Although the boardroom scandal at Hewlett-Packard Co made the practice more widely known, buying phone records or other personal information obtained by "pretext" calls appears to have been common in parts of the business world.
In a letter to the House Energy and Commerce committee, which was investigating the issue this year, data broker PDJ Investigative Services described its customers as "law offices, repossession companies, financial institutions, collection agencies, bail enforcement agencies, law enforcement agencies and various private investigation and research companies."
"Those businesses have a common need. That need is to be able to locate individuals, who do not wish to be found," another data broker, Universal Communications Co, wrote to the committee.
PHOTO: AP
For example, banks sought to find debtors who defaulted on loan payments, and car finance companies traced people who stopped paying their auto loans and disappeared, Universal Communications said.
PDJ sold records of local and long-distance calls as well as non-published phone numbers and home addresses, according to an old price list submitted to the House committee.
In its letter, PDJ said it did not perform pretext calls itself, but paid independent vendors for the information, or searched public databases and the Internet.
Robert Douglas, a privacy consultant in Colorado who closely follows pretexting and other investigatory techniques, said such independent vendors use sophisticated methods to fool customer service representatives into giving out information.
However, the attention given to pretexting in the past two years -- the HP scandal is just the latest in a series of revelations -- has made data brokers restrict sales of certain kinds of information. Cellphone companies, one of the major targets of pretexters, also have fought back by launching lawsuits.
Public attention on the matter was kick-started in January, when the Chicago Sun-Times reported that the city's police department was warning officers that lists of their cellphone calls were available for sale online.
PDJ told the House committee that it voluntarily stopped selling cellphone records last year. Its current Web site lists no call record services. It still can determine phone numbers that correspond to a given name or address.
A call to PDJ, based in Granbury, Texas, was not returned on Wednesday.
PDJ's customer list, also provided to the House committee, included some well known names, including Bank One Corp, now part of JPMorgan Chase & Co. It paid PDJ US$185,140, starting in April 2000, making it one of the broker's largest clients.
JPMorgan spokesman Tom Kelly said the company does not talk about its vendors, but noted that Bank One had a large consumer lending business, including home equity and auto lending. "Sometimes people don't pay right away," Kelly said.
Another client was car insurance company Progressive Corp. According to an AP analysis of the customer list, it paid PDJ about US$34,000.
Representatives of Progressive could not immediately comment on the company's involvement.
Douglas said that law firms, another major client category for the data brokers, use them to find witnesses and research alibis, as well as in business matters like noncompete investigations, where they need to determine if an employee has been talking to rivals.
FIVE-YEAR WINDOW? A defense institute CEO said a timeline for a potential Chinese invasion was based on expected ‘tough measures’ when Xi Jinping seeks a new term Most Taiwanese are willing to defend the nation against a Chinese attack, but the majority believe Beijing is unlikely to invade within the next five years, a poll showed yesterday. The poll carried out last month was commissioned by the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, a Taipei-based think tank, and released ahead of Double Ten National Day today, when President William Lai (賴清德) is to deliver a speech. China maintains a near-daily military presence around Taiwan and has held three rounds of war games in the past two years. CIA Director William Burns last year said that Chinese President Xi Jinping
President William Lai (賴清德) yesterday said that China has “no right to represent Taiwan,” but stressed that the nation was willing to work with Beijing on issues of mutual interest. “The Republic of China has already put down roots in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu,” Lai said in his first Double Ten National Day address outside the Presidential Office Building in Taipei. “And the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China [PRC] are not subordinate to each other.” “The People’s Republic of China has no right to represent Taiwan,” he said at the event marking the 113th National Day of
SPEECH IMPEDIMENT? The state department said that using routine celebrations or public remarks as a pretext for provocation would undermine peace and stability Beijing’s expected use of President William Lai’s (賴清德) Double Ten National Day speech today as a pretext for provocative measures would undermine peace and stability, the US Department of State said on Tuesday. Taiwanese officials have said that China is likely to launch military drills near Taiwan in response to Lai’s speech as a pretext to pressure the nation to accept its sovereignty claims. A state department spokesperson said it could not speculate on what China would or would not do. “However, it is worth emphasizing that using routine annual celebrations or public remarks as a pretext or excuse for provocative or coercive
CONCERNS: Allowing the government, political parties or the military to own up to 10 percent of a large media firm is a risk Taiwan cannot afford to take, a lawyer said A Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator has proposed amendments to allow the government, political parties and the military to indirectly invest in broadcast media, prompting concerns of potential political interference. Under Article 1 of the Satellite Broadcasting Act (衛星廣播電視法), the government and political parties — as well as foundations established with their endowments, and those commissioned by them — cannot directly or indirectly invest in satellite broadcasting businesses. A similar regulation is in the Cable Radio and Television Act (有線廣播電視法). “The purpose of banning the government, political parties and the military from investing in the media is to prevent them from interfering
RSS