choof.org
Welcome to choof.org. Unfair. Unbalanced.
Trent
Reznor
Nine Inch Nails
Emma
Goldman
Emma Goldman
Che
Guevara
Che Guevara
James
Joyce
James Joyce
Huey
Newton
To Die for the People
Ride the
clipper
The Sexist Clipper
Adbusters Adbusters
Buy! Shop!
UGA SGA
Archive
UGA SGA
An
Organization
Archive
An Organization
E-mail
Chris
E-mail Chris

More Links

Reenhead
Memepool
Robot Wisdom
Daily Rotten
Boing Boing
Politechbot
Declan's Pics
Cryptome
Richard Stallman
Seth Schoen
Earth Liberation Front
Lisa Rein's Radar
How Appealing
Stay Free
Mary Hodder
Bad Ads Weblog
Commercial Alert
Ponderance
Adrian Pritchett
Jenny Toomey
Simson Garfinkel

Archive

December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004












Choof.org "News"

December 02, 2004

Off to CA, Covering ABA v. Lockyer

I'm off to San Francisco where I'll be attending the 9th Circuit argument in ABA v. Lockyer, a very important preemption case involving California's financial privacy laws. Here's the EPIC summary on the case. I'll blog about the hearing on Monday afternoon. The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of Judges Kozinski, Bybee, and Fletcher. Should be interesting.

In ABA v. Lockyer, financial services companies are suing to invalidate a California law that provides individuals with strong privacy rights. In 2003, California enacted the California Financial Information Privacy Act, commonly known as "SB1." SB1 provides the strongest financial privacy protection in the nation. It allows customers to "opt-out" of information-sharing practices between affiliated institutions, companies that have common ownership. SB 1 also bars financial institutions from sharing information about consumers with nonaffiliated third parties unless an individual gives his or her express "opt in" consent. However, the legal issue in ABA is limited to the constitutionality of the "opt out" provision for affiliate sharing, and a series of other rights created by SB1 are not being challenged in this case.

In April 2004, the American Bankers Association (ABA), the Financial Services Roundtable and the Consumer Bankers Association filed suit arguing that SB 1 is preempted or superceded by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). As interpreted by the banking industry, the FCRA imposes a preemptive ceiling on state privacy statutes, thereby preventing any state or local regulation concerning affiliate sharing of consumer information.

However, District Court Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. ruled otherwise, holding that the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act (GLBA) allows states to erect stronger financial privacy protections. Judge England’s Amended Order, issued on July 9, 2004, concludes that (i) the FCRA was not intended to regulate the simple sharing of information between affiliates, (ii) the only reasonable reading of the FCRA preemption provision is that it prevents states from enacting laws that prohibit or restrict the sharing of consumer reports among affiliates, and (iii) the FCRA preemption provision does not broadly preempt all state laws regulating information sharing by affiliates.

On July 28, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Plaintiff ABA's request for an expedited appeal of Judge England's decision. EPIC is preparing an amicus brief against preemption of SB1 to support California's and other states' efforts to regulate affiliate sharing.

Posted by chris at December 2, 2004 02:59 PM

Comments

Post a comment




























Archive | Pictures

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.11