If enough people freeze their credit with Equifax - but not with Experian and Transunion, Equifax will lose customers. I just got a new credit card and my credit is frozen with them. Just had to talk with the card people over the phone.
That would defeat the purpose of the freeze, which is to protect you. Equifax's breach exposed your data, and if a scammer can just use it to open a credit line with a firm that uses Transunion to check your credit, you've still got a problem. Freeze with EVERYONE.
Forget the free credit monitoring, that will just tell you that a problem is already underway. Freeze your credit, which keeps anyone from opening a new line of credit, or anyone else from examining your credit. You can briefly unfreeze if necessary to, for example, get a loan or a new card. In some cases freezing and unfreezing can cost you, but that's a lot less hassle than trying to undo a situation that's already begun. I'm optimistic that Congress at some point is going to make the credit agencies freeze and unfreeze for free, the way they made them provide an annual credit report for free.
How do you regulate something that a) you don't understand, b) have never encountered, and c) have no idea the potential of? If you listen to interviews with tech entrepreneurs, you find that none of them knew the paths their invention would take once the world got its hands on it nor the ultimate scope. Not to mention that regulators end up captured by those they regulate and are frequently employed as enforcers who kill competition. Early stage regulation would amount to strangling nascent companies and technologies at birth.
This suit is being brought under California's Private Attorney General Act, aka the "Sue Your Boss" law. The state will get 75% of any payout, but the real bonanza will be to the attorneys. Because the employer is on the hook for all legal costs, they'll profit handsomely. This law was a gift to the plaintiff bar and has resulted in things like a 2013 suit against Goodyear Tire for allegedly failing to issue wage statements that included the last four digits of employees’ social security or employee ID numbers. The plaintiff got $1k while the attorneys got $105k.
Putting police in sole custody and control of the video is a bad idea, given the history of abuse and coverups in some departments. I'd prefer a non-law-enforcement third party put up a system outside US jurisdiction, and make the submissions viewable by the public. Sort of like a Youtube for crime, except it wouldn't take down "disturbing" videos the way Youtube does. If you go there, you'd know that what you see might be awful.
Except in my case it was the left mouse button, which would click multiple times a lot of the time. It turned out to be a fatigued leaf spring in the microswitch for that button. After disassembling the switch, I bent the spring back to its normal shape and reinserted it. Problem solved. It wasn't an easy fix. The switch is tiny and the spring was even tinier. Took me 20 minutes to get it back in.
Word is that the President of Ecuador is getting pretty tired of this guy and is thinking about ejecting him from the London embassy. I think under the circumstances I'd keep a lower profile.
A 10-or-above device is too damned unwieldy to be a "tablet" in my book. My beloved Nexus 7 seems just the right size, and I might stretch that to 8 inches when it goes to heaven, but above that, forget it.
In my years working on "highly classified" things, we NEVER, EVER brought that stuff home, because we couldn't without breaking all kinds of rules and safeguards. It was a major operation just to get it transferred to another secure facility to work on it. But time after time now we get the story that this or that person had a laptop full of stuff in their car, their house, on the bus, etc. When did the rules change that you can just walk out with extremely sensitive data, or are these lunkheads simply violating all the rules?
This works until the prison bartering and bribery system catches up. Prison guards can be bribed to have certain "favors" done. The bottom line is that there is no perfect solution. The best possible solution is take the profit out of prison operation.
Prisoners housed in for-profit (i.e. private) prisons are in the neighborhood of 8% of the prison population. I think you must be confusing profit with government's efforts to reduce prison costs, like the aforementioned expensive phone calls. I know my state of California isn't cutting a fat hog with income from prisons; it costs the state many billions per year to run the system.
And in a short decade or two, we will "discover" the same prisoners who run gangs from cell phones in prison now are on that whitelist too.
If each whitelisted IMEI is tied to a guard's name, somebody would have some 'splainin' to do. A more likely scenario would be that guards would loan out their phones for short term calls. The only way to combat that would be to monitor all whitelisted calls, and I can just guess how the contract negotiations over that would go.
Just what we need, IT contracts for prisons so that we can waste even more taxpayer dollars on them. I have a better solution to this. Take all the extreme law offenders and drop them on a deserted island with nothing including cell phones or cell phone service. Low tax cost and it reduces the prison population. Or you could threaten the inmates with this. Keep your shit up and you're all going to the island.
So your solution to wasting taxpayer dollars is to bring back Devil's Island. Why not just execute them?
I can still use the Internet without touching Facebook or Google. For the time being. The Net Neutrality laws were put in place to maintain the status quo in the face of possible breaking the 'net into walled gardens. 'But we would never block or restrict access to the Internet' many ISPs say. Fine. Then Net Neutrality rules won't affect the way you do business, so shut up.
Uh uh. The way to regulate is to wait until anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior manifests, THEN start rolling out the rules. Prospective regulation is a recipe for stifling innovation and locking in the status quo. Saying, "You won't be hurt so shut up" is not sufficient reason for slapping rules on people.
Bush Jr's b.s. "service" was real. It was painfully obvious he landed a cushy position with the Airforce he had no business or qualifications for and that his father's connections got him that (and kept him out of war zones). What's more, his opponent Kerry actually went to 'Nam and somehow managed to get branded a coward.
Kerry went to 'Nam all right, but did a lot of questionable things in conjunction with that service, including staging himself "in battle" so that he could film himself, labeling himself and his fellow soldiers "war criminals", claiming to have thrown his medals over the White House fence and later saying he "borrowed" somebody else's medals to stage that as well, not to mention all his Swift Boat claims that were refuted by people who served with him. I won't call him a coward because I haven't studied the details enough to make that kind of judgement, but the little I do know makes him look phony, manipulative, and pathetic.
nasty divorce. People do all sorts of strange and illogical things when they're embroiled in a divorce battle, including burning down houses, crushing cars, etc.
The Trump administration is trying to ratchet up economic pain on China to get them to help curb their client state, North Korea, and its nuclear ambitions. This may be part of that as well. Or maybe it's the entire reason, who knows?
Lock your phone with software that has two unlock codes, one of which unlocks it and the other of which wipes it down to the bare metal. When they demand the unlock code, give them the latter one. Keep the phone backed up, obviously, so it can be restored.
What does this have to do with Trump Administration, is the Donald searching these phones personally? Is DHS doing something they have never done before solely on orders from Trump? I guess you gotta put 'Trump' in the headline for them clicks
DHS is in the executive branch, which Trump heads and he could therefore put an end to this. He hasn't, therefore it's on him now, regardless of what his predecessors did or didn't do.
That applies to tortious acts and contract matters. The government isn't immune to suits regarding infringement of freedoms, failure to disclose information that it's obligated to disclose, etc. Think of how many ACLU lawsuits there have been, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
If enough people freeze their credit with Equifax - but not with Experian and Transunion, Equifax will lose customers. I just got a new credit card and my credit is frozen with them. Just had to talk with the card people over the phone.
That would defeat the purpose of the freeze, which is to protect you. Equifax's breach exposed your data, and if a scammer can just use it to open a credit line with a firm that uses Transunion to check your credit, you've still got a problem. Freeze with EVERYONE.
Someone please shoot those wankers already, they're just torturing themselves anymore.
And even more important, us.
And in their absence, if you're a lender and want to know if your potential customer is a deadbeat you do ... what, exactly?
Forget the free credit monitoring, that will just tell you that a problem is already underway. Freeze your credit, which keeps anyone from opening a new line of credit, or anyone else from examining your credit. You can briefly unfreeze if necessary to, for example, get a loan or a new card. In some cases freezing and unfreezing can cost you, but that's a lot less hassle than trying to undo a situation that's already begun. I'm optimistic that Congress at some point is going to make the credit agencies freeze and unfreeze for free, the way they made them provide an annual credit report for free.
How do you regulate something that a) you don't understand, b) have never encountered, and c) have no idea the potential of? If you listen to interviews with tech entrepreneurs, you find that none of them knew the paths their invention would take once the world got its hands on it nor the ultimate scope. Not to mention that regulators end up captured by those they regulate and are frequently employed as enforcers who kill competition. Early stage regulation would amount to strangling nascent companies and technologies at birth.
This suit is being brought under California's Private Attorney General Act, aka the "Sue Your Boss" law. The state will get 75% of any payout, but the real bonanza will be to the attorneys. Because the employer is on the hook for all legal costs, they'll profit handsomely. This law was a gift to the plaintiff bar and has resulted in things like a 2013 suit against Goodyear Tire for allegedly failing to issue wage statements that included the last four digits of employees’ social security or employee ID numbers. The plaintiff got $1k while the attorneys got $105k.
Putting police in sole custody and control of the video is a bad idea, given the history of abuse and coverups in some departments. I'd prefer a non-law-enforcement third party put up a system outside US jurisdiction, and make the submissions viewable by the public. Sort of like a Youtube for crime, except it wouldn't take down "disturbing" videos the way Youtube does. If you go there, you'd know that what you see might be awful.
Recommended dash cam please?
I got this one and hung it from my rearview using a third-party bracket. So far it seems to work fine. https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod...
Needs more profanity. That's what really sells a reasoned argument.
Except in my case it was the left mouse button, which would click multiple times a lot of the time. It turned out to be a fatigued leaf spring in the microswitch for that button. After disassembling the switch, I bent the spring back to its normal shape and reinserted it. Problem solved. It wasn't an easy fix. The switch is tiny and the spring was even tinier. Took me 20 minutes to get it back in.
Word is that the President of Ecuador is getting pretty tired of this guy and is thinking about ejecting him from the London embassy. I think under the circumstances I'd keep a lower profile.
A 10-or-above device is too damned unwieldy to be a "tablet" in my book. My beloved Nexus 7 seems just the right size, and I might stretch that to 8 inches when it goes to heaven, but above that, forget it.
In my years working on "highly classified" things, we NEVER, EVER brought that stuff home, because we couldn't without breaking all kinds of rules and safeguards. It was a major operation just to get it transferred to another secure facility to work on it. But time after time now we get the story that this or that person had a laptop full of stuff in their car, their house, on the bus, etc. When did the rules change that you can just walk out with extremely sensitive data, or are these lunkheads simply violating all the rules?
This is what you get when you privatize prison system. and in case you haven't heard yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
According to, ahem, Wikipedia, private prisons house about 8% of the prison population.
This works until the prison bartering and bribery system catches up. Prison guards can be bribed to have certain "favors" done. The bottom line is that there is no perfect solution. The best possible solution is take the profit out of prison operation.
Prisoners housed in for-profit (i.e. private) prisons are in the neighborhood of 8% of the prison population. I think you must be confusing profit with government's efforts to reduce prison costs, like the aforementioned expensive phone calls. I know my state of California isn't cutting a fat hog with income from prisons; it costs the state many billions per year to run the system.
And in a short decade or two, we will "discover" the same prisoners who run gangs from cell phones in prison now are on that whitelist too.
If each whitelisted IMEI is tied to a guard's name, somebody would have some 'splainin' to do. A more likely scenario would be that guards would loan out their phones for short term calls. The only way to combat that would be to monitor all whitelisted calls, and I can just guess how the contract negotiations over that would go.
Just what we need, IT contracts for prisons so that we can waste even more taxpayer dollars on them. I have a better solution to this. Take all the extreme law offenders and drop them on a deserted island with nothing including cell phones or cell phone service. Low tax cost and it reduces the prison population. Or you could threaten the inmates with this. Keep your shit up and you're all going to the island.
So your solution to wasting taxpayer dollars is to bring back Devil's Island. Why not just execute them?
I can still use the Internet without touching Facebook or Google. For the time being. The Net Neutrality laws were put in place to maintain the status quo in the face of possible breaking the 'net into walled gardens. 'But we would never block or restrict access to the Internet' many ISPs say. Fine. Then Net Neutrality rules won't affect the way you do business, so shut up.
Uh uh. The way to regulate is to wait until anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior manifests, THEN start rolling out the rules. Prospective regulation is a recipe for stifling innovation and locking in the status quo. Saying, "You won't be hurt so shut up" is not sufficient reason for slapping rules on people.
Bush Jr's b.s. "service" was real. It was painfully obvious he landed a cushy position with the Airforce he had no business or qualifications for and that his father's connections got him that (and kept him out of war zones). What's more, his opponent Kerry actually went to 'Nam and somehow managed to get branded a coward.
Kerry went to 'Nam all right, but did a lot of questionable things in conjunction with that service, including staging himself "in battle" so that he could film himself, labeling himself and his fellow soldiers "war criminals", claiming to have thrown his medals over the White House fence and later saying he "borrowed" somebody else's medals to stage that as well, not to mention all his Swift Boat claims that were refuted by people who served with him. I won't call him a coward because I haven't studied the details enough to make that kind of judgement, but the little I do know makes him look phony, manipulative, and pathetic.
nasty divorce. People do all sorts of strange and illogical things when they're embroiled in a divorce battle, including burning down houses, crushing cars, etc.
The Trump administration is trying to ratchet up economic pain on China to get them to help curb their client state, North Korea, and its nuclear ambitions. This may be part of that as well. Or maybe it's the entire reason, who knows?
Lock your phone with software that has two unlock codes, one of which unlocks it and the other of which wipes it down to the bare metal. When they demand the unlock code, give them the latter one. Keep the phone backed up, obviously, so it can be restored.
What does this have to do with Trump Administration, is the Donald searching these phones personally? Is DHS doing something they have never done before solely on orders from Trump? I guess you gotta put 'Trump' in the headline for them clicks
DHS is in the executive branch, which Trump heads and he could therefore put an end to this. He hasn't, therefore it's on him now, regardless of what his predecessors did or didn't do.
not only are they not immune to lawsuits
Err, yes, they are immune to lawsuits.
That applies to tortious acts and contract matters. The government isn't immune to suits regarding infringement of freedoms, failure to disclose information that it's obligated to disclose, etc. Think of how many ACLU lawsuits there have been, for example.
Do Know Evil
that's got to be a bitch to fold.