NEW YORK, NY - The startling discovery of an undercover Russian spy ring last month no doubt shocked many Americans who assumed that international espionage was mostly a product of the Cold War and, these days, Hollywood.

read more »

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Hundreds of FBI agents may have allegedly cheated on a test of new surveillance regulations which would allow the FBI to open cases and conduct surveillance without proving that a crime has taken place. The Justice Department is investigating. Some agents taking the test allegedly worked together while others printed the test in advance or finished the test unreasonably quickly. Agents who did cheat may be fired or disciplined.

read more »

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK – The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) is facing criticism from PIs, victims’ families and public officials. Among the charges leveled: that the OSBI is cavalier about investigations, that it fails to carry out field work, that it is callous towards families in need of help, and that it engages in territorial squabbles. Despite mounting criticism, the OSBI denies all allegations.

read more »

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A new law created to improve the FBI criminal history database could affect criminal background checks, and some experts claim the legislation could effectively remove arrests and facts from individual criminal background checks. Under a provision in the proposed legislation, a person’s arrest record would be removed from the database after a year if the case disposition is unknown. Many PIs and security experts have voiced their concerns with the proposed law, saying it might make background criminal checks less accurate.

read more »

The Subcommittee on Commerece, Trade & Consumer Recent Meetings
Two major developments are scheduled in Congress over the next few
days of critical importance to private investigators and security
firms.

First, the House Financial Services Committee has tentatively
scheduled a vote next week on HR 3149, “The Equal Employment for All
Act”. That bill would prohibit employers from accessing credit
reports. NCISS is joining with a coalition of major industry groups to
ask the Committee not to consider the bill. We joined with the same
group when Senator Feinstein proposed identical legislation as an
amendment to the financial reform legislation, HR 4173, ‘The Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009’’. That proposal was
stopped in the Senate. In addition, our advocate met with staff of
members of the subcommittee at the time that a hearing was held to
explain how such reports are used by investigators. We may be calling
on you to contact your representatives on this issue if the vote is
formally scheduled.

In another critical development, the House Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade and Consumer Protection will be holding a hearing Thursday
afternoon on major privacy legislation which could also have a
dramatic impact on private investigators. The Subcommittee will be
reviewing two bills that would require that notice be provided and
consent be obtained from individuals from whom “sensitive” data are
obtained. HR 5777, ‘‘Building Effective Strategies to Promote
Responsibility Accountability Choice Transparency Innovation Consumer
Expectations and Safeguards Act’’ or the ‘‘BEST PRACTICES Act’’ by
Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) was introduced Monday. The
subcommittee will also consider a similar draft bill by Representative
Rick Boucher (D-VA), who chairs the subcommittee on Communications,
Technology and the Internet.

Recent publicity regarding behavioral advertising, privacy changes at
Facebook, and some practices by Google have increased pressure on
Congress to act to limit data collection from individuals who have not
granted their permission. Although the activities of private
investigators do not appear to be the targets of the legislation, the
definitions in these proposals appear to include investigative
functions. Although the bills include numerous exceptions, none
appears to apply to private investigators. For example, HR 5777
exempts many businesses which collect information from or about less
than 10,000 individuals in a year. But the exception does not apply
to those who use “covered information to study, monitor, or analyze
the behavior of individuals as the person’s primary business”. The
exception also does not include those who collect “sensitive
information”.

We are contacting members of the subcommittee in advance of the
hearing to show why private investigators need a clear exception under
the bill. We will also work with subcommittee members following the
hearing to prevent the legislation from impacting private
investigators.

Copies of the proposed bills can be found at the NCISS website, www.NCISS.org.

Contact:
Jimmie Mesis, LPI
NCISS Legislative Chairman
7501 Sparrows Point Blvd.
Baltimore, Maryland 21219-1927
(800) 445-8408 . Fax: (410) 388-9746
www.NCISS.org

WASHINGTON, D.C. - ISPLA will be monitoring hearings this week in Washington, DC regarding recently
proposed legislation. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection is expected to evaluate two bills on consumer expectations and best practices in connection with the Internet and websites.

Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL-1] unveiled a privacy bill on Monday that would require
companies to obtain people’s opt-in consent before disclosing their personal
information to third parties in some circumstances. A version of the bill seen
appears to be similar to a draft measure circulated in May by Rep. Rick Boucher
[D-VA-9], chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the
Internet, but with some key differences.

Both bills follow a notice-and-choice framework, and both require users’ consent
for on-line behavioral advertising, or tracking users across sites in order to
serve targeted ads. Both also allow companies to obtain opt-out consent rather
than opt-in, but under slightly different circumstances.

Rush’s measure would require Web sites to obtain users’ explicit permission
before sharing their personal information with third parties, unless those
companies participate in a “universal opt-out” program operated by industry
groups, like the Network Advertising Initiative, and overseen by the Federal
Trade Commission.

Boucher’s draft proposal, by contrast, would require ad networks that track
people and collect personal information for ad purposes to obtain users’ opt-in
consent, unless the networks provide prominent notice through an icon and also
allow people to view and edit their profiles.

Rush’s bill also defines third-party broadly, saying that companies are
considered third parties to each other if consumers would not expect reasonably
them to be related. For instance, a publisher that owns an unbranded network of
blogs could be considered a third party to those blogs.

Rush’s measure also tasks the FTC with further defining “third party” within 18
months.

Like Boucher’s proposal, Rush’s bill would apply to data that is traditionally
considered “personally identifiable” — such as names and addresses — as well
as information sometimes deemed “anonymous,” like marketing profiles associated
with particular computers.

Rush’s bill provides that IP addresses would be covered if used to create
marketing profiles, but not when used to send ads dynamically. As with the
definition of third party, Rush delegates to the FTC the task of further
defining personal information.

Also similar to Boucher’s measure, Rush’s bill requires companies to obtain
users’ affirmative consent before collecting or sharing sensitive information.
However, it provides a more sweeping definition of that term. Rush says that
sensitive data includes information about people’s medical history or health,
race or ethnicity, religious beliefs and affiliation, sexual orientation or
sexual behavior, as well as certain financial data. Precise geolocation
information would be considered “sensitive” if associated with other data like
names or profiles. Rush also says FTC may modify the definition of sensitive
information through a rulemaking.

Boucher, by contrast, defined sensitive information as medical records, race or
ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, financial records and precise
geolocation information.

One key area that differs from Boucher’s proposal involves consumers’ ability to

sue. Rush would allow individuals to sue companies that don’t follow the measure

for up to $1,000 per violation. Boucher’s bill would completely bar consumers
from bringing private lawsuits.

Rush, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade
and Consumer Protection, did not have a co-sponsor for the bill as of Monday
afternoon. A hearing on Rush’s proposal is slated for Thursday.

Some consumer advocates reacted more favorably to Rush’s proposal than to
Boucher’s. Privacy advocate Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for
Digital Democracy, said Rush’s proposal “significantly advances the privacy
debate in Congress.” He went on to state, “By empowering the FTC to engage in
additional rule-makings on privacy, it creates a framework to better address
consumer privacy concerns — on-line and off.”

Leslie Harris, president of the digital rights group Center for Democracy &
Technology, said Rush’s bill “establishes a forward looking and flexible
framework for protecting consumer privacy.” Harris is expected to testify at a
hearing this Thursday addressing privacy legislation.

According to Declan McCullagh of Privacy Inc., there is an exemption for small
businesses, but not if they hold 15,000 or more names, e-mail addresses, or
other personal information in their records. The language appears to be broad
enough to apply to local retailers, small businesses, and even individuals who
have a sufficient quantity of e-mail addresses on their PCs. The 55-page measure

arrives as companies’ data collection and use practices are being subjected to
increasing scrutiny on Capitol Hill, in part because of high-profile privacy
missteps by Facebook and Google that have attracted criticism lately from some
politicians. While it’s unlikely that Rush’s proposal will become law this
year–there’s precious little legislative time left before the November
elections. But, a favorable welcome would give it considerable momentum for
2011.

Contact:
Bruce Hulme, ISPLA Director of Government Affairs
www.ISPLA.org
734-428-9663

LOWER MERION, PA – The Lower Merion School District is contemplating creating a new policy which would ban district officials from using webcam surveillance. The decision comes after a lawsuit from one student over alleged privacy violations stemming from webcam monitoring. The district is also considering new written policies about tracking software on student-issued computers. Currently, a lawsuit (filed by Harriton High School student Blake J. Robbins) is pending over webcam surveillance and there are questions about whether the lawsuit will become a class action.

read more »

NEW ORLEANS, LA – The 5th Circuit has dismissed six class action suits and has decided that businesses are permitted to buy and resell bulk numbers of DMV records without using them. However, businesses must intend to use these records for “permissible purposes,” only under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). PIs, government agencies and authorities are allowed to use DMV records to investigate insurance fraud, verify employee driving documentation, notify car owners of impounded cars, and conduct research. A class action lawsuit alleged that in Texas records were released to companies who wanted to resell the DMV records or wanted to keep databases. The lawsuit alleged that these were “impermissible purposes” but a New Orleans federal appeals court upheld an initial dismissal of the case.

read more »

LOS ANGELES, CA – Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich is reportedly poised to hire PIs to address a city-wide problem with illegal billboards. Critics, however, note that while Trutanich has been authorized to spend $325,000 for illegal billboard violations, many were hoping he would use existing contractors or employees rather than PIs. The city is facing a hiring freeze and some are questioning where these is proper authorization to hire outside PIs.

read more »

BALTIMORE, MD – Donaldson Investigations LLC and Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler have reached a settlement over claims that the PI company failed to provide services after taking money from clients and after debiting some money from clients without alerting those clients first. Jerry Donaldson, owner of Donaldson Investigations, has agreed to change the way the PI firm does business, according to Gansler. In addition, the PI firm will pay $5,000 in civil penalties and $5,000 in legal fees. The company faces $20,000 fines if it violates the agreement.

read more »