CTOS: Did they infringed Human Rights?

Dear Helen & Domina,

I did not intend to comment on CTOS. But both of you won't let me off if I do not share my views.

First and foremost, Credit tip-off services per se isn't wrong. Banks and financial institutions who are interested to find out the credit standings have various means to do so. We have the Insolvency department who kept records of those who had become insolvent.

Besides CTOS, Banks also are able to check on a person’s record with the Central Credit Reference Information System (CCRIS) under Bank Negara and personal records kept by banks themselves.

As regard to publications in newspapers on individuals or corporations who had being petitioned for bankruptcy, it is a legal necessity.

Coming back to CTOS, the various questions posed are: (1) Is CTOS a Blacklists or Hot-list? (2) Did CTOS infringed on the individual rights as provided for under the Human Rights Commission? (3) Did CTOS obtained the financial records of individuals in its database legally? (4) Was CTOS under an obligation to update its records or the individual who was "blacklisted were required to inform CTOS if they want their records to be updated?

CTOS will have a lot to answer and will also have the burden to prove that they had acquired individuals information from an accredited legal source.

Kayveas had posed these questions to the Chung brothers:

"Did CTOS have any payment receipts or evidence that the data were voluntarily given by the public? Is the company buying the information via legal means? I want proof of that," Kayveas said.

Kayveas warned the company that if it continued to operate with outdated data, it could face legal consequences.

I have yet to do a detailed research but I must say Kayveas was right.

CTOS has a burden to prove that they had obtained the information of individuals from a legal source. If they could, then CTOS is not obligated to update their records. If they couldn't, then CTOS could be liable for infringing the rights of individuals as provided for under the constitution.

On a personal note, Kayveas was right to say that CTOS is merely an electronic archive and must only provides quick and accurate retrieval of information on a company or individual that has appeared in the public domain. The law of tort does impose a legal duty of care, for any organization or institution who published or sell information, and since they had assumed responsibility for that legal duty of care, they had a positive duty to ensure that all informations provided to their customers are factual and accurate and if there are informations that had come to their knowledge or that they knew or had reasons to know that some of the information is not accurate, then they are under a legal duty of care owed to these individuals to correct their information and databases such that the individuals did not suffer any loss or damages arising out of their negligence.

You must remember that CTOS is supplying the information for a profit and at such will be under a positive duty to update all informations to reflect the true position of each information and ensure the facts are accurate. The informations sold to customers are not mere opinion of facts but are factual and accurate. Any individual who suffered losses or damages arising out of outdated information caused by CTOS who sold it for a profit or fees, they could seek relieve from the court.

You must note that even in the philosophy of criminal law, once the criminal had served the punishments meted out by the court or had served his jail term, he is released and allowed to live a new life. But in CTOS, once your name is in the CTOS database, you can never get it out, which means you are marked for life.

If you had not had encountered any financial problems thus far in your life and had not being sued by another, you can view CTOS as harmless. If at any one time you had defaulted, say in paying your car or house installments and thus being sued by the financial institutions, then you will know how painful it is in the later years. Many had paid their dues and settle their loans but the records in CTOS are being used by the banks extensively when considering the credibility status of individuals. If you are extremely rich and had some records in CTOS, you need not worry as the banks will take into considerations your current net worth. But if you are an employee who is debtless currently except for a black-spot in the past and of course, is listed in CTOS, then you will most likely get hell from the banks if you apply for loans. Oh lest I forget, it only require a husband or a wife or their children to be listed in CTOS, and the whole family may be "blacklisted" by the banks.

On a personal note, do you think CTOS is a liability to individual citizen and the nation as a whole? You can answer yourself. As for me, I don't see any good of the existence of CTOS and what positive benefits it does for the nation and the rakyat. However, Helen, I did read your posting and you may be right too.

CTOS is getting hell and I do not want to add insult to a seemingly "dead-soon" entity.