Slashdot Mirror


The Ultimate Identity Theft Prevention Plan

Ben Rothke writes "It's a fallacy that our elected officials take forever to get things done. Two examples where Washington acted with speed are with the National Do Not Call Registry and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The National Do Not Call Registry was slated to take effect on October 1, 2003, but various marketing associations challenged its legitimacy and even if the FTC had the jurisdiction to enforce it. Notwithstanding, President Bush speedily signed the bill authorizing the no-call list to go into effect in September 2003 and the United State Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the registry in February 2004. On June 25, 2002, WorldCom revealed it had overstated its earnings by more than $7 billion by improperly accounting for its operating costs. Senator Paul Sarbanes then introduced Senate Bill 2673 that same day where it passed 97-0 less than three weeks later. The House and Senate formed a Conference Committee to reconcile the differences between Sarbanes's bill and Representative Michael Oxley's bill (HR 3763) and on July 24, 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed." Read on for the rest of Ben's review. Stealing Your Life: The Ultimate Identity Theft Prevention Plan author Frank W. Abagnale pages 256 publisher Broadway Books rating 8 reviewer Ben Rothke ISBN 0767925866 summary exposes the tactics of today's identity theft criminals and offers strategies to thwart them

The bottom line is that when politicians really want votes and PR, they can act swiftly. The frustration is exacerbated when politicians choose to do nothing when it comes to identity theft. In Stealing Your Life: The Ultimate Identity Theft Prevention Plan, Frank Abagnale details the frustration that consumers face (and will face in the years to come) when their identities are stolen, the ease at which the criminals carry out such crimes, and the months and often years of effort required to regain ones identity.

Abagnale's tenure on the criminal side long ago gives him the advantage that he knows firsthand how criminals think and such an outlook is pervasive throughout the book. Looking at the current state of identity protection, he states that he is personally horrified at how easy identity theft is. In fact, he calls it "a crook's dream come true". The book details incident after incident where criminals and criminal gangs obtained credit in someone else's name with ease.

What makes this worse is that the book shows how we haven't even scratched the surface of the identity theft problem. Everyone, including the FTC agrees that current identity theft figures are quite low, due to the fact that so many cases go unreported or undetected.

The book notes that lenders often miscategorize a good deal of identity theft because it looks like delinquent bills, as opposed to a crime. Only later does the victim realize what has been going on and complains, at which time it becomes apparent that fraud was involved. But by that time, the money has been written off as a credit loss and then appears as negative information on the victim's credit report.

Like many other books on the subject of identity theft, Stealing Your Life: The Ultimate Identity Theft Prevention Plan covers the main issues, and makes numerous suggestions on how to control your identity. What is interesting about the book is that Abagnale also focuses on why identity theft is so popular for today's criminals. One of the main reasons it that the person committing the crime has the odds significantly stacked in their favor. The book quotes a Gartner study that found that identity thieves have roughly a 1 in 700 chance of getting caught by law enforcement, which is a figure any criminal would jump at.

The books 13 chapters are written in an easy to read and compelling style. The early chapters detail the prime causes of what makes identity theft such a problem and astutely notes that a large part of the problem is that financial services companies are conducting business today by doling out credit like candy and do almost nothing to ascertain that people really are who they say they are when applying for credit. In addition, issuers of credit in their haste to rack up more business frequently accept a social security number from an applicant at face value, without demanding proof. The book lists many examples of where children and dead people have been given credit.

In chapter 6, the book lists 20 steps one can take in the hope of preventing identify theft. The author notes that since the punishment for identity theft, and the recovery of stolen goods from identity theft are so low, the only viable source of action is prevention by the individual. All 20 steps are fundamental, from protecting your social security number and examining your financial statements, to using a shredder and more.

Chapter 8 lists one of the more important points of the book, in which Abagnale writes that all credit and personal information should be opt-in based, as opposed to the prevalent opt-out requirement. Such an approach is what one would hope Congress would mandate, but does not have the tenacity to do. The problem is that if a consumer does not opt-out, they are giving the financial institution permission to share their personal information with the hundreds and often thousands of affiliates they share data with.

Companies obviously prefer opt-out, which shifts the burden to the consumer to take action to keep their information from being shared. With opt-in, the burden shifts and the financial services company has to prove that consumers granted their consent to have their personal information shared. National opt-in requirements would significant stem the flow of personal information, which is in part why identity theft is so easy to carry out.

Aside from a glaring error in chapter 12 where Abagnale erroneously writes that true authentication is impossible on the Internet and occasionally hawking companies he has financial dealings with, Stealing Your Life: The Ultimate Identity Theft Prevention Plan is an interesting and entertaining book on a subject of the fasting growing crime in the USA.

The book details what happens when an apathetic Congress and financial services industry do almost nothing to protect their constituents, and the thieves who have never had it easier. These identity thieves are able to acquire gigabytes of personal information without ever having to leave their workstations. When you factor in that the odds are in their favor of never being prosecuted, it leaves nearly every individual at risk for identity theft.

With Congress dropping the ball and doing nothing, Abagnale shows that it is up to each individual to take responsibility for protecting their own personal information. Stealing Your Life: The Ultimate Identity Theft Prevention Plan is indeed a great place to start such an approach.

Ben Rothke is a security consultant with BT INS and the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know

You can purchase Stealing Your Life: The Ultimate Identity Theft Prevention Plan from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

33 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Summary? by xbytor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The summary extract on the front page has nothing to do with the rest of the summary or the article.

    Or I'm confused again...

    1. Re:Summary? by eln · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let me summarize the article for you:

      First part (front page): Government actually can get things done quickly, and here are two examples of when they did just that. Saying the government is incapable of doing things quickly is just factually wrong.

      Second part (all but the last paragraph): Here's a bunch of stuff about this book that details things you can do to stop identity theft, and things the Government could do except the Government sucks and won't do anything.

      Last part (last paragraph): Government is incapable of doing things quickly, so you'd better protect yourself.

    2. Re:Summary? by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, everyone has to follow some standardized model of writing because readers can't be expected to actually read the whole thing or understand it, if it isn't standardized. Put the Executive Summary right up there at the top so people can read it and make up their minds without too much effort.

      Also, show your work on long division. Don't make marks outside the circles. Use a #2 pencil. If you draw a sailboat in the footer you fail the entire test regardless of what you know. This is all because your success over the entire rest of your life is going hinge moron your ability to follow instructions to the letter rather than your ability to think.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
  2. Opt-in is essential by fizzbin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is absolutely correct that in order to combat identity theft effectively, information sharing must be opt-in. In fact, even to report your information to a credit reporting agency, you should have to explicitly authorize such reporting.

    Of course, the credit bureaus and other data brokers who make money off your data would scream and holler. They would decry how "credit reporting is a benefit -- it lets you get credit easily and cheaply." Funny thing though -- you cannot refuse this "benefit".

    --
    Fizz
    1. Re:Opt-in is essential by Radres · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's what I think: they should make credit card companies 100% responsible for any identity theft losses, as well as force them to pay restitution to identity theft victims.

      That way, maybe the credit card companies will stop wasting paper and resources to flood our mailboxes with unnecessary credit card applications and start thinking about how to improve the security of setting up a credit card.

    2. Re:Opt-in is essential by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh it is the credit industry's creation, by and large, that has enabled this problem with fraud. But more precisely, it is the accepted and institutional use of the "human serial number" (aka the SSN) that enables this to happen the most. And frankly, all of this was predicted to happen when this system was being created. It was created in spite of enormous protest and now this is happening. The credit reporting laws were created to help ease the public outcry... fair collection acts and the like as well. But truly, this system should simply be abolished. The old ways were for consumers to provide references and I'm guessing that should be good enough.

      The risk of loaning money should always be a risk.

      It just seems like every time, without fail, that government caters to a proposed business model, we the people get it up the butt.

      I have said it before and I'll say it again. AVOID DOING THINGS ON CREDIT. You'll find that there will be more money in your pocket somehow and you'll be less ready to buy "stupid things" so often. Further, if more people did this, we'd find prices for consumer goods dropped to "wal-mart" prices more often because no one would want to sell too many things that were beyond what people are willing to pay for in cash!

    3. Re:Opt-in is essential by Zathrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is absolutely correct that in order to combat identity theft effectively, information sharing must be opt-in


      No it's not. What should be freely available, however, with no requirements or costs, is a credit block -- the ability to prevent any new accounts from being opened on your credit reports as long as the block is in place (typically the block can be temporarily removed/disabled via phone and a PIN; that way you can still get new credit, but at least then you _know_ when you're getting new credit).

      Funny thing though -- you cannot refuse this "benefit".


      Sure you can. Just never give your social security number on any form that asks you for it.

      Of course, you may also find that you can't get credit at all in such a situation. But that's basically what you're asking for anyway. After all, if it's an "opt-in" to share credit info, then why couldn't I just open a few lines of credit, refuse to allow them to send info on them, and then default on them? Oh sure, it's illegal, but what are they going to do? Send debt collectors after me? Relatively easy to deal with, especially if you're the kind of person who would pull this. They can't ruin my credit report -- I've told them they can't.

      Look, credit has become ubiquitous purely because of the credit bureaus and their data aggregation. It's not an inherently bad thing, but it could certainly be improved. A freely available block would go a long way toward solving the issues. It wouldn't completely fix them; that's fine. The point isn't to stop it completely, as that would be too costly to both the creditors and to consumers, but to make it too difficult and expensive (in terms of money, time, effort, and/or likelihood of being arrested) for identity thieves to bother with.

      If you think that credit aggregation is unnecessary -- well, then be prepared to have the credit industry go back to how it was prior to their existance (which started in the 1940s and 50s) -- short term, variable rate mortgages were the norm, credit cards didn't exist (unsecured credit? Are you kidding me?), and loans of all kinds were both more expensive and more difficult to get. Why? Because lenders had no real way of telling if a borrower would be a good risk. Pretty much your best bet was to have a bank with whom you did all your business (because then they know your credit), use them for years, and then ask for a loan. Young? New in town? Too bad. You're too high of a risk. Get lost.

      Note that I'm not saying the aggregators are perfect. Far from it. But it's a far, far better scenario with them than without.

      Oh, and note -- if you're a business that uses credit scores you can also forgo giving the bureaus any information. Of course, you'll pay 3-5x as much per inquiry (even in bulk, for partial data) than you will if you report back to them.
    4. Re:Opt-in is essential by jrjarrett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That way, maybe the credit card companies will stop wasting paper and resources to flood our mailboxes with unnecessary credit card applications and start thinking about how to improve the security of setting up a credit card.


      No, all it would mean is that interest rates would go up, "convenience fees" would pop up everywhere and get ever-bigger....

      Credit card companies would sieze every opportunity to pass on these costs to the consumer.

  3. Congress acts in haste, we regret at leisure by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, Congress can act rapidly. Unfortunately, it almost always results in a bad law. Sarbanes-Oxley is a great example, it costs a lot more than it saves. The most efficient way to prevent the problems it is designed to curb is by keeping the tax on stock dividends at the same as the tax on capital gains. If a company gives a dividend, it cannot play the accounting games that lead to the abuses that SOX was designed to stop.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    1. Re:Congress acts in haste, we regret at leisure by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why was this marked flamebait?

      The National Review pointed out recently that Sarbanes-Oxley, which was more or less intended to protect the non-professional investor by requiring greater scrutiny and transparency of publicly traded companies, requires a lot of overhead to administer. Consequently, while the larger firms can/have complied without a blink, the smaller start-ups (in particular, but not exclusively) have simply opted to avoid Sarbanes-Oxley by not going public.

      So what, one says... Well, these smaller companies, while a greater risk, also provide greater gains. Not being publicly traded, however, the required money for investment is substantially higher than all but the wealthy can afford. Consequently, Sarbanes-Oxley leaves only the wealthy in a position to invest in projects with the greatest returns.

      So, getting back to my question, while you may or may not think that Sarbanes-Oxley is a great piece of legislation or disagree with my (very likely butchered) representation of a conservative analysis of Sarbanes-Oxley, how is the parent flamebait?

    2. Re:Congress acts in haste, we regret at leisure by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      SOX was intended to protect the small investor. It has resulted in fewer opportunities for the small investor (fewer companies going public, profitable public companies going private). SOX is a bad law. I am not familiar with the K-H Amendment, but every law that I am familiar with that was passed quickly after some major event (because Congress "had to do something") has been a bad law.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:Congress acts in haste, we regret at leisure by Anonamused+Cow-herd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It has resulted in fewer opportunities for the small investor (fewer companies going public, profitable public companies going private). SOX is a bad law.

      I co-founded a Sarbanes-Oxley consulting firm a couple of years ago, and I can definitively say that this is not an accurate view of what SOX has done for investors. This is the "typical" line you hear from corporate types, one that's been fed by a huge PR machine -- and it's THAT machine that is primarily responsible for the symptoms you mention here.

      All you hear about is how SOX costs are outrageous, and then get people scratching their heads and saying "well what does it really do?" Just because the answer to that question isn't obvious to Joe Blow doesn't mean it's not a good answer. Turns out that factually, and by factually I mean according to the data, Sarbanes-Oxley compliance is very beneficial for most companies. SOX compliance and good governance often results not only in increased investor confidence (almost two-fold increases in reported confidence in most studies), but also increased operational efficiency. In the cases of banks and large companies that process millions of transactions daily, it turns out that implementing controls to figure out WHERE all of that money goes actually reduces losses and streamlines business processes. Go figure.

      The ironic thing is that most of what is entailed by SOX is really just honest business. So companies can't use mark-to-market accounting, or hide losses in front corporations -- is that really a bad thing? Companies have to tell the truth about how they make their money and what they do with it? How shocking! And you know what? It hardly hurts our competitiveness. Regulations like these have been in place in Germany for years, and Japan implemented SOX-like measures with almost no problem at all. It seems that only AMERICAN corporations want to clutch their shady dealings.

      And the worst part is that greedy subversive corporations are lobbying against SOX under the guise of "helping out the little guy" -- since smaller public companies really do have good reasons not to implement SOX (really, is it even possible to implement thorough financial oversight in a finance group of 2 people?). SOX is not a bad law, it's just a law that doesn't fit our view of business: greased palms and ethics to the wind. That people like you get morally indignant about how BAD it has been is just beyond the pale.
      --
      -----[0_o]-----
      We are not amused.
  4. Terrible Examples by loteck · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sarb-Ox was indeed put together and passed very quickly, and it shows. The cost to implement compliance is so overwhelmingly high that small and midsize businesses simply cannot afford to do it, and Congress has recognized this and delayed enforcement. It seems all but sure at this point that Sox will never take effect on small and midsize public companies in its current form.

    The Do Not Call registry was timely? People have been complaining about unwanted phone solicitations for years and years. That is actually an excellent example of Congress showing that it is incapable of moving quickly enough.

    And, finally, lets not forget about the USA PATRIOT act. That passed in 1 night in response to 9/11, and I'm sure my fellow Slashdotters will agree that it was brimming with righteousness and justice. Thank christ Congress acted quickly on that one.

    No, I'm afraid kneejerk reactions by Congress are not the answer you seek. The elephant in the room that no one in Congress wants to recognize is that identify theft is so easy now only because we have tied ourselves to our Social Security numbers, something that was never supposed to happen and something that fundamentally undermines the idea of individual privacy and freedom. Do not look to the people who created this problem in the first place to fix it without continuing to divest you of your personal liberties.

    1. Re:Terrible Examples by slughead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And, finally, lets not forget about the USA PATRIOT act. That passed in 1 night in response to 9/11, and I'm sure my fellow Slashdotters will agree that it was brimming with righteousness and justice. Thank christ Congress acted quickly on that one.

      Most if not all of the components of the Patriot Act had been previously written and people had been trying to tack it onto other legislation for years.

      For as much as the Patriot Act gets the blame for all our "rights lost" in the past 6 years, it really was just a short piece of literature that merely 'connected the dots' on all this other crap that we had already established.

      For example, the FISA (Foriegn Intelligence Surveillance Act) court was handing out secret warrants without accountability since Reagan created it in the 1980's. The Patriot Act simply turned that court against American citizens. Just one tiny change in wording can have profound effects.

      Government moves slowly, but much of the time methodically, in taking away individual liberty.

    2. Re:Terrible Examples by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You touched on but didn't explicitly identify the main problem: the law was a reaction to a very very few bad apples and it makes everybody else pay for the mistakes of those few.

      Prices to the customer are higher because the prices to the companies are higher. This is truly a cure that is worse than the disease, introducing a huge level of economic inefficiency. If it's ever required for small companies, it'll raise the bar for entrepreneurs even further, lowering the number of companies created. This thing is attacking the capitalist economy directly. Our entire way of life is based on that kind of economy, and I have a sneaking suspicion that it originated as an attempt to undermine that, to move us towards a more European model. Could this be one of the reasons why this was enacted so quickly? That it was planned in advance, waiting for a reason to implement it?

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
  5. Don't worry about us on slashdot... by Magneon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Most of us have no life or identity to steal...

  6. Frank Abagnale by necro81 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If the name of the author is familiar, it is because Frank Abagnale's exploits were popularized in the 2002 movie Catch Me If You Can. Leo DiCaprio played the Abagnale, with Tom Hanks as Carl Hanratty, the FBI agent tracking him down.

    Given Abagnale's extensive knowledge and experience in check (and other) fraud, he speaks with some authority on the sad state of how easy identity theft can be.

  7. Glaring error? by Frank+Abagnale · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aside from a glaring error in chapter 12 where Abagnale erroneously writes that true authentication is impossible on the Internet and occasionally hawking companies he has financial dealings with

    Look, man, I was really high when I wrote that chapter; you've got to give me a break.

    --
    This post brought to you by OnlyIAmMe(TM) ID Theft Prevention, Inc.
    Secure your identity today! Plans start at $1,995 for a limited time.
  8. There is already a system in place... for now by Yold · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is my understanding that in at least of the 30 of the 50 states you can "freeze" your credit, not allowing someone else (or yourself) to take out loans, get a credit card, etc. Choicepoint and the other 2 (asshole) credit bureaus are lobbying against this.
          It really gets my goat that, contrary to what is in the social security act (it is illegal to use it for anything except SS purposes), our SSNs have become the defacto identifier in terms of any goverment, university, or financial application. Its like a freakin username with no password.

  9. More MisInformation by asphaltjesus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The entire notion of "identity theft" simultaneously preys on the fears of individuals by creating the specter of more bogeymen and promotes the Consumer Information mega-industry.

    You want to stop "identity theft?" Make the collection and sale of personal data against the law. Oh wait. That would mean participating in your government.

    Today's lesson: we've all gotten exactly what we've put into this issue.

    --
    Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
  10. My tips by michaelmalak · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Put a fraud alert on your credit file. You may have to give a reason, such as that you have reason to believe someone you don't trust has gotten access to your identifying information, or that you accidentally responded to a phishing attack. I've never had to make up a reason -- I always get a false charge on my credit cards at least once a year. The fraud alert lasts for a year, and anytime any company wants to extend you credit, they have to call the phone number associated with the fraud alert (hint: give the credit agency your cell phone number when you establish the fraud alert). Note that this can be a pain. You may miss the call. Or worse, when you call back it goes to a general phone number and no one knows what the heck you're talking about. Or worse, the company extending the credit (e.g. perhaps a cell phone company) may just not be set up to handle credit files with fraud alerts.
    2. Alternatively, or in addition, pay Equifax their extortion money of $130/year for their 3-in-1 monitoring. Any activity on your credit file at any of the big three credit agencies causes an e-mail to be sent to you. Account creations are sent within a day or two. But balance changes on existing accounts are sent only once per month -- which is next to worthless since you can just check your monthly statements.
    3. For brokerage accounts, get two-factor authorization (i.e. an RSA SecureID token). It's often free, depending upon your balance.
    4. Pay in cash at restaurants, and as much as possible elsewhere.
    5. Use TrueCrypt for electronic documents.
    6. Use a locking file cabinet (keeps guests out, even though it's worthless against burglars).
    1. Re:My tips by loteck · · Score: 2, Informative

      As an alternative to the fraud alert, most states now have regulated the ability to "freeze" your credit. No inquiries can be made to your credit while it is locked, period. If you want to enable a creditor to run a query, you have to "unfreeze" it temporarily, which can take up to 3 days to do.

      Costs to do this vary by state, in some its free and in some there's a fee between $3 and $20. You can look it up here.

      As long as you are thinking ahead on any loans or credit applications you do, it seems like a great option for almost anybody.

    2. Re:My tips by jellie · · Score: 2, Informative

      To add to that, you should request credit reports periodically to monitor for any abuse, if you're in the US. AnnualCreditReport is a site run by the 3 credit reporting agencies. You can request a free credit report per year from EACH company, meaning you could get one every four months.

      (Note: depending on which state you live in, you may also be eligible for free credit reports from the companies themselves. The website is run by the credit agencies but I don't believe it's commercial - I think they were compelled to create it under some law - I may be wrong though.)

    3. Re:My tips by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1. [...] anytime any company wants to extend you credit, they have to call the phone number associated with the fraud alert This is mostly false. The fraud alert is simply an advisory inserted into the credit report, and it is totally up to the creditor if he wants to call the number on it and verify. Some credit report interfaces don't even display the fraud alert. For instance, one time I was opening a bank account and they pulled my credit, but the interface never brought up my fraud alert.

      2. Alternatively, or in addition, pay Equifax their extortion money of $130/year for their 3-in-1 monitoring. Any activity on your credit file at any of the big three credit agencies causes an e-mail to be sent to you. Account creations are sent within a day or two. But balance changes on existing accounts are sent only once per month Balance information is only reported to the bureaus once per month, so it's hard to ask them to do any better for you. ;) Anyhow, I do not see a huge value in a service such as this. It cannot prevent ID theft--it can only help you catch it early. But what good does that do? Call your local police department and ask them what there procedure is for ID theft cases. It usually consists of: 1) take report, 2) file it, 3) there is no step 3. You can pull your credit for free 3 times per year. This is good enough, IMO.

      3. For brokerage accounts, get two-factor authorization (i.e. an RSA SecureID token). It's often free, depending upon your balance. Which brokers offer this service? Mine does not.

      4. Pay in cash at restaurants, and as much as possible elsewhere. Overrated. You are not liable for unauthorized use of your credit card. Disputing charges takes 3 seconds.

      5. Use TrueCrypt for electronic documents. Can you give me an example? What is this supposed to accomplish?

      6. Use a locking file cabinet (keeps guests out, even though it's worthless against burglars). What kind of company do you keep? With friends like that, who needs enemies?
      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  11. Re:location by eln · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No. No matter how many times you post this, Slashdot will continue to be a primarily US-centric site. There is nothing you can do about this. I suggest you either find a site tailored for your country or learn to relax. Do people on British sites that refer to "our Prime Minister" complain that those sites are assuming all of their readers are from Britain?

    Are you one of those guys that posts in every Linux article insisting we call it GNU/Linux or that we start using the term "Gibibyte" (which sounds like someone with a stutter trying to say "Gigabyte" for base-2 storage numbers?

  12. True Authentication is Impossible for Joe User by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aside from a glaring error in chapter 12 where Abagnale erroneously writes that true authentication is impossible on the Internet

    While strictly speaking, from a theoretical standpoint, he is, as you say, wrong about true authentication being impossible it is also important to consider the audience to whom this book is speaking. In fact, it can be very difficult for the average user, in practice, to be certain that a particular electronic transaction is secure (there have been several recent studies confirming this). This combined with the fact that the phishers, identity thieves, spammers, and other malcontents are actively subverting the system to trick users in ever more sophisticated and clever ways means that from a practical standpoint, for the average user, this may be good advice (i.e. to consider internet transactions to be unsecured or at the very least suspect). I know that this is Slashdot and we all know better here (i.e. we wouldn't be easily fooled by phishers or get hit with a rootkit or keylogger...or so we hope), but if experts have difficulties then just imagine how the average users feel.

  13. Rewarding the Guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Agreed, Sarb-Ox was put together and passed very quickly, and it shows.

    Consultants are in the business of selling billable hours, nothing more. It doesn't matter if they are accountants, lawyers or MBAs. Their advice is what led to the meltdowns at Enron, MCI, etc. They were trying to find clever ways to reinterpret SEC rules and GAAP(Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures). GAAP are not written by the government. The SEC trusts the financial services industry to police itself with its own written policies. That trust was violated.

    Sarb-OX was a knee-jerk reaction that created more rules, more oversight, and more billable hours for the financial services industry. The intent was good, but the implementation was flawed, it rewarded the guilty.

    Much like our income tax system should be simplified, so should the SEC and GAAP rules be simplified. The amount of paperwork and billable hours that are created just for executives to move a sale, or a loan, or a payment from Q3 to Q4 just to maintain a stock price in the short term to get their bonus is an enormous drain on our entire economy.

    Imagine a world where the accounting rules were so simple that the Financial Services Industry could only bill half of the hours next year.

  14. Re:location by TheBearBear · · Score: 4, Funny

    Please can article-posters to slashdot stop assuming all readers are in the USA

    Don't you think it a bit trivial to make such a request? Where does it stop? Can article-posters to slashdot stop assuming that all readers can read English? Can article-posters to slashdot stop assuming that all readers are on planet earth? Can article-posters assume that all readers know what a "Washington" is? What is an "elected official"? Stop the madness and stop assuming! (I'm assuming you know what sarcasm is)

  15. gotta love by Arthur+B. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How SOx is presented as an "obviously good" thing. It's killing ipos, it's preventing the little companies from going public and getting funding. Now they can't turn to the public anymore and can only rely on big institutional investors. Yeah, hurray for Sox.

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
  16. The whole credit system is a broken mess by ckokotay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ID theft is just one of the many, many problems with the credit system in the US. The worst problem is with reporting - things are reported to credit bureaus that have nothing to do with credit, much of it is deliberately false both from credit companies and third party debt collector scum, and finally what the credit report is permitted to be used for.

    Good examples are credit card companies deliberately not reporting credit limits to drop your coveted 'score' (so you are ALWAYS over the limit), to third party debt collectors re-aging old debt, to out and out falsifying payment records, etc...

    And, then there are other things like medical bills. Why are unpaid medical bills on a credit report? It is not credit, and has no bearing on your ability or desire to pay your mortgage or car loan. Tough luck that you didn't have insurance - you should have thought about that before you went and got cancer. Or what about that fenceline dispute you had with your neighbor that you took to small claims court. You lost, there was no monetary award, yet a judgement still appears on your 'credit' report. Plain wrong.

    Oh, and then there is permissible purpose. Exactly what does a credit report have to do with a job? How about insurance? How many people were 'right-sized' into 'bad credit'? Now you can't get another job because your credit is bad? C'mon, does anyone see something wrong with this? Credit reports are about useless for determining credit worthiness for a myriad of reasons, and we want them applied here to? Give me a break. Got 'bad' credit? Can't rent now either - so where the hell are you supposed to live? The problem of people using credit reports for things other than granting credit is big and getting a lot bigger, but will anyone stand up an write Congress about it? And you can forget cable, direct tv, cell phone plans, satellite radio, or any other services. Down in Texas they are raising gas utility rates on people who have bad credit. Wake up people! Not all people have bad credit on purpose even in the absence of ID theft.

    The system is a horrible disgrace - designed to bilk billions out of the public - nothing more, even if you leave ID theft out of it altogether.

    Until there are laws passed that are stronger than the FCRA and impose criminal penalties and much higher fines, you will never see the end of this.

    --
    It does not matter what you do, it's wrong.
  17. Simple Solution by tom's+a-cold · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Pass a federal law that states (reiterates?) that an individual has ownership of their personal data.

    Any use of that data would require opt-in or, better yet, payment to its owner.

    The credit reporting firms are snooping on us now and making money from it. Let's see how viable their business model would be if the free lunch were taken away. Screw parasitic middlemen.

    --
    Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
  18. stop treating SSNs as secret by epaulson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems to me that we'd go a long way in fixing identity theft if we stopped treating knowledge of personal info as proof you are that person. My cable company uses my social security number as "proof" that it's really me - but god only knows how many people know my social security number. My bankers, my employer (and everyone who can touch the payroll system) my doctors office, my insurance companies. The list is very long.

    It should be illegal to use the SSN as a shared secret, and anyone who does use it as a secret identifier should be liable for any expenses they incur. VISA would be a lot more effective at combating fraud if they had to pay for every false credit card opened in my name.

    Even better, if we didn't have to treat SSNs as secret information anymore, it'd make our lives a lot easier. The SSN is a great primary key for me - it's one number I can remember, and it does a good job of uniquely identifying me. I want to be able to give it to more people.

    If Congress really can act quickly when it wants to, a good way to bring this about is to require all members of Congress to publicly disclose their SSN on January 1st 2008.

  19. Don't you wish they hadn't taken a bit more time? by why-is-it · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On June 25, 2002, WorldCom revealed it had overstated its earnings by more than $7 billion by improperly accounting for its operating costs. Senator Paul Sarbanes then introduced Senate Bill 2673 that same day where it passed 97-0 less than three weeks later. The House and Senate formed a Conference Committee to reconcile the differences between Sarbanes's bill and Representative Michael Oxley's bill (HR 3763) and on July 24, 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed."

    It would have been nice if they had taken some time to consider what the problem was, and then decide if additional legislation was required.

    I am not familiar with the entire text of Sarbanes-Oxley. I am familiar with the effects of some parts of that act and I have a hard time understanding the need for it. A lot of time and effort is spent on activities that generate a lot of paperwork, with few obvious returns for anyone.

    Maybe it's just me? You see, I was under the impression that it was illegal for executives to falsify SEC filings and steal from the shareholders BEFORE Sarbanes-Oxley. The need for this legislation was never obvious to the likes of me.

    Sociopaths like Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers are going to do what they are going to do regardless of the laws on the books. The existing laws didn't stop Lay and Ebbers, and I doubt that the Sarbanes-Oxley act would have made any difference. Perhaps it would have have made their thefts more difficult to pull off, but at the end of the day if a group of executives and board members band together and tell the same lie, it's really hard for the auditors to prove otherwise.

    FWIW, Enron was quite open about what they were doing - it was all in the notes of their SEC filings. Unfortunately, nobody paid any attention to what they were doing as long as the stock kept increasing in value.

    I just don't think Sarbanes-Oxley is a good example of a law period, never mind a law that was rushed through the legislative process.

    For the record: I am *NOT* a libertarian. I have no use for libertarian ideology. It is naive and completely unworkable.

    It just seems to me that the solution to criminal problems (and theft on this scale is clearly a criminal problem) is dull, ordinary police-work. It's very effective, but it takes time and resources and it does not generate a ton of publicity when the politicians need to be seen doing something about an issue they simply do not understand.

    I do wonder if there would have been the political will to authorize an investigation and infiltrate the likes of Enron and Worldcom when their stocks were still going up? Would the public have been in favour of hauling Lay and Ebbers off to jail when their own investments were still doing great?

    I would like to thing so, but somehow I doubt it...

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?