I went to TransUnion, logged in, provided my buddy's credit card number (with his consent, I gave him $10 cash) and bought my credit report that they previously would not give me for free!
Heh. Heh. Heh. Funny. I spose you were right all along. Heh. That's effed up.
They have it on file, but they don't know that you have the physical card in your hand. Did they ask for a CVV code? If not, then you're right. It was pointless. If yes, then it's 1 extra level of security.
Well, I think the order of events would go like this:
Open several starter accounts. You won't have much credit so you'll be at much lower risk level than someone with a great credit history.
You build a credit history over a couple years.
You buy your house.
You freeze your credit file.
After the freeze, existing accounts would still post monthly reports so you're still going to have a continuous credit history even with a frozen file, if it's done that way. I admit there would still be a window of time where you're vulnerable, but having the freeze is better than what we've had before.
By the way, I had always thought the freeze ability was already there because I've heard of this as far back as 10 years ago. It was supposedly possible to get the freeze done at all 3 credit bureaus, but it was difficult and typically used for notable people, such as movie stars and politicians. And, I'm not referring to opting out of pre-screen offers; I explicitly mean a credit file freeze. But, I heard that from 2 money guys on the radio, so not totally sure if they knew what they were talking about.
Well, I look at it this way. Credit bureaus do provide a desired service for lenders and borrowers. Without a credit history, you would get the same ho-hum homogenized rate everyone else gets. When you have good credit, the credit bureaus are a service to you so they deserve to be paid that. When you open an account, you're initiating that service via the lender.
But, I completely agree with you with the passive credit pulls. We don't request those, but we do have regulation to block those with the 1-888-5-OPT-OUT service.
The problem is credit bureaus don't have enough regulation for requests we don't invoke. They only care about the lenders, not us, so that causes them to be extremely sloppy with handling our data, keeping error rates low, and providing us better service when fixing errors and controlling who accesses our history. The sloppiness of credit bureaus is the #1 cause of identify theft, so they are truly to blame. Federal regulation and punitive fines could put an end to it, but that's due to politicians simply ignoring our demands in preference for the lobbyists (and free gifts).
I simply don't have issues with credit files in of themselves. Just the management of them.
If I login and agree to pay $10, then they'll grant me access to the information, no questions asked.
I have to presume they would check the name and account number on your credit card and see if it matches any accounts in your report, which would offer 1 more hurdle of security by requiring you to have physical possession of the card (they always ask for CVV2 code).
Is that it costs them less than $10 to freeze or unfreeze your credit.
I think $10 is quite reasonable. It would prevent ridiculously frequent freeze on and freeze offs.... like every other day, and it makes guessing your secret pin by submitting an unfreeze request every time very costly.
Compared to other services, such as ATM fees, cash withdrawal fees, transfer fees, application fees, discontinuation fees, etc, it's affordable IMO.
stoolpigeon is right, but also it could be used as a preventive measure. Let's say you buy your house and you won't need to open any accounts for several years. You freeze your account so no one can open an account under your name and SSN. The thieves could have all your info but it wouldn't do any good, unless they find a way to unfreeze your account, but they wouldn't know your account was frozen. They'd only know you were denied credit (if it's implemented right). Also, it would be an undesirable expense to pay the $10 for every stolen name, and even that could leave a paper trail.
Hmm. I would consider the probability of that to be 1.0.
If so, why do you presume I am white and heterosexual? If not, why do you presume that, when I speak about the way things seem to me, I am talking about the way things are for anybody else?
I spose you didn't see the humor in the comment. Heh. Anyway, you sounded like a Johnny Come Lately and thus a member of a privileged majority. Also, the name Guido is of Italian origin, i.e. caucasian.
If not, why do you presume that, when I speak about the way things seem to me, I am talking about the way things are for anybody else?
I haven't a clue why you'd ask that question.
Besides, this has nothing to do with race or sexual orientation or any other intrinsic.
Fear of the police has everything to do with race and sexual orientation. Minorities are the top of the list for experiencing police brutality, and thus they are first in line to receive the electric shock... errr... I mean taser treatment.
Do not think you are safe, nor especially endangered, by virtue of who you are. When one of us suffers a loss of civil rights, we all suffer.
I mentioned I don't trust police, so it's rather apparent I don't believe I'm safe around police. I am target practice for them.
ts an invisible beam and it leaves no evidence. No one ever has to justify using it, because they can instead just deny using it any time that the use is controversial.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's possible to make a camera that's capable of recording the radiation. I would envision at some point the weapon would land in the wrong hands and be used by terr-err-ists against politicians giving speeches, pilots taking off or landing, or possibly to cheat in sports. If there's video evidence, it could show where the beam came from.
There is something wrong when the general population begins to fear the police, and I think that is starting to happen in the United States.
You mean white/heterosexual people are starting feel fear? Welcome to the club. Minorities have known this for years.
What always ticks me off is police always associate nervousness or evasiveness with guilt. After hundreds of publicized police beatings and shootings, they don't realize people are nervous because of police reputation, not because they're guilty of something.
I avoid the police whenever I can. I don't trust them and I don't like them. They would paint me a criminal for that, but I consider it self preservation. There are many like me who are targeted by police for harassment and abuse.
Pardon my language but; precisely what the fuck do you expect them to do? Drop what they are doing and check the license plate of every car in town that matches your cars make, model, and color? Send your hourly updates and hold daily press conferences? They filed the paperwork (ensuring your information gets in the right database [1]) because that was pretty much all they can do. Grow the fuck up - your car is important to you, but the world doesn't revolve around you.
And he walked away backwards while facing the police? What you saw was actually just a minor shoulder turn (1:42)...perhaps to turn around and walk away, or perhaps not. There's no way to know. At that point in time it was too late, the police had already made the decision to escort him from the building.
Police have the legal right to physically assault someone providing resistance. If this disturbs you, then you ought to start writing congressmen.
Perhaps you should not speak in such absolutes as "police really don't give a diddly squat" and "paperwork will be filed but that's all that they'll do" if you are going to issue responses like that.
You must be a riot with that use strict; English parsing algorithm of yours...
He clearly thought that his rights are being violated in a major way; nobody would just go down without a fight if they were as upset as he obviously was.
He was just an ignorant attention seeking kid. I'm sure he's getting a lesson on the legal system. The press this story is getting will ensure he does no time.
I, like many others, felt the tazering was unnecessary, but it's my contention the police did nothing legally wrong even if it was ethically over the top. You can't blame police for operating within the rules we set for them. If we don't like it, then we are to blame for giving them this power.
Police ought to consider who and what the person is (a misguided student) as well as where before tazering or shooting. Prior to 1990, police would have simply pushed him to the ground, pulled his arms back, and put the hand cuffs on. Of course, that's the problem with "ought to", since "ought to" is in no way a mandatory requirement.
No, they grabbed him the second the mic was cut off. Watch the video again.
They verbally warned him before they grabbed him, oh that's right.. you didn't watch the other video showing what happened 60 seconds before. Watch this video. After cutting off the mic, they grabbed his arms to escort him out of the building, which was not an overbearing response. They tasered him long after after he initiated resistance.
Scan to 0m:41s (warning) and then 1m:47s where the female officer is clearing speaking to him saying "stop". Her voice was below the mic levels on the other two clips on youtube, but picked up on that clip because the camera was closer.
The rules were clear: 1 question then relinquish the mic. The student asked more than 4 questions without giving Kerry a chance to answer and spewed an endless nonsensical diatribe. Clearly against the rules of the debate session.
I don't form opinions willy nilly. I really do look at the evidence, which showed he was in the wrong. If you're going to ask me to watch the video again, then I ask you to cut the bias.
They applaud HIM when he resists the arrest. They asks the cops "what are you doing!?" when they drag they off, and they applauded him while he was making his opening statement, all of which is very clear in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s
I watched it so that makes 3 angles I've seen. "They" did not ask the police "what are you doing!?". He asked them "what the f-ck are you doing?". And, the audience applauded a full 4 seconds before he asked the question as they began escorting him down the aisle. He resisted and went toward the stage where Mr Kerry was standing, which was not a smart move. Any unexpected movement toward the senator will be construed as a potential threat.
Also, if one were to witness a civil rights violation and applauded thinking one is supporting the victim, then one is an idiot. Sorry.
By the way, police do consider the words you use when assessing whether or not you're going to present a threat or resistance to them when removing you from the building. The student chose his words very poorly.
I've been on the net for about 11 years now, and I've not one single time ever deliberately clicked on an ad because it was interesting
New computer users click on ads (as well as everything else on the screen). You have simply learned to ignore them. New users have not, which is why google makes money.
You're right. There's no real cost benefit to insuring (1.) your laptop when the chance of recovery is extremely low, particularly when the real asset of value, data, can be encrypted and backed up.
We insure our vehicles because replacing them would cause economic hardship. That is rarely the case with a laptop or any other consumer electronics doodad people buy insurance for.
A symptom of a worry wart society is insuring everything for fear of an unexpected future. Insurance only pays when there could be an unrecoverable consequence of not doing so, such as a home fire, vehicle theft, crippling illness or death. Insuring for insurance's sake is a very expensive way to purchase a false sense of security. As a society, we're purchasing waaaay to much insurance.
It's far cheaper not to insure whenever you can. The sum of your monthly payments will generally exceed the retail value of the item.
If you overlook the fact that he was an invited attendee to a public event that featured an open microphone to ask questions to a senator who works for and on behalf of the public. Also the event was held on property owned by the public within the state of Florida in trusted to a public educational institution for which he was a paid student. Sure I can see where your argument makes sense.
The university is state funded, but the property is not public property. It is granted to the institution by the government. You do not have rights to the property, because it's not a public park.
Paying tuition is meaningless regarding this debate. A student can be banned from campus if the student violates campus rules. No refunds.
The only issue that i have with the "campus" argument
There is no argument. Campus property is not public property. Now, if the university were a publicly funded university (and University of Florida is), I can understand why someone would expect the property to be public property, but I don't believe it is. The land was given by government grant.
the republicans have been defining away all public space to the point that the only public space to protest is now miles away in some cases
Republicans expanded the free speech zone. Democrats enacted them. I don't see it as a single party issue. It's more of a whoever is in power at the moment issue.
I would say that a student would have a reasonable expectation that they could protest on a campus where they were a student.
A student would probably expect that, but he or she would be wrong. In the past, Universities have been tolerant or supportive of student protests, but that doesn't mean one should be ignorant that they are allowing you to protest--rather than you exerting your right to protest.
Plus, one has to consider the context of the protest. Is the point of the gathering to protest? Or is the point to debate? Protesting a debate is a disturbance. I don't fault the university for not supporting protests inside university events. What if he was protesting the chess team tournament? How about the Dungeons & Dragons club? Same deal.
Go to Orbicule and read the success stories about their Undercover product for Macs.
I must say.. that one story is impressive. Screenshots of a face certainly would escalate the case as it boils the officer's job down to comparing a face to a photo. Easy arrest.
Too bad built in cameras don't exist on all laptops. And, too bad not all criminals are dopey enough to boot the machine up "as is" from a personal home net connection. A professional thief would know better.
I view Orbicule as a temporary band-aid though. It can only work if thieves don't know about it or are amateur first-timers. Once a few busts get news press, they know about it.
There are companies out there which, for a fee, install tracker software on your laptop. If it's stolen or lost, they track its whereabouts whenever it gets on the 'Net and work with local law enforcement and ISPs to find the machine.
I've been the victim of a stolen vehicle before... and I know police really don't give a diddly squat about stolen vehicles. Sure, paperwork will be filed but that's all they do. When a stolen vehicle is recovered it's almost always recovered due to happenstance. So, my question is.. what makes anyone think police care about your $1000 laptop when they barely care about your $20,000 vehicle as it is?
Even with an IP address, postal address, and mapquest directions to the thief's house, I have a hard time believing an officer will put down his chocolate iced donut to go knock on doors over a laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
They have it on file, but they don't know that you have the physical card in your hand. Did they ask for a CVV code? If not, then you're right. It was pointless. If yes, then it's 1 extra level of security.
- Open several starter accounts. You won't have much credit so you'll be at much lower risk level than someone with a great credit history.
- You build a credit history over a couple years.
- You buy your house.
- You freeze your credit file.
After the freeze, existing accounts would still post monthly reports so you're still going to have a continuous credit history even with a frozen file, if it's done that way. I admit there would still be a window of time where you're vulnerable, but having the freeze is better than what we've had before.By the way, I had always thought the freeze ability was already there because I've heard of this as far back as 10 years ago. It was supposedly possible to get the freeze done at all 3 credit bureaus, but it was difficult and typically used for notable people, such as movie stars and politicians. And, I'm not referring to opting out of pre-screen offers; I explicitly mean a credit file freeze. But, I heard that from 2 money guys on the radio, so not totally sure if they knew what they were talking about.
Well, I look at it this way. Credit bureaus do provide a desired service for lenders and borrowers. Without a credit history, you would get the same ho-hum homogenized rate everyone else gets. When you have good credit, the credit bureaus are a service to you so they deserve to be paid that. When you open an account, you're initiating that service via the lender.
But, I completely agree with you with the passive credit pulls. We don't request those, but we do have regulation to block those with the 1-888-5-OPT-OUT service.
The problem is credit bureaus don't have enough regulation for requests we don't invoke. They only care about the lenders, not us, so that causes them to be extremely sloppy with handling our data, keeping error rates low, and providing us better service when fixing errors and controlling who accesses our history. The sloppiness of credit bureaus is the #1 cause of identify theft, so they are truly to blame. Federal regulation and punitive fines could put an end to it, but that's due to politicians simply ignoring our demands in preference for the lobbyists (and free gifts).
I simply don't have issues with credit files in of themselves. Just the management of them.
Compared to other services, such as ATM fees, cash withdrawal fees, transfer fees, application fees, discontinuation fees, etc, it's affordable IMO.
stoolpigeon is right, but also it could be used as a preventive measure. Let's say you buy your house and you won't need to open any accounts for several years. You freeze your account so no one can open an account under your name and SSN. The thieves could have all your info but it wouldn't do any good, unless they find a way to unfreeze your account, but they wouldn't know your account was frozen. They'd only know you were denied credit (if it's implemented right). Also, it would be an undesirable expense to pay the $10 for every stolen name, and even that could leave a paper trail.
I spose you didn't see the humor in the comment. Heh. Anyway, you sounded like a Johnny Come Lately and thus a member of a privileged majority. Also, the name Guido is of Italian origin, i.e. caucasian.
I haven't a clue why you'd ask that question.
Fear of the police has everything to do with race and sexual orientation. Minorities are the top of the list for experiencing police brutality, and thus they are first in line to receive the electric shock... errr... I mean taser treatment.
I mentioned I don't trust police, so it's rather apparent I don't believe I'm safe around police. I am target practice for them.
What always ticks me off is police always associate nervousness or evasiveness with guilt. After hundreds of publicized police beatings and shootings, they don't realize people are nervous because of police reputation, not because they're guilty of something.
I avoid the police whenever I can. I don't trust them and I don't like them. They would paint me a criminal for that, but I consider it self preservation. There are many like me who are targeted by police for harassment and abuse.
It's not my concern if your comprehension is lacking. You add nothing anyway.
And he walked away backwards while facing the police? What you saw was actually just a minor shoulder turn (1:42)...perhaps to turn around and walk away, or perhaps not. There's no way to know. At that point in time it was too late, the police had already made the decision to escort him from the building.
Police have the legal right to physically assault someone providing resistance. If this disturbs you, then you ought to start writing congressmen.
I, like many others, felt the tazering was unnecessary, but it's my contention the police did nothing legally wrong even if it was ethically over the top. You can't blame police for operating within the rules we set for them. If we don't like it, then we are to blame for giving them this power.
Police ought to consider who and what the person is (a misguided student) as well as where before tazering or shooting. Prior to 1990, police would have simply pushed him to the ground, pulled his arms back, and put the hand cuffs on. Of course, that's the problem with "ought to", since "ought to" is in no way a mandatory requirement.
Scan to 0m:41s (warning) and then 1m:47s where the female officer is clearing speaking to him saying "stop". Her voice was below the mic levels on the other two clips on youtube, but picked up on that clip because the camera was closer.
The rules were clear: 1 question then relinquish the mic. The student asked more than 4 questions without giving Kerry a chance to answer and spewed an endless nonsensical diatribe. Clearly against the rules of the debate session.
I don't form opinions willy nilly. I really do look at the evidence, which showed he was in the wrong. If you're going to ask me to watch the video again, then I ask you to cut the bias.
Oh yes. I forgot, thanks for that particular link. It demonstrates my point even more than the other clips.
Also, if one were to witness a civil rights violation and applauded thinking one is supporting the victim, then one is an idiot. Sorry.
By the way, police do consider the words you use when assessing whether or not you're going to present a threat or resistance to them when removing you from the building. The student chose his words very poorly.
You're right. There's no real cost benefit to insuring (1.) your laptop when the chance of recovery is extremely low, particularly when the real asset of value, data, can be encrypted and backed up.
We insure our vehicles because replacing them would cause economic hardship. That is rarely the case with a laptop or any other consumer electronics doodad people buy insurance for.
A symptom of a worry wart society is insuring everything for fear of an unexpected future. Insurance only pays when there could be an unrecoverable consequence of not doing so, such as a home fire, vehicle theft, crippling illness or death. Insuring for insurance's sake is a very expensive way to purchase a false sense of security. As a society, we're purchasing waaaay to much insurance.
It's far cheaper not to insure whenever you can. The sum of your monthly payments will generally exceed the retail value of the item.
(1.) I'm aware we're using the term loosely here.
Paying tuition is meaningless regarding this debate. A student can be banned from campus if the student violates campus rules. No refunds.
Plus, one has to consider the context of the protest. Is the point of the gathering to protest? Or is the point to debate? Protesting a debate is a disturbance. I don't fault the university for not supporting protests inside university events. What if he was protesting the chess team tournament? How about the Dungeons & Dragons club? Same deal.
Too bad built in cameras don't exist on all laptops. And, too bad not all criminals are dopey enough to boot the machine up "as is" from a personal home net connection. A professional thief would know better.
I view Orbicule as a temporary band-aid though. It can only work if thieves don't know about it or are amateur first-timers. Once a few busts get news press, they know about it.
Even with an IP address, postal address, and mapquest directions to the thief's house, I have a hard time believing an officer will put down his chocolate iced donut to go knock on doors over a laptop.