This is the FCRA as it now stands as off 01/02: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm The new version is as follows: http://www.moo3mods.com/FCRA2003.htm Bush signed it today!
A couple of parts interest me...first the obligation of resellers to investigate...does this mean if you buy a 3-bureau report from Equifax, that have to investigate Experian? Second, the elaboration on investigation as required by furnishers of information. They're not required to reinvestigate the same dispute. I can just see the CRAs saying that applies to them, but it's not in 611.
Keep in mind that it isn't the Official version, just really close. It will take them a while to put up the official version, so I put that one up so everyone could read the new law (and not get headaches trying to read amendment legalese) before it came out.
Wanting to tell you thank you again, Jazkal, for sharing with us the benefits of your time and work. And asking Butch to give you credit on his website as well, where he has relocated the same. http://www.awesomecredit.com/cnsidebar/newfcra.htm Sassy
I haven't read it all yet (and probably won't for a while) but I did note that the permissible purpose section hasn't changed.
A lot of changes I see, most are beneficial. I see a lot of additions regarding ID theft, and looks like that is most of the amendments, unless I was just overwelmed! However, no change to the magic 7 yr rule or anything allowing CA to report your unpaid medical, even due to insurance company quacks. YUCK!
one good thing is that section 623 (a) (8) (E) will now require the OC to investigate and respond to a consumer when they dispute directly with the OC within 30 days...they also can determine a dispute is frivolous
one good thing is that section 623 (a) (8) (E) will now require the OC to investigate and respond to a consumer when they dispute directly with the OC within 30 days...they also can determine a dispute is frivolous
One important change is the SOL to to bring an action. While it still sits at two years, it would be two years from the date of DISCOVERY of a violation by the consumer. Currently, the SOL is 2 years from date liability arose, whether consumer knew or not (unless you can prove the defendant materially and willfully misrepresented information to consumer.) A lot of potential suits have been squashed because of this limitation. Getting to look more like Calif. state law, which is two years from the date consumer knew or should have known, not date of liability.
I've seen this posted in 8 different places on the internet, not to mention various summaries on several federal sites. Even though everyone seems to be using the same HTML (with the new FACTA insertions highlighted), perhaps one helpful person was the first to do it. Regardless, this is our new FCRA, and there's only one way to place the insertions per the recent legislation. Going after someone for copying someone's iteration of this (a federal statute) doesn't seem fair or helpful. With any luck, we'll hopefully see this document plastered far and wide; consumers need to know the new law of the land. Now, if Butch chooses to post other people's creative work or commentary on his site without permission, or if he lifts sections of Creditnet for example, again without permission, then that would certainly be a different kind of problem. I doubt that will happen, of course, but I wanted to point out the difference between reposting federal statutes versus, for example, reposting original and unique written material from other individuals or web sites. Doc
Doc, I'm connecting the dots, in hopes that you will see this isn't just about the FCRA amendments, which I agree, should be posted far and wide, though it is still possible to give credit to Jazkal for his work in doing so, or at least acknowledge that it isn't your work that you are sharing. I wish it was just this thread, just this time, Doc, I really do. I'm greatly bothered, hurt and disappointed -- this just isn't cool. In this thread (September) in response to a post by Flyingifr having appeared on one of Bill Bauer's sites, without credit to Flying, Butch said, http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51081 There have been several related threads since then on the same subject that I've not participated in directly, only read along, so I've not searched them up or inserted them -- they're available though should you like to review them. Then (11/22), in this thread, Butch posts that he has added to Dixie's cya letter and reposted it: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53492 To which I responded (12/4) and referencing 2 additionally related threads from the week in between: Butch, obviously reading the direct question, about revising Dixie's work and then claiming it as his own with a symbolic copyright on his own website, ignores it and responds only to correct his references to Dixie's gender as a "she" Then there is this thread (12/4) where Butch recommends a nolo credit repair book and notes that his book isn't ready yet: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54393 Which brings us back to this thread. Where Jazkal's contributions and sharing, freely given in that spirit, were also put on Butch's site with his symbolic copyright (removed since yesterday, I've noted today) and with a note added to the top that as of 12/5 Jazkal was a member at CreditNet -- as if membership was necessary for giving someone credit for the work they've done or at least acknowledging that someone else did the work. If you click through the site, you'll find numerous other threads and contributions that are the same -- threads and contributions of others, nodding Butch included in the contributions -- it isn't that he hasn't participated, then tweaked, claimed as his own and all with the symbolic copyright on his own website. I think it sucks, is crushing, self-serving and disappointing. I am greatly bothered, like I said above, it may well be only me that is bothered, but, bothered I am. Sassy
Re: Re: New FCRA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow, thanks for the background. I didn't realize the history. Well, I agree that appropriating other people's work is very wrong, and obviously taking material from a copyrighted web site and putting your own mark on it is similarly wrong. Perhaps Butch's site is a work in progress and that those pages aren't really ready for prime time. I noticed that there's no front page to the site, for example, and all of the pages listed in that unannounced subdirectory look pretty incomplete in one way or another. Maybe he's going to paraphrase everything, and those cut/pasted Creditnet threads are notes for the kinds of things he's going to discuss in his own words later. Although I don't blame anybody for being appropriately startled, I guess I would just like to encourage everyone to wait until he announces a final site before judging it one way or another. Perhaps this thread will be good for our old "fave Butch growling dude," for that matter, because it may serve to impress just how seriously people in our online community consider such issues. I for one thank Sassy for bringing all of this up and for filling out the picture. Doc
Re: Re: New FCRA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you, Doc, Didn't want you to think I was trying to be unfair or unhelpful as posted -- anyone else either, I didn't realize it read that way or like I was going after fave Butch growling dude (LOL you remembered) It does appear to be a work in progress to me as well, Butch linked it himself (why I cut and pasted for you) and that's just what I've been asking. He obviously doesn't want to answer, or as I pasted previously, his silence is very loud, for me anyway -- I honor that, he doesn't have to. I know no one owes me an explanation for anything at all, I was only interested in preserving the integrity and kudos for Jazkal, who had to log-in and become a member to even be recognized. I didn't think that was right. I know you've worked hard on things you've given freely to those that have given to you, Doc. I've watched you follow the nutcase series as it has been born and re-born all over cyberspace. In doing so, you've kept it as it was intended. You've done the same for Marci's goodwill and Lizardking's overall methodology. I do the same wherever I click through cyberspace, because it will take all of us honoring each other to keep that system in place, and, I do feel strongly about it and hope I'm not the only one. For all the same reasons that I've strived to give back and be accountable myself, because that's how it was given to me too. So, I'm not judging, Doc, and I know the differences you were referencing as well. The FCRA belongs to each of us, nodding, I'm still bowing to Jazkal for taking the time and being willing to share his work, even knowing the feds will be along to do the same. It was the spirit of the gift I was honoring, that's bigger for all of us than anything the feds have coming down the pipe. Sassy
