Have you checked your credit card balance lately?
Some can triumphantly proclaim, "thank God, I don't have credit cards!" But for those of us who might, it's painfully obvious that the person we often speak to on the other end isn't local! In fact, they are quite a ways off! As in on the other side of the planet!
To have an intelligent discussion about identity theft prevention, we must first determine potential security breaches. Which leads to the first question: "Should consumer sensitive information be entrusted to someone not required to conform to the normal security measures required in the United States?"
To work in banking, securities, insurance, real estate or mortgage lending a person must be fingerprinted and checked by the F.B.I. in Washington, D.C. for prior arrests, felonies and misdemeanors. Are these same rules required for employees working offshore? Fair question.
In reality, some of these companies are so large, they may not be able to answer the question! What they can tell you is that "in America, companies would be required to pay $7.25 per hour for this help. In India, Central America, Indonesia and the Philippines, it is MUCH cheaper." Furthermore there are often no overtime requirements, benefit standards and cumbersome restrictions that can come with banking in America.
Consumers may find this "help" somewhat deficient at times. But the alleged tradeoff is cost. Or, in their case savings. Most never think past the point of "free" services. We have been conditioned to think globally. It is assumed that the only important consideration is the cost of the service.
As internet use has risen, so has identity theft. Is there a correlation between increased offshore employment in the service sector and identity theft? Fortune 500 companies would say "no" and suggest that any link between the two is "coincidental."
Most Americans take the practice for granted. However, when brought to light, it's easy to say, "wait a minute!" Why are we taking these jobs abroad when we have high unemployment at home? It's a fair question.
Defenders of the practice are quick to point out that "only encrypted" social security numbers are utilized. This isn't always the case. But even in instances that it is, four digits may be four digits too many! Some of the finest internet hackers in the world reside in Asia. Therefore, why even take such chances?
This is a great non-partisan issue. It is politically popular to bash companies who would compromise Americans' privacy, in the name of making an increased profit. The thought of banning the practice would spread like a prairie fire across the parched West Texan Llano in August!
Packaging this measure with a sweeping bill that featured English as the Official Language would be doubly delightful! If there was ever an idea that would cross party lines it's "banning any and all offshore outsourcing that utilized all or part of an Americans' social security number." The identity theft prevention foundations would be receiving a major consideration. American politicians could talk about "returning tens of thousand jobs to our shores."
Amazingly, no English foundation has considered pairing with anti-identity theft advocates. Yet, the two causes actually parallel." English, as the official language, would impact information processing in America. "Making Americans the masters of the English language" points toward a goal of an eventual world monopoly on English information processing. It will begin with banking and the financial services sector. Debt recovery, an industry sorely in need of restraints will follow. The last link will be accurate credit reporting.
It begins with linking "English only" with identity theft prevention. Expect some flak!
Diversity cultists would be horrified at such a Populist proposition. It completely discredits their claim that English as the country's official language "discriminates." It makes it possible for proponents to correctly align diversity cultists with globalists. In a mood of growing nationalism, America is looking for scapegoats. It would be a severely inopportune time for any constituency to oppose either measure.
Post a Comment