360.  
  Unless I'm mistaken, this is the only bill that's moving right now.
  On a few ocassions Bob Gellman has taken me to task for saying things 
  about the Condit bill that I never said, mostly because I don't spend 
  that much time thinking about the Condit bill.  
  James Love, love@tap.org
  P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036; v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176
  Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt/cpt.html
  Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.essential.org/tap/tap.html