Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

32 Senators Want To Know If US Regulators Halted Equifax Probe (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the up-in-the-air dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: Earlier this week, a Reuters report suggested that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) had halted its investigation into last year's massive Equifax data breach. Reuters sources said that even basic steps expected in such a probe hadn't been taken and efforts had stalled since Mick Mulvaney took over as head of the CFPB late last year. Now, 31 Democratic senators and one Independent have written a letter to Mulvaney asking if that is indeed the case and if so, why.

In their letter, the senators expressed their concern over these reports and reiterated the duty the CFPB has to not only investigate the breach but to bring action against Equifax if deemed necessary. "Consumer reporting agencies and the data they collect play a central role in consumers' access to credit and the fair and competitive pricing of that credit," they wrote. "Therefore, the CFPB has a duty to supervise consumer reporting agencies, investigate how this breach has or will harm consumers and bring enforcement actions as necessary."

49 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Spoiler alert: Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Trump blocked the inquiry into the worst data breach ever, and he committed treason with the Russians. Basically he is a bad guy and his supporters are retards.

    Well quitting time. Anyone wanna hit the strip club?

    1. Re:Spoiler alert: Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just people that are forced to use a service they don't want, so that they can be blackmailed before making purchases. Oh, and those same people who's data got stolen because of absolutely zero oversight, so pretty much everyone.

      Obviously except for you - who are either independently wealthy or living in your parents basement...guess which one I assume you are?

    2. Re:Spoiler alert: Yes by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Honest question, what damage did the email server incident actually cause? I've read some things about it and I don't understand how it is on the same scale as the Equifax breach.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Spoiler alert: Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good question. After reading your post, I tried to remember what actual problem(s) that I had heard were caused by the e-mail server issue, and I couldn't think of any. As much noise that surrounded that story, there must be something, but for the life of me, I can't think of anything.

    4. Re:Spoiler alert: Yes by Immerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I didn't follow the story in depth - mostly they seemed to be the usual partisan torch-and-pitchfork rants. However, I think the core issue, and reason that such behavior is illegal, is that like electronic voting without a paper trail, there's no way to tell how much damage was actually done. You control your own communications channel for government business, it makes it that much easier for you to engage in corrupt dealings and then destroy the evidence. As well as allowing foreign intelligence agencies to more easily spy on you, since it's a fair bet that your basement server is far less secure than the shared servers with a full IT staff charged with keeping them up to date and secure.

      As such I'd love to see everyone who engaged in such practices imprisoned, but honestly I don't expect to see it happen. I think most everyone accepts that the vast majority of federal elected officials are corrupt, the only question is exactly how badly. As such, while everyone will make lots of noise about their opponent's corruption, they won't actually *do* anything about it, as it would set precedent for their own prosecution when the wheel of power inevitably turns against them. They've pretty much got to be caught red handed doing something really appalling for there to even be a serious inquiry, and even then it's as likely as not that it will simply be dragged out until the population moves on to new outrages, and then quietly dropped with just enough of a slap on the wrist that everyone else can claim that "something was done about it"

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:Spoiler alert: Yes by bondsbw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My company is a large federal contractor, and everyone has it drilled in our heads just how many levels of prison we'll go to if we are negligent in like manner to the email debacle.

      So sure, I think she should be in prison. But Leavenworth is much better than Guantanamo, which is where her competition deserves to go.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    6. Re:Spoiler alert: Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So sure, I think she should be in prison.

      Silly peasant, laws do not apply to the ruling class.

    7. Re:Spoiler alert: Yes by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Honest question, what damage did the email server incident actually cause? I've read some things about it and I don't understand how it is on the same scale as the Equifax breach.

      We'll never know, will we? She set up an email server in her bathroom to avoid using official government email servers, as was required by law. What could go wrong? (And what was she trying to hide in the first place?)

      I'd share some of my own experiences to try to give you an idea of what could happen, but strangely when I was in the military and handling classified information I never did store it in my comic book collection or send it out in postcards, so I can't help you.

    8. Re:Spoiler alert: Yes by DaveSewhuk · · Score: 1

      John Podesta's hacked email account

    9. Re:Spoiler alert: Yes by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      >

      Investigations go no where. Who cares.

      The duty of these agencies is to investigate. Many agencies and dpartments recently have had leaders appointed that are actively hostile to the core missions of those groups and who want to shrink or eliminate them. Somewhat like appointing Richard Stallman to be the president of Microsoft, but not as entertaining. So it is no surprise if the CFPB is now actively engaged in undoing consumer protections.

      If corporations now are going to be writing legistlation for us, be given regulatory favors by the government, and granted huge tax cuts, they should at least be asked to kick over some major bribes to help fill the coffers back up. Such as, if they were going to be sued for $1B then they can pay us $500M to make the case go away. Sure, it's totally immoral and unethical, but those things were made obsolete in US government decades ago. What's the point in having a kleptocracy if we can't benefit by it?

    10. Re:Spoiler alert: Yes by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You're not reading the right political newsletters that expose the crimes of Hillary Clinton and why she is the anti-Christ. That she invented lesbians while at Wellesley, that she wants to take our guns so that she can arm the school shooters, that she personally knows at least one Muslim, and against all that is holy and right with America she still refuses to make cookies at home!

      The short Robert Mueller investigation is clealry a witch hunt, but it we had allowed Kenneth Starr another decade or so, he would have uncovereed evidence of all of these allegations!

    11. Re:Spoiler alert: Yes by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So here we have a Hillary Clinton who people have not proven guilty; really all I see here in this thread is rampant speculation of what she could have been up to. And we're ready to crucify her more than a company that admitted to wrong doing, and not until they had to. I really thought there must have been more to the email server issue than that.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  2. Why write letters? by xevioso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously. Why are these Senators bothering? It's not like he will give them a clear response. Any response, if he even provides one, will only serve to make up some bullshit reason why it was "unnecessary" rather than the real reason, which is that these guys believe fundamentally there's nothing wrong with cheating people and fucking people over.

    So why waste time and write the letters? To just look like they are doing something useful?

    1. Re:Why write letters? by xevioso · · Score: 1

      It's not an issue of "instead." It's not effective in any way whatsoever. It's like that guy in the Monty Python skit who was so perturbed about the whole war in Europe that he threatened to write a letter to the newspaper. It's ludicrous.

      Here's what they should do. Promise to make this persons credit information available to all Americans as soon as they get control of Congress in November, and then follow through.

    2. Re:Why write letters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because 31 Democrats and 1 independent leaving DC would totally convince the Republican majority to give up their control of the federal government to join them?

      Dumbass.

    3. Re:Why write letters? by fafalone · · Score: 4, Informative

      To look like they're doing something; what else? Of course nothing is being done. The director of the agency is fundamentally opposed to his own agency existing, requested a budget of $0, and won't even go after abusive payday lenders. That's par for the course with Trump; appointing someone who hates the agency they're now leading.

    4. Re:Why write letters? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Why are these Senators bothering? It's not like he will give them a clear response. Any response, if he even provides one, will only serve to make up some bullshit reason why it was "unnecessary" rather than the real reason, which is that these guys believe fundamentally there's nothing wrong with cheating people and fucking people over.

      So why waste time and write the letters? To just look like they are doing something useful?

      You write a letter in order to get a clear and acceptable response. If you fail to get one, then you fucking fire his ass.

      In this case, there is no other acceptable action.

    5. Re:Why write letters? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Create another blue-ribbon panel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
      They always make for great reading.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Why write letters? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      The CFPB donates to political campagins?

    7. Re:Why write letters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So why waste time and write the letters? To just look like they are doing something useful?

      I know, what they should do is to open 9 different House and Senate committees to investigate the incident, you know, like Benghazi.

    8. Re:Why write letters? by nasch · · Score: 1

      Congress cannot just fire him, as his position is one appointed by the President. They could either impeach him, or legislate his position out of existence, but I'm sure we can all imagine how likely those are.

    9. Re:Why write letters? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      The stupid. It burns.

    10. Re:Why write letters? by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Why? To get it on the record to give voters something to think about (those who actually think before voting, at least).

    11. Re:Why write letters? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Trump may have somewhat murky politics, but the people he has appointed or who are advising him have very clear political goals. They are divided into two camps. The faction that wants to tear down and destroy the government so that it can be rebuilt in a way that they like; and the faction that just wants to tear down and destroy the government.

    12. Re:Why write letters? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Congress cannot just fire him, as his position is one appointed by the President. They could either impeach him, or legislate his position out of existence, but I'm sure we can all imagine how likely those are.

      The court martial. The death penalty. The power of impeachment. These are tools that exist for a reason. If someone appointed to a position is failing to do their damn job, or do it in a blatantly biased and corrupt manner, than you use the tools at your disposal to remove them.

      And if you're not going to do that, then fucking get rid of the power to impeach. It's become rather obvious no one has the balls to ever actually use it, no matter how justified.

    13. Re:Why write letters? by nasch · · Score: 1

      The court martial. The death penalty. The power of impeachment.

      Courts martial are for members of the military, so that isn't applicable. I have no idea how you think Congress is supposed to use "the death penalty" against an official in the executive branch. And as I said, impeachment or deleting the position entirely are the only tools available to Congress.

      And if you're not going to do that, then... get rid of the power to impeach.

      I don't see how that would improve the situation.

    14. Re:Why write letters? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      The court martial. The death penalty. The power of impeachment.

      Courts martial are for members of the military, so that isn't applicable. I have no idea how you think Congress is supposed to use "the death penalty" against an official in the executive branch. And as I said, impeachment or deleting the position entirely are the only tools available to Congress.

      And if you're not going to do that, then... get rid of the power to impeach.

      I don't see how that would improve the situation.

      It won't improve the situation. But at least it'll get rid of a tool that's proven itself to be fucking useless in recent times. That was my point before, at least other tools like the court martial and the death penalty are actually used when justified. Either that, or perhaps we should start replacing members of Congress in order to elect people who have the balls to actually use the tools at their disposal to keep people in check.

    15. Re:Why write letters? by nasch · · Score: 1

      Either that, or perhaps we should start replacing members of Congress in order to elect people who have the balls to actually use the tools at their disposal to keep people in check.

      That would be awesome. It's so frustrating to see Congress abdicate their responsibility to oversee the executive branch.

  3. Yes. Next Question? by Voyager529 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've seen more commercials for Equifax consumer products in the last six months than I have in the last six years. Enron wasn't pitching their retirement accounts while they were under investigation and Martha Stewart wasn't taking out Super Bowl ads to pitch her new holiday pots-and-pans collection while she was under investigation.

    A real investigation of Equifax would keep Equifax's name in the news in a bad way, and Equifax wouldn't be pitching their credit monitoring apps on primetime TV if their name was associated with being under investigation.

    So yes, it's abundantly clear that Equifax isn't getting the probing they deserve.

    1. Re:Yes. Next Question? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      They don't deal on the retail level. The "news" means nothing to them. The opinions of the banks are all that matters. There is only one way to get even. Pay off your debts and/or don't take out new credit.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Yes. Next Question? by Holi · · Score: 1

      In what way does that make things even? Either I damage my financial future or they do. Either way I get the sort end of the stick.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    3. Re:Yes. Next Question? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      It's a joke, and has nothing to do with race. I guess I forgot "plastic", but most people can figure that out.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
  4. Mulvaney's answer by budsetr · · Score: 1

    "Make me. Pbbbbbbbtttt!!!" [Sticks thumbs in ears and wiggles fingers]

  5. CSBF too busy protecting payday lenders by cosmicl · · Score: 1

    CSBF's been busy protecting loan sharks, er payday lenders. http://www.latimes.com/busines... And now you want them to also find time to probe criminals at Equifax? Silly Rabbit! Just who do you think they really work for now?

  6. Re:You guys realize... by countypyr · · Score: 2

    FYI - Congress can use legislation to change (or even abolish) the bureau. Indeed, there’s currently legislation in both chambers to enshrine a variety of transparency standards, some of which passed the House Financial Services Committee with bipartisan backing. - The Senate must confirm the head of the bureau. - The board’s director must testify at least twice a year before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee; the House Financial Services Committee; and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The bureau must also submit semi-annual budget justifications. - The bureau is subject to an annual financial audit by the Government Accountability Office, a congressional agency. * Other experts in government regulation and oversight don’t go this far -- but they add that Fiorina’s characterization is an exaggeration.

  7. Re:Is this more treason? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Actually, I feel the tag should not be sarcasm, but rather astroturfer.
    I could be wrong, but given the number of similar posts to this story it would take a bit of actual evidence to convince me.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  8. Who gets the fine money? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    So what if the company gets a huge fine? It doesn't solve a damn thing. The people whose data was stolen don't get their security back nor do they get compensated in any way. IMHO, this is little more than an extortion racket being run by the government who inhales every dollar it can.

  9. Regulatory Capture by mysidia · · Score: 1

    It makes sense.... since the Wolves are guarding the henhouse, they've adopted a pro-Wolf policy to the point of not even investigating the reported theft of 10 million chickens.

  10. Re:Is this more treason? by speedlaw · · Score: 2

    Sayeth the russian bot

  11. Good luck with that by magzteel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The CFPB is not subject to congressional oversight
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "A 2013 press release from the United States House Financial Services Committee criticized the CFPB for what was described as a "radical structure" that "is controlled by a single individual who cannot be fired for poor performance and who exercises sole control over the agency, its hiring and its budget." Moreover, the committee alleged a lack of financial transparency and a lack of accountability to Congress or the President. Committee Vice Chairman Patrick McHenry, expressed particular concern about travel costs and a $55 million renovation of CFPB headquarters, stating "$55 million is more than the entire annual construction and acquisition budget for GSA for the totality of federal buildings."[71] In 2012, the majority of GSA's Federal Buildings Fund went to rental costs, totaling $5.2 billion. $50 million was budgeted for construction and acquisition of facilities.[72]"

  12. "and one Independent" by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

    Lol I wonder who it could be?

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  13. meanwhile both sides are the same by cats-paw · · Score: 1

    keeps cropping up as a tired old, completely incorrect meme.

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
  14. You guys ('Muricans) deserve this shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Seriously, Americans deserve this shit. People on this site in particular, considering the types of comments which are regulatory posted here over the last year. Casual racism, sexism, pro-oligarchy, anti "anything" involving social welfare and all the rest of it which comes from being a Trump supported.

    Placing an openly anti-science jackass as head of the EPA, a HUGE asshat of a carrier puppet as head of the FCC, an anti-consumer head of the CFPB, an anti-education as secretary of education. The list goes on and on and on. Then to top it off, you morons act like it's all a good thing.

    The rest of the planet is just shaking their heads and asking if Americans have finally gone completely batshit crazy. Meanwhile, you shout "We don't care bout what you eurofags say! MURICA!! MURICA!!".
    So yes, you deserve what you get. You deserve to eat poison food. You deserve to pay more out the ass for terrible "broadband" internet and pay again to be able to actually use it.
    You deserve no medical care. You deserve no education. You deserve to live in a country where corporations dictate all aspects of your life and you have no recourse against them. You deserve all this because you are too stupid to even know that you are stupid.

  15. Re:Rules are rules - just not for all of us ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    How about 3 to start with, I'm betting there are others:

    Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send or store classified information on personal email.

    Note the code says nothing about intent.

    Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that

    Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.

    Just guessing here, but I don't believe deleting any emails with BleachBit is allowed under this statute.

    Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

    Veterans for a Strong America filed a lawsuit against the State Department for violations of the FOIA. They had filed the FOIA request because of Benghazi and specifically asked for any personal email accounts and her private server emails were not turned over as required.

    Oh hell, why not add a 4th:

    18 U.S. Code 1519 - Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

    Clinton's emails were subpoena'd by the FBI on March 4, 2015, Her campaign claimed they were deleted prior to the subpoena but the FBI investigation determined the emails were actually deleted sometime between March 25 -31, basically 3 weeks after the subpoena.

  16. Re:Those same Democratic senators... by Holi · · Score: 1

    Since when is it the Government's job to investigate the internal politics of political parties?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  17. Re:Is this more treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is funny how every time conservative says anything on slashdot we are met with whiny sounding and false accusation of "russia!!!".

    That's because y'all sound just like the bots that took you in last election. Between you bullshit conspiracies and willful ignorance, you prove Poe's Law every day.

  18. Re:Rules are rules - just not for all of us ... by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

    Of course the best comment I've seen in the past year comes on a day I have no mod points.

    Concise and excellently cited. And well-formatted to boot.

    Well done madame/sir.

  19. Fox in charge of the hen house... by DavidHumus · · Score: 2

    ...not doing a good job? I'm shocked! Absolutely shocked!

  20. Re:Rules are rules - just not for all of us ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Hillary is far from the only person in government involved in breaking some rules. But by focusing all the hatred on her it is easy to distract the public from the serious crimes that are occuring.