6 ms·

In my experience, articles that end with "...and It's Totally Brilliant. Here's Why" tend to be shallow clickbait, and this one pretty much meets that definitio

In my experience, articles that end with "...and It's Totally Brilliant. Here's Why" tend to be shallow clickbait, and this one pretty much meets that definition. Obviously, not all 143 million victims of the Equifax breach are going to prove damage. In fact, almost none of them can. Even if your identity is stolen, can you prove where the thief got your info? The best and most realistic action individuals can take is to freeze their accounts at the big three credit companies. If you need a new credit card or apartment lease, you can un-freeze it temporarily. Otherwise, turn it off; why should it just be available to anyone who wants it, from year to year?

s73v3r_ 9y ago
But that costs money. Why on earth should I have to pay to ensure that these corporate leeches will actually protect my data?
snomad 9y ago
All 143 millions are due 10-years of credit monitoring, which at today's rates is roughly $3,600.
detaro 9y ago
The person in question here also didn't have their identity stolen and still managed to get money awarded, so it'd be interesting to see how courts would decide in more cases like that. Could have been lucky, could be a strategy that works - and since they are financing additional cases, I guess we'll get that data at some point. To quote the original post: Here is a breakdown of the damages I was awarded: - Cost of Credit monitoring (120 months at $30 per month) $3,600 - Ongoing emotional distress, anxiety, concerns, and harassment $1,800 - Punitive damages under 15 USC 1681 Section 616 for willful non-compliance with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act $2,500 - Court costs $90 -------------- - Total judgment: $7,990.
mindslight 9y ago
> The best and most realistic action individuals can take is to freeze their accounts at the big three credit companies Or you know, just don't give a shit. "Identity theft" is a nonsensical oxymoron meant to make you think you're responsible for others' gross incompetence. At this point, if an institution is defrauded because they relied on public identifiers for the purposes of authentication in 2018, then I don't really see how its really even my responsibility to help them sort their mess out. The practical legal action should be focused on libel when the fallout of such gross negligence is repeated as if it were factual. And the lofter goal should be aimed at shutting the private surveillance bureaus down, as their modus operandi is essentially a human rights violation.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

But that costs money. Why on earth should I have to pay to ensure that these corporate leeches will actually protect my data?

snomad 9y ago

All 143 millions are due 10-years of credit monitoring, which at today's rates is roughly $3,600.

detaro 9y ago

The person in question here also didn't have their identity stolen and still managed to get money awarded, so it'd be interesting to see how courts would decide in more cases like that. Could have been lucky, could be a strategy that works - and since they are financing additional cases, I guess we'll get that data at some point. To quote the original post: Here is a breakdown of the damages I was awarded: - Cost of Credit monitoring (120 months at $30 per month) $3,600 - Ongoing emotional distress, anxiety, concerns, and harassment $1,800 - Punitive damages under 15 USC 1681 Section 616 for willful non-compliance with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act $2,500 - Court costs $90 -------------- - Total judgment: $7,990.

mindslight 9y ago

> The best and most realistic action individuals can take is to freeze their accounts at the big three credit companies Or you know, just don't give a shit. "Identity theft" is a nonsensical oxymoron meant to make you think you're responsible for others' gross incompetence. At this point, if an institution is defrauded because they relied on public identifiers for the purposes of authentication in 2018, then I don't really see how its really even my responsibility to help them sort their mess out. The practical legal action should be focused on libel when the fallout of such gross negligence is repeated as if it were factual. And the lofter goal should be aimed at shutting the private surveillance bureaus down, as their modus operandi is essentially a human rights violation.