Why Doesn't The Justice Department Want An Identity Thief To Tell His Story To Congress?

from the doesn't-make-much-sense dept

Thu, Apr 12th 2007 6:07pm — Mike Masnick

In what world would it make sense for politicians determining policy on a scam to be barred from speaking to an expert on that exact scam? Apparently, the world known as Washington DC. The Senate Finance Committee is holding hearings on identity theft, and asked a convicted identity thief to testify about his crimes. That certainly seems like one good way to learn about what's going on in the identity theft world -- but the Justice Department tried to stop it, claiming that allowing him to testify would violate laws that don't allow prisoners to have "elevated status" and also that it could pose a security risk. Apparently the Justice Department believes that if no one can talk about identity theft, maybe it won't happen. The good news, though, is that a judge has ruled against the DOJ, allowing the guy to testify before the Senate Committee. Identity theft is a serious problem, and hiding those who can best educate people about the problem doesn't help solve it.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

teknosapien, 12 Apr 2007 @ 6:12pm

ok How
Screwed up is this now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sanguine Dream, 12 Apr 2007 @ 8:35pm

Ignorance
That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
johndm, 12 Apr 2007 @ 8:39pm

I think that it would depend on several things. The criminal being interviewed could throw off the scent by fabricating a story to replace the reality, or withhold information without them knowing, thus creating a possible loophole or unaccounted for methods in the law created using his information. I think that there is no reason for alarm in having him speak, but the Senate should take his information with little weight in how it affects the final law. Ideally they probably will do this, but realistically, every word he will speak will be taken into consideration by the Senate members. Sort of like a witness saying something on the stand, and the jury being told to disregard the comment - you know the jury is tainted now! Likewise, even if they never admit it, whatever this criminal tells them, they will secretly or subconsciously let it have an effect on the laws generated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2007 @ 6:33am
  
  Re:
  I agree that they should weigh his testimony carefully but to try and keep him from speaking is almost silly. Cops face the this choice whenever they listen to a snitch, informant, or captured crook. They don't blindly go on their word but they won't totally disregard what they say without at least thinking about it. Misinformation from that crook could cause the cops to walk into an ambush or the info could be legit and lead to a major bust.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe, 12 Apr 2007 @ 9:18pm

Wha?
claiming that allowing him to testify would violate laws that don't allow prisoners to have "elevated status"

I didn't know there were such laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- InkChemist, 12 Apr 2007 @ 9:43pm
  
  Re: Wha?
  I don't know if those laws exist or not, but wouldn't testifying before congress be considered a form of punishment rather than providing elevated status?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wl, 14 Apr 2007 @ 5:51am
  
  Re: Wha?
  maybe the (super) "patriot" act has given the fbi, homeland security, cia, and justice the power to just make up a law to fit their shenanagins whenever they need to. and how about those guys browbeating your library into telling them what you been reading. was in my local library yesterday, there were signs posted all over the place saying something to the effect that the library , under pain of presecution, could not tell you that the "law (?) and order" guys had put you on one of their many lists
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joshua Herzig-Marx, 12 Apr 2007 @ 9:59pm

Protecting themselves?
I wonder if it's really about this guy's testimony, or if someone at Justice is concerned that convicted lobbyists or administration staffers could be called to testify. Perhaps it's just the White House being proactive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 12 Apr 2007 @ 10:40pm

Trade secrets...
I get this feeling sometimes that cops/spooks/whatever don't like certain secrets being spilled to the public, even when the bad guys already know them. I mean, such knowledge is already being exploited for nefarious ends; how much worse could it be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artemis Vindictus, 12 Apr 2007 @ 10:49pm

You're all missing the point
Testimonies like this poke holes in the big brotheresque initiatives for national ids, and other wheel spinning shenanigans propagated via Patiot Act or various other Constitution shredding programs.

The more holes poked into this false credit eco-system we live in, the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just me, 13 Apr 2007 @ 5:39am

signing a disclaimer
They should have the person testifying sign a disclaimer stating he wont make money off of his testimony, or seek fame. Book deals or movies are out. Jobs also. Then put a limit on how long the disclaimer will be in effect. I say give it 10 years, by the time the 10 years is over everyone wont remember the persons name.

They should also make his testimony not public record, in order to protect the public from other wannabe Identity Thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WarOtter, 13 Apr 2007 @ 5:43am

Please
So I just bought a new car... could someone pull a Tyler Durden and erase the debt record?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed, 13 Apr 2007 @ 6:30am

No competition...
The DoJ simply doesn't want criminal competition. They're in the top crime family now and feel they get to decide who gets all the publicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AnyMouse, 13 Apr 2007 @ 10:22am

Senate too much credit
I think you guys are giving the senate too much credit, assuming that they would actually listen and understand anything other than what they have been bribed, I mean 'lobbied' to vote for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James, 13 Apr 2007 @ 11:13am

Why...
....does the govt do anything idiotic?? Because its run by idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul, 25 Apr 2007 @ 5:33pm

Identity thief to Congress ?
What ? Give them the "how-to" instructions ?
OUR CONGRESS ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]