AFFIRMATIVE-CONSUMER/INTERNET-OTHER AFFIRMATIVES 381
BANKING & FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS INHERENCY
THE FEDERAL BANKING REFORM BILL PROTECTS BANKS, NOT PRIVACY
Sean Madigan; Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), March 24, 2000, SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 3A TITLE: Hatch tells Congress to strengthen consumer privacy protection // acs-VT2001
Shortly after President Clinton signed the bill last fall, Luther said that the legislation "fails miserably in the area of consumer privacy protection."
"It was a banking bill, not a privacy bill," said Steve Behm, press secretary for Sen. Rod Grams, R-Minn. He said that Grams, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, worked to add the privacy protections that would serve as a national floor to preserve existing and future state laws.
"These changes won't end the privacy debate," Grams said in November. "Congress will need additional time to better consider the intricate issue of privacy. . . . However, consumers will be better protected than they are today."
BANKS HAVE LOST THEIR JUSTIFICATION FOR SELF-REGULATION THROUGH IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR
Los Angeles Times, July 23, 1999, SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; TITLE: PRIVACY PROTECTION // acs-EE2001
Banks have frittered away the confidence of their customers and lost their case for self-regulation. A law giving consumers some control over their private financial and medical records is the only reasonable recourse.
PRIVACY PROVISIONS IN THE BANKING REFORM BILL WERE SCUTTLED
Robert Scheer, The Denver Post, November 18, 1999 SECTION: DENVER & THE WEST; Pg. B-11 TITLE: Clinton caves in to the banks on the privacy issue // acs-EE2001
'The White House really pulled the rug out from under consumers by agreeing to weak privacy provisions in the banking bill,' said Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass. He, along with conservative Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., unsuccessfully tried to amend the financial bill by requiring consumer approval before private information was bandied about.