So I'm stuck on hold with Chase bank. When setting up access to my account with Quicken, I was told that Chase is currently authorized to share my account and other personal information with other corporations. There was a law passed recently that granted this right to financial institutions. They had to inform customers, but it was an opt-out rather than an opt-in. Clearly Congress got effectively lobbied by the financial industry here. So I made a second call to Chase customer service (because the person at the first number couldn't do this and couldn't transfer me) and wade through another phone menu to talk to a customer service rep. I explain what I want, then get put on hold because this rep has to talk to a "product specialist" who can do this. So she gets put on hold (she claims), so I get put on hold. I get put on hold three times at a few minutes a pop, listening to the same minute-long fragment of a piano song every time. Finally after about 20 minutes on the phone with multiple Chase reps, I get it done. Makes me not feel bad about going on the can while talking to her.

So clearly this is wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if Chase made this process difficult just to dissuade people from getting their information taken off limits. After all, I've done the same sort of thing in my job. The difference is, of course, my job is for a website that only demands an email address, country, and date of birth (for COPPA-compliance). I do not have a record of all of an individual's financial transactions. Nor do I have a social security number, mother's maiden name, or any other, more sensitive information. Clearly Congress was not acting in the best interests of Americans. While the Supreme Court has stated that privacy is a necessary adjunct to freedom of association, and there is the Fourth Amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"), neither is explicit in stating general privacy as a right in and of itself; rather, they support privacy in certain conditions as necessary to advance other primary rights. I think it is time, in this day and age where so much information on individuals is kept by entities outside their control, that American's have an explicit Constitutional right to privacy. The framers could not have seen this coming two centuries ago. Such an amendment would also prevent the so-called "tyranny of convenience," where an entity could effectively coerce an agreement to share personal information by making it sufficiently convenient to do so and sufficiently inconvenient not do, by providing a basis and impetus for Congress to climb out of the banking industry's pocket and make laws with teeth. Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

¶ 255 Posted at 12.59 PM ⇒ No Comments ( privacy | politics )