In the last issue we discussed the importance of tracers being knowledgeable of the HIPAA statutes in relation to protecting health related information obtained, directly or indirectly, while attempting to locate a consumer. In this issue we will continue to look at some of the other federal statutes that affect the professional tracer’s ability to locate lost or missing consumers and assets.
Section 803, paragraph (7) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) defines location information as a consumer’s “place of abode and his telephone number at such place, or his place of employment”. The tracer should clearly understand that section 804, by the definition of location information in section 803, not only limits the information a tracer may ask for but also dictates how a tracer must identify themselves and the purpose of their communication with third parties. Section 804 also makes it very clear that the tracer is prohibited from stating the consumer owes a debt or communicating further with that particular informant unless certain conditions are present. Finally, this section requires the tracer to cease all tracing activity once they learn that the consumer is represented by an attorney. I strongly recommend that all tracers familiarize themselves with this section of the FDCPA and follow the guidelines it sets forth.
The next federal statute I would bring to the tracer’s attention is section 604 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Permissible Purposes of Consumer Reports. This section lists the five permissible purposes for which a tracer may request a consumer report. I would caution the tracer to make sure they have a clear purpose as defined in this section and never, under any circumstances or for any reason, request a report on any person which is not covered. I recently was involved as an expert witness in a case where the tracer, after exhausting all their leads, requested a consumer report on the consumer’s father in an attempt to locate the consumer through contact with the father. This was settled out of court by the agency’s insurance company for a very substantial sum. Avoid lawsuits and adverse publicity by knowing what the FCRA permissible purposes are and following them to the limit.
Another federal statute which tracers must be aware of is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) which prohibits financial institutions and their service providers from sharing “Non-Public Personal Information” (NPPI) provided when obtaining or attempting to obtain any type of consumer financing. The definition of NPPI is unclear as the verbiage defines what is deemed not to be NPPI rather than clearly defining what it actually is. NPPI is defined as, “any information which is not readily obtainable through public sources”. A date of birth should be public information but since the tracer does not know where the person was born and where the birth certificate is recorded the information becomes “not readily obtainable” and hence NPPI. A listed telephone number would be public information while a non-published number would be NPPI.
I suggest each agency sit down with their tracers and develop a complete list of information deemed to be Non-Public Personal Information and make it a company policy that the listed items be adhered to without exception and be shared with no other person or entity.
To close we will take a look at one of the newest and most frightening of the statutes to affect tracers, the Telephone Records Privacy and Protection Act of 2006 (TRPPA). This federal statute, which actually criminalizes any violation by not only providing for fines but incarceration also, prohibits pretexting to buy, sell or obtain personal phone records, except when conducted by law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The recent bill threatens up to 10 years in prison to anyone pretending to be someone else, or otherwise employs fraudulent tactics to persuade phone company employees or customers to provide any confidential information about their customers. Tracers think about that for a moment “or their customers” would include anyone that you or any tracer might be speaking with on the telephone. Before this law was passed, it was only illegal in the United States to use pretexting to obtain financial records about someone via the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. In California, it was already illegal to use pretexting to obtain phone records, but most politicians and consumer advocacy groups pleaded for a federal bill to be passed. Sale of telephone information was widespread because the possibility of criminal prosecution was nonexistent. With the passing of the TRPPA, that was no longer the case as a tracer can do time in a federal penitentiary for violating any section of the statute.
I close with this short preachment, “As a professional tracer know and follow the statutes which relate to your chosen profession.”
Good Luck and Good Hunting.
Ron Brown is a member of the National Association of Fraud Investigators and the author of “MANHUNT: The Book.” Contact him at