The courtship and the marriage are often so different. So it is with credit card companies. They promise 4.9 percent interest rates while seducing you. But after you say "I do" and then make one little mistake, you sure pay for it. Your rate can skyrocket to 30 percent or more.

A group of Washington state legislators who are tired of this bait and switch have come up with innovative legislation designed to fight fire with ... taxation.  The bill would tax any credit card earnings from interest rates of more than 12 percent at triple the normal rate.  The proposal will be debated in the Washington Legislature on Tuesday.

But well-intentioned efforts by state legislators to rein in the credit card industry have been doomed for years, and, unfortunately, this proposal may meet the same fate. Federal laws and courts trump state legislators at nearly every turn. In this case, it's not clear that Washington state can tax credit card firms at all.  Still, the proposal shows just how far some state lawmakers are willing to go in an attempt to rein in credit card firms, and just how frustrated their constituents are.

It's a question nearly all of us have asked at one time or another. How can they get away with it? How can credit card issuers charge those outrageous rates? There ought to be a law — and in fact, there are several. But state laws limiting interest charges don't apply to most credit card firms, which won the right to write their own rules several decades ago. 

In many states, 30 percent interest rates run afoul of usury laws designed to prevent outrageous lending terms.  But in 1978, a federal court decision effectively gave the credit industry a flier on state usury laws, ruling that credit card firms are subject to usury laws only in their state of origin.  Tax-hungry South Dakota quickly raised the top rate to near-infinity. Citibank and a flood of followers suddenly fell in love with the Badlands and moved there, and consumers have been paying for it ever since.   

Annoyed by industry policies like universal default — miss a payment on one credit card, and all your credit card interest rates go up —  Rep. Marilyn Chase, a Democrat from the Seattle suburb of Shoreline, and a group of Washington state legislators have developed their clever end-around to re-impose state usury laws. 

"We have so many callers who are outraged that all of a sudden their interest rate has gone up to 30 percent," Chase said. "Any other business that tried this would be immediately hauled on the carpet."   

Chase says the industry has yet to respond to her initiative, but the response will be predictable.  Limit an issuer's ability to charge high rates, and you'll limit its ability to balance its risk. That in turn will prevent it from lending to riskier consumers and ultimately restrict the flow of credit.

To that, Chase says, "Amen." There's too much credit, and too many credit card applications, anyway. Her bill would bar those pre-approved applications, too.

Those pesky federal laws
But to show how hard it is for state consumer protectors to exert themselves, Chase's well-meaning legislation may not be viable.  Federal law — namely the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause — prevent states from taxing out-of-state companies. 

But what's an out-of-state company?  Citibank's Visa may be accepted everywhere, but it's based in South Dakota.  There may be 5 billion credit card applications being mailed to every citizen in America — and even to some family pets — but does that fit the definition of "doing business" for state taxation? It's unclear, experts say.

"The law is very open on this issue. It's currently being litigated," said Richard Pomp, a tax law professor at University of Connecticut School of Law. "There's a lot of money on the table."

Revenue-starved states obviously have an incentive to interpret the law broadly. But Chase says she has another motivation.  Congress and the federal courts have done nothing to rein in the industry, so state officials have to do something to drag the firms back under their regulation.  Chase says that's what her law is designed to do.

"Taxation is all we have left," she said. 

Vexing nexus
The central issue in the state tax debate is known as "nexus" to tax lawyers.  Companies that have it must pay state taxes; companies that don't do not.  In the past, establishing nexus was simpler — generally, bricks and mortar told the story. Physical location established nexus.  If you were located in Delaware, you had nexus in Delaware, paid Delaware state taxes, and that's that. 

In 1992, a federal court ruled that companies without a physical presence in a state did not have nexus in that state and were not required to collect sales taxes. That ruling today lets consumers get away with not paying sales taxes on out-of-state Internet and catalog purchases.  (Tax law requires consumers to pay such taxes themselves, but few do.)

That same precedent is often invoked in the state corporate income tax debate, and back in 1999, it helped convince a Tennessee appeals court that J.C. Penney National Bank did not have to pay state taxes there.  While its credit cards were used all around the state, the court said that wasn't enough to establish "nexus."

That ruling has prevented states from cutting themselves a slice of the credit card industry's fees and interest earnings for years. Ever since, banks have successfully argued that they do not have nexus anywhere but their home state.  That's bad news for Chase.  In Washington, a tripling of state business and occupation taxes would mean a tripling of nothing. That threat isn't likely to make Capital One lower its interest rates.

At least you can still buy your books at Amazon.com without paying sales tax.

A glimmer of hope
But the discussion is far from over; and there may yet be some hope for a credit card rate luxury tax.  Last year, a West Virginia state court ruled that the state could collect corporate income tax from MBNA. The mere fact that MBNA could use — and has used — West Virginia courts to collect bad debts from consumers convinced the court that nexus had been established.  In other words, MBNA's pursuit of consumers who couldn't pay their exorbitant interest rates was eventually the company's undoing, and led it to owe state taxes to West Virginia.

According to the Washington State Department of Revenue, out-of-state credit card companies aren't paying taxes there yet.  But they may start, if Chase has her way.  Expect quite a fight from the industry before that happens. No doubt, lobbyists will argue that it's unfair that the rules are being changed midstream, that the tax amounts to a new fee.

That argument should have a familiar ring. And while higher taxes may likely end up costing consumers more — the industry will no doubt just pass along the costs — it's somehow satisfying to see someone trying to charge the credit card companies an extra fee for once. If only our lawyers were as good as theirs.

"FREE!" The ad screams. 

"After rebate" it whispers.

Walk into any electronics store, and the good deals are almost too good to pass up: DVDs, cell phones, even televisions, all at rock bottom prices. It seems the sellers are giving them all away, to steal a phrase.

But what aren't they giving away? Often times, the rebate checks. Those words "after rebate" frequently appear in the smallest of small print, rivaled in font size only by the rebate instructions.  To get their money, consumers have to jump through hoops so complex even the architects of the new Medicare prescription drug program gaze in admiration.

To play the rebate game, you must know the rules.  And, for the most part, with persistence, you can win. Here's some tidy tips on how to best claim and reclaim rebates.

It's a game, of course. About half of all rebates go unredeemed, according to the educated guesses of experts (companies carefully guard the true figures). But it's a necessary game, one that's not going away any time soon.

This game props up industries, like home electronics, that operate on such thin margins that without sneaky revenue, they'd never survive. Think DVD players, for example. They are practically free already. So companies that sell such products count on "breakage," the industry term for rebates that are never filed, and "slippage," the term for rebate checks that go uncashed.

"In some low-margin businesses, (unredeemed) rebates could be all the margin you're going to get," said Paula Rosenblum, a rebate expert at AberdeenGroup, Inc. 

Still, nothing churns the stomachs of consumers more than this rebate bait, which often leads to rebate wait, and eventually, unknown rebate fate. Recently, I wrote about Wirefly.com, a cell phone seller that promises incredible rebates, but has apparently frustrated many consumers.  The column elicited hundreds of responses from consumers, who vented their anger and shared their ingenuity on how to win the rebate game.

Combined with tips from industry experts, here's a compilation of that ingenuity, divided into three categories: What to do before you make a rebate purchase, when you're filling out the forms, and finally, how to wrangle a wayward rebate from a neglectful or slippery company. 

Before a purchase
1. Not the deciding factor. Perhaps the most important suggestion of all: Don't play the game. Remember, by mailing in the form you most certainly are going to end up on some marketer's mailing list. Just find a good deal without the hassle. 

But if you must do the rebate thing, don't let the rebate be the deciding factor in the purchase.  Know that you may never see the money. If it's a good deal *before* the rebate, then fine.  Consider the expected rebate check play money. That'll take the pressure off.

2. Read early and often. Make sure you understand what's required of you before you make the purchase. Turn the box over, or click around the site, and spend a moment reading the rebate terms. At Wirefly, consumers had to wait 180 days before filing their claims, and had to file before 210 days had passed. That's a tiny window. If you want to take that on, fine, but do so with your eyes open. 

3. Easy rebates are good. Kudos to Staples for its Easy Rebate process, which got high marks from readers. Consumers just go to a Web page and type in a number printed on their receipt.  Rosenblum said the company spent two years getting suppliers to play along, but it was worth the wait. When you shop, consider supporting Staples and other retailers using consumer-friendly rebates -- a list that may be about to grow. Thanks to all this controversy, in fact, at least one major electronics retailer might do away with rebates entirely this year, Rosenblum said.

When filling out the forms
4. Copy everything.  Think like a lawyer. You are gathering evidence. If you like rebates, invest in a copier for your home office so you don't leave documents in office mailroom. I recently saw a copier on sale at Staples for $30 -- after rebate.

5. Do it at the store.  Ask a store worker to fill it out. Some Red Tape readers have had luck with this; the retailer will know the potential pitfalls of the form better than you. A slight variation on this theme, one reader suggested, was to negotiate with the retailer to cut you a deal, dropping the sale price by the rebate amount. An effective strategy if you can work it.

6. Strike while the iron is hot. If you don't do it at the store, do it as soon as you get home. The longer you wait, the less likely you'll do it. And the more likely Fido might eat the box with the UPC symbol you need.

7. Include instructions. Here's one idea from an anonymous reader: Photocopy the rebate instructions, highlighting each completed step, and include that with your rebate application. It'll be harder for the company to argue that you did something wrong.

8. Get a receipt from the post office.  Again, more evidence gathering.  It'll cost a few bucks, but include that in your rebate price mathematics. You can use certified mail, but I prefer priority mail, which only costs about $4. Delivery is quick, and you can watch the progress of your package online.

9. Mark your calendar.  To ruin a tired metaphor, if a rebate never shows up in your mailbox, but you never notice, did the company really cheat you?  Mark your calendar when you expect to get the money, so you can complain if you don't. PC World links to a free rebate tracking program called "Rebate Rebate," you might find handy. I find it cumbersome. Your wall calendar or day planner should do.

10. Not junk mail. Finally, many rebate checks are discarded because they come in unmarked envelops that look like a dastardly credit card application or some other nuisance mail. Here's where step No. 9 might help. Scan your snail mail carefully!

If you must confront
11. The demand letter. I don't mean to imply that companies sometimes cheat consumers, but well, they do. So you've got to be ready to fight for your rebate. Many consumers have written saying that complaining does get them somewhere. Companies count on people who are quitters. Sometimes, only one telephone call will do the trick. If not, a sternly-worded letter is your next step.  ConsumerAffairs.com offers a tidy sample demand letter, artfully cc'd to the applicable state attorney general's office.

A testier, but somehow more satisfying, sample letter, was submitted by a Red Tape Chronicle reader in that Wirefly.com column.  It threatens small claim court, and deftly cites the state consumer protection statute. These vary, but a search for your state and "unfair or deceptive practices," or "consumer protection statue" at your favorite search engine should yield you an impressive-sounding sentence. You can also contact the division of consumer protection in your state and ask for help. There's a list here.

To find this sample letter, click on the Wirefly.com column.  Then use your browser's find tool to search for this sentence, "I recently found out that a rebate was improperly rejected," to find the relevant entry.

12. Complain to the store. Even if the rebate was issued by the manufacturer, the store itself might have to pay. The Federal Trade Commission has taken on several rebate cases, but none more important that a CompUSA case settled in March of 2005. In that situation, the FTC argued that the retailer was responsible for rebates that a manufacturer failed to pay.  Stores often shoo away frustrated consumers, telling them they were just the messenger, passing along the rebate offers at the point of sale. Consumers are then sent  to complain to the far-away maker of the DVD or CD player that has so far failed to deliver on a rebate. The "we didn't do it," excuse holds less water now. Retailers clearly can be held responsible, at least some of the time.

Matthew Gold, who worked on the case for the FTC-CompUSA case, says the settlement doesn't create a legal precedent, and there were special circumstances in that case. Still, it's an important case, and knowing about it will increase the odds the store will heed your complaints, even about a manufacturer's rebate.

13. Complain to your legislator. Finally, high consumer frustration, and political opportunism, have elected officials buzzing around the rebate issue. A new New York state law took effect last fall. It required firms to include clear rebate rules, and to pay up in a timely manner. Texas and California legislators passed similar laws that were vetoed by their governors last year, but the legislation is sure to return.

Even with all that in place, you might still end up in a pitched battle with a company you've never heard of. Both retailers and manufacturers often outsource rebate paperwork to third-party firms called fulfillment houses. Since they have no relationship with consumers, they have less incentive to treat them well.  But they do have to abide by the law.  And if you know your rights, keep copies of everything, and you're persistent, odds are good you will eventually get your money -- emphasis on eventually. 

When you get scammed, when you get taken by a crook or a company, what do you do? You complain. You complain to the company, you complain to a friend, and if you are really, really mad, you complain to the government. It's a good thing you complain.

This week, complainers get their day in the sun. The Federal Trade Commission is expected to release its annual list of the top 10 consumer complaints.  It's one of many lists you'll see from government and private agencies describing the most frequent headaches consumers suffer, and how much they suffer. And without you complainers none of these groups would have anything to announce. 

Despite the fact that there is almost nothing the FTC can do to help resolve individual consumer issues, hundreds of thousands of people fill out FTC forms and air their concerns there anyway.  One of the FTC's main functions is to aggregate that data, then hold it up and shake it in front of the public and the government, as if to say, "Pay attention to this issue. Look at how many people are getting hurt here."

I have no advance knowledge of this year's list, but I can make a pretty good guess what'll be on it: identity theft, online auctions, advance-fee loans, sweepstakes, work-at-home business opportunities. I know this because the 2004 report was almost identical to the 2003 report.  Next year's report will probably be nearly the same, too. It makes you wonder what good such lists really do. 

But if you've been the victim of a scam, or even targeted by a misleading ad, knowing where to complain does really matter. And it's also important that there's an annual exercise in reminding consumers that, yes, people do fall for these things.

A skewed list
The FTC tends to get certain kinds of complaints. The agency has done a lot of work on Internet crime, telecommunications issues and identity theft, so the consumer complaints it receives skew heavily toward those areas. Other complaint lists reveal a wider swath of problems. 

The National Fraud Information Center recently released its top 10 list of crimes on its Web site. It's similar to the FTC's, though it adds fake check scams, travel discounts and phishing to the list.  The study was limited to about 4,500 consumers who self-reported their crime to the agency, but it provides an additional glimpse of the problems people are facing.

The National Association of Attorneys General has an even broader accounting of problems. That group releases its top 10 complaints in the middle of the year, compiled from complaints filed with state attorney general offices. Automobile purchases and home improvements dominate the list every year. It's rounded out by complaints that overlap very little with the FTC:

• Telecommunications/Slamming/Cramming
• Internet Goods and Services
• Telemarketing/Do Not Call violations
• Credit Reporting; Retail Sales
• Financial/Investments
• Contests/Sweepstakes/Prize Promotion
• Furniture/Appliances/Home Furnishings

Crooks or just cheaters?
There's an important distinction here, according to Jim Hood, who runs ConsumerAffairs.com. Attorney generals often receive complaints about deceptive business practices from otherwise legitimate companies, as opposed to the outright crimes committed by scam artists against many FTC complainers. That makes the attorney generals' list more representative of consumer headaches.

There's an even broader measure of consumer complaints, which in the past was published every year by the Consumer Federation of America and the National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators. Its most recent data, released in 2004, is similar to the attorneys general data, but adds a few more mundane categories:  Here are its top 10 complaints:

• Automobile Sales
• Home Improvement
• Automotive Repairs
• Credit
• Advertising/Telemarketing
• Collections/Billing Practices
• Household Goods
• Internet/E-Commerce
• Telecommunications/Cable/Satellite
• Real Estate /Landlord Tenant issues

Get to know your office of consumer protection
Jean Ann Fox, spokeswoman for the National Consumers League, says the list reflects how important it is for victims to know whom to tell about the crime.  People who complain about landlord issues to the FTC probably don't get anywhere; even a complaint to a state AG's office is probably wasted. 

But most states and many counties and even cities have offices of consumer protection, or similarly named agencies. Fox says workers there are trained to handle members of the public who have a problem and don't know where to turn.  A complete list of such helpful agencies is available at the ConsumerAction.Gov Web site. Complaints are often best handled locally. Normally, local officials will have a much better idea of how to handle a utility dispute, for example, than an FTC official in Washington. 

But even if no immediate resolution is found, Fox says consumer complaints are absolutely essential -- and so are annual reports of such complaints -- so policy makers know what's happening and what needs to change.

Complaining is like voting
"Complaining is to being a good consumer what voting is to being a good citizen," she said.  "If there are no complaints, there's no impetus for legislative change and the enforcement officers don't know what's going on. If you only complain to friends but don't report something ... then nobody who can do something about it knows what happened to you."

If you can't find a local office of consumer protection to complain to, Fox recommends helpful publications at Federal Citizen Information Center, operated by the U.S. General Services Administration in Pueblo, Colo. At its Web site, the agency offers many books and booklets for free or a minimal charge.

When the FTC data is release later this week, identity theft will once again be in the news. Several studies recently have suggested that the rate of ID theft has flattened, or that concerns about it are overblown. It's likely the FTC data, and another upcoming study from industry watcher Javelin Research, will spur more debate on the topic. 

But at least there will be discussion, which former FTC Commissioner Orson Swindle says is really the best defense against con artists.

"There's no way we can solve the problem by catching bad guys," said Swindle, who now advises a think tank called the Progress and Freedom Foundation. "We have to put them out of business."

For that, we need more consumer education. And for that, we need to know what scams people are falling for. And for that, we need complainers. So to all those who turn their consumer anger into the energy need to fill out the proper complaint forms, I salute you. And I ask that you keep complaining. 

There's a lot of junk mail floating around that looks like renewal notices from magazines you subscribe to. They're not; they're just ads.  Answer one, and you might be disappointed.  Fill one out, send in your money, and you might not get anything.  You might get a different magazine than what you asked for.  You might overpay.

You'll certainly irritate the people who print the magazines you subscribe to. 

There's a magazine junk mail war going on right now, between publishers and third-party companies called clearinghouses trying to cut themselves into the subscriber revenue stream.  If you don't read your mail carefully, you might end up as collateral damage.

Welcome to the murky world of magazine subscription sales. Almost anyone can sell subscriptions, through third-party arrangements the industry calls clearinghouses. That's why those flashy sweepstakes contests lasted so long. The deals are lucrative -- for the clearinghosues.  Third-party sellers can keep up to 85 percent of the subscription price as a bounty. 

So firms with names like "Magazine Billing Services" are sending their junk mail around, hoping to cut themselves into the subscriber revenue stream.  Publishers are crying foul, saying the junk mail looks like a bill directly from the magazine.

Sending any solicitation through the mail that look like a bill or invoice violates postal regulations.

But Magazine Billing says its mail is legal, and this is all just a case of sour grapes by magazine publishers, who aren't abiding by the rules they set years ago to pump up circulation numbers.

And while publishers, clearinghouses, and relevant law enforcement agencies sort this out, consumers should be wary.  Those who respond to the junk mail can end up losing money or their magazines, or at least somehow feeling deceived that they weren't doing business with who they thought they were.

The problem has gotten so bad for magazines that several, including Harper's, have taken to running "subscriber alert" notices in their pages.  National Geographic says its circulation department has been getting 50 to 75 complaints a week about such mailers since February of last year.

The trouble with Magazine Billing Services began last year, when a series of smaller magazines began to issue warnings to readers about companies with names like Publishers Processing Services Inc., Publishers Services Exchange, and American Consumer Publishing Association. The warnings all read about the same, such as this one from Track & Field News:

"(These companies are) not authorized to solicit your renewal nor can they fill your order," the magazine writes. "Many of our subscribers have been fooled as their mailing piece looks very much like our own renewal notice."

What's wrong with that?
For its part, Magazine Billing asserts that everything it's doing is perfectly legal. Gary Hutchings, who identified himself as a spokesman for the company, said most magazine publishers contract with clearinghouses to help them find new business. Sometimes, current subscribers are caught up in his solicitations, but there's nothing wrong with that, he said.

"When we send it, we have no idea if they have a subscription or not," Hutchings said.  Mailing lists are purchased from a legal list broker, he said. "All publishers don't want us to get renewals, they just want new business."  But if his solitications end up catching a few renewals, and Magazine Billing gets a cut, what's wrong with that?

What's wrong with that, Harper's Green said, is the finders' fee can be 85 percent. 

"There is technically nothing illegal about it," she said.  "But it is a little questionable. It looks like it's from Harper's. The artwork is very similar to our logo." She guessed that about 1,000 consumers have renewed their Harper's subscriptions through Magazine Billing, costing her magazine a lot of money. "It hurts Harper's bottom line... Harper's is a small magazine. Every dollar counts."

It also hurts consumers, she says, who are tricked into paying more than they should. Magazine Billings' offer is pricey, she said -- 36 issues for $54.99.  Harpers' highest-priced offer is $45. 

Steve von Dohlen, a deputy district attorney in San Luis Obispo County in California, said his agency is "looking into" the Magazine Billing mailers.   His agency has received "more than a couple of complaints" about the firm.  Some consumers said they received substitute subscriptions for other magazines when they ordered Harper's, he said. Others have trouble getting refunds.

"They feel they've been scammed somehow because they thought they were doing business directly with Harper's," he said.

'It flares up periodically'
This is hardly the first time consumers have faced confusion surrounding third-party magazine sellers, according to Dan Capell, who publishes Capell's Circulation Report. In fact, murky third-party sales have been going on for years.  Generally, these unauthorized sales firms somehow get their hands on subscriber lists, he said.

"It flares up periodically," he said.  "But it all comes back to the same thing -- list thievery. They are either robbing it outright or using false pretenses to get the list."

But the arrangments have led to legal trouble.  Just last year, the Oregon Attorney General settled a lawsuit with an Oregon-based company called IC Marketing involving allegations similar to facing Magazine Billing.  The state attorney general's office received hundreds of complaints during a four-year stretch from consumers who said they were receiving deceptive mailings for magazine renewals.  The settlement required IC Marketing to add the words "INDEPENDENT AGENT NOT A BILL KEEP THIS PORTION FOR RECEIPT OF OFFER" to its mailings.

IC Marketing did not admit wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement. But the firm did do business under several names, including the American Consumer Publishing Association, according to the attorney general's office.  That name is on some of the mailers allegedly sent recently to Harper's readers, and subscribers of other magazines.

Publishers are getting bombarded
Jill Meyer Vollman is a lawyer who represented Coin World publisher Amos Press when it was sued by IC Marketing in 2001, after the magazine published a warning about third-party sales.  She said it's unclear if the current spate of mailings come from a new incarnation of IC Marketing, or a copycat. But she said one thing is clear:

"Publishers are getting bombarded with complaints from subscribers about this company. She's already been contacted by numerous publishers considering legal action but refused to name them.

Clearly, there's a mess here -– and magazine publishers may have themselves to blame for it. The problem of deceptive third-party mailings is another by-product of the same problem that led to recent circulation scandals at magazines, says Samir Husni, chairman of the journalism department at the University of Mississippi.

"Magazines for ages used publishers clearinghouses.  They were in the business to collect numbers...In (their) hunger to just beef up the numbers technically they let anybody generate subscriptions," he said.  "They had all the problems with the sweepstakes....Now we are seeing one scheme after another."

By creating a world that encouraged junk mail, they've trained consumers to expect and tolerate such solicitations. And consumers have been trained to believe that third-party firms might handle subscriber services such as billing.  That's helped create a confusing environment, one that's perfect for firms like Magazine Billing.

In the meantime, Harper's has made an important choice consumers need to know about. After publishing months of warnings, the magazine has decided to stop honoring new subscriptions ordered through unauthorized firms like Magazine Billing Services.

"There has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere," Harper's Green said. "While I do not seek to penalize our subscribers, I have to look at the bottom line. The only way to stop these type of programs is to stop doing business with them."

That leaves consumers out on their own in this confusing world, left to judge what's an authorized subscription clearinghouse and what's not.  So a word of caution when tempted to order magazines by junk mail -- read the fine print. A call to the publisher wouldn't hurt, either.

There is finally some buzz around the crime of impersonation to steal customer information, such as cell phone records. Data criminals have advertised such unsavory services openly, with impunity, for years. Now, people are noticing.

Let's review quickly: Criminals pretend to be you, get a copy of last month's cell phone bill and then sell it for about $100. The practice should scare anyone, even if you think your call history is fairly tame. What if your boss got it and used it to claim you were goofing off during work hours? What if your soon-to-be ex wife's lawyer had a peek? Of course, the practice is even more scary to law enforcement types and their ilk.

Lately, the issue has gotten attention, spawning a new literary genre: the writer who buys a prominent person's cell records, then pens a dramatic narrative.  The most recent is a blogger who bought former presidential candidate Wesley Clark's records.

But the issue of customer service record privacy cuts much deeper than cell phone records, and requires much more than dramatic headlines or political grandstanding.  Every time a piece of data is collected about you -- from the milk you buy at the grocery store to the toll you pay on the turnpike -- it can be stolen.  It's time to talk about that.

The recent spate of news stories does have politicians jumping on the bandwagon.  Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois this month proposed legislation to ban sale of cell phone records. New York Sen. Charles Schumer is expected to propose similar legislation at the federal level soon.  And both the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission are investigating, according to Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.).

Companies have reacted, too. Verizon and Cingular have filed lawsuits in an attempt to shut down some Web sites that advertise the practice.  On Friday, a Federal Judge granted a temporary restraining order at Cingular's request, calling on a Web site named LocateCell.com to stop advertising the unsavory practice.

LocateCell has gotten a lot of media attention of late. A Chicago Sun-Times reporter this month hired the company to look up his own cell phone records.  It was also featured in a recent NBC News story by Kevin Tibbles.

Tip of the iceberg
All this activity is good, and long overdue.  But shutting down LocateCell will do very little to stop the overall problem of stolen consumer records.  Hundreds of other Web sites -- almost all of them run by digital-age private investigators -- will continue to obtain and sell cell phone records. And even if wireless providers start piling up the lawsuits, ravaging the stolen mobile bill industry, it's important to know this problem goes far, far beyond cell records. A quick internet search reveals that these same companies offer to sell everything from bank account information to OnStar automobile tracking records.   

This is why privacy wonks get so excited about our culture of rabid data collection. Perhaps it's not so bad to let your grocery store track your milk purchases if everyone involved in the data chain is honorable. But sometimes, they're not. If there's a record, it can be stolen, cajoled from a confused customer service professional or bribed from a corrupt one. What $8-an-hour phone rep wouldn't consider an offer of a quick $50 to divulge someone's milk-buying habits? Particularly if that phone rep isn't even in the U.S., isn't even subject to U.S. criminal law?

Passing more laws that make theft of personal records illegal isn't a bad idea.  Putting LocateCell out of business isn't a bad idea. But to security expert Avivah Litan, a Gartner consultant, that's simply sticking your finger in a leaky dam. Ultimately, companies that possess our data need to be held responsible, she said.

"Who gave the criminals the data? They did," she said. "They should be suing themselves."

Time to pay the piper
Litan consults with companies that are concerned about leaking data; often they call her after an embarrassing incident.  She says there are effective technologies that can be used to deter the theft of data, and firms that keep track of us need to start ponying up the cash to protect us. She generally has two recommendations.

The first is simple, but effective: It's called "out-of-band authentication."  Call your wireless firm asking for records; you receive a text message with a PIN number that must be supplied to the customer service rep before the conversation proceeds.  Visit your online broker and try to change your automatic deduction settings? You get an old-fashioned letter in the mail. Out-of-band notification isn't fool-proof, but it sharply increases the odds that the person calling the company is really the person who's entitled to the information. By sending a simple text message to your cell phone, the wireless company can be pretty sure they are talking to the person who is holding their phone.  That would stop many thefts such as those allegedly committed by LocateCell.  And it has the added benefit of notifying consumers every time their records are accessed.

But out-of-band notice doesn't go far enough, Litan says.  Much of this data theft is the result of a corrupt insider, who can evade such practices.  So an even better solution, she said, is "out-of-character" testing.

Consumers know this technology well. Every time you take a trip to Europe, your credit card company calls to ask if that's really you buying the Irish sweater in Dublin.  In the business, it's called "transaction anomaly detection."

Similar software can be used to watch the actions of customer service representatives.  Someone who suddenly accesses several dozen records at the end of a shift probably isn't being suddenly productive; they're probably stealing.  Likewise for an agent who normally helps consumers in the northeast who suddenly looks up a Utah caller's records.

"I would say 95 to 99 percent of the (fraudulent) transactions are out of context with the normal flow of work," Litan said.  Companies can implement such solutions for around a half-million dollars; a small price to pay for such essential consumer protection.

There ought to be a law
That's not to say criminals shouldn't also have to pay. Security Consultant Rob Douglas, who runs PrivacyToday.com, helped the Federal Trade Commission run a sting against data theives in 2000. At the time, he found 1,000 Web sites claiming to sell such information; a similar number still advertise stolen data, he said.  Part of the reason, Douglas says, is a lack of clarity about the illegality of the practice of calling up a company and pretending to be someone else for the purpose of obtaining information -- called pretexting, or calling under a false pretext.

Federal law does explicitly make pretext calling to obtain financial records illegal. But the legal question is a bit more murky for data such as cell phone records. It might be identity theft; it might be an unfair and deceptive trade practice, and thereby run afoul of the Federal Trade Commission Act. But to end the discussion, and to cut off the legal running room the data thieves claim, Douglas is in favor of a federal law which makes pretexting explicitly illegal.

"Until Congress makes it absolutely clear that pretending to be someone you are not in order to deceive any business into turning over customer information is illegal, the practice will continue," he said.  "Outlaw the practice for just phone records and the data thieves will turn to cable and satellite television records."

Few options for consumers
For now, consumers are left with some scary headlines and very few realistic options.  Adding an additional password to your customer service records is a good idea -- Cingular now recommends it. But that's a hassle, and few consumers will do it. Watching your accounts for signs of suspicious activity couldn't hurt. Asking customer service reps to tell you when the last time your records were accessed might tip you off that someone else has looked up your account.

Still, those practices won't stop a determined criminal.  If there are records, they can be stolen, Litan said.  And there's little consumers can do to drop out of the big database in the sky that tracks what we buy, where we travel, and whom we talk to. Such databases are a gold mine for anyone who might want to spy on us.

"There really is nothing we can do to stop the flow of information," Litan said.  "We have to rely on the companies that have it."

When is a free cell phone not really a free cell phone? When it's a free cell phone after rebate.  And that rebate application can't even be filed for 180 days.  And the rebate doesn't come for 10-12 weeks. And if you submit the rebate application either before 180 days or after 210 days, you're out of luck. 

"Free" cell phone purchases at Wirefly.com, perhaps the largest independent online cell phone retailer, start with that dizzying array of requirements.  But the Internet and the Better Business Bureau are both awash in complaints that Wirefly isn't even following its own already-tortuous rules. Consumers accuse the firm of intentionally frustrating their attempts to get rebates; the company answers that complainers are a loud minority of its customers.

Rebate red tape is nothing new.  We all know the game.  Companies advertise incredibly low prices, enhanced by rebates, knowing full well many consumers won't follow through with the paperwork.  Throttling the amount of rebates through bureaucracy -- and thereby increasing the amount of money the company keeps -- is an art form. The more complicated the process, the more money the company keeps.  The industry has terms for this, like breakage and slippage.

But at Wirefly.com, rebate hurdles may have reached a new zenith.

Consumers have only a 30-day window to mail in their rebate applications -- between 180 days and 210 days after the purchase. And even if they nail that window correctly, the firm still finds ways to deny the claims, some consumers say.

Wirefly is no small enigma –- it's owned by publicly traded InPhonic Inc. (INPC), which says it sold 850,000 cell phones last year. Sixty percent of its phones are sold with rebates attached, the company says.  In addition to Wirefly, InPhonic operates some 6,000 other private label cell phone sales Web sites, according to company spokesman Tripp Donnelly. The Washington, D.C.-based firm says it's the largest third-party online cell phone retailer, accounting for one-third of the market. It has received a number of Internet accolades and was named one of Forbes magazine's Best of the Web for 2004.

But it's also one of the most complained-about companies at the Washington, D.C., Better Business Bureau, according to spokesman Ed Johnson. More than 1,400 people have filed complaints about the company in the past three years, and in November, InPhonic's BBB membership was revoked.

'They just talk in circles'
Marie Vento, 53, is one consumer still waiting for her rebates.  The Staten Island, N.Y., resident said she purchased two Motorola phones for $600 back in February -- and expected to get $600 back in rebates.  She dutifully marked her calendar so she wouldn't forget, then assembled six months of bills, and on Oct. 10 sent them off to InPhonics' processing center in Bear Lake, Minn.  A month later, she received a rejection, with a note saying the bills sent did not include an "invoice bill date."  She sent an e-mail complaint and never got a response. She called and says an operator told her to simply send in the first page of her monthly bills, this time to a different processing center in Arizona. She did so and received another rejection letter in December.  She called again, asking for an explanation, and says she couldn't get a straight answer.

"I sent them everything," Vento said. "When I ask them to explain, they just talk in circles. They answer your questions with a question," she said.  "Now they are asking for something that is not there, a six-digit number that starts with a P."

Vento said she didn't understand the strict 180- to 210-day rebate application window when she purchased her phone; only after the phone arrived did she see those terms.  But Donnelly said the terms are clearly spelled out on the Wirefly Web site. 

Where are those terms?
A visit to the Wirefly Web site reveals that the company is currently selling the popular Motorola RAZR phone, with the word "FREE" in red type, near the top of the page. Near the bottom of the page are the words "After rebate, this item is free," also in red. Undearneath that, in a font half the size, are the words "$70.00 Mail-in Rebate." 

The words are underlined and hyperlinked; clicking on them opens a new window with the rebate terms. At the bottom of that window, in smaller type, are the words "your rebate submission must be completed with all the requested information and postmarked no earlier than 180 days and no later than 210 days." The picture to the left shows how the disclosure is linked.

Donnelly said such disclosure formats are routine for the industry. 

Moreover, both Donnelly and the firm's attorney Walter Leach deny the company is intentionally making rebates hard to get.  Donnelly said the company has thousands of satisfied customers, many who have no trouble getting their rebates.  But he wouldn't disclose how many rebate applications the firm has denied -- saying that was industry practice. 

He did say the company proactively monitors Internet complaints and attempts to satisfy customers who say their rebates are being held at bay. Only a few hundred legitimate complaints have been posted on various Web sites, Donnelly said, and the firm is proactively contacting those customers to clear up the confusion.

Attempts to shut down complaint site
But in one case, the company is trying to shut down a naysayer's Web site.  Wirefly-rebate.com, a bulletin board initiated by a dissatisfied Wirefly customer, has been sued by InPhonics for trademark infringement.

Jehad Edwan, who posted the site, says Wirefly owes him two rebates. Leach says one of Edwan's rebates was denied because the forms were filled out incorrectly, and the other has been "processed." Edwan says he still hasn't received anything.

Edwan's attorney, Bassel El-Kasaby, said his client has a First Amendment right to express his opinions about Wirefly.

"Obviously, something is going on with their rebates," El-Kasaby said.  "This is a company that promises incredible rebates but obviously seems to be having a hard time fulfilling these promises."

InPhonics' stock is having a hard time lately.  It has fallen from about $25 a share this time last year to about $9 this week.

Still, Donnelly says the company is on track.  He also says Marie Vento's rebate is on track.  A customer service agent called her Thursday morning to say it was approved for processing -– several hours before MSNBC.com called Wirefly asking for about her situation, Donnelly insists.

To get your rebates
To keep your rebates on track, one good piece of advice is to avoid such purchases altogether –- or just make the purchase not expecting you'll ever see the money. Be realistic with yourself and your ability to finish off paperwork. But if you must, fill out the forms as soon as you get home, or as soon as you can, while the papers are still in front of you and the money is on your mind. Then, use your Palm Pilot, Microsoft Outlook or wall calendar to note when you expect to receive the check –- otherwise you might forget about it and forget to complain when it doesn't arrive. Also, favor companies like Staples that have moved to much simpler rebate processes, that only require consumers to enter a number on their sales receipt into a Web site page.

Finally, be careful with your mail. Rebate checks often look like junk mail. It's a crying shame to toss out your money after you've done all that other work.

How worried are Americans that the federal government might listen in on their phone calls, or read their e-mails?  What's more important, privacy or security? It depends, pollsters say, on how you ask the question. 

Last month's disclosure that the National Security Agency had eavesdropped on domestic communications created a media firestorm around the holidays, and this week, it becomes Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's problem. Domestic surveilliance now joins abortion as one of the hottest of topics at his Senate confirmation hearing.

But are Americans really concerned about such snooping?  Yes.  And no.  To many people, government peeks at e-mails and phone calls are old news, some research suggests. For others, it's OK for government officials to snoop, as long as they're snooping on other people. In other words, it depends.

In fact, it depends on the words in the question.  Ask Americans something like, "Should the government be allowed to read e-mails and listen to phone calls to fight terrorism?" and you'll get a much different result than if you ask, "Should the government be allowed to read your e-mails and listen to your phone calls to fight terrorism."

It'll be interesting to see how Judge Alito handles that rhetoric.

In 2002, The Pew Research Center for People and The Press asked just those questions -- and by simply dropping the word "your," the number of people willing to support such government snooping jumped by 50 percent. Only 22 percent were willing to let the government peek when it was personal, but 33 percent were willing when it sounded like only someone's else privacy was at risk, said Scott Keeter, director of survey research for Pew.

Such fine distinctions are typical in the security vs. privacy debate, he said, which makes it a minefield for pollsters.

"These issues bring up very conflicting values that people hold. People want to be safe and they want their privacy. People really carry around both of these impulses," he said. "That makes polling on this kind of tough. If the question connects to privacy, maybe people will tilt that way, but if wording tilts towards security, people will tilt that way. That's why this is such a controversial issue."

One in 5 say they've been wiretapped
Muddying the waters even more is a fatalistic sense shared by many people that their privacy might all be lost, anyway.  In a telephone survey conducted in late December by The Ponemon Institute, one in five respondents said they believed their phone calls had already been wiretapped by the government at some point. And almost one-third said they believed the feds had monitored their e-mails and Web browsing. The study had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent.

Live Vote: Have you been wiretapped?

The Ponemon Institute monitors privacy issues, and the survey included only those who sign up to participate in telephone polls –- not the random sample method used by traditional political pollsters. But the results still suggest a large number of people believe the government is already watching them, and listening to them. 

"A lot of people think their privacy is somehow being abused and it doesn't seem to phase them," said Larry Ponemon, the founder of the institute. "If I thought that this were true I would be ticked off. For example, I wouldn't use my phone."

People's expectations about government monitoring have been set by television and science fiction, Ponemon said -– raising their impression that everything they do is being watched, and that technology makes this easy.  A fair amount of paranoia seems also present in the results, which are fantastic and impractical. Simply storing recorded phone calls for 1 in 5 Americans would be prohibitively expensive, and the task force needed to listen in on that many conversations would be impossibly large. Still, however fantastic, the results are consistent with research done by Scott Rasmussen, who has run several NSA-eavesdropping related polls for The Rasmussen Report.

In a study Rasmussen conducted between Christmas and New Year's, only 26 percent of respondents said they think President Bush is the first president to authorize such domestic spying. In other words, as Sun Microsystems's Scott McNealy once said, many Americans apparently think they lost their privacy long ago -- and they've gotten over it.

"There is a perception that this sort of activity goes on all the time. It's a normal part of government operations," Rasmussen said.  "The public does not see the current NSA program as particularly out of the ordinary."

Level of intrusion is growing
Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet and American Life Project, was only somewhat surprised by the results.  After all, he said, American consumers have been inundated with spyware, spam, computer viruses, and identity theft.  There is a general feeling of helplessness about personal privacy, he said, so it's not such a surprise that people would think the federal government has piled on.

"People are not necessarily sure what's going on with the gizmos of their lives," he said.  "There is a general feeling that the level of intrusion is growing."

But intrusion by Internet criminals is one thing; intrusion by the federal government is another.  There is little question that fighting terrorism, and virtually any law enforcement work, requires a delicate balancing of security and privacy issues. That is the debate that will be on display this week during the Alito hearings. Opponents of the nominee will try paint a picture of Alito as sympathetic to broad powers for the executive, and broad government surveillance efforts. In 1984, as an assistant to the solicitor general, Alito wrote a memo that defended the federal government's right to order domestic wiretaps. In it, Aliot recommended federal officials be immune from lawsuits when they order such surveillance.  The memo will be a launching pad for the topic.

But it's hard to say how the privacy issue will resonate with U.S. voters. Consumers constantly contradict themselves when asked about the subject, Rainie said. 

Individually torn
"People in the abstract say they are very concerned about their privacy," he said.  "But the minute you start adding context to the subject, it gets more complicated."

For example, many people jealously guard their personal medical information, and bristle at any hint that it might be made public. But ask that same person after a car accident, and they'll want as many medical professionals and family members as possible to know everything about their medical history.

"We are individually torn on this issue," he said. "In the heart of every American lurks a chamber that cherishes privacy ... but in the adjacent chamber, Americans want to be peeping Toms."

So it is with terrorism. People want the president to use all the powers of his office to prevent terrorists from harming Americans (56 percent in Ponemon's study), and they also want the president to use all the powers of his office to protect their privacy rights (78 percent).

The answer for this double-talk may lie, Rainie suggests, in a factor some sociologists call the "third person effect." Essentially, people want their own privacy preserved, but they figure it's OK for the government to violate someone else's privacy. 

"Most people figure they'll never be talking to someone from al-Qaeda, so it doesn't impact them personally," he said. "But the neighbor might be suspicious, so go ahead and listen in on him."

Is it a good deal or a scam? Are you e-mailing a legitimate company or a criminal?  If you buy that "free" cell phone, will you ever get that rebate?

Your hand hovers over the mouse, and just as you are about to make that final click, a queasy feeling hits the pit of your stomach.  You're just not sure.  Lesson No. 1 in a being a smart consumer: Don't ignore that queasy feeling. Listen to it, and ask some more questions. Lesson No. 2: Get the answers from someone other than the person trying to get your money.

That's where the Internet can be a big help.  There's a collection of Web sites devoted to tilting the scales in favor of consumers. By giving a very public stage for complaints, these sites root out everything from legitimate companies with sloppy practices to outright con artists.  I wouldn't do business with any new company without vetting the company first through one or all of these sites. 

Why are they so useful?  Because they harness the collective wisdom of everyday consumers.  Each one gives you the chance to learn from other people's mistakes, which could save you a lot of money and heartbreak.

The best of the crop is RipOffReport.com, run out of Arizona by Ed Magedson.  He's been collecting consumer tirades since 1998 at the site, which he says now has millions of entries.  Every day, about 500 more complaints come streaming in.  With a simple search engine, RifOffReport makes it easy to research both online and offline companies.  Quickly, you'll learn if any consumers claim they've been mistreated by a company.

Magedson sees his site as leveling the playing field between consumers and businesses, forcing companies to be more accountable for their actions.

"Businesses clearly had the edge over consumers before the Internet. They used to be able to say, 'Go ahead and sue me,' " Magedson said.  "But, now we have the Internet. The tides have turned.  You need to take care of the consumer now."

With rare exception, Magedson doesn't remove any consumer posts, which means there's a fair amount of pure ranting on the site.  There's also unfair complaints, and misleading comments.  But it's this unfiltered, bar-talk nature of RipOffReport that makes it so useful. Imagine standing at an electronics store, looking at a big-screen TV, and having dozens of recent buyers come up and tell you their experience -- drowning out the voice of the over-eager, under-informed sales geek.

'A great benefit'
RipOffReport isn't only useful to consumers. Government agencies use it, too. Jon Sorenson, spokesman for the New York State Consumer Protection Board, says he uses the site every time a couple of new complaints come into his agency.  A search at RipOffReport immediately tells him if there's a new scam trend operating, he said. He thinks consumers should use the site the same way.

"It's fantastic to have an opportunity to see real people and have them explain their sometimes unreal experiences with certain products and companies," he said. "There's no better way to find out about a company than to discover the experiences of other consumers."

Adding to RipOffReport's credibility – while writers aren't identified on the site, they must submit contact information, which at times is shared with authorities.  Sorenson said his office has received lists of complainers from Magedson on numerous occasions, and each time, the complaints have been authentic. 

"It would be of great benefit if more people were to avail themselves of such sites," Sorenson said.

Look before, not after, buying
Sorenson also likes ConsumerAffairs.com, run by former Associated Press journalist James R. Hood. The site takes a different tack than RipOffReport -- it's not a bulletin board "free-for-all," as Hood puts it. The site does solicit consumer complaints, maintains a database of them, and publishes a few hand-selected rants. 

But its central focus involves a small staff of writers who investigate consumer complaints and publish their findings. There are about 200,000 pages of information on the site, which is 7 years old, Hood said.

"What we try to tell people is, 'Look at our site before you buy something, not after," Hood said.

Another consumer site, Complaints.com, takes a bit of a middle road, publishing most, but not all, of the comments it receives. Site founder Matt Smith only wants constructive complaining, so he filters out all the simple "ABC Inc. sucks" messages. That leaves the site full of detailed narratives which mostly contain the message: "This happened to me, don't let it happen to you."

"Consumers are happy to help others," he said.  "And people feel better after they complain."

Other complaints can be found at Scam.com and My3Cents.com

Better than blogging
But there's much more than bitching and moaning going on.  Anyone can post a diatribe about a company on their personal Web site, Smith said. But the power of Complaints.com and RipOffReport.com is the quick placement in search engine results. 

"It's great posting a message on a blog, but here your message gets indexed by Google, within an average of a week to 10 days," he said.  "I've seen a single complaint about a company appear higher than the company's home page. That gives the consumer a lot of power over a business."

Corporations targeted by consumers haven't taken all this criticism lying down.  All three sites offer companies some way to respond to consumers. Still, often that's not enough.  Hovering over all these sites is the constant threat of lawsuits from criticized firms.  Magedson said he's spent $500,000 defending himself from various legal actions.  Hood's been sued once; Smith has received multiple threats, but never been dragged into court.

Criminals have taken notice, too.  Magedson said he's noticed nimble con artists watch RipOffReport carefully and quickly change their company name when complaints start appearing in his database. 

They're not perfect
So the sites aren't foolproof. They're not immune from "gaming," either.  Competitors have been known to plant fake complaints about each other on such sites, so like everything on the Internet, everything must be taken with a grain of salt.

There's also some pretty inane whining, like this one, filed in February 2002 about a McDonald's restaurant on Complaints.com:

"The manager has started a new policy on refills: coffee refills are only for 'eat-in' customers. The McDonalds in question is located on the first floor of my office building, and I drink the coffee at my desk in my office. Does the manager of this McDonalds restaurant have the authority to implement this unreasonable 'rule?' "

Still, when a quick search finds a sizable volume of complaints against a company, that's a pretty good signal that something is really wrong. And it's often enough to affirm that queasy feeling you have is there for a reason. 

That leads to lesson No. 3 of being a smart consumer: Learn to just walk away from the deal.  You can always buy it, order it, or click on it in the morning.