> the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board has significant Equifax holdings; by crushing Equifax shareholders, you aren’t just affecting the so-called rich, b

> the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board has significant Equifax holdings; by crushing Equifax shareholders, you aren’t just affecting the so-called rich, but the health of pension funds which typically support the non-rich (rich people don’t rely on pensions for retirement as much.) you're basically claiming that every company purchased by any pension (so, basically, every company) is Too Big To Fail. if taking down one medium-sized company has any noticeable effect on public pensions, then the public pensions need serious reform. > Stealing the identity of people with few assets is a lot less profitable than stealing the identity of rich people. to echo what the sibling comment said, this is a major problem with the continued misappropriation of the word "theft" to refer to things which cannot be physically taken (cf. intellectual property "theft"). sure, if you could literally take over the identity of a rich person, that would be worth much more than the identity of a poor person. but that's not how "identity theft" works. "identity theft" means, largely, opening accounts in someone else's name. rich people are far more likely to notice, and far more able to take action. even if I had Bill Gates's full name, date of birth, address, social security number, all financial account information (hell, half of these are public information already anyways)... I'm not going to be able to open an account in his name, and even if I was, I would almost certainly be caught immediately and sent to jail.