Corporation Sells Elderly People's Info to Known Scammers

[Xenophobe3691]

I dunno, my tablet has a biometric scanner, and you have to be a total idiot to lock yourself out of the system. Hell, I scanned in 2 fingers from each hand for versatility.

It's never been broken, and never taken more then 3 tries to log in. And that's usually because I'm being lazy and not taking the minimal effort to press down.

[brianeyci]

I despise any and all high-tech solutions when low-tech problems would be sufficient. Biometrics wank sounds like using forcefields as containers when a plastic cup would do in Star Trek. Someone remind me how many combinations a six digit PIN number has again? Not to mention biometrics is not fingerprint scanners all over the place. Biometrics on a passport is storing personal information on some kind of computer barcode or chip to be verified by a scanner. Can someone please tell me how that helps, if old geezers are too fucking stupid to know not to give out bank account information and don't check their credit card statements? Let's say there was a fingerprint scanner on all telephones. Well, a telemarketer would just con the old guy into putting his thumb on the thing.

High-tech solutions will not address the root of the problem, that older people feel vulnerable and are vulnerable to scammers.

[Edi]

What's needed is good data protection and privacy laws that make anybody selling information to criminals liable for damage caused by their negligence. I know it's already covered by basic liability as such, but as long as it's not explicitly stated, it's not going to be enforced and there will be all kinds of bullshit around it. Doesn't help in the US that the legislation operates on the basis of opt-out, so that it is assumed your data is fair game for anything. Here the assumption is opt-in, in otehr words unless you specifically give permission, your data cannot be passed on to third parties legally.

[Glocksman]

Update on this story:

Dick Morris on Hillary Clinton's ties to InfoUSA, the company that sold the scammers the lists.

Hillary Clinton Defends Use of Corporate Jet for Family Vacations
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Saturday, June 2, 2007

On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton was challenged by the press about the Clinton family’s acceptance of more than $900,000 in free private travel from Infousa, a company linked to scamming the elderly.

Her reply? She said that she had complied with all Senate ethics rules and reimbursed the company for the amount of a first class air ticket — usually about 1 percent of the cost of the luxurious private jet travel. According to Hillary, “Those were the rules. You’ll have to ask someone else if it’s good policy.”

In other words, get lost.

Is there anyone out there who would say it's good policy for a U.S. senator and presidential candidate to accept apparently tax-free gifts of almost a million dollars from a corporation — especially a corporation involved in providing lists of vulnerable elderly people to scam artists?

And it’s not like the Clintons couldn’t afford to buy an air ticket — the family income since 2001 has been more than $63 million! So why do they have to freeload from rich friends?

Well, evidently Hillary doesn’t think that she should be the one to consider whether it makes ethical sense to have rich pals pay for a U.S. senator’s family vacations.

That’s up to “someone else…”

But, Hillary has decided it is up to her — and not someone else — to determine whether corporate policies that allow huge payments and perks to CEOs make good policy. And her answer is a resounding, "NO" … unless, it seems, if she’s benefiting from the perks.

When Senator Clinton condemns corporate greed and attacks over-the-top CEO compensation, she’s not talking about her close friends in the business world. No, to her, they’re different. In the Clintons' case, it’s OK to use corporate assets to fly her and her husband to jet-set vacation spots all over the world, including a $146,000 plane ride to Acapulco for a Clinton family holiday in January of 2002.

It’s the other corporations and CEOs out there that she’s targeting. They’re the greedy ones that have to be regulated.

Last week, we revealed that former president Bill Clinton was on the payroll of Infousa, the Nebraska company that supplied lists of vulnerable elderly people to con artists who then defrauded the unsuspecting victims. Internal e-mails suggest that employees of Infousa were aware that some of their clients were under investigation for these revolting predatory practices.

Since 2001, Infousa has paid Bill Clinton $3.3 million, although it’s not at all clear what he was supposed to do for the money — other than fly on the company’s jet for vacations and golf games with Infousa’s CEO. Infousa CEO, Vin Gupta, has made the Infousa corporate jet available for the Clintons to travel in style to Hawaii, Switzerland and Jamaica — at a cost of more that $900,000.

Some of the shareholders of the company agree wholeheartedly with Hillary’s public position about overpaid CEO’s. Here’s what the Senator had to say:

“We need to open up CEO compensation to public scrutiny and public challenge and ensure that boards of directors are independent when determining CEO pay.”

In a lawsuit filed earlier this year, shareholders of Infousa claimed that the payments to Bill Clinton and the use of the corporate jet by the Clintons were a “waste” of corporate assets and were not “business related.” Infousa actually claims that all of the Clinton trips — even the vacation excursions — were business related.

Of course.

Hillary Clinton has no words of criticism for the man who contributed at least $1 million to the Clinton Library and $2 million towards her incredible $16 million millenium New Year's Eve party, and hundreds of thousands to her campaigns and the Democratic Party.

Clinton’s financial disclosure forms never mention the trips provided by Infousa and until the lawsuit was filed, the Clintons released no information about how much Bill was paid — only declaring that it was “more than $1000.”

A lot more!

Hillary just doesn’t get it — and never will.

Just yesterday, she actually lectured about the need to control corporate pay to executives — unless, of course, they’re providing freebies to her and her family.

I can just picture the attack ads now.

[Darth Wong]

Hillary has a real lame-duck vibe about her right now. She's far too easy to attack, she generates so much pathological hatred from the right-wingers, and she's such a convenient target of political dishonesty and corruption charges (pretty ironic considering how much worse the corresponding charges are against the right-wingers' favourite candidates) that I can't see her doing anything but harming the Democratic Party. Obama is the man, presuming that the Democratic Party concedes the racist portion of the country to the Republicans (most of them belong to the Republicans by now anyway).

[White Haven]

Is it really that hard for the Democratic party to find a decent presidential candidate? Their track record for charismatic leadership candidates isn't exactly wonderful as of late.