The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1991 provides limited privacy protections against the sale of your private financial information. The GBLA act protects against the practice of gathering personal information through false pretenses. The act makes important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S financial system since the nineteen thirties (1930s). This act gives permission to banks new authority to create authorized activities through financial subsidiaries. Financial service firms will be authorized to create a wide range of financial activates giving freedom to innovate in the economy (Peters & T, 1999). The act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that restricted affiliations between banks and security firms. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act amends the Bank Holding Company Act to eliminate restrictions on affiliations between insurance and bank companies (Peters & T, 1999). This act will enhance the stability of our financial services system …show more content…
As a result of the Great Depression financial failures, Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting state and national banks from associating with security companies. Congress passed the Bank Holding Company Act that prohibited a bank from controlling a non-bank company in nineteen fifty-six (1956) (Center, 1994). As a result, congress amended the Bank Holding Act to further forbid the banks from creating insurance agency or underwriting activities in nineteen eighty-two (1982) (Center, 1994). Moreover, the GLBA repealed sections of these acts in the year nineteen ninety-nine (1999 ) and gave permission to banks to have an interest in financial services. In the year nineteen ninety-five (1995) the EU passed the Data Protection Directive that made the US companies ensure when they have used EU citizens personal data they would provide the same level of protection for citizens when within the EU (Center, 1994). Additionally, the Charter Pacific Bank of Agoura Hills, California sold millions of credit card information to an adult website that billed customers for access to Internet porn sites and other services that they did not personally request. The website company set up numerous merchant accounts under different names to avoid detection (Center, 1994). Furthermore the FTC won a $37.5 million dollar judgment against the website company. From