Equifax or Kaspersky

#1

AM64

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
28,085
Likes
41,174
#1
The government that wasn't so concerned about Clinton leaks is up in arms over Kaspersky. Personally I feel that Equifax is more troubling; what about the rest of you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2
#2
Equifax for sure - currently trying to figure out how to protect myself. The only saving grace is that since virtually anyone who's applied for credit is vulnerable it's like a lottery that you'll be the one (or one of the ones) that gets screwed. A reverse lottery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3
#3
To me there should be mandatory prison time for the CEOs of companies who hold and lose your personal information. It would either force better security or a decision regarding whether they actually need to collect the information in the first place.

I don't really care whether that's fair or not; they didn't ask my permission to hoard information about me. Fines don't seem to matter in the world of business - apparently, they are a cost of business factored into product cost that we pay - rather than a cost to the people at fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5
#5
To me there should be mandatory prison time for the CEOs of companies who hold and lose your personal information. It would either force better security or a decision regarding whether they actually need to collect the information in the first place.

I don't really care whether that's fair or not; they didn't ask my permission to hoard information about me. Fines don't seem to matter in the world of business - apparently, they are a cost of business factored into product cost that we pay - rather than a cost to the people at fault.

I'm with you, but good luck convincing your congressman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
To me there should be mandatory prison time for the CEOs of companies who hold and lose your personal information. It would either force better security or a decision regarding whether they actually need to collect the information in the first place.

I don't really care whether that's fair or not; they didn't ask my permission to hoard information about me. Fines don't seem to matter in the world of business - apparently, they are a cost of business factored into product cost that we pay - rather than a cost to the people at fault.

Yikes.

I can see prison time for the alleged insider trading, but their actual business was legal.
 
#10
#10
Equifax for sure - currently trying to figure out how to protect myself. The only saving grace is that since virtually anyone who's applied for credit is vulnerable it's like a lottery that you'll be the one (or one of the ones) that gets screwed. A reverse lottery.

Get in touch with Equifax and put a "freeze" on your credit. You can temporarily lift it to apply for a new line of credit and then close it again. Also have them apply an "alert" on your credit profile. They will then be responsible for sharing that request with the two other credit agencies. I've had LifeLock about 10 years now and have never had a problem. They caught a couple of things I never would have until it was probably too late. Worth the $$$.
 
#11
#11
To me there should be mandatory prison time for the CEOs of companies who hold and lose your personal information. It would either force better security or a decision regarding whether they actually need to collect the information in the first place.

I don't really care whether that's fair or not; they didn't ask my permission to hoard information about me. Fines don't seem to matter in the world of business - apparently, they are a cost of business factored into product cost that we pay - rather than a cost to the people at fault.

Mandatory prison time? That's uh, a little harsh.

There is no such thing as being 100% secure on the web. It will never happen, no matter how hard you try and how much money you spend.
 
#12
#12
Yikes.

I can see prison time for the alleged insider trading, but their actual business was legal.

Their business may be legal, but that's no excuse for mismanagement. Obviously online security is a tremendous problem and risk, and if you choose to run a business where you collect vital information that can virtually destroy lives then you better have the answer.

If Amazon loses my credit card info through a data breach, that's one thing - the credit card can always be cancelled and replaced and the false charges credited. When Equifax loses loses your name, SSN, address, DOB, etc that establish your identity, that's an entirely different matter - those things don't get replaced and the errors repaired.

I may or may not choose an online service to retain my credit card info, but I have no opportunity to keep my records from Equifax - that is tantamount to stealing my info (legally).

We demand far too little from the people who commit white collar crime - particularly those that damage the lives of others. Identity theft and lax policies that abet identity theft should be considered as serious or more so than armed robbery and anyone such as a driver who abets the crime.

We've insisted on recognizing corporations with some of the same privileges as people. Then let the person representing that company - the ones who demand millions of dollars in compensation for their "prowess" and "business acumen" take the blame for failures just as they do credit for successes. They will take responsibility to prevent failure only when forced to personally accept the consequence of failure.
 
#13
#13
Their business may be legal, but that's no excuse for mismanagement. Obviously online security is a tremendous problem and risk, and if you choose to run a business where you collect vital information that can virtually destroy lives then you better have the answer.

If Amazon loses my credit card info through a data breach, that's one thing - the credit card can always be cancelled and replaced and the false charges credited. When Equifax loses loses your name, SSN, address, DOB, etc that establish your identity, that's an entirely different matter - those things don't get replaced and the errors repaired.

Mismanagement? As you stated, cyber security is a major problem; no bodyis immune. Governments (USA, Russia, China, UK), Fortune 500 companies, and even hackers get hacked everyday. Seem fairly unreasonable, to the point of being absurd, to expect any digital entity of being hack proof.

I may or may not choose an online service to retain my credit card info, but I have no opportunity to keep my records from Equifax - that is tantamount to stealing my info (legally).

How do you think Equifax obtains your information?

Yes, you don't directly give them your information. However, you directly consent to companies gathering your information and either giving or selling that information to Equifax.

If you prefer for Equifax to not have your information, deny companies from gathering and selling your information.

We demand far too little from the people who commit white collar crime - particularly those that damage the lives of others. Identity theft and lax policies that abet identity theft should be considered as serious or more so than armed robbery and anyone such as a driver who abets the crime.

I agree. However, where is the white collar crime, here?

We've insisted on recognizing corporations with some of the same privileges as people. Then let the person representing that company - the ones who demand millions of dollars in compensation for their "prowess" and "business acumen" take the blame for failures just as they do credit for successes. They will take responsibility to prevent failure only when forced to personally accept the consequence of failure.

Corporations are people. They are a collection/association of individuals no different than churches or non-profits.

I do agree, individuals, churches, corporations, and non-profits ought to all be held accountable for their actions.
 
#15
#15
To me there should be mandatory prison time for the CEOs of companies who hold and lose your personal information. It would either force better security or a decision regarding whether they actually need to collect the information in the first place.

I don't really care whether that's fair or not; they didn't ask my permission to hoard information about me. Fines don't seem to matter in the world of business - apparently, they are a cost of business factored into product cost that we pay - rather than a cost to the people at fault.

How about mandatory life in prison for those committing financial fraud/identity theft OR chop their hands off so they can never type again on a keyboard. Their choice upon verdict in a court of law. Either you teach a lesson or you don't. Time to make these people think twice.
 
#16
#16
How about mandatory life in prison for those committing financial fraud/identity theft OR chop their hands off so they can never type again on a keyboard. Their choice upon verdict in a court of law. Either you teach a lesson or you don't. Time to make these people think twice.

I agree. The thing about identity theft and financial fraud is the little risk involved, and it can be done in privacy and in a comfortable environment. A guy robbing a store or a bank at least has some risk.

Somehow our legal system seems to equate violence with criminal behavior. The financial community melted down an entire economy and walked away with government money. Pretty amazing when you think about it - obviously some crime does pay - and pays very well.
 
#17
#17
Mismanagement? As you stated, cyber security is a major problem; no bodyis immune. Governments (USA, Russia, China, UK), Fortune 500 companies, and even hackers get hacked everyday. Seem fairly unreasonable, to the point of being absurd, to expect any digital entity of being hack proof.



How do you think Equifax obtains your information?

Yes, you don't directly give them your information. However, you directly consent to companies gathering your information and either giving or selling that information to Equifax.

If you prefer for Equifax to not have your information, deny companies from gathering and selling your information.



I agree. However, where is the white collar crime, here?



Corporations are people. They are a collection/association of individuals no different than churches or non-profits.

I do agree, individuals, churches, corporations, and non-profits ought to all be held accountable for their actions.

Perhaps nobody is immune to hacking because nobody has been held accountable. People are generally less risk adverse when they know that there will be no personal accountability.

As far as I know, we really have no ability to opt out of the data collection "services". We probably don't even know how many of these companies exist. They have their fingers in finance, in medicine, and a variety of other areas.

I know a person who applied for a job and would have been turned down if someone outside HR hadn't found out about it and asked why and then informed her. It turns out there is a company that serves as a clearinghouse for criminal/judicial matters. They incorrectly submitted a report that included an assault charge - an act by a different person with a similar name. How's that for incompetence - by a company hired to report accurate background information.

You may disagree that incompetence or failure to ensure the privacy and security of data held by a company largely without our explicit consent rises to the level of a crime, but how can you hold anyone liable for damages without significant penalty? Personally, if you steal my vital information (collect without my explicit consent) and lose it, then to me it's really little different from stealing something of value and fencing it.

Corporations such as Equifax are a collection of people - not a person. As such, a company is not accountable as a person would be. The only way to actually hold a company accountable is to hold the CEO personally accountable - then perhaps they would actually "earn" the exorbitant salaries.
 
#19
#19
Perhaps nobody is immune to hacking because nobody has been held accountable. People are generally less risk adverse when they know that there will be no personal accountability.

A lack of accountability? It has nothing to do with computer systems and the internet being an asymmetrical two-way street?

As far as I know, we really have no ability to opt out of the data collection "services". We probably don't even know how many of these companies exist. They have their fingers in finance, in medicine, and a variety of other areas.

You opt into them, explicitly. You ought to read the fine print before you hit "I agree". It's in there.

I know a person who applied for a job and would have been turned down if someone outside HR hadn't found out about it and asked why and then informed her. It turns out there is a company that serves as a clearinghouse for criminal/judicial matters. They incorrectly submitted a report that included an assault charge - an act by a different person with a similar name. How's that for incompetence - by a company hired to report accurate background information.

And? That's an issue between those two companies. The free market has a nice way of dealing with incompetence.

You may disagree that incompetence or failure to ensure the privacy and security of data held by a company largely without our explicit consent rises to the level of a crime, but how can you hold anyone liable for damages without significant penalty? Personally, if you steal my vital information (collect without my explicit consent) and lose it, then to me it's really little different from stealing something of value and fencing it.

1) Who stole your vital information? It wasn't stolen. Your analogy doesn't hold. It was freely given by you.

2) The company Equifax gets your information from has your explicit consent to collect and sell your information. That's why it's legal. If you don't want Equifax and companies like them to have your personal information, don't give your consent to the companies they buy it from.

3) Where is the crime? You have yet to prove a crime has been committed.

Corporations such as Equifax are a collection of people - not a person. As such, a company is not accountable as a person would be. The only way to actually hold a company accountable is to hold the CEO personally accountable - then perhaps they would actually "earn" the exorbitant salaries.

So a collection or association of people cannot beheld accountable for their actions?
 
#20
#20
A lack of accountability? It has nothing to do with computer systems and the internet being an asymmetrical two-way street?



You opt into them, explicitly. You ought to read the fine print before you hit "I agree". It's in there.



And? That's an issue between those two companies. The free market has a nice way of dealing with incompetence.



1) Who stole your vital information? It wasn't stolen. Your analogy doesn't hold. It was freely given by you.

2) The company Equifax gets your information from has your explicit consent to collect and sell your information. That's why it's legal. If you don't want Equifax and companies like them to have your personal information, don't give your consent to the companies they buy it from.

3) Where is the crime? You have yet to prove a crime has been committed.



So a collection or association of people cannot beheld accountable for their actions?

It's an asymmetrical two street because Equfax chose to make it that way. Because data have to be transmitted over a specific circuit - in this case the internet, it doesn't mean that the stored data have to be accessible either to viable users or hackers at all times. My car is fairly immune to collision damage when it's locked in the garage, but it is vulnerable when I choose to put it on the road. If I leave the car parked on the street because I'm too irresponsible to put it in the garage then that lack of accountability is all on me; so, yes, lack of accountability and laxity are in fact the same thing.

Of course, it's in the fine print, but it's also tantamount to blackmail. You only agree to the fine print because you have no other choice. It's no different from installing software; don't click the accept button and the software won't install; the difference is that to function these days - getting a credit card or a bank account, for example, isn't that optional. Imagine what might be the outcome if pharmaceutical companies started applying the methodology before releasing a necessary medicine to you - holding themselves completely risk free if the med was in fact harmful to you.

No, for example, the free market did not force major change in the banking/investment business. The major players may be laying low to a degree, but they are still there because politicians and regulators deemed them too important for the free market to extract it's wrath. The same will prove true of Equifax and its ilk. If we actually had a choice about which, if any, company could hold and provide access to our data, then the free market could actually work to eliminate bad actors.

If there is no responsibility to secure vital information or assets, then you are right, there is no crime. That in itself is criminal. And if there is no crime - and nothing punitive - then how does the free market exact it's due?
 
#21
#21
It's an asymmetrical two street because Equfax chose to make it that way. Because data have to be transmitted over a specific circuit - in this case the internet, it doesn't mean that the stored data have to be accessible either to viable users or hackers at all times. My car is fairly immune to collision damage when it's locked in the garage, but it is vulnerable when I choose to put it on the road. If I leave the car parked on the street because I'm too irresponsible to put it in the garage then that lack of accountability is all on me; so, yes, lack of accountability and laxity are in fact the same thing.

If only it worked like that; it doesn't.

Of course, it's in the fine print, but it's also tantamount to blackmail. You only agree to the fine print because you have no other choice. It's no different from installing software; don't click the accept button and the software won't install; the difference is that to function these days - getting a credit card or a bank account, for example, isn't that optional. Imagine what might be the outcome if pharmaceutical companies started applying the methodology before releasing a necessary medicine to you - holding themselves completely risk free if the med was in fact harmful to you.

Haha. Blackmail? You serious?

You didn't have a choice to refuse the software?

I love how you rail on personal responsibility/accountability in the previous paragraph (of a practically impossible task) and then turn around and absolve yourself of responsibility for your explicit consent part. Fantastic.

No, for example, the free market did not force major change in the banking/investment business. The major players may be laying low to a degree, but they are still there because politicians and regulators deemed them too important for the free market to extract it's wrath. The same will prove true of Equifax and its ilk. If we actually had a choice about which, if any, company could hold and provide access to our data, then the free market could actually work to eliminate bad actors.

I love how you tell me in the first sentence that the free market failed to correct itself, then spend the rest of the paragraph outlining how other forces besides the free market determined the outcome. It's as if you don't even read what you type.

If there is no responsibility to secure vital information or assets, then you are right, there is no crime. That in itself is criminal. And if there is no crime - and nothing punitive - then how does the free market exact it's due?

No crime =/= no legal liability.

Aside from legal liability/risk, it is remains to be seen whether there is a will from Equifax buyers or sellers in the free market. It will ultimately depend on those companies' customers.
 
#22
#22
If only it worked like that; it doesn't.



Haha. Blackmail? You serious?

You didn't have a choice to refuse the software?

I love how you rail on personal responsibility/accountability in the previous paragraph (of a practically impossible task) and then turn around and absolve yourself of responsibility for your explicit consent part. Fantastic.



I love how you tell me in the first sentence that the free market failed to correct itself, then spend the rest of the paragraph outlining how other forces besides the free market determined the outcome. It's as if you don't even read what you type.



No crime =/= no legal liability.

Aside from legal liability/risk, it is remains to be seen whether there is a will from Equifax buyers or sellers in the free market. It will ultimately depend on those companies' customers.

You can either accept the conditions and use the software or you don't use it; if you need that particular software, you accept. There is no opt out - that's basically blackmail. You likewise have no option to avoid a company such as Equifax from collecting your data if you have dealings with any financial service.

I'm not a customer of Equifax. I don't ask for or reject their services for poor quality service. Credit card companies, banks, investment services, etc are the clients. The people at risk have no meaningful relationship unless you perhaps buy one of their services to monitor your own information - that's simply a sideline to squeeze out a little more profit. Actually it's more like paying protection to maybe get a warning if they mishandle your information.

Since Equifax is connected to virtually every financial service, then it is pretty much impossible to tell a bank or other institution that you will terminate your business with them if they continue to operate with Equifax. Banks or other institutions are not directly affected, so how exactly can market forces direct change?
 
#23
#23
You can either accept the conditions and use the software or you don't use it; if you need that particular software, you accept. There is no opt out - that's basically blackmail. You likewise have no option to avoid a company such as Equifax from collecting your data if you have dealings with any financial service.

It's not blackmail. It's a free choice. The problem is you want your cake and eat it too. You make a value judgement that the software is more valuable than your privacy.

Nothing wrong with that decison; stop shunning your personal responsibility for your decisions and just own it.

I'm not a customer of Equifax. I don't ask for or reject their services for poor quality service. Credit card companies, banks, investment services, etc are the clients. The people at risk have no meaningful relationship unless you perhaps buy one of their services to monitor your own information - that's simply a sideline to squeeze out a little more profit. Actually it's more like paying protection to maybe get a warning if they mishandle your information.

You are not a direct costumer, correct. You are an indirect costumer and potentially have legal standing, that is where your power comes into play.

If you are this much about your privacy, you ought to give more thought to who you give your personal information to.

Since Equifax is connected to virtually every financial service, then it is pretty much impossible to tell a bank or other institution that you will terminate your business with them if they continue to operate with Equifax. Banks or other institutions are not directly affected, so how exactly can market forces direct change?

Of course you can. You seemingly lack the will. Same with your "blackmail" hypothesis with the software.

Choices have consequences. You seem to have a personal value crisis.
 

VN Store



Back
Top