Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HEARING ON “PHONE RECORDS FOR SALE:
WHY AREN’T PHONE RECORDS SAFE
FROM PRETEXTING?”

February 1, 2006

Chairman Barton, thank you for holding this hearing today. We all agree that pretexting is bad. Illegally obtaining or selling telephone records -- or any other sensitive personal information, for that matter -- poses a serious threat to American citizens. And we are talking about more than just embarrassment here. Pretexting poses serious risks, including possible injury or death to victims of domestic violence and stalking, and to law enforcement and homeland security personnel, especially those operating under cover. What is happening is a crime and we need to put a stop to it.

In that regard, I am pleased that we have both the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a Commissioner from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) before us today. We need to get to the bottom of whether the laws that they administer are up to the task at hand. If not, we need to strengthen their statutes and require better coordination and cooperation between the two agencies in order to halt the outrageous and dangerous conduct that has been allowed to run rampant. If their respective statutes are deemed sufficient, then the question arises why have the FCC and the FTC not been more vigorous and timely in shutting down this threat?

Specifically, is Section 5 of the FTC Act sufficient to protect consumers against this deceptive activity? Likewise, does Section 222 of the Communications Act give the FCC enough authority to ensure that the carriers are properly protecting consumer telephone records? Every telecommunications carrier under the statute has “a duty to protect” their customers’ information. That begs the question -- how effective are the FCC’s rules? For example, FCC regulations require annual certifications regarding protection of telephone records by carriers. Yet, the FCC did not ask for a copy of the certifications until after this Committee’s request. Perhaps that explains why 20 percent of the carriers were apparently not in compliance.

The use of pretexting to obtain consumer telephone records is not new. A Washington Post article dated July 8, 2005, was headlined “Cell Phone Records for Sale.” But the FCC appears to have been in a blissful slumber until just recently. I would appreciate knowing whether the FCC audited a single carrier prior to Rep. Markey’s November 7th letter.

The fact remains, if carriers collect information about consumers, it is the responsibility of carriers to protect that information, the FCC’s job to ensure that the carriers are doing just that, and the FTC’s role to enforce against those who fraudulently obtain such information. And it is this Committee’s responsibility to conduct the oversight necessary to ensure that the agencies are doing their jobs.

Web sites offering phone records for sale are proliferating like cockroaches and are equally as unwelcome. I therefore look forward to receiving the testimony of all of our witnesses today on the nature and scope of the problem and on what we as the Committee of jurisdiction over both telecommunications and consumer protection should do about it.

Chairman Barton has called for bipartisan cooperation in crafting a legislative solution. I am happy to participate in that endeavor and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on this issue.

- 30 -

(Contact: Jodi Seth, 202-225-3641)