Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125 • Hacker News Board

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#231

Post by gjs278 » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

noodlesUK wrote: post #7

cwkoss wrote: post #6

If anyone is getting a mortgage or refinancing soon, ask your lender to 'drop' equifax without running your score with them - just take the score from the other two. Equifax is an unnecessary security and privacy risk. They are a horrible company that needs to go out of business. Make their customers feel embarrassed to be doing business with them.

Does this actually work? Do bank employees have any control of the credit check process?

they don’t and this doesn’t. it just makes you sound like a weirdo.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#232

Post by colejohnson66 » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

whamlastxmas wrote: post #193

colejohnson66 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL and I have not tried this, but have heard of it working: would sending a letter threatening a lawsuit get their attention?

I would have to get an actual lawyer with a lawyer's letterhead for them to care, probably. I don't really want to spend hundreds of dollars to get my free credit report.

Would you still need a lawyer if you went to small claims court? Or would that be extortion?

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#233

Post by Animats » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

whamlastxmas wrote: post #147

argd678 wrote: post #104

It seems like companies only get the message when there’s jail time involved. None of the companies would freeze my credit since their web sites said some unspecified value couldn’t be verified for me, despite confirming my data was indeed lost. Pretty sure, like other regulations that include jail time, this wouldn’t have happened or their website to freeze my credit would have worked.

I also tried to freeze my credit and their website required me to put something in the mail. I did, including sending copies of various documents, and never got any response. I have the same issue with one of the credit reporting bureaus. They refuse to give me my legally required free credit report despite multiple attempts and mailings.

Remember that "freecreditreport.com" is a scam.

The real FTC-mandated free site is "https://www.annualcreditreport.com".

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#234

Post by non-entity » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

donretag wrote: post #84

RachelF wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were incredibly negligent and nepotistic. Their head of security, Susan Mauldin, had zero security or computer skills - she was a music teacher. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/equifax-ceo-hired-a-music-...

She graduated with a degree in music, so what? How many of your technical co-workers and colleagues have degrees in non-STEM fields? Probably more than a few. How many of us with actual CS degrees learned about security? I have both a BS/MS in CS, from a top school, and I never once had a class on security. Don't think one was even offered. The question is what was her experience prior to being promoted? I have not k…

> The question is what was her experience prior to being promoted?

I agree this is the real question. If someone doesn't have a related degree, but has the experience, that's one thing, however I've seen a handful of examples where someone with both and unrelated degree and barely, if any, relevant experience get high up technical positions (I assume mostly because of knowing the right people in a company where tech is a cost center)

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#235

Post by pfranz » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #194

pfranz wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we disagree both on that this article was misleading and that Equifax doesn't deserve the blame. Equifax had a lot of say in how this settlement played out. My guess is their legal team is trying to reduce the number of cash claimants so they don't get the bad press when $.02 checks get mailed out--or there's some other benefit in adding more steps to this silly process. Their legal team is representing their…

Saying "Equifax Data Breach Settlement Administrator" (taken from equifaxbreachsettlement.com) instead of "Equifax settlement team" (used in the article) doesn't seem appreciably different. I agree those two aren't appreciably different. They are both bad if the writer doesn't make it clear that the team (no matter the name) isn't in the employ or under the influence of equifax in any way.

I guess I just put more responsibility on Equifax itself even if these actions were through an intermediary of theirs. This makes me think of the Tylenol tampering in the early 80's [1]. Johnson & Johnson's response wasn't court mandated (what doesn't seem to be mentioned is that it wasn't just a targeted recall, but a wide recall encompassing unaffected product in order to regain trust with consumers) Equifax chose their response to be court-mandated and minimal. Someone chose this representation that's creating additional hoops.

I'm glad to see them citing sources properly. I can understand your concern they're not emphasizing the right party, but I don't think that would really help. Most people think class-action settlements are a joke, which means they don't have faith in the legal system. If Equifax feels like their reputation is damaged after fulfilling their legal obligations, they're free to do more.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders#Johnso...

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#236

Post by bradleyjg » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

Bhilai wrote: post #202

bradleyjg wrote: post #126

Equifax wants global peace. Class lawyers and settlement administrators want a big payday (in cash, not credit monitoring). The judge wants the case off his docket. No one represents the interests of the class. Class action lawsuits aren’t designed to further the interests of the class. They are designed to encourage ad hoc, profit driven, independent regulators. Whether this is a good idea or not is a tough question…

But why not do your job as a citizen and send a simple letter objecting to this settlement - https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/faq Q#25

I probably will. I have in the past. Judges don’t care.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#237

Post by pimmen » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

pmiller2 wrote: post #224

pimmen wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not jail time but I would really want the board to be personally responsible for what they did. Or, if they can argue that they made sure their corporation had a good security culture, the executives who broke the company regulations need to be personally responsible. Seriously, someone needs to be rehabilitated from this before they can be sent back into society. After someone gets out of jail from grand theft…

Re: “owners” You know the “owners” of Equifax are its shareholders, right? You’d end up sending a bunch of index fund managers to jail, among others. I think you mean “officers and board members,” the people who can make day to day decisions for the company. If so, I support it. Lock! Them! Up!

Yeah, that’s what I basically meant since they are supposed to represent the owners. I’ll fix the post.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#238

Post by harryh » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

pfranz wrote: post #235

harryh wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "Equifax Data Breach Settlement Administrator" (taken from equifaxbreachsettlement.com) instead of "Equifax settlement team" (used in the article) doesn't seem appreciably different. I agree those two aren't appreciably different. They are both bad if the writer doesn't make it clear that the team (no matter the name) isn't in the employ or under the influence of equifax in any way.

I guess I just put more responsibility on Equifax itself even if these actions were through an intermediary of theirs. This makes me think of the Tylenol tampering in the early 80's [1]. Johnson & Johnson's response wasn't court mandated (what doesn't seem to be mentioned is that it wasn't just a targeted recall, but a wide recall encompassing unaffected product in order to regain trust with consumers) Equifax chose…

even if these actions were through an intermediary of theirs

The Equifax Data Breach Settlement Administrator is not an intermediary of Equifax. It's a court appointed representative of the plaintiffs.

Someone chose this representation that's creating additional hoops.

Indeed, and that someone is the plaintiffs. Not the defendants.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#239

Post by Fishkins » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

ulkesh wrote: post #144

CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #3

tl;dr: For those who applied for the $125 payout option in the Equifax data breach settlement, you should've gotten an email requiring that you provide more information by October 15, or that your claim would be denied. The FTC confirms it's legit: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/refunds/eq... (FAQ 4 item 2) The article's author says Gmail filed it into the 'Promotions' folder.

I received no such email and I signed up fairly quickly for the $125. I've checked my spam folder as well as everywhere else, they simply haven't sent me such an email.

Neither did I. Does anyone know what to do in this case? I have my Equifax claim code.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#240

Post by CaliforniaKarl » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

Fishkins wrote: post #239

ulkesh wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I received no such email and I signed up fairly quickly for the $125. I've checked my spam folder as well as everywhere else, they simply haven't sent me such an email.

Neither did I. Does anyone know what to do in this case? I have my Equifax claim code.

Go to the claim web site and choose to 'Modify/Amend Your Claim'. There should be a place now for you to specify which credit-monitoring service you are using.