ok, ok down boys down....let's not resort to name calling...it just isn't productive. You are both nice people...just a little miscommunication here. to answer your question, solzy, I had to sign confidentiality agreements with almost every client I worked for...to name a few Encyclopedia Britannica, McDonald's, Quaker Oats, Mobil.....as I said in my earlier posts sometimes they seemed silly...but the clients insisted..so we signed. If I was still working as a consultant I think I would be cautious like jobtimer is being...he told you what he did for the CRA which was the important part...so what if he declined to name the client. jobtimer...I understand your feelings...I'm new here as well...after time I think you get a little thicker skinned here...please keep coming back...I have disagreed with you on occasion but I tried to couch it in a nice way. let's all be friends...shake,shake...and return to our corners. clc
I think you are being very disrespectful, solzy. When a person does work for a company, as an empoyee or a contractor, it is standard parctice (and almost always an agreement is sgined), that you will regard information about their business and how they conduct it as proprietary information. There are a lot of things about GEICO that I can't tell people, and I would never ever post them on a public message board. What difference does it make? What was your point, anyway?
the stupidity I referred to was my own... (fortunately I got to the edit button it time as I had misread part of the boilerplate). I don't think I was even *remotely* disrepectful. Even when baited to be so (I was NOT the one who wrote "ask Solzy to look through his Kmart Employee manual" nor "Solzy please marinate for a while in your stupidity and dumb a#$ responses"). In fact, I know I was not disrepectful. My earlier point was that the mere fact of engagement is very rarely considered confidential info. Its the confidential info that's confidential. To quote your own example, you can tell me its GEICO (clc can tell me its Arthur Young and all the other cos.), etc., you just can't tell me "information about their business and how they conduct it as proprietary information." I gave in on the point above....so what the else do you want? Eat my own babies?
Suppoose I tell the secret. Then I can't tell you the company. duh. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion of yourself.
Um, no, that is generally untrue. You can't reveal confidential info regardless of whether you disclose the company or not. There's generally no "its ok if you dont say which co." safe harbor." And in this case what do you contend would be the confidential information or trade secret: that the CRA scans the letters they get?! Puleaze. What a tedious conversation. I say I'm wrong and you can't leave it alone. I get told to marinate in my stupidity and *I'm* the one who's being disrespectful. Bizarre. ...I am quite to content IMO of myself, thanks.
solzy, you're right you were not disrespectful....I mentioned all the names NOW...I wouldn't have back when I worked for AY...it would have been grounds for termination. please let's everyone get along...we are all here because we need each other's help and support. it was just a little misunderstanding...the important point is that we now know that all our documentation is tracked and given that we should all realize that if we need to go to court be prepared. I went back and read your posts from the beginning, solzy, and I know you have been an active member and very helpful to people. jobtimer has always been polite and is eager to give back even though he is a newbie. It's late and maybe we're all a little grumpy...let me be the first to * and make up. I'm off to get some sleep (I would say beauty sleep but mine faded years ago ;=}). Looking forward to seeing y'all tomorrow. clc
Sadly the key question has not been answered (we already know that info is stored because at least some CRAs bring it to court)....that question is whether reps have access to the data when you call in/initiate a dispute.
That's exactly why I don't like the idea of starting a dispute as not mine. Once you've done that what is your next move? DUH I was never late? Why were you never late on an account that's not yours? On the other hand if you start with I was never late you can't then go back and say it was never your's. In either case I think we're better off not disputing an account as NOT mine unless it really isn't. You begin to look desperate and capable of saying anything to get a deletion. You can always launch new disputes using different arguments, until you insist it's not yours. At that point everything else will be treated as frivolous. I've recently been givin to understand it may be made illegal to make a false statement to a CRA. IMHO,
I always thought EXACTLY the opposite.....oh yeah THAT account....now I remember the account, but I am sure I was never late. I always paid on time. Oops I meant I NEVER paid, its not mine. That's what didn't make sense to me. I do not believe there is any provision of federal law specifically making a false statement to a CRA illegal. Nor have I heard of any such state laws.
I guess my post sounded a little OT now that I've read the rest of the board. I DO agree with someone, I just can't say who. If I told ya then I'd have to kill ya.
That's because it may be a movement in Congress. You're right there is no law as of yet. Lets hope it stays that way.
You're right Solzy, This stuff is trickier than we give it credit for. They use every scratch of information they can get against us. Our approach needs to be well thought out and executed from the start. I've heard others say that we can do irreperable harm to our effort without first studying the issues and approaching this as if it were science. It is.
I don't know if they use a database or not, but the technology is certainly there, so I believe this post is completely on target. My g/f used similar database with her law student's papers and found that many had downloaded directly from various websites and law docs, and plagiarized out the wazoo. (She sent 7 out of the 13 in her class to the Judicial board for honors violations.) The application for CRAs then, could be to search for a sentence that seems to appear over and over in various dispute letters (i.e., the samples) -- then they can tell if it's just another boilerplate credit repair dispute. This isn't far-fetched at all.
NSA, (National Security Agency) can take a document powdered by a shredder and reassemble it. Don't kid yourselves they have ALL this stuff.
I hope that ALL OF US can now hear rubber wheels screeching to a halt when it comes to sending in documents along with disputes. The CRAs are under threats of lawsuits every second of the day. You know that to counter this they have to keep thick records of all disputes from us in preparation for potential legal proceedings. Another thing, I am starting to think that many of the reponses that we get back that are marked as "Frivolous" may simply have been scanned and identified one of the commonly used credit repair letters we copied off the Internet. (WKN mentioned this "Scanning & Identifying by Keyword" issue in a previous post and I agree with the great likelihood of this.) We need to seriously consider how these letters are being scanned in regard to keywords we use. We need to stay away from the pre-gurgitated, copied dispute letters and put them into our own words.
