g051051

45 ms·

451.
by g051051 9y ago
> good junior devs can code not only "just as fast", but probably faster too! Pfft. I'm about as "senior" as it gets and I'm generally the fastest developer in any team I'm on. I've never met a j
452.
by g051051 9y ago
No it wasn't. Nothing changed about the number of affected consumers.
453.
by g051051 9y ago
I don't see how the facts of this article agree with the headline. Most potential sources for information were cited as having "no comment". There's been no official indication that the investigations have been abandon
454.
by g051051 9y ago
Yes. Take a look.
455.
by g051051 9y ago
Your rebuttal is to cite, of all things, Parks and Recreation? Note that the company under discussion is not Equifax, but the potential employer. You give your explicit permission for them to consult The Work Number during the hiring proce
456.
by g051051 9y ago
2007 was when Equifax bought The Work Number. It probably wasn't as prevalent then.
457.
by g051051 9y ago
Uninformed consent is your fault. If you sign papers without reading them, that's on you.
458.
by g051051 9y ago
It's not made up...I couldn't believe he won either, but I looked up the judgement at the court web site. Sure enough, it's there. Based on his story and reading the judgement, I'd say he got incredibly lucky with a po
459.
by g051051 9y ago
The game used a 6502 for the main CPU, but had a custom system called "Math box" that handled the 3D computations: > The Math Box was built around the AMD 2901 Bit Slice which contained an Arithmetic/Logic Unit, a 16-deep
460.
by g051051 9y ago
I'm haven't done any electronics stuff before, so I didn't know that.
461.
by g051051 9y ago
Yes, I saw that, but it'd be nice to get the exact same components if possible. It'd be even nicer if the same pack the students got was available from their source.
462.
by g051051 9y ago
I'd love to follow along, but I don't see a parts list to get the matching parts.
463.
by g051051 9y ago
> my clients would be suing me for choosing a bad third party and losing their data. And their cases would be tossed out of court for being meritless.
464.
by g051051 9y ago
> They knowingly ignored basic security practices to maximize gain. Completely false. There's been no reputable reporting that substantiates that claim.
465.
by g051051 9y ago
> I didn't claim they lied. Then why did you say you were "hesitant to take their word at face value"? > Without entering through the front door, any attacker would have had a monumentally more difficult time installing
466.
by g051051 9y ago
> I'm hesitant to take their word at face value Can you document a lie they've told? > as they've tried to mitigate the entire situation via PR already Of course, any company would do the same. But did they lie? > c
467.
by g051051 9y ago
> They left the back door open for two months. There's a difference between "left the back door open for two months" and "the back door was open for two months because the person assigned to verify it was closed told
468.
by g051051 9y ago
That was a totally different site in another country, not even in current use, and had no exposure of PII. Yes, it was a dumb thing, but it was completely unrelated to the breach.
469.
by g051051 9y ago
> That doesn't stop Facebook et al from placing tracking beacons all around the web and building shadow profiles on people. All done through agreements with the sites you do visit and which spell it out in their ToS. > I go to
470.
by g051051 9y ago
That is the choice made by the company you're doing business with, not the CRA. It's up to them whether or not they feel the need to use CRA info. > other actors that collect information about me without my permission are
471.
by g051051 9y ago
> reminder that people are involuntarily tracked by credit agencies and all manner of other actors That's a gross misunderstanding of how CRAs function. You explicitly give permission for whatever businesses you interact with to fo
472.
by g051051 9y ago
Who knows when the flaw in their process was introduced? Perhaps it passed all the audits and tests, but got misconfigured later. There's no doubt or question that the process was flawed (in that the tools were silently failing and t
473.
by g051051 9y ago
> It would also let the agency fine them in the event of a data breach, to the tune of $100 per affected consumer as a minimum. Half of that money would be redistributed to the consumers caught up in the data breach.
474.
by g051051 9y ago
> "Equifax allowed personal data on more than half the adults in the country to get stolen, and its legal liability is so limited that it may end up making money off the breach." "Allowed"? She phrases that to make i
475.
by g051051 9y ago
Sadly, she seems to have a gross misunderstanding of the facts of the case, as well as cybersecurity in general. There's essentially no chance of this being passed, she's just showboating. Key questions: 1. Does this apply to all
476.
by g051051 9y ago
Are you sure that wasn't Experian? I can't find anything from Equifax advertising that service.
477.
by g051051 9y ago
> The whole system upon which Equifax was built You mean "which the credit industry was built"...not Equifax. Equifax is just one of the big 3 CRAs. Singling out Equifax in this context is taking a very narrow view.
478.
by g051051 9y ago
Again, pretty much 0. I haven't seen a single reputable report of any statistically significant increases in ID Theft.
479.
by g051051 9y ago
Known? As of now, 0. Some people are blaming the Equifax breach for identity theft, but it's highly unlikely that was the case, they're just picking the easiest target.
480.
by g051051 9y ago
True, but we mainly need a better way to validate identities than information that is easily stolen.

More ›