Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Equifax Releases Credit Locking App That Doesn't Work (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the bad-reputation dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Wednesday, the beleaguered credit reporting agency Equifax launched a new service to protect people from the risks of identity theft that the company vastly magnified with a breach of over 145 million people's credit records last year. The service, called Lock & Alert, is fronted by a mobile application and a Web application. It is intended to allow individuals to control access to their credit report on demand. "Lock & Alert allows You to lock and unlock your EIS credit report ('Equifax credit report')," the services' terms of service agreement states. "Locking or unlocking your Equifax credit report usually takes less than a minute." Except when it doesn't.

As Tara Siegel Bernard and Ron Lieber of the New York Times reported, the new service -- which is different from a "freeze" in some ways that are not clear from a legal and regulatory standpoint -- has not been working for some (and possibly all) mobile app users. The idea of the "lock" is that it can be undone in an instant with a swipe of the screen, without incurring a charge to freeze or unfreeze the report or having to provide a PIN number. But attempts by Siegel Bernard to lock her husband's credit report resulted in application timeouts.

40 comments

  1. Just one more nail in their coffin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, how is this joke of a company still allowed to do business? An example should have been made, and considering how redundant they are (at least 4 other credit reporting companies I know of), they should be made an example to ensure the others get their act together.

    1. Re:Just one more nail in their coffin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Until the American public decides to put the Third Box to use, none of these companies will face consequences, they simply have too much money. Start taking out the guys at the top getting off scott-free, then you'll see some turnaround.

    2. Re:Just one more nail in their coffin. by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

      They should have been taken down after the last breach. It was not their first one.

    3. Re:Just one more nail in their coffin. by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      We haven't used the Second Box properly in some time. I'm not hopeful, but that is still an option, if we care to.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:Just one more nail in their coffin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      considering how redundant they are (at least 4 other credit reporting companies I know of)

      We should be allowed to choose which of these companies collect information on us. If we got that choice, and enough people opted out of Equifax, then Equifax would either straighten out or go out of business.

    5. Re:Just one more nail in their coffin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Until the American public decides to put the Third Box to use

      The base libraries for Constitution.c have incomplete support for box lists greater than two entries. Essentially, the tally algorithm won't even see the later entries, and the later config file for Senate.c and House.c assumes only two entries in the list. A checkin is needed to add support for up to 10 box list entries with support for things like quorum voting.

      Good luck though, the moderator for the git repository basically hasn't taken any changelists in decades.

    6. Re:Just one more nail in their coffin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Canadian git repository for their version of the code (forked like a hundred years ago) includes full support for extended lists. In fact, their code isn't even compatible with just two entries. We should integrate their changes.

    7. Re:Just one more nail in their coffin. by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      You want to put them out of business, write to them and say that they no longer have your permission to access your accounts or data held about you.

      Now it isn't nearly as good as telling your bank this, but iof you tell your bank they'll restrict access to all credit reference agencies (you may like this idea better BTW).

      When I worked at one, we had issues with some, usually older, accounts where the owner had not checked the little "we can use your data for marketing and other purposes" box and so the data was not legally allowable to be included in the dumps they send the credit reference agencies.

      so its possible get your data away from these places,just tell your bank and anyone else that shows up on your credit report that they do not have your permission to share it.

    8. Re:Just one more nail in their coffin. by Keith_Beef · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how is this joke of a company still allowed to do business? An example should have been made, and considering how redundant they are (at least 4 other credit reporting companies I know of), they should be made an example to ensure the others get their act together.

      Careful... Hit Equifax with a penalty enough to drive the company to the wall, and you concentrate the sector from 4 players down to three, reducing competition. Which is just the problem with the Big Auditors.

    9. Re:Just one more nail in their coffin. by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      This is funny and creative. Where are the mods?

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    10. Re:Just one more nail in their coffin. by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      This is funny and creative too. Where are the mods for this one?

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
  2. Blockchain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Blockchain.

    1. Re:Blockchain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1000000000 So Insightful Bro

    2. Re:Blockchain. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Blockchain.

      Chain padlocked to Equifax CEO. Other end attached to a large block. Into the East River. Just might work.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Blockchain. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Insufficient information.

      I'm sure it would be possible to implement a blockchain to do something, but you don't specify exactly what you're trying to do...and you've got to be extremely explicit or you end up with a garbage application. (You may anyway if your specs don't properly handle the problem you're trying to address, but if you explicit at least it has a chance of working.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re: Blockchain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, donâ(TM)t you see - just say blockchain and all problems are solved

      Iâ(TM)m not saying itâ(TM)s blockchain, but blockchain

  3. you're swiping it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Swipe right to empty your husband's bank account. Swipe left to deposit his allowance.

  4. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Budget: $0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a job for CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau). How much of their zero dollar budget do you think they can spend on making Equifax actually protect consumers?

    1. Re:Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Budget: $0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should become a journalist at CNN considering how you try to purposefully distort the facts of the whole story. If you actually read the article attached to the link you provided instead of just the headline you'd see this little nugget:

      Based on the letter, the CFPB’s fund at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has $177.1 million, more than projected second-quarter expenses of $145 million.

      (emphasis mine)

      So the CFPB absolutely has a full budget, but unlike when the agency was being run by greedy Democrats the current head understands that he doesn't need to waste even more of our money to do the job.

      It should be the norm to not ask for money you don't need, but I can tell you first hand that when I worked in a part of the federal government in the early 90's, the end of every year the agency I worked for went on a spending spree to burn up every dollar left in their budget. They premise was "if we don't spend it this year, they'll reduce our budget next year".

      No budgets are ever reduced because Congress hides behind the bullshit Budget act of 1974 where they passed a law that says

      Baseline budgeting uses current spending levels as the "baseline" for establishing future funding requirements and assumes future budgets will equal the current budget times the inflation rate times the population growth rate

      What this means in practical terms is every single year the law requires them to spend more money than the previous year and every one of the elected officials gets to go home during elections and say "well that's the law". So every time you hear the politicians say they're "cutting spending" what they are actually doing is cutting the spending increase.

      This budget act law is just like the laws they passed to create the un-Constitutional regulatory agencies such as the CFPB or the EPA. The Constitution only empowers the Legislative branch to define laws but Congress members are so sleazy they didn't want to have to go on record as voting for crap like EPA rule to regulated puddles. So they permit these un-elected bureaucrats to create rules they don't have the balls to vote on.

      But these rules are backed by threat of fines or jail time which means they are in affect laws that were never passed by the legislation nor signed by the President.

      But none of that matters to you because you're nothing but a mindless ideologue who is perfectly happy to try and distort what should be considered a correct move by a government agency into a slight or slur against the current administration.

      And of course we know that the any increase you may seeing your paycheck and any bonus you got because of the tax bill you are dutifully sending back to your beloved central government so they can have it available to spend by these un-Constitutional agencies that you're so worried about, right? You are putting your money where your mouth is correct? Well that of course assumes you are actually earning a paycheck and not living off the taxpayers.

  5. They could do so much... if they were competent by AlanBDee · · Score: 2

    What's really sad is that they're in a perfect position to provide identity verification given all the data they have on, well everyone. They could easily provide it as a free service to users and charge businesses a fee to confirm someone's identity. Imagine having to provide a pin and one of your five Yubikeys (or similar) when you bought a car, house, credit card, etc.

    With their utter incompetence no sane person would trust them with such a task. Alas, Google will do it instead and that doesn't really make me feel much better.

  6. Fine by me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not legally responsible for credit fraudulently obtained in my name.

    1. Re:Fine by me by PPH · · Score: 1

      Bu try borrowing anything until the fraud is cleared up. In fact, try getting a job or renting an apartment.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Fine by me by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

      I have a much better discipline, it's called cash. If you want to know more then watch Dave Ramsay's YouTube channel.

      To be fair, I've always had a credit score from before I started being smart with money and I've never had my identity stolen, luckily. So I can't attest to how hard it is to get a job or rent an apartment with a bad credit score. I assume that most employers and some renters would understand if your identity was stolen.

    3. Re: Fine by me by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Use of "credit" surveillance products for housing discrimination ought to be made illegal. It won't, of course. Fuck you, plebs, that's why.

    4. Re:Fine by me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cash is great, unless you're buying a house or a car. Or shopping online. Or booking a hotel. Or buying a plane ticket. Or paying rent.

      Hmm. Let's try this again.

      Cash is good for a lot of day-to-day transactions, but credit is important for a lot of things we take for granted in a modern civilization. You really can't handwave that away with a wad of Jacksons.

  7. Overseas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They had the app written by the lowest bidder on one of those moon lighting web sites. There's probably code in there that sends SSNs, DOBs and personal information to a Russian gang.

  8. Wellll.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the developers all have degrees in marine biology instead of computer science..

    1. Re:Wellll.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welllll if the symptom is timeouts then mayyyybe the problem is cheap overloaded hosting.

  9. And she broke the law in the process... by GuiRoo · · Score: 1

    "You may register for Lock & Alert from this Site or through the Apps only on behalf of Yourself and by doing so, You acknowledge and agree that it is illegal to access credit information about anyone else."

    1. Re: And she broke the law in the process... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the Equifax shill!

  10. This should be the answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A. Either I can sue a Credit Reporting Agency for LIbel if they have a bunch of untrue stuff that they are spreading about me that is hurting my financial and life prospects
    B. I'm entitled to hunt down and murder the management, their families, and the owners and families of the owners and stockholders

    Since they have specifically lobbied to have laws that exempt them from A, then B is the only option they leave to us as citizens. So, I call for the immediate murder of the management/owners and their families of credit reporting agencies if you are libeled by them. All of us citizens should refuse to convict anyone charged with such a murder!

  11. You are not Equifax's customer! by timholman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You (the consumer) are not their customer. Their customers are banks, mortgage lenders, credit card companies, and other entities that loan you money, or let you buy on credit.

    It is not in Equifax's interests for you to freeze your credit. A frozen account is a customer account that cannot be monetized (e.g. by being sold to banks who want to push their credit card on you). So of course Equifax will try to convince you that their "freeze that is not really a freeze" app works. But the thing is, they don't want it to work. If it works, they lose money. So of course it will fail, and you will be the one holding the bag when you are targeted by credit thieves.

    Don't screw around with Equifax. Freeze your credit report, and be done with it (and them).

    1. Re:You are not Equifax's customer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is completely inaccurate. Yes, Lock is not regulated and Freeze is regulated, but the freeze process varies state to state, based upon the local laws. Within your Equifax credit file, there is a single flag, called C-Block (California Block, named after the first state to enact the freeze capabilities). Locks and Freezes both use this flag (which is why you cannot have a lock and a freeze at the same time). Freeze uses a PIN field, which is only used when the flag is set or removed. Anytime a credit file is accessed by someone other than you, this C-Block flag is evaluated, and it evaluates the same regardless of whether it is a freeze or a lock. Locks and freezes are functionally equivalent.

  12. It works. Who said it does not? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    The App is working as intended and as designed.

    It is your misunderstanding it is going to lock or unlock credit reports. That is not, and has never been, the design intent or goal.

    This app and all the densely worded EULA will be read out with a straight face to government regulators by the lawyers of Equifax. Any regulator/ inspector who does not accept all claims by the lawyers as true, will get calls from Reps and Senators. They might even read it out in senate/house hearings and will be accepted as evidence of how hard the company is protecting the customers.

    It is the old Indian (dot, not feather) expression "I will act as if I am hitting you, you cry as if you had been hit". For that purpose the App is working very well.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  13. Technically it's not your data either by Solandri · · Score: 1

    It's data Equifax has collected from lenders and companies you did business with in the past. Should a restaurant be allowed to freeze Yelp, preventing the site from from publicizing reviews visitors have posted of that restaurant?

    In the former case, Equifax is taking "reviews" of you that companies have given it, and sharing them with other companies. You are not the customer. You are a third party to the transaction, even though the reviews are about you.

    In the latter case, Yelp is taking reviews of the restaurant that visitors have given it, and sharing them with other visitors. The restaurant is not the customer. It is a third party to the transaction, even though the reviews are about it.

    1. Re:Technically it's not your data either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, it's one of those "corporations are people too" assholes.

      Go fuck yourself.

    2. Re:Technically it's not your data either by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

      It's data Equifax has collected from lenders and companies you did business with in the past. Should a restaurant be allowed to freeze Yelp, preventing the site from from publicizing reviews visitors have posted of that restaurant?

      No, but Yelp doesn't publicly list the investors, current account balances and outstanding debts, or play a large part in whether or not they will be able to receive a small business loan. Also, Yelp hasn't exactly had a massive, high profile data breach that put millions of restaurants at risk of identity theft.

      In the former case, Equifax is taking "reviews" of you that companies have given it, and sharing them with other companies. You are not the customer. You are a third party to the transaction, even though the reviews are about you.

      Yelp is having issues of its own, but at least the information disclosed on the site is either publicly listed (business name and address, etc.), or individual anecdotes. My SSN isn't considered pubic information, but Equifax has it. If they got it from a company I do business with, they did so without my consent.

      In the latter case, Yelp is taking reviews of the restaurant that visitors have given it, and sharing them with other visitors. The restaurant is not the customer. It is a third party to the transaction, even though the reviews are about it.

      Businesses can post individual replies to dissatisfied customers on Yelp, and can do so for free, and future customers will see both. Resolving a credit dispute with Equifax requires hundreds of dollars (at least), massive amounts of paperwork, and if Equifax says "the event stands", it's not like American Express is going to take my dispute into account in the same way a good response to a bad review is ultimately left up to the customer to determine.

      I agree with the other posters - Equifax should be legally compelled to comply with an individual's request to have their information deleted. If I only trust TransUnion, I should be able to choose to only let them have it. If a bank wants to take the fact that I have opted out of Equifax into account when I apply for a loan, they should either be able to charge me a premium to use TransUnion's credit report on me, or deny the loan entirely, at which point I go to another bank, rinse and repeat until either I find a bank that takes my preferred credit bureau or I cave and let Equifax start collecting data again. That is how the free market is supposed to work, but defending Equifax's use of information without recourse is far from a desirable situation for consumers and evidence that the industry is not self policing.

       

  14. That Free Freeze? by mentil · · Score: 1

    This is presumably that 'free credit freeze' functionality that Equifax announced a while ago that they were going to make available in January. We'll have to see if it actually works as advertised, though, or is at all secure.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  15. Corporations are Not People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Technically it's not your data either

    See the right of informational self-determinism. Its a concept in european law that people have a property right in information about themselves. We are long overdue for a similar legal right in the USA.

    It's data Equifax has collected from lenders and companies you did business with in the past. Should a restaurant be allowed to freeze Yelp, preventing the site from from publicizing reviews visitors have posted of that restaurant?

    Corporations are not people. They don't have a legal or moral right to control dissemination of information about their business practices.