Credit freezes for all, or victims only?
Page | 1 | 2 | 3 |

What can you do? Speak up!
Currently, two bills regarding security freezes are in the House. The Financial Data Protection Act of 2006, HR 3997, and the Data Accountability and Trust Act, or DATA, HR 4127. These bills also address when individual companies must notify their customers of data breaches. 

Here are the differences between the two:

You decide: Which bill would you vote for?

Financial Data Protection Act of 2006 (HR 3997) Data Accountability and Trust Act (HR 4127) Security freezes: • Would limit security freezes to identity theft victims. • Would override state laws regarding security freezes. Data breaches: • Would allow individual companies to decide whether a data security breach is serious enough to notify their clients and customers. If the company is not sure, no notification is necessary. Security freezes: • Makes no uniform mandate on whom can freeze their credit reports. • Would allow states to decide on security freezes. Data breaches: • Would require companies that experienced a data security breach to notify consumers unless they can show that the breach poses no reasonable risk of harm to consumers. If the risk level cannot be determined, consumers must receive notification about the data exposure.

Now, contact your representatives
If you want to voice your opinion about the security freezes and the manner in which any breach in data is addressed, contact your representatives in Washington, and let them know which of these two bills you prefer and why.

Act quickly. The House of Representatives returned from recess after Labor Day, which means a vote could come at any time.

You can search by ZIP code for your representative on House.gov. If you'd like to speak to a local representative in person, Consumers Union provides detailed instructions on how to do so on their Web site.

Had success or frustration with fraud alerts, credit monitoring services or credit freezes? Tell us about it.