|
Hello DUers--
The CALIFORNIA ELECTION PROTECTION NETWORK has received a response to our Centralized Voter Registration Position Statement. Today we received a rebuttal from ChoicePoint, as follows:
_____________________________________________________________________
Posted below is the rebuttal prepared by ChoicePoint attempting to respond to the allegations of the California Election Protection Network:
Many of CEPN’s critical comments and conclusions are based on incomplete or inaccurate facts.
I. NO to Privatization and NO to ChoicePoint
ChoicePoint has not expressed, nor does it have any interest in creating, supporting or maintaining a central voter data file. In fact ChoicePoint has maintained a corporate position since 2001 that voter eligibility should not be solely determined using any technology or data system. We also believe any voter credentialing system that is technology based should have a robust human adjudication system to ensure voting rights are protected.
a. ChoicePoint’s Product & Service
Statement:…ChoicePoint’s databases on U.S. citizens are rife with errors, yet ChoicePoint offers NO way for a citizen to remedy them.
Fact: ChoicePoint’s public record information is highly accurate, but any individual record is only as accurate as the information source – primarily a government agency – that created it. By comparing the information with other historical and publicly available information, we are often able to improve the quality of the government supplied information. However, only the government agency that created the record can correct any inaccuracy.
ChoicePoint offers consumers the right to review, question, and in some cases, comment on information ChoicePoint provides to clients who use the information to make a decision about a consumer. Many of our data products are governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACT Act) that guarantee consumer access for free.
ChoicePoint voluntarily applies the same principles to public records search reports by giving consumers free access to public record search reports about themselves and providing guidance on how to get an inaccurate record corrected. Only the government agency that created a public record can correct it, but ChoicePoint assists consumers in identifying and contacting the appropriate government agency.
b. ChoicePoint’s Ties to the Military
Statement: ChoicePoint has extensive contracts with our military.
Fact: ChoicePoint has no products or services that are used for military purposes.
ChoicePoint has contracts with all of the major federal law enforcement agencies, primarily to provide technology and in some cases, public records information in a searchable, aggregated form to assist in criminal or civil investigations.
c. ChoicePoint’s Ties to E-Voting Vendors
Statement: ChoicePoint has ties to electronic voting vendors, e.g. ChoicePoint has a joint data mining alliance with SAIC (Scientific Applications International Corporation), and SAIC wrote voting system security software for Diebold.
Fact: ChoicePoint has no relationship with any electronic voting supplier and never has.
d. ChoicePoint’s 2000 Presidential Election
Statement: … the NAACP soon thereafter sued ChoicePoint’s DBT Technologies, alleging that their database led to the massive disenfranchisement of many Florida citizens from their lawful right to vote. The case settled, but it was ultimately revealed that ChoicePoint’s DBT Technologies’ software had targeted over 94,000 citizens to be purged, primarily on the grounds that they were felons, but that only 1-in-30 of those targeted actually were felons.
Fact: DBT was hired by competitive bid in 1998 by the state of Florida to conduct an annual review of the state’s voter registration role to identify people who were possibly deceased, possibly registered in more than one county, and who were possibly convicted felons. ChoicePoint purchased DBT in May 2000, after the annual voter registration review had been completed and returned to the state for verification by local voting officials. The list included the names of approximately 56,000 Florida voters who may have been convicted felons.
An investigation by the US Civil Rights Commission, the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the Florida Legislature determined DBT did nothing wrong and, in fact, no investigative body determined anyone was denied the right to vote based on the DBT list. In fact the Miami Herald determined the opposite, concluding that at least 700 ineligible felons were able to vote because of local officials refusal to manually verify the state supplied list based on DBT’s work.
The criteria used to compile the review list was determined by state officials who had been advised by DBT that the list would result in the names of people who were not deceased, not registered in more than one county and not convicted felons being included. Florida officials determined that was acceptable since local officials were required to manually verify the list.
ChoicePoint’s involvement in the litigation was simply as the successor company. Never before or since the acquisition of DBT has ChoicePoint been involved with determining the eligibility of registered voters and has no intentions of doing so in the future. ChoicePoint maintains a belief that such work is too important to rely on automated technology or information based reviews.
f. ChoicePoint’s Concentration & Privatization of
Information
Statement: …ChoicePoint, as a private entity, may take citizen data—then manipulate the data using proprietary software, which is protected by “trade secret”laws—and thereby render the data inaccessible to public scrutiny.
Fact: ChoicePoint gives consumers access to information reports about themselves for free. Eighty three percent of ChoicePoint’s revenue comes from transactions initiated or approved by a consumer, a business only transaction, or from a technology sale. Ten percent comes from marketing services, five from law enforcement products and two from anti-fraud products used by businesses.
g. The Privacy Act of 1974: Exploiting a Loophole
Statement: ChoicePoint has sold private data on U.S. citizens to government agencies—including the FBI—despite the Privacy Act of 1974. …we assert that the government has no authority to contract with any private entity to control data that could impact the public’s right to a free and fair election.
Fact:While numerous government reviews have all concluded that ChoicePoint’s services do not violate the federal privacy act, ChoicePoint agrees that voter eligibility is too important to rely wholly on automated information-based systems. While there are technologies that would allow government agencies to share the information needed to verify voter eligibility, such a system would still need a robust system of human adjudication to ensure voters are not unfairly impacted. Further, ChoicePoint has no interest in participating in voter eligibility systems.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(645 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
