From: atkeson@spot.Colorado.EDU (L. Atkeson)
Subject: Re: SCAN and your credit
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:10:33 GMT

olga@csiatl.Gwinnett.COM (olga from the volga) writes:

>vanembur@romulus.rutgers.edu (Bill Van Emburg) writes:

>> In article <1992Aug23.210953.15852@colorado.edu> atkeson@spot.Colorado.EDU (L
>> 
>> > >and license number when your old one expires.  He then informed me
>> > >I'd have to contact Marshall's in MA about this problem.  SCAN is
>> > not resonsible for the information they receive or the information they
>> > give out to stores.
>> 
>> I would echo and apply a comment that someone else made on this --
>> don't believe everything that SCAN tells you!  I can't see how SCAN
>> could NOT be responsible for the information they provide to others.
>> Granted, you may not be able to sue them, but that doesn't mean that
>> they don't have an obligation to correct the error.  After all, even a
>> credit reporting bureau is obligated to correct errors (sometime in
>> the next century, at least...  ;-).
>> 
>Excuse my ignorance please, but what exactly is SCAN???

>olga@csiatl.gwinnett
SCAN is "Shared Check Authorization Network".  Various dept. stores use
SCAN to decide which people are acceptable check writers and which people
are not.  When your check for one reason or another doesn't go through
the machine the dept. store gives you a little card that says:
    "We are sorry that we cannot accept your check.  SCAN provides
member merchants with information about check that have been returned
by banks.  Your check was not accepted because of data we received 
from SCAN.  Please contact SCAN directly to resolve this situation.
     Call SCAN anytime for information or message at (206)363-4466
1-800-262-7771, or write to SCAN  11000 Lake City Way N.E. #402,
PO box 27352, Seatle, WA  98125."

	As I indicated in an earlier post Marshall's had reported
my drivers licence no. to SCAN in March of 91 (I received my DL#
in July of 92).  When you call SCAN unlike the above claim that 
SCAN can resolve the situation they refer you to the company that
made the allegation and tell you that you'll have to contact them.
SCAN also claims no responsibility for their information.  
	I called Marshall's and they were more than happy to "delete"
my license no. from the SCAN network.  I then called SCAN a couple
of days later and found out that yes it had been deleted.  However,
it needs to be noted that this infromation stays on SCAN records for
a minimum of 2 years.  Your checks should go through, but SCAN 
maintains a record of when the post was made to the license and
when it was "deleted".  I told SCAN I wanted the information 
removed not "deleted" because a written record of this indicated
that I had written a bad check and somehow had resolved the matter
with the company at had.  Of course, they couldn't do this either.
They simply can't do anything.
	This is one company, and one law that needs some sort of
class action suit.  My mother-in-law also had a run in with SCAN 
when someone was using her license no. illegally to write checks.
This woman apparently had a warrant out for her arrest for other 
things and was picked up and charged, etc.  My mother-in-law
was never informed by anyone that someone was using her DL#.  When
she went to write a check somewhere it was turned down and she
had to deal with all of this as well.  The chances of this happening
randomly hitting two people in the same family seems somewhat slim.
I can only imagine that people are being libeled against everyday
with this system.  From the information I've obtained absolutely 
no one is responsible to make sure the name matches the license 
number or check no or anything else.
	What really bothers me is all the personal time and energy
this has taken and continues to take.  It's not right that 
innoncent people should be victimized by SCAN.  I've read pieces of
the fair credit act (something like that) and it does seems like
SCAN has intent to libel the person who holds the informaiton it
passes on to its customers.  However, I'm not a lawyer does anyone
know anything about it?

I know this is rather long, but I wanted to update those who've
responded.

Lonna 
Newsgroups: alt.privacy