Pretexting is not legal. Idiots.

September 9, 2006 at 10:42 pm | In domestic politics, ethics, law | 1 Comment

When a company commits fraud somehow it’s better than the average con-artist. Fancy names are thrown around and the laws are left in the dust.

This “Pretexting” case in the news right now shows quite clearly that our biggest problem isn’t the criminals; it’s the people who are supposed to be enforcing their authority for a good law.

/s/ Andrew

…

Wikipedia: Pretexting is the act of pretending to be someone who you are not by telling an untruth, or creating deception. The practice of pretexting typically involves tricking a telecom carrier into disclosing personal information of a customer, with the scammer pretending to be the customer. At present, the majority of wireless telephony providers consider the practice of pretexting as illegal.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB) signed into U.S. law in 1999 specifically addresses pretexting as an illegal act punishable under federal statutes.

When a business entity, such as a private investigator, SIU insurance investigators and an adjuster conducts any type of “deception,” it falls under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This federal agency has the obligation and authority to ensure that consumers are not subject to any unfair or deceptive business practices.

US Federal Trade Commission Act, Section 5 of the FTCA states, in part:

“Whenever the Commission shall have reason to believe that any such person, partnership, or corporation has been or is using any unfair method of competition or unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, and if it shall appear to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public, it shall issue and serve upon such person, partnership, or corporation a complaint stating its charges in that respect…”

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretexting>

…

‘Pretexting’ scandal at high-tech firm extends outside board room

Sept. 7, 2006

Bob Sullivan

Technology correspondent

In an effort to track down the source of information leaks by Hewlett-Packard Co. insiders, private investigators working for the company obtained reporters’ telephone records without permission, the company told MSNBC.com on Thursday.

The reporters’ records were accessed as part of a private investigation into news leaks that was initiated by company Chairwoman Patricia Dunn.

The investigators got the records by impersonating journalists from the Wall Street Journal, CNET.com and other news organizations in a practice known as “pretexting,” the company said.

HP spokesman Michael Moeller said that “there are other journalists” whose records were improperly accessed, but would not say how many others were involved.

“HP is absolutely dismayed that the records of journalists were accessed without their knowledge,” he said. “We are completely and fully cooperating with the state attorney general’s investigation into HP and this incident.”

Earlier Thursday, CNET.com and the Wall Street Journal published stories indicating their reporters had been contacted by the California Attorney General’s Office and told their telephone records had been accessed by unauthorized individuals connected to the company.

“CNET Networks takes this situation most seriously,” spokeswoman Sarah Cain said. “These actions not only violated the privacy rights of our employee, but also the rights of all reporters to protect their confidential sources.”

Robert Christie, spokesman for Dow Jones, which owns the Wall Street Journal, said the newspaper would not comment on its story.

A spokesman for the California Attorney General’s Office, Tom Dresslar, said he couldn’t comment on ongoing investigations. Dresslar also declined to comment on Moeller’s assertion that other reporters may have been targeted.

In its story, CNET said it was told by an investigator at the attorney general’s office that HP had provided a “partial list of reporters names whose phone records may have been compromised.” Cain said she didn’t know how many reporters were on that list.

News of boardroom intrigue at HP broke earlier this week in Newsweek with a story that detailed a messy spying episode inside the company. Newsweek reported that Dunn had ordered an investigation of other members of the company’s Board of Directors in an effort to find out who was giving information anonymously to reporters.

The Newsweek story indicated that the investigation was initiated by Dunn, who was irked by a story published in January by CNET reporter Dawn Kawamoto that provided details of a board-members-only meeting.

The investigation was thorough. Kawamoto’s home telephone records were obtained, even though her phone is in her husband’s name, CNET reported.

But the pattern of obtaining reporters’ records may stretch further back. The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that reporter Pui-Wing Tam had been contacted by the California Attorney General’s Office with information suggesting she may have been the target of pretexting.

Tam, the newspaper indicated, broke an important story about former CEO Carly Fiorina and her disagreements with board members. Fiorina resigned from HP in early 2005.

Moeller refused to say what period of time the pretexting activity covered.

“We’re not giving out any more information at this time,” he said.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday, HP acknowledged that its agents used pretexting to obtain board members’ personal telephone records. Pretexting involves hacking into a consumers’ telephone records by impersonating the consumer, and tricking customer service representatives or Web sites into divulging the personal information.

Thursday’s developments indicate that the pretexting extended outside the board room. Journalists’ telephone records would readily indicate which board members were communicating with reporters.

After a blogger purchased Gen. Wesley Clark’s phone records last year from a pretexter, a media firestorm ensued, and Congressional hearings were held examining the practice.

Pretexting runs afoul of federal law — specifically, the Federal Trade Commission Act, which bans deceptive trade practices.

Late Thursday, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer told the Associated Press that the HP investigation violated two California state laws: California’s identity theft statutes, which make it illegal to use someone else’s personal information to commit a crime, and the state’s computer crime laws, which make unauthorized access to databases illegal.

“The question was, was a crime committed? The answer is yes. Does that mean charges will result? Well, we haven’t completed the investigation so we’re not yet certain as to who committed the crime,” Lockyer said. ““It’s likely if evidence continues to come in the way it has that there will be a prosecution,” he said. “But we’re not ready to go file a complaint. We’re still investigating.”

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive

Pasted from <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14721854/>

“Mr. Whitehead, it’s now a war between us and you’ve fired the first shot. I will be coming after you.” Eliot Spitzer, N.Y. Districxt Attorney to John Whitehead, former Chairmen, Goldman Sachs

December 22, 2005 at 1:10 pm | In domestic politics, ethics, law | 1 Comment

fascism?

Scary

By JOHN C. WHITEHEAD

Last April, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece by me titled “Mr. Spitzer Has Gone Too Far.” In it I expressed my belief that in America, everyone — including Hank Greenberg — is innocent until proven guilty. “Something has gone seriously awry,” I wrote, “when a state attorney general can go on television and charge one of America’s best CEOs and most generous philanthropists with fraud before any charges have been brought, before the possible defendant has even had a chance to know what he personally is alleged to have done, and while the investigation is still under way.”

Since there have been rumors in the media as to what happened next, I feel I must now set the record straight. After reading my op-ed piece, Mr. Spitzer tried to phone me. I was traveling in Texas but he reached me early in the afternoon. After asking me one or two questions about where I got my facts, he came right to the point. I was so shocked that I wrote it all down right away so I would be sure to remember it exactly as he said it. This is what he said:

“Mr. Whitehead, it’s now a war between us and you’ve fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written that letter.”

I tried to interrupt to say he was doing to me exactly what he’d been doing to others, but he wouldn’t be interrupted. He went on in the same vein for several more sentences and then abruptly hung up. I was astounded. No one had ever talked to me like that before. It was a little scary.

It’s up to others to make their own conclusions. I have only set out here what happened.

Mr. Whitehead, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, is chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.

Britain’s Top Court Rules Information Gotten by Torture Is Never Admissible Evidence

December 9, 2005 at 1:31 pm | In domestic politics, ethics, global politics, social theory | 1 Comment

The clarity of the British position contrasts unfavorably with the ambiguity of the Bush administration’s statements on the subject of evidence acquired through torture, and on the permissiblity of torture itself.

LONDON, Dec. 8 – Britain’s highest court thrust itself into the middle of a roiling international debate on Thursday, declaring that evidence obtained through torture – no matter by whom – was not admissible in British courts. It also said Britain had a “positive obligation” to uphold antitorture principles abroad as well as at home.

“The issue is one of constitutional principle, whether evidence obtained by torturing another human being may lawfully be admitted against a party to proceedings in a British court, irrespective of where, or by whom, or on whose authority the torture was inflicted,” said Lord Bingham, writing the lead opinion in a unanimous ruling for the Law Lords. “To that question I would give a very clear negative answer.”

The ruling dealt specifically with 10 men who were detained after the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, and were held without charge in Britain on suspicion of being terrorists. But while the question at hand concerned only British courts, the ruling seems to have been made with the current international situation very much in mind. Several of the concurring opinions referred explicitly, and not flatteringly, to the United States.

Speaking of what he said was England’s justifiable pride in its common-law rejection, centuries ago, of torture as a means to an end, Lord Hoffman brought his argument forward to the current era. “In our own century,” he wrote, “many people in the United States, heirs to that common-law tradition, have felt their country dishonored by its use of torture outside the jurisdiction, and its practice of extra-legal ‘rendition’ of suspects to countries where they would be tortured.”

The Law Lords struck down the Court of Appeal decision in strong, stirring, indignant language that referred to centuries of English common-law precedent, to the moral weight of international treaties and obligations like the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and to the rights of individuals as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

“The principles of the common law, standing alone, in my opinion compel the exclusion of third-party torture evidence as unreliable, unfair, offensive to ordinary standards of humanity and decency and incompatible with the principles which should animate a tribunal seeking to administer justice,” Lord Bingham wrote.

He referred to authorities from as far back as the 15th century to make the case that torture has no place in English law, or indeed in any law. He quoted the historian Sir William Holdsworth, who wrote in 1945 that “once torture has been acclimatized in a legal system, it spreads like an infectious disease” and “hardens and brutalizes those who have become accustomed to it.”

The prohibition against torture “has now become one of the most fundamental standards of the international community,” Lord Bingham continued.

“This prohibition is designed to produce a deterrent effect, in that it signals to all members of the international community and the individuals over whom they wield authority that the prohibition of torture is an absolute value from which nobody must deviate.”

Unquestionably the war in Iraq is now part of the war on terror. It is a pivotal battle against fascists and zealots over the right of people to govern themselves by democratic means. Essential as these objectives are, it is illegal for any official of any government to use torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as punishment or in interrogations. President Bush has properly ordered that those who have disgraced America with such conduct be prosecuted, and anyone who authorized such conduct should also be brought to justice.

November 27, 2005 at 8:15 am | In domestic politics, ethics, global politics, law, social theory | Leave a Comment

No Exceptions
By ABRAHAM D. SOFAER
November 26, 2005; Page A11

…Official U.S. policy is to abide by its commitment to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The convention was drafted and adopted with U.S. involvement, and it has been ratified by 140 States. It had the full support of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Violations of the convention are made criminal by U.S. law.

Despite the official policy of applying the convention to all U.S. officials everywhere, the Department of Justice has issued an opinion claiming that Article 16 of the treaty applies only in the territorial U.S. This conclusion is wrong. It has created confusion in the field, and it exposes the president and the nation to criticism.

Art. 16 imposes on every State Party the obligation to prevent, not only torture, but also “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” acts in any “territory under its jurisdiction.” When the convention was presented to the Senate for ratification, Sen. Jesse Helms raised several issues, including the possibility that other states or tribunals might claim that the words of Art. 16 should be construed more broadly than the “cruel or unusual punishment” clause of our Constitution. He felt that U.S. officials should not have to deal with different sets of standards where the words involved were so similar.

The Reagan and Bush administrations agreed, proposing a reservation to the treaty aimed at limiting the meaning of the term in Art. 16 — “cruel, inhuman or degrading” — to what is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Although this reservation involved the scope and meaning of treaty terms, the current Department of Justice has claimed that this reservation limits the U.S. obligation to enforce Art. 16 to the geographic territory of the U.S., on the grounds that the Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment is inapplicable beyond U.S. territory. DOJ’s position is untenable for several reasons.

Most fundamentally, the purpose and language of the reservation was not intended to restrict the U.S. commitment geographically, and would give the words “territory under its jurisdiction” a more limited meaning under Art. 16 than the DOJ agrees the same words have under Article 2, which requires State Parties to take measures against acts of torture. Restricting enforcement of Art. 16 to U.S. territory would fundamentally undermine the treaty’s purpose of preventing “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment by any State in any place it has “jurisdiction.”

The administration moreover claims that its proposed reading and amendment are not intended to allow U.S. officials actually to engage in “cruel, inhuman or degrading” acts outside the U.S., but only to preserve “flexibility” and protect such officials from charges that they have engaged in such acts. This is unsustainable: Any exception to the treaty’s requirement is understandably seen as an effort to allow illegal acts, undermining our diplomatic initiative to change America’s image abroad. Actually, a territorial limitation for Art. 16 creates risks for officials who might violate the provision. No other State Party is likely to accept the U.S. view, and all of them are obliged to enforce the treaty if the U.S. fails to do so. Meanwhile, U.S. courts could reject the Justice Department position and subject officials to the criminal statutes passed to enforce the convention.

While the administration says that the post-9/11 world demands greater flexibility to use “cruel, inhuman or degrading” pressure or punishment, the convention includes a provision that precludes this argument: “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” To be sure, the treaty’s terms are vague as written, but Defense Department guidelines have provided interrogators adequate guidance as to the permissibility or impropriety of all known forms of interrogation.

Congress can and should authorize a system of judicial review that ensures consistent and authoritative interpretations. The notion that the conduct of the enemies we face is so lawless that we should make exceptions to the normal rules is a formula for subjectivity and lawlessness. The rule of law allows the U.S. to punish terrorists harshly after affording them due process, and such punishment may properly generate cooperation from those seeking leniency.

In order to end the uncertainty created by the Justice Department’s position, Sen. John McCain introduced an amendment to the Defense Department’s authorization bill that would establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for all U.S. interrogations, and would prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of persons in U.S. custody anywhere in the world. The amendment is supported by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and by over 30 retired generals of the U.S. armed forces. Nonetheless, the administration objects to this provision and has insisted that at least CIA officials should be exempt. If U.S. policy prohibits such conduct, however, why immunize CIA interrogators who violate U.S. policy? Despite a threatened veto, the Senate voted 90-6 to adopt the amendment.

President Bush should accept the McCain Amendment. He has repeatedly affirmed that the dignity and equality of all human beings stems from natural law that overrides the claims of particular societies and ideologies. The Torture Convention represents an effort to translate this principle into practice, through universal adoption and enforcement. The U.S. does not need to violate its provisions, anywhere, to win the war on terror.

Mr. Sofaer, the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, was a legal adviser to the U.S. State Department and presented the Torture Convention to the Senate for ratification in 1990.

in answer to recent Bush administration assesrtions of the legitimacy of torture…

November 17, 2005 at 4:08 pm | In ethics | Leave a Comment

Hermann Cohen, a 19th-century Jewish philosopher, once wrote, in an exegesis on the Bible, “The alien was to be protected not because he was a member of one’s family, clan, or religious community, but because he was a human being. In the alien, therefore, man discovered the idea of humanity.”

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.