******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                             SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

                         COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS

   Re: 1^st Source Information Specialists, Inc., d/b/a LocateCell.com,
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, EB File No. EB-05-TC-059; FRN 0014762439; NAL Acct. No.
   200632170005.





               Few rights are so fundamental as the right to privacy in our
   daily lives - and few are under such constant attack.  Americans must have
   the security of knowing that their private phone records are not for
   sale.  I therefore support our decision today to assess the statutorily
   maximum forfeiture against a company that has egregiously failed to comply
   with our subpoena and that must be called to account.



               Even though today's decision is a step in the right direction,
   let's be sure we don't lose sight of the bigger picture here.  Data
   brokers continue to flout the law, invade our privacy, and put each of us
   at risk.  As the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) demonstrated
   so forcefully in its petition for rulemaking last summer, data brokers are
   capable of obtaining a history of calls made to and from a particular
   phone number, the customer name associated with that number, and perhaps
   even the geographic location of a mobile phone user.  This is an
   unsettling and entirely intolerable state of affairs.  The Commission
   simply cannot stop until the root problem has been solved.  This company's
   failure to respond to our subpoena about how it came to possess private
   data underscores just how badly further action is needed.



               In order to provide consumers with the level of protection
   they expect and deserve, I hope we will move on from here to issue rules
   in the Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) docket that we
   opened last February.  For too long the Commission treated privacy as a
   "back-burner" issue.  It has been four years since the Arizona Corporation
   Commission initiated a petition regarding dissemination of CPNI to
   unaffiliated third parties.  Last year we reclassified wireline broadband
   Internet access services but left for another day the chilling question of
   whether privacy protections even apply to this regulatory remix.  It is
   time to stop putting Americans' digital privacy unnecessarily at risk.



               So I hope this decision today signals a commitment to get
   privacy right for the digital age.  Where breaches of data security become
   easier and more common every day, privacy still has to matter.  The
   Commission's challenge is to catch up with the American people who are
   demonstrably tired of unlawful violations of their digital privacy.  They
   need our help and they need it now.