Sorry but security is all about impediment. I am going to get jumped all over for saying this but its true.
People attempt to do bad things when three forces meet: opportunity, pressure, and rationalization whether that last one is because "Dear Leader told me too" or "I deserve it" is immaterial.
There is nothing you can do in software about the last two. So that leaves opportunity as the only high ground on which to mount a defense. Guess what that means impediment is just about your only tool. Good luck upgrading all those ancient controllers to use solid authentication, and integrity protocols. Good luck tasking the folks who have been ignoring these problems for the past 20 years (best case), or doing it wrong getting lucking and thinking themselves clever (more likely). Expired certificates etc if they are actually checked will be an impediment. Offline those old EDI systems while everyone figures out how to do sftp will be a problem when nobody knows how to keep control of their know host keys; and those are just some of the easy ones.
The Feds need to pull their heads out of there ass and realize security is about doing the right thing everywhere all the time. Process Process Process. All the technology in world won't help you unless people do the right thing. The Superbowl gate crashes should have tough them that. Computer security is no different. Sure technology can help. Its wonderful today that we have the scalability to do inline IPSing and a firewall can stop things like SQL Slammer (when signatures exist). Won't do a lick of good if some admin decides to turn it off to trouble shoot and than goes "welp everythings working and i feel like headed hope now so, f**k it deal with tomorrow".
You know just over 30 years ago, "The use of unnecessary force has been approved" read over the police dispatch was a laugh line from a comedy. Now its apparent SOP in a completely serious way.
I commented already I don't think Paul's exception that site or domain be turned over without paying whatever is current owners demand is fair or reasonable.
I also don't think its entirely fair to slam him for going to the UN. After all its how the current rules work, he has done more to oppose them than most but did not get his way. He is still a member of our society though is expected to follow the rules. His taxes were used to fund the operations of the UN just like yours and mine. I don't see why just because his expressed preferences are that the institution should not exist means he should get to take advantage of the services it can offer him, without being automatically called a hypocrite.
Its the same thing when people slam Ayn Rand for cashing her SS checks, well again she spent her life arguing the rules were/are unfair. She lost at the ballot box so had to play the hand she was dealt; why should she have been expected to leave anything on the table?
Now if your argument had been our society should *not* be governed by popular will than I can see an argument that using the rules to your advantage as much as possible might be hypocritical.
I'll forfeit my rights to government services as soon as government forfeits its right to force me into pay the taxes that go to support them.
I have been a Paul support and I disagree. I would say unless what they are putting on the site is untrue, in which case its libel and is why we have civil courts, there is no reason they should have to turn over the name or be expected to do so without compensation. Compensation should be the price they set as its currently their property.
You can't call them squatters either they are actually using the domain, have real current content there, and its even related to the subject the name would lead you to expect. What they are doing is more or less the antithesis of domain squatting.
Really I am disappointed in Paul over this one in a big way. I don't see anything wrong with what the people on the site are doing. Actually Paul should be grateful because they are basically promoting him.
Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Clearly members of the executive branch are undermining the constitution they take an oath to uphold; with their routine twisting well understood meanings and flagrant abuse. The same goes for assassination of citizens through the CIA's drown program. These could be considered seditious acts.
We in the public should start demanding possibly dangerous criminals Holder, Brennan, Obama, and Napolitano be tried.
The SCOTUS won't help. They have shown over and over they are willing to do the same intellectually dishonest mental gymnastics to ensure the government can do whatever it wants. They slap whoever the current administration is around a little bit once and awhile to flex their muscle and ensure their own power is protected but that is about it.
In this case they will just toss any case you could bring against them for lack of standing. If they do something obvious to you, then your killed or help at some black site indefinitely without trial, guilty or not since that can't be established. If you may have been the victim of an illegal search and cant be sure of it such as a wiretap, GPS on your car etc they won't confirm it.
I think the grandparent's point though is that its not really a decent performance boost in terms of economy. For a system targeted at games, assuming you are keeping the existing case, power supply, and peripherals; the video is probably 25% of the total price tag, possibly 40-50% if you are keeping the storage.
Even a substantial improvement 50% or so is minor in terms of real world performance 23fps in a game is not really any more playable than 15; nor is being able to go from say 848x480 to 1366x768 or something like that. If $600 is alot of money to you ( and it is to most of us ) than $300 inst chump change either. The gains to be had for $600 spent on a full new kit, are far greater in proportion to the sacrifice, than spending $300 on just a video card to put in your old C2D rig.
His point is you'd be better served having waiting, If you managed to save $300 for a new video card just keep putting the spare change in the jar until you have $600 and buy sensibly matched hardware together.
It was not always that way. I used to have a NEC Ultralight Versa that had a PC sized docking station into which you could install FULL LENGTH ISA cards. Oh I miss her.
Yes and as former presidents keep their Secret Service detail for I think a decade this guy *is* going to be found and probably prosecuted such that he will wish he'd just been strung up by the balls.
Probably because there is not much you can do to fix a fundamentally bad idea. Think of it like all the various attempts to make smoking 'healthy' at the end of day intentionally sucking combustion gases into your lungs just is not good for you, no matter how low tar, free of synthetic chemicals etc you make it.
What does flash do? It executes code from unknown origin on your machine. That has never been a good idea; even if in some cases you can't get around needing to do it. Flash has more problems though it can't be fully sandbox'ed without breaking all those old apps, it needs to be able to do things like read files, open sockets connections, etc.
Given that at least some parts of Magna Carta are technically still enforce I don't think you can say England is very much like a constitutional monarchy, it *is* a constitutional monarchy.
Its easy to become confused. Both sides talk about rights. The difference been a libertarian and your typical leftist comes down to where the obligations lay.
The libertarian believes everyone has a right to any health care need or want, but to him the meaning of that is nobody should stop anyone from having procedures performed.
The leftist believes everyone has a right to health care based on need, and its societies job to ensure they get it.
Well you gota look at it like this. The hawk has to eat too, and while things did not work out so well for the mouse his alternative like fate was not better for him. I mean he would have died slowly having one or more of his limbs crushed in trap. After which he would have been buried so deep in a landfill lack of oxygen would likely even prevent most microbes from making use of him for decades.
It might not have gone how the guy hoped but he still better served nature.
The answer is yes but its not the guy you think doing it. We still live in a largely single factor authentication world. Since you used facebook as an example I will too, but hopefully you can see how and why similar issues could come up in other organizations.
You correct in that there are very few online brute force attacks, because as you say effective controls exist timeout intervals, lock outs etc on most systems. Somewhere there this is a file or table with password hashes, ideally salted. This is vulnerable to brute force because you don't use the 'system' to try and log in you build your own hash generator that works through a word list generating hashes and seeing if any match. The size of a good word list, say the Oxford dictionary, with each word also spelled with some typical numeric substitutions and followed by various arrangements of !, 4theWin! etc is pretty large. When you then multiply that out by the number of possible salt values you end up with a word + set of hashes that is many TB in size. Its to large to search efficiently with out special purpose built systems. This is known as a rainbow table; it used be popular but CPUs and GPUs have gotten so much faster they make sense in fewer cases.
Because searching the rainbow table takes so long and salts are now known to you its actually faster to generate the [list of salts] * [word list entries] on the fly and see if you match any of the password hashes. If you do match one you know know the password. This is the sort of attack people mean when they say brute force password attack now most of time.
So how would an attacker get the password file? Well in many cases it would be an inside job. Let assume facebook has a policy that employees are not allowed to bypass the privacy controls and access the pages of celebrities, politicians, etc. Admins can do it because its sometime a requirement of their job but the back end systems always audit this sort of activity. So someone abusing the master key will be punished. Now lets also suppose access to the master password file is also protected fairly well. Attempts to read it by non-authorized process etc are logged. Ah but what about if someone replaces a raid disk in a authentication server that was not really bad? Is it possible it could be read off a backup tape by an operator who knows the key etc. There are probably holes, insiders might use; even in mostly secure environments.
So now mister admin that really wants to know who K.Stu is banging this week can take the password file home with him and brute force it. Once he has her password, he can log in as her. The password not been rest, which might have been logged, or noticed by the user and reported etc, so chances are he can do whatever he wants with very little chance of detection and no audit trail that will point back to him, remember he has stolen the users identity. So yes he might have gotten the data anyway through other means but this way he can do it with everyone being unaware.
This is one of the hole that strong passwords and semi frequent rotation are seeking to close. The hope is if it takes enough weeks to brute force, you will have changed it by the time its been cracked.
You're right it does not support wildcards so putting www.facebook.com in there does nothing top stop, the java script on every other site out there from posting to trackyourass.facebook.com
I makes things point to a resource that won't answer so unless you take additional steps like running a httpd that will generate a 404, so it can make things dirt slow.
Lots of pages are designed (badly) and need images to exist or the layout breaks, or is messed up otherwise.
So no your hosts file is not an awesome method. A proxy like privoxy for example though there are other good ones starts to come closer to something that might be a decent solution. It could at least serve dummy images, use regular expressions to strip posts, and gets inside iframes to.*facebook.(com|net);.*fbcdn.com and others. etc.
Really people STOP using your hosts file. Its like the worst possible answer.
I don't think its their own posts most folks are worried about, or object to Facebook using,referencing,indexing etc.
All but the dumbest among us (seems there are lots of really dumb folks though) know not to put anything on Facebook we'd be upset about someone reprinting on a billboard next to the interstate with attribution.
The issue is really all the other photos people post and tag, the fact they can tag you when you don't even have an account. The fact that they are using facial recognition and what really are some pretty smart algorithms to know when someone mentions John Smith, just exactly which one they are talking about. Coupled with the location information attached to much of these things as meta data Facebook likely has a better idea of where you are at this very moment than many of our intelligence agency do and probably could figure it out faster too. That is what people have problems with.
Now this search feature is going to make the last part more and more available to well anyone who happens to be interested and is willing to endure viewing an ad for "attractive singles in their area".
or are you an apologist for just some types of state-administered murder
The truth is I am not sure. I don't like the death penalty but part of me also sees some value in it; so I am not so sure I want to take a position totally opposed to its employ in every case.
I do think killing someone is very final. So if it is ever to be done by the state it needs to be using an open, per-defined, clear, accountable process. I think its completely unacceptable the way DOJ currently seems to argue in favor of going about it.
That does seem like good solid interviewing advice. Having conducted an few interviews myself (literally three) as an interviewer I would actually rather hear about your past track recorded of success with work or problems I'll be able to see as similar to the work or problems I might be hiring you to solve; than some off the cuff action plan not based on analysis of any kind.
Actually if you immediately launch into "solving" my technical problem, I am going to be wondering if I am speaking to technical professional or a sales guy.
That said I have a hard time imaging the TFA issue is all that real. I mean really if the current staff was so clueless about the issue they could not even come up with the Google search terms and need to conduct a fake interview to get advice and yet can hack together a solution based on some comments you make in an hour long discussion that includes miscellaneous small talk; what did you really lose out on? Seems like you either dodged a bullet of getting involved with some real sleazoids as others have pointed out or like an hours worth of services you might have sold. Either way hardly worth the effort of billing it.
Well anyone *can* represent themselves in small claims. You'd better be prepared and have done your homework before you get there though. I know people who have done this. They certainly did have to invest lots of time in the matter before filing their case and after. With the Internet and the electronic resources at your library you really can become an expert on a very finite matter of law.
Also more people than you think have various forms of legal insurance and block time purchase agreements thur their employers that you can use even as a plaintiff. I had this with at least one former employer.
So I wont deny there are some serious hurdles for many to going to court; but "its not worth the trouble and sacrifice" and "I could not afford do so even if I really wanted to" are not the same thing. I suspect most of the people who care enough and know enough to look at a credit report in the first place largely do fit into the former. It certainly depends what your circumstances are too, if you are about to take a home loan or trying to finance a business your about to start it might be very worth it to do what you have to get something like this fixed and you really might be able to claim meaningful damages.
Really you think its the same thing for the state to employ the death penalty after a trial where:
both sides are allowed to present evidence
you are assumed to be innocent until the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt you are guilty
A jury of regular citizens your peers of is convinced of your guilt
; as it is for some guy in an office to decide to have someone killed? I am not sure even many anti-death penalty activists would adopt such a position.
"[trump] traditional Constitutional protections American citizens enjoy from being killed by their government without due process"
Except the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. Nobody is supposed to trump it, not the executive, not congress, nobody. If congress should start impeachment proceedings against Eric Holder today.
Dental is one of those know thy self issues. If all you usually need is two cleanings a year than it might make sense to pay out of pocket. If you have any history of dental related issues or are even just cavity prone, a plan probably pays for itself after a couple fillings ever few years. Mostly do the group rates; rather than the actual benefit.
What has always amazing me is Vision. I have been offered a vision plan almost everywhere I have ever worked and I can't work the numbers out in a way that I could possibly ever come out ahead even when being pretty imaginative; about the goods and services I might possibly need.
The only reason I can think anyone else chooses to be on them is to avoid a single large outlay on a new pair of glasses or set of hard contacts. If you consider the premiums over time, you lose; but I guess if you have no savings, limited cash flow, and littler or no credit that might be a reason to do it.
What would be more interesting is you can prove the debts are not her own and pursue a successful libel case against them. A few of those with some considerable damage award is about the only thing that will drive these 'agencies' to fix their quality issues.
Slashdot Mirror
do not impede critical energy delivery functions
Sorry but security is all about impediment. I am going to get jumped all over for saying this but its true.
People attempt to do bad things when three forces meet: opportunity, pressure, and rationalization whether that last one is because "Dear Leader told me too" or "I deserve it" is immaterial.
There is nothing you can do in software about the last two. So that leaves opportunity as the only high ground on which to mount a defense. Guess what that means impediment is just about your only tool. Good luck upgrading all those ancient controllers to use solid authentication, and integrity protocols. Good luck tasking the folks who have been ignoring these problems for the past 20 years (best case), or doing it wrong getting lucking and thinking themselves clever (more likely). Expired certificates etc if they are actually checked will be an impediment. Offline those old EDI systems while everyone figures out how to do sftp will be a problem when nobody knows how to keep control of their know host keys; and those are just some of the easy ones.
The Feds need to pull their heads out of there ass and realize security is about doing the right thing everywhere all the time. Process Process Process. All the technology in world won't help you unless people do the right thing. The Superbowl gate crashes should have tough them that. Computer security is no different. Sure technology can help. Its wonderful today that we have the scalability to do inline IPSing and a firewall can stop things like SQL Slammer (when signatures exist). Won't do a lick of good if some admin decides to turn it off to trouble shoot and than goes "welp everythings working and i feel like headed hope now so, f**k it deal with tomorrow".
You know just over 30 years ago, "The use of unnecessary force has been approved" read over the police dispatch was a laugh line from a comedy. Now its apparent SOP in a completely serious way.
I commented already I don't think Paul's exception that site or domain be turned over without paying whatever is current owners demand is fair or reasonable.
I also don't think its entirely fair to slam him for going to the UN. After all its how the current rules work, he has done more to oppose them than most but did not get his way. He is still a member of our society though is expected to follow the rules. His taxes were used to fund the operations of the UN just like yours and mine. I don't see why just because his expressed preferences are that the institution should not exist means he should get to take advantage of the services it can offer him, without being automatically called a hypocrite.
Its the same thing when people slam Ayn Rand for cashing her SS checks, well again she spent her life arguing the rules were/are unfair. She lost at the ballot box so had to play the hand she was dealt; why should she have been expected to leave anything on the table?
Now if your argument had been our society should *not* be governed by popular will than I can see an argument that using the rules to your advantage as much as possible might be hypocritical.
I'll forfeit my rights to government services as soon as government forfeits its right to force me into pay the taxes that go to support them.
I have been a Paul support and I disagree. I would say unless what they are putting on the site is untrue, in which case its libel and is why we have civil courts, there is no reason they should have to turn over the name or be expected to do so without compensation. Compensation should be the price they set as its currently their property.
You can't call them squatters either they are actually using the domain, have real current content there, and its even related to the subject the name would lead you to expect. What they are doing is more or less the antithesis of domain squatting.
Really I am disappointed in Paul over this one in a big way. I don't see anything wrong with what the people on the site are doing. Actually Paul should be grateful because they are basically promoting him.
Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Clearly members of the executive branch are undermining the constitution they take an oath to uphold; with their routine twisting well understood meanings and flagrant abuse. The same goes for assassination of citizens through the CIA's drown program. These could be considered seditious acts.
We in the public should start demanding possibly dangerous criminals Holder, Brennan, Obama, and Napolitano be tried.
The SCOTUS won't help. They have shown over and over they are willing to do the same intellectually dishonest mental gymnastics to ensure the government can do whatever it wants. They slap whoever the current administration is around a little bit once and awhile to flex their muscle and ensure their own power is protected but that is about it.
In this case they will just toss any case you could bring against them for lack of standing. If they do something obvious to you, then your killed or help at some black site indefinitely without trial, guilty or not since that can't be established. If you may have been the victim of an illegal search and cant be sure of it such as a wiretap, GPS on your car etc they won't confirm it.
I think the grandparent's point though is that its not really a decent performance boost in terms of economy. For a system targeted at games, assuming you are keeping the existing case, power supply, and peripherals; the video is probably 25% of the total price tag, possibly 40-50% if you are keeping the storage.
Even a substantial improvement 50% or so is minor in terms of real world performance 23fps in a game is not really any more playable than 15; nor is being able to go from say 848x480 to 1366x768 or something like that. If $600 is alot of money to you ( and it is to most of us ) than $300 inst chump change either. The gains to be had for $600 spent on a full new kit, are far greater in proportion to the sacrifice, than spending $300 on just a video card to put in your old C2D rig.
His point is you'd be better served having waiting, If you managed to save $300 for a new video card just keep putting the spare change in the jar until you have $600 and buy sensibly matched hardware together.
It was not always that way. I used to have a NEC Ultralight Versa that had a PC sized docking station into which you could install FULL LENGTH ISA cards. Oh I miss her.
Yes and as former presidents keep their Secret Service detail for I think a decade this guy *is* going to be found and probably prosecuted such that he will wish he'd just been strung up by the balls.
No quite true. If we ignore javascript for a moment pure html rendering is not program execution; its document formatting.
Probably because there is not much you can do to fix a fundamentally bad idea. Think of it like all the various attempts to make smoking 'healthy' at the end of day intentionally sucking combustion gases into your lungs just is not good for you, no matter how low tar, free of synthetic chemicals etc you make it.
What does flash do? It executes code from unknown origin on your machine. That has never been a good idea; even if in some cases you can't get around needing to do it. Flash has more problems though it can't be fully sandbox'ed without breaking all those old apps, it needs to be able to do things like read files, open sockets connections, etc.
Given that at least some parts of Magna Carta are technically still enforce I don't think you can say England is very much like a constitutional monarchy, it *is* a constitutional monarchy.
Its easy to become confused. Both sides talk about rights. The difference been a libertarian and your typical leftist comes down to where the obligations lay.
The libertarian believes everyone has a right to any health care need or want, but to him the meaning of that is nobody should stop anyone from having procedures performed.
The leftist believes everyone has a right to health care based on need, and its societies job to ensure they get it.
Well you gota look at it like this. The hawk has to eat too, and while things did not work out so well for the mouse his alternative like fate was not better for him. I mean he would have died slowly having one or more of his limbs crushed in trap. After which he would have been buried so deep in a landfill lack of oxygen would likely even prevent most microbes from making use of him for decades.
It might not have gone how the guy hoped but he still better served nature.
The answer is yes but its not the guy you think doing it. We still live in a largely single factor authentication world. Since you used facebook as an example I will too, but hopefully you can see how and why similar issues could come up in other organizations.
You correct in that there are very few online brute force attacks, because as you say effective controls exist timeout intervals, lock outs etc on most systems. Somewhere there this is a file or table with password hashes, ideally salted. This is vulnerable to brute force because you don't use the 'system' to try and log in you build your own hash generator that works through a word list generating hashes and seeing if any match. The size of a good word list, say the Oxford dictionary, with each word also spelled with some typical numeric substitutions and followed by various arrangements of !, 4theWin! etc is pretty large. When you then multiply that out by the number of possible salt values you end up with a word + set of hashes that is many TB in size. Its to large to search efficiently with out special purpose built systems. This is known as a rainbow table; it used be popular but CPUs and GPUs have gotten so much faster they make sense in fewer cases.
Because searching the rainbow table takes so long and salts are now known to you its actually faster to generate the [list of salts] * [word list entries] on the fly and see if you match any of the password hashes. If you do match one you know know the password. This is the sort of attack people mean when they say brute force password attack now most of time.
So how would an attacker get the password file? Well in many cases it would be an inside job. Let assume facebook has a policy that employees are not allowed to bypass the privacy controls and access the pages of celebrities, politicians, etc. Admins can do it because its sometime a requirement of their job but the back end systems always audit this sort of activity. So someone abusing the master key will be punished. Now lets also suppose access to the master password file is also protected fairly well. Attempts to read it by non-authorized process etc are logged. Ah but what about if someone replaces a raid disk in a authentication server that was not really bad? Is it possible it could be read off a backup tape by an operator who knows the key etc. There are probably holes, insiders might use; even in mostly secure environments.
So now mister admin that really wants to know who K.Stu is banging this week can take the password file home with him and brute force it. Once he has her password, he can log in as her. The password not been rest, which might have been logged, or noticed by the user and reported etc, so chances are he can do whatever he wants with very little chance of detection and no audit trail that will point back to him, remember he has stolen the users identity. So yes he might have gotten the data anyway through other means but this way he can do it with everyone being unaware.
This is one of the hole that strong passwords and semi frequent rotation are seeking to close. The hope is if it takes enough weeks to brute force, you will have changed it by the time its been cracked.
Not its not an awesome method.
You're right it does not support wildcards so putting www.facebook.com in there does nothing top stop, the java script on every other site out there from posting to trackyourass.facebook.com
I makes things point to a resource that won't answer so unless you take additional steps like running a httpd that will generate a 404, so it can make things dirt slow.
Lots of pages are designed (badly) and need images to exist or the layout breaks, or is messed up otherwise.
So no your hosts file is not an awesome method. A proxy like privoxy for example though there are other good ones starts to come closer to something that might be a decent solution. It could at least serve dummy images, use regular expressions to strip posts, and gets inside iframes to .*facebook.(com|net); .*fbcdn.com and others. etc.
Really people STOP using your hosts file. Its like the worst possible answer.
I don't think its their own posts most folks are worried about, or object to Facebook using,referencing,indexing etc.
All but the dumbest among us (seems there are lots of really dumb folks though) know not to put anything on Facebook we'd be upset about someone reprinting on a billboard next to the interstate with attribution.
The issue is really all the other photos people post and tag, the fact they can tag you when you don't even have an account. The fact that they are using facial recognition and what really are some pretty smart algorithms to know when someone mentions John Smith, just exactly which one they are talking about. Coupled with the location information attached to much of these things as meta data Facebook likely has a better idea of where you are at this very moment than many of our intelligence agency do and probably could figure it out faster too. That is what people have problems with.
Now this search feature is going to make the last part more and more available to well anyone who happens to be interested and is willing to endure viewing an ad for "attractive singles in their area".
or are you an apologist for just some types of state-administered murder
The truth is I am not sure. I don't like the death penalty but part of me also sees some value in it; so I am not so sure I want to take a position totally opposed to its employ in every case.
I do think killing someone is very final. So if it is ever to be done by the state it needs to be using an open, per-defined, clear, accountable process. I think its completely unacceptable the way DOJ currently seems to argue in favor of going about it.
That does seem like good solid interviewing advice. Having conducted an few interviews myself (literally three) as an interviewer I would actually rather hear about your past track recorded of success with work or problems I'll be able to see as similar to the work or problems I might be hiring you to solve; than some off the cuff action plan not based on analysis of any kind.
Actually if you immediately launch into "solving" my technical problem, I am going to be wondering if I am speaking to technical professional or a sales guy.
That said I have a hard time imaging the TFA issue is all that real. I mean really if the current staff was so clueless about the issue they could not even come up with the Google search terms and need to conduct a fake interview to get advice and yet can hack together a solution based on some comments you make in an hour long discussion that includes miscellaneous small talk; what did you really lose out on? Seems like you either dodged a bullet of getting involved with some real sleazoids as others have pointed out or like an hours worth of services you might have sold. Either way hardly worth the effort of billing it.
Well anyone *can* represent themselves in small claims. You'd better be prepared and have done your homework before you get there though. I know people who have done this. They certainly did have to invest lots of time in the matter before filing their case and after. With the Internet and the electronic resources at your library you really can become an expert on a very finite matter of law.
Also more people than you think have various forms of legal insurance and block time purchase agreements thur their employers that you can use even as a plaintiff. I had this with at least one former employer.
So I wont deny there are some serious hurdles for many to going to court; but "its not worth the trouble and sacrifice" and "I could not afford do so even if I really wanted to" are not the same thing. I suspect most of the people who care enough and know enough to look at a credit report in the first place largely do fit into the former. It certainly depends what your circumstances are too, if you are about to take a home loan or trying to finance a business your about to start it might be very worth it to do what you have to get something like this fixed and you really might be able to claim meaningful damages.
Really you think its the same thing for the state to employ the death penalty after a trial where:
both sides are allowed to present evidence
you are assumed to be innocent until the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt you are guilty
A jury of regular citizens your peers of is convinced of your guilt
; as it is for some guy in an office to decide to have someone killed?
I am not sure even many anti-death penalty activists would adopt such a position.
"[trump] traditional Constitutional protections American citizens enjoy from being killed by their government without due process"
Except the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. Nobody is supposed to trump it, not the executive, not congress, nobody. If congress should start impeachment proceedings against Eric Holder today.
Dental is one of those know thy self issues. If all you usually need is two cleanings a year than it might make sense to pay out of pocket. If you have any history of dental related issues or are even just cavity prone, a plan probably pays for itself after a couple fillings ever few years. Mostly do the group rates; rather than the actual benefit.
What has always amazing me is Vision. I have been offered a vision plan almost everywhere I have ever worked and I can't work the numbers out in a way that I could possibly ever come out ahead even when being pretty imaginative; about the goods and services I might possibly need.
The only reason I can think anyone else chooses to be on them is to avoid a single large outlay on a new pair of glasses or set of hard contacts. If you consider the premiums over time, you lose; but I guess if you have no savings, limited cash flow, and littler or no credit that might be a reason to do it.
What would be more interesting is you can prove the debts are not her own and pursue a successful libel case against them. A few of those with some considerable damage award is about the only thing that will drive these 'agencies' to fix their quality issues.
Don't
stick
your
hand
out
to
far
it
might
go
home
in
another
car
Burma Shave