Equifax was hacked .... 143 million records exposed

[dudog84]

I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Terrorist hacking into the largest U.S. financial institution databases and wiping out all bank accounts (either the records or actual money) is, IMO, not identity theft. If it occurs and affects over 100 million Americans simultaneously, then I would not call that massive identity theft. How would you firm simultaneously get money to all of those 100 million Americans (assuming all 100 million are your customers) within a few hours (they need to eat lunch)?

I'm not the one mixing apples and oranges. I responded to a very specific post that was about personal protection. At no point did I even touch on terrorism or how this would affect banking institutions as a whole. At no time did I even remotely suggest that "you (my) firm" would immediately restore literally billions/trillions of dollars to every American. This is silly. As a matter of fact, my main competition has been fined over $100 million dollars (across multiple acts) for deceptive advertising of this sort. And just like the shysters at Equifax who sold stock, the penalty is pocket change compared to the financial gain.

In an attempt to assuage the, again, very specific concerns of a member of this community which is probably shared by others, I provided some information. In an attempt to not appear as a shill, perhaps I was overly brief. But I went back and re-read my post (which I was very careful about to begin with), and it is perfectly fine. Actually, I said the bank would replace the money within 30 days. Where did you get that I would personally replace everyone's money within minutes?

[Jeffrey]

I'm not the one mixing apples and oranges. I responded to a very specific post that was about personal protection. At no point did I even touch on terrorism or how this would affect banking institutions as a whole. At no time did I even remotely suggest that "you (my) firm" would immediately restore literally billions/trillions of dollars to every American. This is silly. As a matter of fact, my main competition has been fined over $100 million dollars (across multiple acts) for deceptive advertising of this sort. And just like the shysters at Equifax who sold stock, the penalty is pocket change compared to the financial gain.

In an attempt to assuage the, again, very specific concerns of a member of this community which is probably shared by others, I provided some information. In an attempt to not appear as a shill, perhaps I was overly brief. But I went back and re-read my post (which I was very careful about to begin with), and it is perfectly fine. Actually, I said the bank would replace the money within 30 days. Where did you get that I would personally replace everyone's money within minutes?

No, you responded to Rich's post where Rich quoted me and asked me a question about my statement regarding terrorism.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.c...627#post999627

I truly have tried to keep this very simple. Not sure how you got so easily lost (assuming you actually did).

[Jeffrey]

As a matter of fact, my main competition has been fined over $100 million dollars (across multiple acts) for deceptive advertising of this sort. And just like the shysters at Equifax who sold stock, the penalty is pocket change compared to the financial gain.

So, your main competitor has made billions of dollars in profit selling "personal protection"? That's an extraordinary profit margin.

In an attempt to not appear as a shill, perhaps I was overly brief.

Why do you feel the need to "attempt to not appear as a shill"?

[snowdenscold]

So although the stock thing looks incredibly bad on the surface and definitely hurts Equifax in the headlines, the whole thing still seems pretty odd to me.

These guys know their selling triggers public disclosures, and thus to do so right before a big news event means either they really didn't know or else they have incredible hubris.

Furthermore, they only sold a small percentage of their holdings, and in line with past sales. But yet these were open market and not part of a 10b5-1.
And you'd have to imagine news of this magnitude would make its way to senior execs pretty fast (at least the CFO - not sure exactly what those other two roles comprise).

Very puzzling.

[Jeffrey]

So although the stock thing looks incredibly bad on the surface and definitely hurts Equifax in the headlines, the whole thing still seems pretty odd to me.

These guys know their selling triggers public disclosures, and thus to do so right before a big news event means either they really didn't know or else they have incredible hubris.

Furthermore, they only sold a small percentage of their holdings, and in line with past sales. But yet these were open market and not part of a 10b5-1.
And you'd have to imagine news of this magnitude would make its way to senior execs pretty fast (at least the CFO - not sure exactly what those other two roles comprise).

Very puzzling.

Let me make it even more puzzling. Look at the 2,600 put contracts bought on August 21st. That's 10 times the amount bought in the whole month of July!

[fuse]

Not sure it will stand legally, checking on the equifax website if you were impacted and accepting their "free" protection apparently also opts you out of participating in a class action lawsuit.

[Indoor66]

I have heard and read that one course of action to deal with the issue is to request a Credit Freeze with the three main credit bureaus. Clark Howard, Consumer Credit commentator has this on his website. It provides links all of the procedures for all the credit bureaus and details the procedures, issues and consequences. I recommend a review. It is painless and may be quite helpful. (Move down about one screen on the website and the specific outline is set forth.)

[Blue in the Face]

Not sure it will stand legally, checking on the equifax website if you were impacted and accepting their "free" protection apparently also opts you out of participating in a class action lawsuit.

That was a misunderstanding which Equifax has clarified - taking the protection does not waive any rights to pursue a claim regarding this breach.

[dudog84]

No, you responded to Rich's post where Rich quoted me and asked me a question about my statement regarding terrorism.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.c...627#post999627

I truly have tried to keep this very simple. Not sure how you got so easily lost (assuming you actually did).

My goodness. How kind of you to provide the citation for your error. Your posts would be laughable if they didn’t insult my knowledge of my industry and the integrity of my business by blatantly misstating facts.

Your post was wide-ranging, from terrorism to financial Armageddon to finishing with how individuals could wake up with no money in their bank accounts, but you were prepared and others should likewise prepare themselves. The entirety of Rich’s response was “How does one prepare for that other than by hoarding cash in one's home?” I won’t waste my time giving you the definition of what “one” is. But by no stretch of the imagination was he asking you about terrorism. To state so is to be deliberately misleading (at best).

I am not the simpleton here. And I am most certainly not lost.

So, your main competitor has made billions of dollars in profit selling "personal protection"? That's an extraordinary profit margin.


Why do you feel the need to "attempt to not appear as a shill"?

Once again, you're being deliberately misleading (once again, at best). Please show me where I stated they were making "billions of dollars in profit". Hyperbole is annoying to begin with, and when done while misusing another's statements it goes beyond the pale. Anyway, my competitor had revenue of almost $600 million a couple of years ago. That’s about $750,000/employee (I just spot checked a major bank and they make about $300,000/employee…but with hundreds (thousands) of branches their infrastructure costs are much greater…And yes that is probably overly simplified, but identity theft protection marketers are making some coin). The executives that made the decisions are making a very pretty penny, and I’m sure the company paid the fine.

I don’t think they needed to use misleading advertising to make a lot of money. I couldn’t live with it. But for many it’s a balance sheet question when they know they will not be going to jail. And any time they do serve will not be in San Quentin.


I do not believe DBR boards are a place to promote one’s business. Yes, the company I represent has an identity theft protection product and that’s why I tried to be very careful with what I wrote. In fact I said diligence was the key. A service MAY be part of that diligence. Your original post threw a fire bomb of fear into the crowd (Terrorism! Financial Catastrophe! You will wake up with no money!) without providing a smidgen of information. I informed Rich (and others) that their banking deposits are safe with the caveat that banks have 30 days to replace their money. There are certainly lots of concerns in the internet age. But if people are diligent they will not be wiped out personally.

[PackMan97]

You will wake up with no money!

Many of us have been "prepping" for this day our entire lives! Finally, something I'm ready for

[Jeffrey]

My goodness. How kind of you to provide the citation for your error. Your posts would be laughable if they didn’t insult my knowledge of my industry and the integrity of my business by blatantly misstating facts.

Your post was wide-ranging, from terrorism to financial Armageddon to finishing with how individuals could wake up with no money in their bank accounts, but you were prepared and others should likewise prepare themselves. The entirety of Rich’s response was “How does one prepare for that other than by hoarding cash in one's home?” I won’t waste my time giving you the definition of what “one” is. But by no stretch of the imagination was he asking you about terrorism. To state so is to be deliberately misleading (at best).

I am not the simpleton here. And I am most certainly not lost.




Once again, you're being deliberately misleading (once again, at best). Please show me where I stated they were making "billions of dollars in profit". Hyperbole is annoying to begin with, and when done while misusing another's statements it goes beyond the pale. Anyway, my competitor had revenue of almost $600 million a couple of years ago. That’s about $750,000/employee (I just spot checked a major bank and they make about $300,000/employee…but with hundreds (thousands) of branches their infrastructure costs are much greater…And yes that is probably overly simplified, but identity theft protection marketers are making some coin). The executives that made the decisions are making a very pretty penny, and I’m sure the company paid the fine.

I don’t think they needed to use misleading advertising to make a lot of money. I couldn’t live with it. But for many it’s a balance sheet question when they know they will not be going to jail. And any time they do serve will not be in San Quentin.


I do not believe DBR boards are a place to promote one’s business. Yes, the company I represent has an identity theft protection product and that’s why I tried to be very careful with what I wrote. In fact I said diligence was the key. A service MAY be part of that diligence. Your original post threw a fire bomb of fear into the crowd (Terrorism! Financial Catastrophe! You will wake up with no money!) without providing a smidgen of information. I informed Rich (and others) that their banking deposits are safe with the caveat that banks have 30 days to replace their money. There are certainly lots of concerns in the internet age. But if people are diligent they will not be wiped out personally.

Again... Why do you feel the need to "attempt to not appear as a shill"?

[Jeffrey]

The following article is useful information for protecting yourself from the OT. It also clearly explains "why you don’t need to buy ID-theft protection".

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...r-id/index.htm

It adds up, "About 50 million U.S. consumers spent $3.5 billion in 2010 to buy products that are claimed to protect their identity."

[budwom]

I have an ultra low tech tale about "security" from around 1990 or so. Back then I traveled a lot on business, and (pre internetz) I paid something like $40/yr for American Express's Credit Card Registry.
You filled out a paper form with all your credit card numbers/accounts, and you got little stickers to put on each card. If you lost your wallet, you'd just call AmEx and they'd cancel all the cards immediately.
Or so they said. Convenient if you're on the road...

After several years in this program, I decided maybe it was time to update my list (omit the old cards, etc). I called AmEx, and asked them to tell me what cards I had listed. Much hemming and
hawing ensued, said they couldn't tell me, would have to "research" the request. Hm I said, if I told you my wallet was stolen, what cards would you cancel?
After much more inquiry, it turned out they could not tell me AT ALL which cards they had "covered." Somehow all the records were on ultra poor microfiche, and they
literally couldn't tell me anything, as the records were completely illegible.

I asked for my money back for all the years they said I was paying for "protection," they said no, I said will you reconsider if I tell you my next call is to the Wall St. Journal (they love that
kind of stuff), and voila, money reimbursed from totally useless AmEx protection program.

[dudog84]

Scathing article from Bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ifax-hurricane

I've scanned the Equifax free protection. It's mostly monitoring and reimbursements for your time. Hey, they'll reimburse you for legal fees up to $125/hour. Anyone know an attorney that works for that?

You have to think about identity theft protection like insurance, and know what you're paying for. Coverage, deductibles, pre-existing conditions, etc. Anyone that tells you they can prevent identity theft is lying to you. But it's like house (or any other kind of) insurance...the insurance company can't stop the hurricane from hitting your house, you want them to clean up the mess afterward. Not have you be roofer, drywaller, carpet installer, etc. and get reimbursed for your time and materials afterward.

As with everything in life, there are risks. How to deal with them are personal decisions. Literally 2 weeks ago I had somebody complain to me about the cost of flood insurance (she also doesn't like being forced to buy health insurance). Wanted an equity loan and couldn't get one without flood insurance. Yesterday I got a text that Irma got her, her cherrywood floor (and other stuff) is ruined.

[PackMan97]

Hey, they'll reimburse you for legal fees up to $125/hour. Anyone know an attorney that works for that?

My attorney works for $0/hr...is $125 a little or a lot?

[Indoor66]

$125 exceeds the value of some I have dealt with.

[Jeffrey]

$125 exceeds the value of some I have dealt with.

Yep, by $125.

[Lord Ash]

Can a relatively dumb person ask a question...?

If I've never knowingly had any interaction with Equifax, do I still have to worry?

Any guidance for a clueless fellow is more than welcome

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Can a relatively dumb person ask a question...?

If I've never knowingly had any interaction with Equifax, do I still have to worry?

Any guidance for a clueless fellow is more than welcome

My understanding is "no, you are still at risk." Unless you have never applied for a mortgage, car loan, credit card, or bank account.

Equifax has files on all of us.

[Lord Ash]

Great, that's what I figured, thanks!