Private Spies Violate Constitution Daily

ProPublica Explains How Far Private Companies Can Go In Gathering Information About You

September 13, 2013 by ProPublica 

This post, written by  Lois Beckett, was originally published by ProPublica on March 7, 2013. It was updated with new information on Sept. 13.

We’re continuing to learn new details about how the American government is collecting bulk records of citizens’ communications — from demanding that a telephone company hand over the daily records of “all telephone calls in its systems,” to collecting an unknown number ofemails, instant messages and Facebook messages.

It’s not clear how much information about ordinary people’s conversations the National Security Agency has gathered. But we do know there’s a thriving public market for data on individual Americans — especially data about the things we buy and might want to buy.

Consumer data companies scoop up large amounts of consumer information about people around the world and sell it, providing marketers details about whether you’re pregnant or divorced or trying to lose weight, about how rich you are and what kinds of cars you drive. But many people still don’t know data brokers exist.

Regulators and some in Congress have been taking a closer look at this industry, and are beginning to push the companies to give consumers more information and control over what happens to their data. The prominent data broker Acxiom recently launchedaboutthedata.com, a site that allows you to review some of the information the company has connected to your name — and, potentially, edit and update it as well.

Here’s a look (originally published in March) at what we know about the consumer data industry.

How much do these companies know about individual people?

They start with the basics, like names, addresses and contact information, and add on demographics, like age, race, occupation and “education level,” according to consumer data firm Acxiom’s overview of its various categories.

But that’s just the beginning: The companies collect lists of people experiencing “life-event triggers” like getting married, buying a home, sending a kid to college — or even getting divorced.

Credit reporting giant Experian has a separate marketing services division, which sells lists of “names of expectant parents and families with newborns” that are “updated weekly.”

The companies also collect data about your hobbies and many of the purchases you make. Want to buy a list of people who read romance novels? Epsilon can sell you that, as well as a list of people who donate to international aid charities.

A subsidiary of credit reporting company Equifax even collects detailed salary and paystub information for roughly 38 percent of employed Americans, as NBC news reported. As part of handling employee verification requests, the company gets the information directly from employers.

Equifax said in a statement that the information is only sold to customers “who have been verified through a detailed credentialing process.” It added that if a mortgage company or other lender wants to access information about your salary, they must obtain your permission to do so.

Of course, data companies typically don’t have all of this information on any one person. As Acxiom notes in its overview, “No individual record ever contains all the possible data.” And some of the data these companies sell is really just a guess about your background or preferences, based on the characteristics of your neighborhood, or other people in a similar age or demographic group.

Where are they getting all this info?

The stores where you shop sell it to them.

Datalogix, for instance, which collects information from store loyalty cards, says it has information on more than $1 trillion in consumer spending “across 1400+ leading brands.” It doesn’t say which ones. (Datalogix did not respond to our requests for comment.)

Data companies usually refuse to say exactly what companies sell them information, citing competitive reasons. And retailers also don’t make it easy for you to find out whether they’re selling your information.

But thanks to California’s “Shine the Light” law, researchers at U.C. Berkeley were able to get a small glimpse of how companies sell or share your data. The study recruited volunteers to ask more than 80 companies how the volunteers’ information was being shared.

Only two companies actually responded with details about how volunteers’ information had been shared. Upscale furniture store Restoration Hardware said that it had sent “your name, address and what you purchased” to seven other companies, including a data “cooperative” that allows retailers to pool data about customer transactions, and another company that later became part of Datalogix. (Restoration Hardware hasn’t responded to our request for comment.)

Walt Disney also responded and described sharing even more information: not just a person’s name and address and what they purchased, but their age, occupation, and the number, age and gender of their children. It listed companies that received data, among them companies owned by Disney, like ABC and ESPN, as well as others, including Honda, HarperCollins Publishing, Almay cosmetics, and yogurt company Dannon.

But Disney spokeswoman Zenia Mucha said that Disney’s letter, sent in 2007, “wasn’t clear” about how the data was actually shared with different companies on the list. Outside companies like Honda only received personal information as part of a contest, sweepstakes, or other joint promotion that they had done with Disney, Mucha said. The data was shared “for the fulfillment of that contest prize, not for their own marketing purposes.”

Where else do data brokers get information about me?

Government records and other publicly available information, including some sources that may surprise you. Your state Department of Motor Vehicles, for instance, may sell personal information — like your name, address, and the type of vehicles you own — to data companies, although only for certain permitted purposes, including identify verification.

Public voting records, which include information about your party registration and how often you vote, can also be bought and sold for commercial purposes in some states.

Are there limits to the kinds of data these companies can buy and sell?

Yes, certain kinds of sensitive data are protected — but much of your information can be bought and sold without any input from you.

Federal law protects the confidentiality of your medical records and your conversations with your doctor. There are also strict rules regarding the sale of information used to determineyour credit-worthiness, or your eligibility for employment, insurance and housing. For instance, consumers have the right to view and correct their own credit reports, and potential employers have to ask for your consent before they buy a credit report about you.

Other than certain kinds of protected data — including medical records and data used for credit reports — consumers have no legal right to control or even monitor how information about them is bought and sold. As the FTC notes, “There are no current laws requiring data brokers to maintain the privacy of consumer data unless they use that data for credit, employment, insurance, housing, or other similar purposes.”

So they don’t sell information about my health?

Actually, they do.

Data companies can capture information about your “interests” in certain health conditions based on what you buy — or what you search for online. Datalogix has lists of people classified as “allergy sufferers” and “dieters.” Acxiom sells data on whether an individual has an “online search propensity” for a certain “ailment or prescription.”

Consumer data is also beginning to be used to evaluate whether you’re making healthy choices.

One health insurance company recently bought data on more than three million people’s consumer purchases in order to flag health-related actions, like purchasing plus-sized clothing, the Wall Street Journal reported. (The company bought purchasing information for current plan members, not as part of screening people for potential coverage.)

Spokeswoman Michelle Douglas said that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina would use the data to target free programming offers to their customers.

Douglas suggested that it might be more valuable for companies to use consumer data “to determine ways to help me improve my health” rather than “to buy my data to send me pre-paid credit card applications or catalogs full of stuff they want me to buy.”

Do companies collect information about my social media profiles and what I do online?

Yes.

As we highlighted last year, some data companies record — and then resell — all kinds of information you post online, including your screen names, website addresses, interests, hometown and professional history, and how many friends or followers you have.

Acxiom said it collects information about which social media sites individual people use, and “whether they are a heavy or a light user,” but that they do not collect information about “individual postings” or your “lists of friends.”

More traditional consumer data can also be connected with information about what you do online. Datalogix, the company that collects loyalty card data, has partnered with Facebook to track whether Facebook users who see ads for certain products actually end up buying them at local stores, as the Financial Times reported last year.

Is there a way to find out exactly what these data companies know about me? (Updated 9/5/2013)

Not really — although that’s beginning to change.

You have the right to review and correct your credit report. But with marketing data, there’s often no way to know exactly what information is attached to your name — or whether it’s accurate.

Most companies offer, at best, a partial picture.

In September, Acxiom debuted aboutthedata.com, which allows to you review and edit some of the company’s marketing data on you, by entering your name, address, birth date and the last four digits of your social security number.

The Federal Trade Commission’s Julie Brill tweeted that “more data brokers should follow” Acxiom’s example. But the effort received mixed reviews from users, privacy advocates andgovernment regulators, the New York Times reported.

Previously, Acxiom only let customers review a smaller slice of the information the company sells about them, including criminal history, as New York Times reporter Natasha Singer described last year. When Singer requested and finally received her report in 2012, all it included was a record of her residential addresses.

Other companies also offer some access. A spokeswoman for Epsilon said it allows consumers to review “high level information” about their data — like whether or not you’ve purchased “home furnishings” merchandise. (Requests to review this information cost $5 and can only be made by postal mail.)

RapLeaf, a company that advertises that it has “real-time data” on 80 percent of U.S. email addresses, says it gives customers “total control over the data we have on you,” and allows them to review and edit the categories it associates with them (like “estimated household income” and “Likely Political Contributor to Republicans”).

How do I know when someone has purchased data about me?

Most of the time, you don’t.

When you’re checking out at a store and a cashier asks you for your Zip code, the store isn’t just getting that single piece of information. Acxiom and other data companies offer services that allow stores to use your Zip code and the name on your credit card to pinpoint your home address — without asking you for it directly.

Is there any way to stop the companies from collecting and sharing information about me?

Yes, but it would require a whole lot of work.

Many data brokers offer consumers the chance to “opt out” of being included in their databases, or at least from receiving advertising enabled by that company. Rapleaf, for instance, has a “Permanent opt-out” that “deletes information associated with your email address from the Rapleaf database.”

But to actually opt-out effectively, you need to know about all the different data brokers and where to find their opt-outs. Most consumers, of course, don’t have that information.

In their privacy report last year, the FTC suggested that data brokers should create a centralized website that would make it easier for consumers to learn about the existence of these companies and their rights regarding the data they collect.

How many people do these companies have information on?

Basically everyone in the U.S. and many beyond it. Acxiom, recently profiled by the New York Times, says it has information on 500 million people worldwide, including “nearly every U.S. consumer.”

After the 9/11 attacks, CNN reported, Acxiom was able to locate 11 of the 19 hijackers in its database.

How is all of this data actually used?

Mostly to sell you stuff. Companies want to buy lists of people who might be interested in what they’re selling — and also want to learn more about their current customers.

They also sell their information for other purposes, including identity verification, fraud prevention and background checks.

If new privacy laws are passed, will they include the right to see what data these companies have collected about me?

Unlikely.

In a report on privacy last year, the Federal Trade Commission recommended that Congress pass legislation “that would provide consumers with access to information about them held by a data broker.” President Barack Obama has also proposed a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rightsthat would give consumers the right to access and correct certain information about them.

But this probably won’t include access to marketing data, which the Federal Trade Commission considers less sensitive than data used for credit reports or identity verification.

In terms of marketing data, “we think at the very least consumers should have access to the general categories of data the companies have about consumers,” said Maneesha Mithal of the FTC’s Division of Privacy and Identity Protection.

Data companies have also pushed back against the idea of opening up marketing profiles for individual consumers’ inspection.

Even if there were errors in your marketing data profile, “the worst thing that could happen is that you get an advertising offer that isn’t relevant to you,” said Rachel Thomas, the vice president of government affairs at the Direct Marketing Association.

“The fraud and security risks that you run by opening up those files is higher than any potential harm that could happen to the consumer,” 

Gov't Should Have Let Wall Street Banks Fail

The Financial Crisis and the Second Great Depression Myth

Dean Baker Truthout, September 9, 2013 The Huffington Post, September 9, 2013 All knowledgeable D.C. types know that the TARP and Fed bailout of Wall Street banks five years ago saved us from a second Great Depression. Like most things known by knowledgeable Washington types, this is not true. Just to remind folks, the Wall Street banks were on life support at that time. Bear Stearns, one of the five major investment banks, would have collapsed in March of 2008 if the Fed had not been able to arrange a rescue by offering guarantees on almost $30 billion in assets to J.P. Morgan. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both went belly up in September. The next week Lehman, another of the five major investment banks did go under. AIG, the country’s largest insurer was about to follow suit when the Fed and Treasury jerry-rigged a rescue. Without massive government assistance, it was a virtual certainty that the remaining three investment banks, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch, were toast. Bank of America and Citigroup also were headed rapidly for the dustbin of history. It is certainly possible, if not likely, that the other two giant banks, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan, would have been sucked down in the maelstrom. In short, if we allowed the magic of the market to do its work, we would have seen an end to Wall Street as we know it. The major banks would be in receivership. Instead of proffering economic advice to the president, the top executives of these banks would be left walking the streets and dodging indictments and lawsuits. This was when they turned socialist on us. We got the TARP and infinite money and guarantees from the Fed, FDIC, and Treasury to keep the Wall Street crew in their expensive suits. All the politicians told us how painful it was for them to hand out this money to the wealthy, but the alternative was a Second Great Depression. It’s not clear what these people think they mean, but let’s work it through. Suppose that we did see a full meltdown. The commercial banks that handle checking and saving accounts and are responsible for most personal and business transactions would then be under control of the FDIC. The FDIC takes banks over all the time. This would be more roadkill than it was accustomed to, but there is little reason to think that after a few days most of us would not be able to get to most of the money in our accounts and carry through normal transactions.     Credit conditions would likely be uncertain for business loans for some time, as in fact was the case even with the bailouts. Mortgage credit would have been provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as has been the case since September of 2008. One item deserving special attention in this respect is the commercial paper market. This is the market that most major businesses rely upon to meet regular payments like payroll and electric bills. When he was lobbying Congress for the TARP, Federal Reserve Board Chair Ben Bernanke said that this market was shutting down, which would in fact be disastrous for the economy. What Bernanke neglected to mention was that he unilaterally had the ability to support the commercial paper market through the Fed. In fact he announced a special lending facility for exactly this purpose, the weekend after Congress approved the TARP.    It is also worth ridiculing people who say the government made a profit on its bailout loans. It’s true that most loans were repaid with interest. However these loans were made to favored borrowers (Wall Street banks) at far-below-the-market interest rates at the time. The Congressional Oversight Panel commissioned a study on the subsidies involved in just the first round of TARP loans. The study put the subsidies at a bit more than 30 percent of the money lent out, implying bank subsidies of almost $80 billion from just this small segment of the bailout. Adding in other loans and various implicit and explicit guarantees would certainly  increase this number considerably. But suppose we hadn’t opened the government’s wallet and instead let the banks drown in their own greed. Would we have faced a decade of double-digit unemployment? From an economic standpoint there would be no reason for concern. We know from the last Great Depression, the key to recovery from a period of weak demand is to have the government spend lots of money. We eventually got out of the Great Depression by spending huge amounts of money on World War II. To get the economy jump-started this time we could have had massive spending on education, child care, rebuilding the infrastructure and making the economy more energy efficient. As Paul Krugman has repeatedly joked, if we need a political rationale for this spending we can say it is necessary to protect the United States from a Martian invasion. Of course as a political matter, such massive spending could prove a tough sell given the present day politics. But that is a political argument, not an economic one. Since we would be in uncharted water following this sort of collapse, no one can with a straight face claim they know how the politics would play out. We can separate out three camps. First we have the folks who would like the government to spend enough to restore full employment, but argue the political opposition would be too great. These people have a coherent second Great Depression story, but based on politics, not economics. The bad guys would have forced us to endure a decade of double-digit unemployment if we didn’t rescue Wall Street. Then we have the people who don’t like government spending and would oppose efforts to boost the economy back to full employment. These people are saying that we would have faced a second Great Depression if we didn’t rescue Wall Street because they would have insisted upon it. Finally, there are Washington Very Serious People types like the Washington Posteditorial page, who would go along with restarting the economy but only if accompanied by sharp cuts to programs like Social Security and Medicare. These people are hostage takers who are saying that if the country didn’t bailout Wall Street, they would force it to endure a second Great Depression, unless it eviscerated essential programs that working people need.      So the long and short is that we only need to have worried about a Second Great Depression if the bad guys got their way. And most of the people who warn about a Second Great Depression were on the list of bad guys. The prospect of a second Great Depression was not a warning, it was a threat. Next week I will explain why this downturn has been so long-lasting. The reason is actually far too simple for most economists to understand. As a result, there continues to be widespread confusion about the nature of the downturn.

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive. He also has a blog, "Beat the Press," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues.

AFL-CIO CONVENTION in Los Angeles

At AFL-CIO Convention, Leaders Ask: What Direction for Labor?

STRATEGIZE! LABOR, WORKER RIGHTS AND JOBS 
By Mark Vorpahl, www.occupy.com
September 13th, 2013

The acknowledgment of Labor’s existential crisis and the recognition that something must be done to resolve it is the key issue at the AFL-CIO’s four-day quadrennial convention in Los Angeles. The urgency of the situation has compelled Labor’s top officials to experiment in a search for solutions.

Most prominent among a variety of proposals is President Richard Trumka’s push to bring non-union “Labor allies,” such as possibly the NAACP, the Sierra Club and others, into some kind of formal relationship with the AFL-CIO. This has been met with concerns from both the Building and Construction Trades Department and the International Union of Operating Engineers, who have proposed a constitutional amendment that would restrict decision-making votes to “the members of the Executive Committee whose members’ employment opportunities and jobs are directly affected.”

Also highlighted at the convention has been the growth of “Alt-Labor” organizations. These groups organize and mobilize workers in defense of their own interests without union recognition. They include among others the Organization United for Respect at Walmart, or OUR Walmart; the SEIU-backed strikes of fast food workers; the National Day Labor Organizing Network, and the National Domestic Workers Alliance, all of whom have already signed partnerships with the AFL-CIO.

While these Alt-Labor groups do not have the legal protections of union organizing campaigns, they are also not subject to the legal restrictions that favor the employers of officially recognized efforts.

Fault Lines

Indicating a dramatic fault-line in Labor just days before the convention, International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) President Robert McEllrath sent a letter to Richard Trumka announcing the union’s disaffiliation from the AFL-CIO.

Because of its militant history, the role it has played in supporting working class issues and its power on the docks that are a key choke point for commerce, ILWU’s disaffiliation draws into question whether the AFL-CIO has its house in order enough to reverse Labors decline.

In his letter, McEllrath notes how in 2008, an AFL-CIO affiliate filed unfair labor practice (ULP) charges against the ILWU, “…to try again to sabotage our bargaining.” McEllrath continues:

“Since then, we have seen a growing surge of attacks from various affiliates. A particularly outrageous raid occurred in 2011, when one affiliate slipped in to fill longshore jobs at the new EGT grain facility in the port of Longview, Washington, and then walked through ILWU picket lines for six months until we were able to secure this critical longshore jurisdiction.

“Your office added insult to injury by issuing a directive to the Oregon State Federation to rescind its support of the ILWU fight at EGT, which threatened to be the first marine terminal on the West Coast to go non-ILWU. The attacks by affiliates against the ILWU have only increased.”

The “affiliates” cited by McEllrath include the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). Significantly, both of these are known as craft unions, which organize workers according to a given trade. The ILWU, by contrast, is an industrial union, meaning that it organizes workers according a particular industry rather than a trade.

It now appears that the East Coast-based International Longshore Association (ILA) may follow the ILWU’s example and disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO. In response to the ILWU’s decision, leaders of the AFL-CIO have retaliated by refusing to extend “solidarity charters” and ousting the ILWU from local and state labor councils.

Because of their greater ability to completely shut down the production of an employer in the event of a strike, industrial unionism is seen as a more effective form of organizing workers against corporate interests. It was the growth of industrial unionism under the CIO in the 1930s that led to the greatest jump in union membership in U.S. history.

In addition, it compelled the political establishment to create reforms like Social Security, the National Labor Relations Act and other measures that have benefited workers for decades.

By siding with the IUOE and the IBEW in their raids of jobs that had traditionally belonged to the ILWU, the leadership of the AFL-CIO signaled its willingness to undercut the union movement’s strength in raising a fight against giant corporations like EGT and Goldman Sachs.

But without a commitment to strengthen the AFL-CIO’s ability to wage such fights, it seems less and less likely that Labor will be able to reverse its decline, regardless of the experiments being promoted at its convention.

Political Disputes

McEllrath’s letter, significantly, brought up other disagreements with the leadership of the AFL-CIO that may be finding wider resonance among organized Labor.

“The ILWU has also become increasingly frustrated with the Federation’s moderate overly compromising policy positions on such important matters as immigration, labor law reform, health care reform, and international labor issues,” McEllrath writes. “We feel the Federation has done a great disservice to the labor movement and all working people by going along to get along. The Federation has not stood its ground on issues that are most important to our members.

“When President Obama ran on a platform that he would not tax medical plans at the 2009 AFL-CIO Convention, you stated that labor would not stand for a tax on our benefits. Yet the Federation later lobbied affiliates to support a bill that taxed our health care plans. Similarly, the AFL-CIO and the ILWU have historically supported comprehensive immigration reform with a clear path to citizenship that protects undocumented workers from firings, deportations, and the denial of their rights. However, the immigration bill you recently asked us to support imposes extremely long waiting periods on the path to citizenship and favors workers with higher education and profitability to corporations, as opposed to the undocumented workers such as janitors and farm workers who would greatly benefit from the protections granted by legalization.

“As a labor movement, we need to stand up and be the voice for our members and working people,” he adds. “We cannot continue to compromise on issues that benefit and protect the working men and women of America.”

Supporters of McEllrath’s position may have wished for a different course to be taken rather than the ILWU’s disaffiliation. The argument, for many, is that the ILWU would be better situated to push its views by staying within the AFL-CIO and building partnerships to oppose the compromising positions of its leadership.

Still, what McEllrath is pointing out represents the key fault-line in Labor’s foundation, one that is hampering its ability to turn the union movement around. The message is this: if unions are to reverse their current course and speak on behalf of the interests of all working people, its leadership must change its political approach.

Changing Course

Currently, Labor’s top officials see their chief task as getting a seat at the political table. From this position they aim to push back against the most egregious examples of corporate greed, and advocate for reforms that benefit workers. Using their official positions to maintain class peace, they keep the political machine running smoothly.

However, as wealth has become more concentrated in fewer hands and corporations have consolidated their control over both major parties, the old arrangement is no longer necessary. From the point of view of the 1%, the structure of organized Labor is a relic from the days when there were militant mass movements that challenged their control and profit making. Today, the elites have no more use for Labor’s political support than a once-broken, now-healed arm has for a sling.

Ignored and rebuffed by the corporate parties, Labor’s top leaders today have compromised the interests of their membership and all workers in the hope of appearing to be reasonable statesmen and not losing their minority seats at the political table. In doing so, they have exposed their own weakness to the corporations and become increasingly removed from their own members’ interests.

If the unions’ direction is to be reversed, it will require a leadership that is not beholden to maintaining ties to powerful corporate politicians who dominate the Democrat and Republican parties. Rather, it will require an independent workers’ movement committed to building a social movement to challenge corporate political power in the streets and at the ballot box.

Political independence for Labor does not mean we reward our friends and punish our enemies in the corporate political establishment. It means we mobilize on a continuing basis, in the largest numbers possible, with our own demands that we do not water down according to what politicians like Obama say is possible. If the CIO had not done this in the 1930s, and instead focused its resources on lobbying campaigns such as they are done today, it never would have risen as a force in American society.

Opportunities

The lack of good jobs remains the overriding concern for the vast majority of working people. President Trumka and the AFL-CIO is on record supporting the creation of a federal jobs program paid for by taxing the rich. If Labor were to commit its resources towards building an independent social movement, there is no doubt it would draw in union and non-union workers in great numbers.

When it is only Trumka talking, it is easy for Obama to dismiss him. But when millions are in the streets demanding a jobs program, the people’s call cannot be so easily overlooked. In addition, such a movement would help ease the competition between workers that is the underlying cause of the IUOE and IBEW raids on the ILWU.

Without the commitment to build a social movement, all the innovative ideas coming out of the AFL-CIO convention may come to little, if anything. Even union efforts to support low wage workers at Walmart and in the fast food industry cannot, on their own, reverse the decline of workers’ living standards. A politically independent workers movement for jobs, on the other hand — strengthened by campaigns for a $15 minimum wage, a real path to citizenship for immigrants and health care for all — could seize this moment of political change and raise the possibility of workers’ victories everywhere.

Related Posts:

• Longshoreman’s Union Breaks With AFL-CIO September 1, 2013
• Japanese Railway Workers Support Dockers Half a World Away June 15, 2013
• Letter To AFL-CIO To Promote Discussion On Independent Labor MovementSeptember 3, 2013
• Report From The AFL-CIO Convention September 9, 2013
• Railroaders Go Wobbly, Strike Against Firings August 13, 2013  
• 
  

Richmond, CA Eminent Domain Affirmed by Fed Judge

A boarded-up foreclosed property in Richmond, right. A federal judge tossed out a lawsuit challenging the city's proposal to seize underwater mortgages and write down the balances to stem a tide of foreclosures. (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

• Regulator plans to cut maximum amount for Freddie, Fannie mortgages
• FHA eases rules for some borrowers after bankruptcy, foreclosure
• Photos: Expensive homes | Southern California sales get outrageous
• Financial fraud is widespread in America, poll finds
• Some jumbo loans are now even cheaper than conforming mortgages

By E. Scott Reckard

September 12, 2013, 4:08 p.m.

A federal judge in San Francisco said Thursday that he would toss out a lawsuit challenging a plan by Richmond, Calif., to seize underwater mortgages and write down their balances, agreeing with the city that the lawsuit is premature.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said he planned to grant a dismissal motion filed by Richmond. The city had argued that it could use its eminent domain powers to buy the loans at a discount only after taking several more steps, including a special vote by the City Council -- actions that have not taken place. 

The ruling follows the council's decision early Wednesday to continue exploring the program despite heavy pressure from the banking, mortgage and securities industries, including threats to cut off major sources of home loans to the largely blue-collar city near Berkeley.

PHOTOS: Cities where wages have fallen farthest

"It's Richmond two and Wall Street zero this week," said Amy Schur, campaign director for advocacy groups backing the principal-reduction plan.

"Judge Charles Breyer confirmed what people in Richmond have been saying all along," Schur said. "It's a no-brainer thatWells Fargo's case against the city of Richmond does not have standing."

Wells Fargo Bank and Deutsche Bank, acting as trustees for mortgage bonds sold during the housing boom, had sued on behalf of the giant bond-trading firms BlackRock Inc., Pacific Investment Management Co. and DoubleLine Capital.

The bond firms have invested money, mainly from institutional investors such as pension funds, in securities backed by some of the mortgages in question.

They contend that Richmond and its advisory firm, Mortgage Resolution Partners, are offering far less than market value for 624 targeted mortgages, most of which are not in arrears and some of which allegedly are not underwater.

The city denies the allegations, saying its valuation of the mortgages and home values was produced by highly respected real estate analysts.

The banks had asked Breyer to halt the program while the merits of the suit can be determined. But the said he would not consider doing so until the threat of seizure was "imminent."

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Assn. noted that Breyer had said nothing about the industry’s claims that using eminent domain to seize mortgages is unconstitutional and “would represent a flagrant misuse of a municipality's power.”

 “We fully expect the litigation will succeed on merit once the issue is ripe,” the trade group said.

Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin said the city was pursuing its "step-by-step" process because "the banks and the federal government have not provided a fix."

 “I was quite pleased that Judge Breyer made statements about the democratic process and how city governments have their processes to go through, including public hearings,” McLaughlin said. “And that all takes time.”