Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 601

Are Annual Privacy Policy Notices From Banks/Credit Unions Excessive?

Argument in favor

Requiring financial institutions to mail out their privacy policy every year - even if it hasn’t changed - is a ridiculous waste of time and resources. People can access these policies online at their leisure.

EricRevell's Opinion
···
03/24/2015
Forcing banks to send out privacy notices even when their policies haven't changed not only raises costs, but it makes people more likely to ignore all of the banking notices they get.
Like (7)
Follow
Share
···
04/13/2015
Yet another wasteful government rule that fills up my mailbox with stuff i'll never read.
Like (3)
Follow
Share
Paul's Opinion
···
04/15/2015
The print is so small I cannot even read them.
Like (1)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Unfortunately, most people don’t read privacy policies in their entirety. Sending out annual notices of up-to-date privacy policies — even if they’re unchanged — ensures that more people can know how their data is being used.

EricSchmeltzer's Opinion
···
04/13/2015
A case can be made that few people read them, but it is important that people who have our money are required to reiterate our rights. They aren't excessive, so I urge a no vote on doing away with them.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
Loraki's Opinion
···
01/04/2017
"This legislation has been passed in the House three times since 2010 — failing to receive a vote in the Senate every time." Maybe that's because the Senate considers it as unimportant a matter as I do. I personally am not bothered by an annual notice. Now, if it were a monthly thing, then I might get annoyed. But why is this a concern of Congress?! Good grief! Don't y'all have anything better to do with your time and my dime?!
Like (3)
Follow
Share
KollanKolthoff's Opinion
···
05/13/2015
Even if they are not read or are tossed out, it is important to at least supply individuals with an update regarding information and their rights.
Like (1)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 601?

Under current law, financial institutions have to notify their customers every year of the policies for giving the personal information of customers to third parties. This bill would allow banks and credit unions to only send privacy policy notices to customers when their policies change, or if they begin sharing nonpublic personal information with third parties.

Impact

People who do their business at banks and credit unions, banks and credit unions, third parties that collect private customer information, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB).

Cost of House Bill H.R. 601

$0.00
A CBO cost estimate found that implementing this bill would increase spending, but wouldn't really increase the workload of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB), making any additional costs insignificant.

More Information

In-Depth:

This legislation has been passed in the House three times since 2010 —  failing to receive a vote in the Senate every time.


Of Note:

The National Association of Federal Credit Unions has come out in support of this bill, saying that it would “remove the need for redundant, burdensome notice disclosures.” They also note that most financial institutions have their privacy policies online for customers to access at any time.


Media:

Sponsoring Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) Press Release

CBO Cost Estimate

National Association of Federal Credit Unions (Context)

National Association of Federal Credit Unions (In Favor)


Summary by Eric Revell 
(Photo Credit: Flickr user vintagedept

AKA

Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act

Official Title

To amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an exception to the annual privacy notice requirement.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed April 13th, 2015
    Passed by Voice Vote
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
    IntroducedJanuary 28th, 2015

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    Forcing banks to send out privacy notices even when their policies haven't changed not only raises costs, but it makes people more likely to ignore all of the banking notices they get.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    A case can be made that few people read them, but it is important that people who have our money are required to reiterate our rights. They aren't excessive, so I urge a no vote on doing away with them.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Yet another wasteful government rule that fills up my mailbox with stuff i'll never read.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    "This legislation has been passed in the House three times since 2010 — failing to receive a vote in the Senate every time." Maybe that's because the Senate considers it as unimportant a matter as I do. I personally am not bothered by an annual notice. Now, if it were a monthly thing, then I might get annoyed. But why is this a concern of Congress?! Good grief! Don't y'all have anything better to do with your time and my dime?!
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Let people know your policy and keep them aware of it.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    It's part of the deal. When the big banks over stepped and took advantage, Now they have to keep the consumer up-to-date. You may not read the notices but some people do. Yes, sometimes there are changes.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    The print is so small I cannot even read them.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Such notices allow consumers to make informed decisions. Most may ignore such notices but some of us actually do try and make good choices.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Even if they are not read or are tossed out, it is important to at least supply individuals with an update regarding information and their rights.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    I was in agreement with this bill until I got to "if they begin sharing nonpublic personal information with third parties" in the summary. So it sounds like they could start sharing your information without your consent or knowledge on January 1 and then wait til December 31 to disclose that change to you. I can see why the senate has rejected this three times- it should be rejected again.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    I think it's unnecessary.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Paper waste
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Let's save the environment
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Less cost. Can also get same info on internet
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    It's ridiculous. If they haven't made a change, I don't need a notice. They're a waste of paper and money
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Notices should be sent out. Not everyone knows what to do with a computer. Besides its their job. Just my opinion
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Sure. Savings in this area maybe then spent on real priorities. Besides, government isn't our nanny nor should it force others to be one.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    If you aren't going to read it when you sign up, why would you read it when it arrived in the mail? In other words, why require banks to mail trash to every customer?
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Excess paper is always non productive. People don't read the things anyway.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    It's available anytime, up-to-date online. And if you don't have Internet you've got the original or you can pick up a phone and request one.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    MORE