The latest draft of HR 3997 (See blog entry just below) includes a new section that preempts stronger state freeze laws and implements a weak "victims with police reports" only federal freeze. This makes a bad bill worse.

Security freezes give consumers real control over access to their credit report that no other identity theft prevention action provides them with. Your best defense is going to be a security freeze. A freeze prevents access to your credit report to new creditors. This closes a loophole that identity thieves have exploited, since most businesses will not issue new credit or loans to people without first reviewing their credit reports.

Why shouldn't all consumers have the right to a free or low-cost consumer-friendly (easy-to-use) freeze?? Don't we need "instant privacy" to counter the risk that "instant credit" poses? And don't we need real protection-- protection that the Fair Credit Reporting Act says the credit bureaus should provide us anyway?

Giving the right to a security freeze only to ID theft victims is locking the door after the horse has already left the barn. All consumers should have the right to sleep at night without worrying about identity theft, by placing a freeze on their accounts. It's the only proven way to stop identity theft before it starts.

This important right should not merely be provided after you've already become a victim. What good is that? In fact, granting the right to a freeze only to victims runs counter to industry's basic lobbying claim that existing fraud alert rights are already adequate protection to victims against repeat occurrences. (By the way, they're not: (1) fraud alerts are only available to some consumers and (2) don't absolutely stop credit granting. Presence of a fraud alert merely subjects the creditor to potential liability if it doesn't do certain things.)