Equifax hacked

[Inky_Wretch]

Are you going to be one of the unlucky ones?

Equifax Inc., which supplies credit information and other information services, said Thursday that a data breach could have potentially affected 143 million consumers in the U.S.

Credit reporting firm Equifax says data breach could potentially affect 143 million US consumers

 

[SpeedTchr]

Isn't that pretty much all the adults in the USA?

 

[Buck]

yes

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Crooks in suits:

Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

 

[dixiehack]

Crooks in suits:

Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

In the immortal words of Irwin M. Fletcher: "Well I'm not sure that's even a crime anymore. There've been a lot of changes in the law."

 

[Vombatus]

****. This and North Korea and hurricanes. **** it all.

 

[Batman]

Crooks in suits:

Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

Since they'll probably avoid jail time anyway, their punishment for insider trading should be allowing a scumbag identity thief all of the executives' personal info, a two-week head start, and full immunity for whatever he decides to do.

 

[Matt1735]

Will they provide free credit monitoring through TransUnion as part of their mea culpa?

 

[Vombatus]

****. This and North Korea and hurricanes. **** it all.

And now earthquakes and tsunamis.

Quintuple ****.

 

[The Big Ragu]

In the immortal words of Irwin M. Fletcher: "Well I'm not sure that's even a crime anymore. There've been a lot of changes in the law."

It may be a crime (If they knew about the breach; Equifax is claiming those executives didn't know about it, which is interesting given the uncanny timing). But insider trading shouldn't be criminal. It effectively only has been criminal for a few decades, and even with that. ... those laws don't protect people, they harm us.

Think about it: the objective of an insider informatoin law is to PREVENT people from using information. ... which prevents markets from adjusting to timely and accurate info. So investors or traders are supposed to make trades today based on yesterday's information, which is counterintuitive. Trying to keep people ignorant is economic folly -- it results in bad decisions and makes it so markets take longer to adjust. For example, all of the Enron insiders who knew what was going on with the company's scam would have sold their shares long before the fiasco was unearthed if they weren't protected by these laws, prices would have corrected to reflect the true fundamentals of the sham, and a lot of people who lost a lot of money would have fared better.

Markets run on asymmetric information. Investors are always doing their best to gain an advantage by getting their hands on superior information. So-called insider information is just one kind of asymmetry, and it's not a particularly insidious one. The argument for insider trading laws is that they promote a fair stock market. But people trade securities every day based on incomplete information. In almost every transaction, you have one party who has superior information than the other. That is what makes an actual market.

Also, you can't even enforce these laws in any way that makes a difference. Forget the limited resources of the SEC and the lack of enforcement of 99 percent of insider trading activity. The decision not to trade a stock is equally as important as the decision to trade one. Let's say I had an insider source at Equifax, and he or she told me that the news about the breach was about to hit, and as a result I decided not to buy the stock. I don't even know if my decision was technically illegal, but if it was, it couldn't be proven. As a result, we have this incomprehensible law that makes information (something that is GOOD for markets) illegal, and on top of it, makes it so you are entitled to rely on the best info available. ... but only if you do nothing. Logically, those kinds of messed up incentives don't improve private investment decision making or promote efficient markets. When you prevent people who have the best information from acting, what you are doing is trying to force the market to set an UNFAIR price, not a fair one. That is ridiculous.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

 

[The Big Ragu]

From a PR standpoint, they are really doing a miserable job.

That arbitration clause is for a service they are offering for free for a year to monitor your credit report. They'd typically charge for that service, so I am sure they thought they are doing something good to try to help mitigate the mess.

Since the criticism over that arbitration clause, they introduced an opt-out provision that reads:

"In order to exclude Yourself from the arbitration provision, You must notify Equifax in writing within 30 days of the date that You first accept this Agreement on the Site (for Products purchased from Equifax on the Site). …

[You] must include Your name, address, and Equifax User ID, as well as a clear statement that You do not wish to resolve disputes with Equifax through arbitration."

It requires you to write to them opting out, though.

 

[cjericho]

Will that bs actually hold up? waiving your right to sue by checking a web site?

 

[The Big Ragu]

Will that bs actually hold up? waiving your right to sue by checking a web site?

Yeah, it would hold up. Those arbitration clauses are pretty common with financial institutions. Ostensibly its to take the strain off of our civil court system, but the reality is that they don't want to face class action suits.

 

[dixiehack]

I haven't looked into it, but is the "free" monitoring set to automatically renew in a year when people have forgotten about it?

 

[The Big Ragu]

I haven't looked into it, but is the "free" monitoring set to automatically renew in a year when people have forgotten about it?

That's a good thought. According to their website, my info was probably among the stolen. But I haven't signed up for their monitoring service. The only way they could auto-renew you is if you authorize a credit card charge next year, and I'd imagine they are signing people up for a year of monitoring without requiring a credit card.

 

[Batman]

It's also laughable that you have to give over highly sensitive personal information to the people who gave away your highly sensitive personal information, to possibly find out if your personal information was stolen.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Man, these people can't keep ****ing up.

https://gizmodo.com/equifax-has-been-sending-consumers-to-a-fake-phishing-s-1818588764

 

[SpeedTchr]

Man, these people can't keep ****ing up.

https://gizmodo.com/equifax-has-been-sending-consumers-to-a-fake-phishing-s-1818588764

They can, and they do.

 

[Deskgrunt50]

I'm also likely affected. And incredibly pissed off.

The stock sellers need to go to jail.

And count me in for the upcoming class-action lawsuit.