g051051

48 ms·

511.
by g051051 9y ago
> > . In a speech at the University of Georgia last month, he [now ex-CEO] described a stagnating credit reporting agency with a “culture of tenure” and “average talent.” That was his description of the organization he inherited, in 2
512.
by g051051 9y ago
You mean the web site that didn't have any non-public data, and was actually not in active use for 3 years? I agree that was sloppy, but the site didn't have the level of security requirements that one of the main sites or their
513.
by g051051 9y ago
> We can only assume, then, that this effort was either underfunded, poorly managed, or both. Pure conjecture on your part. You have no insight into their security program. The only thing you can accurately infer is that they missed th
514.
by g051051 9y ago
Of course. You don't?
515.
by g051051 9y ago
> allow unauthorized people to make spurious changes via their systems and security practices? I don't follow. Who's the unauthorized party that's "allowed" to make spurious changes via their systems and securit
516.
by g051051 9y ago
Who's doing the fraud? Is it Equifax, which is in good faith recording the information provided by its customers (credit companies, banks, etc)? The credit company that is reporting in good faith to Equifax (or another CRA), but is t
517.
by g051051 9y ago
You're assuming that they took no action, as opposed to not being 100% effective in their detection and coverage. There's no evidence that they simply ignored it. If they're using Struts, all they had to do is miss one inst
518.
by g051051 9y ago
I'm not sure how this opinion piece figures in to anything. He's entitled to his opinion like anyone else, but his saying it's negligence, without any legal basis for the claim, is just puffery.
519.
by g051051 9y ago
It was also announced by Equifax themselves so of course it's common knowledge. I'm not sure of your point here. https://investor.equifax.com/news-and-events/news/2017/09-15... "Upon discoveri
520.
by g051051 9y ago
> The fact that they didn't sell those services to consumers but that consumers are the ones impacted is actually a big part of the problem. Perhaps, but it's a different problem that product liability. > which does lead to
521.
by g051051 9y ago
> It's only surprising because we now know how terribly fast and loose Equifax was operating. I certainly assumed they knew their job and were operating more akin to a bank in terms of data protection. Can you cite a source for how
522.
by g051051 9y ago
How is that a "product liability" issue, as put forth by OP? What faulty product did they sell to consumers?
523.
by g051051 9y ago
> Equifax had _failed_ to implement that remedy, because it was 'difficult', 'complex' (due to its own application / deployment / infrastructure), for several months, on a highly sensitive service. Can you c
524.
by g051051 9y ago
Go look up the "#unqualifiedfortech" hashtag on Twitter for the prevailing viewpoint. Hint: no one in tech cares.
525.
by g051051 9y ago
Not something for a president...it's a congressional thing.
526.
by g051051 9y ago
Were the companies you worked for dealing with data at the scale of Equifax? Were they under the kind of unceasing attack that the Equifax systems are? Do you think you could have withstood that kind of assault on your systems? All the CR
527.
by g051051 9y ago
> so if I design a car with a faulty steering mechanism that fails under unusual circumstances but, when it does, can cause a possibly fatal accident What was the faulty product in this case? Struts? Why is Equifax liable? > The Equ
528.
by g051051 9y ago
You're right, and I was wrong. From the FTC FAQ: > Does a credit freeze stop prescreened credit offers? > No. If you want to stop getting prescreened offers of credit, call 888-5OPTOUT (888-567-8688) or go online. The phone numb
529.
by g051051 9y ago
That's a different situation. That had nothing to do with a CRA, since the company didn't try to check his credit.
530.
by g051051 9y ago
Yes, exactly. I put a promotional block on my file over 20 years ago, and the number of credit card solicitations went to zero. It's never stopped me from obtaining credit whenever I wanted it, though.
531.
by g051051 9y ago
You can do that at any time by requesting a promotional block on your credit file. This prevents you from showing up in credit sweeps.
532.
by g051051 9y ago
Freezing your credit means no company can get access to your credit history. If credit companies can't pre-screen you, you won't get any credit card offers.
533.
by g051051 9y ago
That data would get stale very quickly...the window of utility would be a few months at best.
534.
by g051051 9y ago
> They require you to pay money in order to stop doing something you never authorized or asked them to do - releasing your credit profile to anyone who asks. That's incorrect. CRAs can only release information to others if the requ
535.
by g051051 9y ago
> Reports of "143 million Americans impacted" would seem to indicate that it was roughly everyone with a credit file. No reputable news source has said anything other than "potentially affected" as far as I know. >
536.
by g051051 9y ago
> There is no legal requirement for them to put up a website that looks like a phishing scam Seriously, what were they thinking? Even the most charitable light isn't enough for this to make sense.
537.
by g051051 9y ago
You were lamenting about the "delayed" response before, and now you're unhappy with the "hasty" response. Further, do you really think this was a hasty response? This is the response dictated by the law, coupled wi
538.
by g051051 9y ago
> NONE of them were on the scale or level of impact of the Equifax breach. I concede the possibility. > We are ALL affected by this breach. POTENTIALLY affected. There's been no disclosure of exactly how many records were access
539.
by g051051 9y ago
> My credit history is still in the hands of Equifax Your credit history is in the hands of all the CRAs, just like it has been since the first time you entered into any sort of credit agreement, or opened a bank account, or applied for
540.
by g051051 9y ago
> They should not have been in charge of the response Then who should have? > we should remember this chain of events and somehow all do better. (And not have another repeat of this shit show, if possible... but who am I kidding, it w

More ›