"... consumers who purchased on adidas.com/US... On June 26, Adidas became aware that an unauthorized party claims to have acquired limited data associated with certain Adidas consumers. Adidas is committed to the privacy and security of its consumers' personal data. Adidas immediately began taking steps to determine the scope of the issue and to alert relevant consumers. adidas is working with leading data security firms and law enforcement authorities to investigate the issue..."
The preliminary breach investigation found that contact information, usernames, and encrypted passwords were exposed or stolen. So far, no credit card or fitness information of consumers was "impacted." The company said it is continuing a forensic review and alerting affected customers.
While the company's breach announcement did not disclose the number of affected customer, CBS News reported that hackers may have stolen data about millions of customers. Fox Business reported that the Adidas:
"... hack was reported weeks after Under Armour’s health and fitness app suffered a security breach, which exposed the personal data of roughly 150 million users. The revealed information included the usernames, hashed passwords and email addresses of MyFitnessPal users."
It is critical to remember that this June 28th announcement was based upon a preliminary investigation. A completed breach investigation will hopefully determine and disclose any additional data elements exposed (or stolen), how the hackers penetrated the company's computer systems, which systems were penetrated, whether any internal databases were damaged/corrupted/altered, the total number of customers affected, specific fixes implemented so this type of breach doesn't happen again, and descriptive information about the cyber criminals.
This incident is also a reminder to consumers to never reuse the same password at several online sites. Cyber criminals are persistent, and will use the same password at several sites to see where else they can get in. It is no relief that encrypted passwords were stolen, because we don't yet know if the encryption tools were also stolen (making it easy for the hackers to de-encrypt the passwords). Not good.
We also don't yet know what "contact information" means. That could be first name, last name, phone, street address, e-mail address, mobile phone numbers, or some combination. If e-mail addresses were stolen, then breach victims could also experience phishing attacks where fraudsters try to trick victims into revealing bank account, sign-in credentials, and other sensitive information.
If you received a breach notice from Adidas, please share it below while removing any sensitive, identifying information.
Given the increased usage of data in digital formats, new access methods, and continual data breaches within corporations and governments, several state governments have updated their data breach notification laws, and/or passed new laws:
The last state without any breach notification laws, Governor Kay Ivey signed in March the state's first data breach law: the Alabama Data Breach Notification Act of 2018 (SB 318), which became effective on June 1, 2018. Some of the key modifications: a) similar to other states, the law defined the format and types of data elements which must be protected, including health information; b) defined "covered entities" including state government agencies and "third-party agents" contracted to maintain, store, process and/or access protected data; c) requires notification of affected individuals within 45 days, and to the state Attorney General; and d) while penalties aren't mandatory, the law allows civil penalties up to $5,000 per day for, "each consecutive day that the covered entity fails to take reasonable action to comply with the notice provisions of this act."
Earlier this year, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed legislation updating the state's breach notification laws. Some of the key modifications: a) expanded definitions of personal information to include medical or mental health treatment/diagnosis, passport numbers, taxpayer ID numbers, biometric data, e-mail addresses in combination with online passwords and security questions; b) set the notification window for affected persons at 45 days; c) allows e-mail notification of affected persons; d) and if the breach affected more than 1,000 persons, then notification must provided to the three national credit-reporting agencies and to the state Attorney General.
Colorado Governor John Hickenloope signed on May 29th several laws including HB-1128, which will go into effect on september 1, 2018. Some experts view HB-1128 as the strongest protections in the country. Some of the key modifications: a) expanded "covered entities" to include certain "third-party service providers" contracted to maintain, store, process and/or access protected data; b) expanded definitions of "personal information" to include biometric data, plus e-mail addresses in combination with online passwords and security questions; c) allows substitute notification methods (e.g., e-mail, post on website, statewide news media) if the cost of basic notification would exceed $250,000; d) allows e-mail notification of affected persons; e) sets the notification window at 30 days, if the breach affected more than 500 Colorado residents; and f) expanded requirements for companies to protected personal information.
Louisiana Governor John Edwards signed in May 2018 an amendment to the state’s Database Security Breach Notification Law (Act 382) which will take effect August 1, 2018. Some of the key modifications: a) expanded definition of ‘personal information’ to include a state identification card number, passport number, and “biometric data” (e.g., fingerprints, voice prints, eye retina or iris, or other unique biological characteristics used to access systems); b) removed vagueness and defined the notification window as within 60 days; c) allows substitute notification methods (e.g., e-mail, posts on affected company's website, statewide news media); and d) tightened required that companies utilizing "computerized data" better protect the information they archive.
The next-to-last state without any breach notification laws, Governor Dennis Daugaard signed into law in March the state’s first breach notification law (SB 62). Like breach laws in other states, it provides definitions of what a breach is, personal information which must be protected, covered entities (e.g., companies, government agencies) subject to the law, notification requirements, and conditions when substitute notification methods (e.g., e-mail, posts on the affected entity's website, statewide news media) are allowed.
New Mexico enacted its new breach notification law (HB 15) in March, 2017. With the additions of Alabama and South Dakota, finally every state has a breach notification law. Sadly, it has taken 16 years. California was the first state to enact a breach notification law in 2002. It has taken that long for other states to catch up... not only catch up with California, but also catch up with technological changes driven by the internet.
Yesterday, Twitter.com advised all of its users to change their passwords after a huge security blunder exposed users' passwords online in an unprotected format. The social networking service released a statement on May 3rd:
"We recently identified a bug that stored passwords unmasked in an internal log. We have fixed the bug, and our investigation shows no indication of breach or misuse by anyone. Out of an abundance of caution, we ask that you consider changing your password on all services where you’ve used this password."
Security experts advise consumers not to use the same password at several sites or services. Repeated use of the same password makes it easy for criminals to hack into multiple sites or services.
The statement by Twitter.com also explained that it masks users' passwords:
"... through a process called hashing using a function known as bcrypt, which replaces the actual password with a random set of numbers and letters that are stored in Twitter’s system. This allows our systems to validate your account credentials without revealing your password. This is an industry standard.
Due to a bug, passwords were written to an internal log before completing the hashing process. We found this error ourselves, removed the passwords, and are implementing plans to prevent this bug from happening again."
The good news: Twitter found the buy by itself. The not-so-good news: the statement was short on details. It did not disclose details about the fixes so this blunder doesn't happen again. Nor did the statement say how many users were affected. Twitter has about 330 million users, so it seems that all users were affected.
Apparently, Panera Bread experienced a massive data breach, which the restaurant chain's management allegedly ignored for months. CSO Online reported:
"Panera Bread’s website leaked millions of customer records in plain text for at least eight months, which is how long the company blew off the issues reported by security researcher Dylan Houlihan... Houlihan shared copies of email exchanges with Panera Bread CIO John Meister – who at first accused Houlihan of trying to run a scam when he first reported the security vulnerability back in August 2017... Exactly eight months after reporting the issue to Panera Bread, Houlihan turned to KrebsOnSecurity. Krebs spoke to Meister, and the website was briefly taken offline. Less than two hours later, Panera said it had fixed the problem."
Reportedly, the sensitive customer information leaked included usernames, first and last names, email addresses, phone numbers, home addresses, birthdays, the last four digits of saved credit card numbers, dietary restrictions, food preferences, and "social account integration information."
Security experts disagree about two key issues: a) whether or not the vulnerability was fixed, and b) the number of affected consumers. Panera Bread claimed about 10,000 customers were affected. Then, that number went up:
"After some more poking, Hold Security reported to Krebs that Panera didn’t just leak plain text records of 7 million customers; “the vulnerabilities also appear to have extended to Panera’s commercial division, which serves countless catering companies. At last count, the number of customer records exposed in this breach appears to exceed 37 million.”
A check earlier today of the public-facing pages at Panera's website failed to find a breach notice, which companies usually provide after a data breach. Not good. Shoppers need to know. Many states have breach notification laws.
Panera's behavior doesn't inspire much confidence. It's internal breach-detection mechanisms seem to have failed, and its post-breach response seemed unprepared, unfocused, and disinterested. What do you think?
Gathered in a Washington, D.C., ballroom last Thursday for their annual “tech prom,” hundreds of tech industry lobbyists and policy makers applauded politely as announcers read out the names of the event’s sponsors. But the room fell silent when “Facebook” was proclaimed — and the silence was punctuated by scattered boos and groans.
These days, it seems the only bipartisan agreement in Washington is to hate Facebook. Democrats blame the social network for costing them the presidential election. Republicans loathe Silicon Valley billionaires like Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg for their liberal leanings. Even many tech executives, boosters and acolytes can’t hide their disappointment and recriminations.
The tipping point appears to have been the recent revelation that a voter-profiling outfit working with the Trump campaign, Cambridge Analytica, had obtained data on 87 million Facebook users without their knowledge or consent. News of the breach came after a difficult year in which, among other things, Facebook admitted that it allowed Russians to buy political ads, advertisers to discriminate by race and age, hate groups to spread vile epithets, and hucksters to promote fake news on its platform.
Over the years, Congress and federal regulators have largely left Facebook to police itself. Now, lawmakers around the world are calling for it to be regulated. Congress is gearing up to grill Zuckerberg. The Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether Facebook violated its 2011 settlement agreement with the agency. Zuckerberg himself suggested, in a CNN interview, that perhaps Facebook should be regulated by the government.
The regulatory fever is so strong that even Peter Swire, a privacy law professor at Georgia Institute of Technology who testified last year in an Irish court on behalf of Facebook, recently laid out the legal case for why Google and Facebook might be regulated as public utilities. Both companies, he argued, satisfy the traditional criteria for utility regulation: They have large market share, are natural monopolies, and are difficult for customers to do without.
While the political momentum may not be strong enough right now for something as drastic as that, many in Washington are trying to envision what regulating Facebook would look like. After all, the solutions are not obvious. The world has never tried to rein in a global network with 2 billion users that is built on fast-moving technology and evolving data practices.
I talked to numerous experts about the ideas bubbling up in Washington. They identified four concrete, practical reforms that could address some of Facebook’s main problems. None are specific to Facebook alone; potentially, they could be applied to all social media and the tech industry.
1. Impose Fines for Data Breaches
The Cambridge Analytica data loss was the result of a breach of contract, rather than a technical breach in which a company gets hacked. But either way, it’s far too common for institutions to lose customers’ data — and they rarely suffersignificant financial consequences for the loss. In the United States, companies are only required to notify people if their data has been breached in certain states and under certain circumstances — and regulators rarely have the authority to penalize companies that lose personal data.
Consider the Federal Trade Commission, which is the primary agency that regulates internet companies these days. The FTC doesn’t have the authority to demand civil penalties for most data breaches. (There are exceptions for violations of children’s privacy and a few other offenses.) Typically, the FTC can only impose penalties if a company has violated a previous agreement with the agency.
That means Facebook may well face a fine for the Cambridge Analytica breach, assuming the FTC can show that the social network violated a 2011 settlement with the agency. In that settlement, the FTC charged Facebook with eight counts of unfair and deceptive behavior, including allowing outside apps to access data that they didn’t need — which is what Cambridge Analytica reportedly did years later. The settlement carried no financial penalties but included a clause stating that Facebook could face fines of $16,000 per violation per day.
David Vladeck, former FTC director of consumer protection, who crafted the 2011 settlement with Facebook, said he believes Facebook’s actions in the Cambridge Analytica episode violated the agreement on multiple counts. “I predict that if the FTC concludes that Facebook violated the consent decree, there will be a heavy civil penalty that could well be in the amount of $1 billion or more,” he said.
Facebook maintains it has abided by the agreement. “Facebook rejects any suggestion that it violated the consent decree,” spokesman Andy Stone said. “We respected the privacy settings that people had in place.”
If a fine had been levied at the time of the settlement, it might well have served as a stronger deterrent against any future breaches. Daniel J. Weitzner, who served in the White House as the deputy chief technology officer at the time of the Facebook settlement, says that technology should be policed by something similar to the Department of Justice’s environmental crimes unit. The unit has levied hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. Under previous administrations, it filed felony charges against people for such crimes as dumping raw sewage or killing a bald eagle. Some ended up sentenced to prison.
“We know how to do serious law enforcement when we think there’s a real priority and we haven’t gotten there yet when it comes to privacy,” Weitzner said.
2. Police Political Advertising
Last year, Facebook disclosed that it had inadvertently accepted thousands of advertisements that were placed by a Russian disinformation operation — in possible violation of laws that restrict foreign involvement in U.S. elections. FBI special prosecutor Robert Mueller has charged 13 Russians who worked for an internet disinformation organization with conspiring to defraud the United States, but it seems unlikely that Russia will compel them to face trial in the U.S.
Facebook has said it will introduce a new regime of advertising transparency later this year, which will require political advertisers to submit a government-issued ID and to have an authentic mailing address. It said political advertisers will also have to disclose which candidate or organization they represent and that all election ads will be displayed in a public archive.
But Ann Ravel, a former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, says that more could be done. While she was at the commission, she urged it to consider what it could do to make internet advertising contain as much disclosure as broadcast and print ads. “Do we want Vladimir Putin or drug cartels to be influencing American elections?” she presciently asked at a 2015 commission meeting.
However, the election commission — which is often deadlocked between its evenly split Democratic and Republican commissioners — has not yet ruled on new disclosure rules for internet advertising. Even if it does pass such a rule, the commission’s definition of election advertising is so narrow that many of the ads placed by the Russians may not have qualified for scrutiny. It’s limited to ads that mention a federal candidate and appear within 60 days prior to a general election or 30 days prior to a primary.
This definition, Ravel said, is not going to catch new forms of election interference, such as ads placed months before an election, or the practice of paying individuals or bots to spread a message that doesn’t identify a candidate and looks like authentic communications rather than ads.
To combat this type of interference, Ravel said, the current definition of election advertising needs to be broadened. The FEC, she suggested, should establish “a multi-faceted test” to determine whether certain communications should count as election advertisements. For instance, communications could be examined for their intent, and whether they were paid for in a nontraditional way — such as through an automated bot network.
And to help the tech companies find suspect communications, she suggested setting up an enforcement arm similar to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as FinCEN. FinCEN combats money laundering by investigating suspicious account transactions reported by financial institutions. Ravel said that a similar enforcement arm that would work with tech companies would help the FEC.
“The platforms could turn over lots of communications and the investigative agency could then examine them to determine if they are from prohibited sources,” she said.
3. Make Tech Companies Liable for Objectionable Content
Last year, ProPublica found that Facebook was allowing advertisers to buy discriminatory ads, including ads targeting people who identified themselves as “Jew-haters,” and ads for housing and employment that excluded audiences based on race, age and other protected characteristics under civil rights laws.
Facebook has claimed that it has immunity against liability for such discrimination under section 230 of the 1996 federal Communications Decency Act, which protects online publishers from liability for third-party content.
“Advertisers, not Facebook, are responsible for both the content of their ads and what targeting criteria to use, if any,” Facebook stated in legal filings in a federal case in California challenging Facebook’s use of racial exclusions in ad targeting.
But sentiment is growing in Washington to interpret the law more narrowly. Last month, the House of Representatives passed a bill that carves out an exemption in the law, making websites liable if they aid and abet sex trafficking. Despite fierce opposition by many tech advocates, a version of the bill has already passed the Senate.
And many staunch defenders of the tech industry have started to suggest that more exceptions to section 230 may be needed. In November, Harvard Law professor Jonathan Zittrain wrote an article rethinking his previous support for the law and declared it has become, in effect, “a subsidy” for the tech giants, who don’t bear the costs of ensuring the content they publish is accurate and fair.
“Any honest account must acknowledge the collateral damage it has permitted to be visited upon real people whose reputations, privacy, and dignity have been hurt in ways that defy redress,” Zittrain wrote.
In a December 2017 paper titled “The Internet Will Not Break: Denying Bad Samaritans 230 Immunity,” University of Maryland law professors Danielle Citron and Benjamin Wittes argue that the law should be amended — either through legislation or judicial interpretation — to deny immunity to technology companies that enable and host illegal content.
“The time is now to go back and revise the words of the statute to make clear that it only provides shelter if you take reasonable steps to address illegal activity that you know about,” Citron said in an interview.
4. Install Ethics Review Boards
Cambridge Analytica obtained its data on Facebook users by paying a psychology professor to build a Facebook personality quiz. When 270,000 Facebook users took the quiz, the researcher was able to obtain data about them and all of their Facebook friends — or about 50 million people altogether. (Facebook later ended the ability for quizzes and other apps to pull data on users’ friends.)
Cambridge Analytica then used the data to build a model predicting the psychology of those people, on metrics such as “neuroticism,” political views and extroversion. It then offered that information to political consultants, including those working for the Trump campaign.
The company claimed that it had enough information about people’s psychological vulnerabilities that it could effectively target ads to them that would sway their political opinions. It is not clear whether the company actually achieved its desired effect.
But there is no question that people can be swayed by online content. In a controversial 2014 study, Facebook tested whether it could manipulate the emotions of its users by filling some users’ news feeds with only positive news and other users’ feeds with only negative news. The study found that Facebook could indeed manipulate feelings — and sparked outrage from Facebook users and others who claimed it was unethical to experiment on them without their consent.
Such studies, if conducted by a professor on a college campus, would require approval from an institutional review board, or IRB, overseeing experiments on human subjects. But there is no such standard online. The usual practice is that a company’s terms of service contain a blanket statement of consent that users never read or agree to.
James Grimmelman, a law professor and computer scientist, argued in a 2015 paper that the technology companies should stop burying consent forms in their fine print. Instead, he wrote, “they should seek enthusiastic consent from users, making them into valued partners who feel they have a stake in the research.”
Such a consent process could be overseen by an independent ethics review board, based on the university model, which would also review research proposals and ensure that people’s private information isn’t shared with brokers like Cambridge Analytica.
“I think if we are in the business of requiring IRBs for academics,” Grimmelman said in an interview, “we should ask for appropriate supervisions for companies doing research.”
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.
Facebook.com has dominated the news during the past three weeks. The news media have reported about many issues, but there are more -- whether or not you use Facebook. Things began about mid-March, when Bloomberg reported:
"Yes, Cambridge Analytica... violated rules when it obtained information from some 50 million Facebook profiles... the data came from someone who didn’t hack the system: a professor who originally told Facebook he wanted it for academic purposes. He set up a personality quiz using tools that let people log in with their Facebook accounts, then asked them to sign over access to their friend lists and likes before using the app. The 270,000 users of that app and their friend networks opened up private data on 50 million people... All of that was allowed under Facebook’s rules, until the professor handed the information off to a third party... "
"We are suspending Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL), including their political data analytics firm, Cambridge Analytica (CA), from Facebook... In 2015, we learned that a psychology professor at the University of Cambridge named Dr. Aleksandr Kogan lied to us and violated our Platform Policies by passing data from an app that was using Facebook Login to SCL/CA, a firm that does political, government and military work around the globe. He also passed that data to Christopher Wylie of Eunoia Technologies, Inc.
Like all app developers, Kogan requested and gained access to information from people after they chose to download his app. His app, “thisisyourdigitallife,” offered a personality prediction, and billed itself on Facebook as “a research app used by psychologists.” Approximately 270,000 people downloaded the app. In so doing, they gave their consent for Kogan to access information such as the city they set on their profile, or content they had liked... When we learned of this violation in 2015, we removed his app from Facebook and demanded certifications from Kogan and all parties he had given data to that the information had been destroyed. CA, Kogan and Wylie all certified to us that they destroyed the data... Several days ago, we received reports that, contrary to the certifications we were given, not all data was deleted..."
"The claim that this is a data breach is completely false. Aleksandr Kogan requested and gained access to information from users who chose to sign up to his app, and everyone involved gave their consent. People knowingly provided their information, no systems were infiltrated, and no passwords or sensitive pieces of information were stolen or hacked."
Why the rush to deny a breach? It seems wise to complete a thorough investigation before making such a claim. In the 11+ years I've written this blog, whenever unauthorized persons access data they shouldn't have, it's a breach. You can read about plenty of similar incidents where credit reporting agencies sold sensitive consumer data to ID-theft services and/or data brokers, who then re-sold that information to criminals and fraudsters. Seems like a breach to me.
"... Stroz Friedberg, to conduct a comprehensive audit of Cambridge Analytica (CA). CA has agreed to comply and afford the firm complete access to their servers and systems. We have approached the other parties involved — Christopher Wylie and Aleksandr Kogan — and asked them to submit to an audit as well. Mr. Kogan has given his verbal agreement to do so. Mr. Wylie thus far has declined. This is part of a comprehensive internal and external review that we are conducting to determine the accuracy of the claims that the Facebook data in question still exists... Independent forensic auditors from Stroz Friedberg were on site at CA’s London office this evening. At the request of the UK Information Commissioner’s Office, which has announced it is pursuing a warrant to conduct its own on-site investigation, the Stroz Friedberg auditors stood down."
That's a good start. An audit would determine or not data which perpetrators said was destroyed, actually had been destroyed. However, Facebook seems to have built a leaky system which allows data harvesting:
"Hundreds of millions of Facebook users are likely to have had their private information harvested by companies that exploited the same terms as the firm that collected data and passed it on to CA, according to a new whistleblower. Sandy Parakilas, the platform operations manager at Facebook responsible for policing data breaches by third-party software developers between 2011 and 2012, told the Guardian he warned senior executives at the company that its lax approach to data protection risked a major breach..."
Reportedly, Parakilas added that Facebook, "did not use its enforcement mechanisms, including audits of external developers, to ensure data was not being misused." Not good. The incident makes one wonder what other developers, corporate, and academic users have violated Facebook's rules: shared sensitive Facebook members' data they shouldn't have.
Facebook announced on March 21st that it will, 1) investigate all apps that had access to large amounts of information and conduct full audits of any apps with suspicious activity; 2) inform users affected by apps that have misused their data; 3) disable an app's access to a member's information if that member hasn't used the app within the last three months; 4) change Login to "reduce the data that an app can request without app review to include only name, profile photo and email address;" 5) encourage members to manage the apps they use; and reward users who find vulnerabilities.
"The company at the centre of the Facebook data breach boasted of using honey traps, fake news campaigns and operations with ex-spies to swing election campaigns around the world, a new investigation reveals. Executives from Cambridge Analytica spoke to undercover reporters from Channel 4 News about the dark arts used by the company to help clients, which included entrapping rival candidates in fake bribery stings and hiring prostitutes to seduce them."
"... has marketed itself as classifying voters using five personality traits known as OCEAN — Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism — the same model used by University of Cambridge researchers for in-house, non-commercial research. The question of whether OCEAN made a difference in the presidential election remains unanswered. Some have argued that big data analytics is a magic bullet for drilling into the psychology of individual voters; others are more skeptical. The predictive power of Facebook likes is not in dispute. A 2013 study by three of Kogan’s former colleagues at the University of Cambridge showed that likes alone could predict race with 95 percent accuracy and political party with 85 percent accuracy. Less clear is their power as a tool for targeted persuasion; CA has claimed that OCEAN scores can be used to drive voter and consumer behavior through “microtargeting,” meaning narrowly tailored messages..."
So, while experts disagree about the effectiveness of data analytics with political campaigns, it seems wise to assume that the practice will continue with improvements. Data analytics fueled by social media input means political campaigns can bypass traditional news media outlets to distribute information and disinformation. That highlights the need for Facebook (and other social media) to improve their data security and compliance audits.
While the UK Information Commissioner's Office aggressively investigates CA, things seem to move at a much slower pace in the USA. TechCrunch reported on April 4th:
"... Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg believes North America users of his platform deserve a lower data protection standard than people everywhere else in the world. In a phone interview with Reuters yesterday Mark Zuckerberg declined to commit to universally implementing changes to the platform that are necessary to comply with the European Union’s incoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Rather, he said the company was working on a version of the law that would bring some European privacy guarantees worldwide — declining to specify to the reporter which parts of the law would not extend worldwide... Facebook’s leadership has previously implied the product changes it’s making to comply with GDPR’s incoming data protection standard would be extended globally..."
Do users in the USA want weaker data protections than users in other countries? I think not. I don't. Read for yourself the April 4th announcement by Facebook about changes to its terms of service and data policy. It didn't mention specific countries or regions; who gets what and where. Not good.
"I want to share an update on the Cambridge Analytica situation -- including the steps we've already taken and our next steps to address this important issue. We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you. I've been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again. The good news is that the most important actions to prevent this from happening again today we have already taken years ago. But we also made mistakes, there's more to do, and we need to step up and do it... This was a breach of trust between Kogan, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. But it was also a breach of trust between Facebook and the people who share their data with us and expect us to protect it. We need to fix that... at the end of the day I'm responsible for what happens on our platform. I'm serious about doing what it takes to protect our community. While this specific issue involving Cambridge Analytica should no longer happen with new apps today, that doesn't change what happened in the past. We will learn from this experience to secure our platform further and make our community safer for everyone going forward."
"Zuckerberg didn't mention in his Facebook post why it took him five days to respond to the scandal... The groundswell of outrage and attention following these revelations has been greater than anything Facebook predicted—or has experienced in its long history of data privacy scandals. By Monday, its stock price nosedived. On Tuesday, Facebook shareholders filed a lawsuit against the company in San Francisco, alleging that Facebook made "materially false and misleading statements" that led to significant losses this week. Meanwhile, in Washington, a bipartisan group of senators called on Zuckerberg to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And the Federal Trade Commission also opened an investigation into whether Facebook had violated a 2011 consent decree, which required the company to notify users when their data was obtained by unauthorized sources."
In a press release this afternoon, Facebook revised upward the number affected by the Facebook/CA breach from 50 to 87 million persons. Most, about 70.6 million, are in the United States. The breakdown by country:
So, what should consumers do?
You have options. If you use Facebook, see these instructions by Consumer Reports to deactivate or delete your account. Some people I know simply stopped using Facebook, but left their accounts active. That doesn't seem wise. A better approach is to adjust the privacy settings on your Facebook account to get as much privacy and protections as possible.
Of course, you should submit feedback directly to Facebook demanding that it extend GDPR privacy protections to your country, too. And, wise online users always read the terms and conditions of all Facebook quizzes before taking them.
Don't use Facebook? There are considerations for you, too; especially if you use a different social networking site (or app). Reportedly, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, will testify before the U.S. Congress on April 11th. His upcoming testimony will be worth monitoring for everyone. Why? The outcome may prod Congress to act by passing new laws giving consumers in the USA data security and privacy protections equal to what's available in the United Kingdom. And, there may be demands for Cambridge Analytica executives to testify before Congress, too.
"The FTC is firmly and fully committed to using all of its tools to protect the privacy of consumers. Foremost among these tools is enforcement action against companies that fail to honor their privacy promises, including to comply with Privacy Shield, or that engage in unfair acts that cause substantial injury to consumers in violation of the FTC Act. Companies who have settled previous FTC actions must also comply with FTC order provisions imposing privacy and data security requirements. Accordingly, the FTC takes very seriously recent press reports raising substantial concerns about the privacy practices of Facebook. Today, the FTC is confirming that it has an open non-public investigation into these practices."
An "open non-public investigation?" Either the investigation is public, or it isn't. Hopefully, an attorney will explain. And, that announcement read like weak tea. I expect more. Much more.
USA citizens may want stronger data security laws, especially if Facebook's solutions are less than satisfactory, it refuses to provide protections equal to those in the United Kingdom, or if it backtracks later on its promises. Thoughts? Comments?
Equifax, one of the three national credit reporting agencies, announced today that 2.4 million more persons were affected by its massive data breach in 2017. The March 1st announcement stated, in part:
"Equifax Inc. today announced that the company has confirmed the identities of U.S. consumers whose partial driver’s license information was taken. Equifax was able to identify these consumers by referencing other information in proprietary company records that the attackers did not steal, and by engaging the resources of an external data provider.
Through these additional efforts, Equifax was able to identify approximately 2.4 million U.S. consumers whose names and partial driver’s license information were stolen, but who were not in the previously identified affected population discussed in the company’s prior disclosures about the incident. This information was partial because, in the vast majority of cases, it did not include consumers’ home addresses, or their respective driver’s license states, dates of issuance, or expiration dates... Today’s newly identified consumers were not previously informed because their SSNs were not stolen together with their partial driver’s license information..."
Equifax will notify the newly identified breach victims via U.S. Postal mail, and will offer them complimentary identity theft protection and credit file monitoring services.
The timeline for the massive breach: intrusions occurred in May (2017), Equifax staff first discovered the intrusions in July (2017); Equifax notified the publicy in September (2017); and now identified 2.4 million more breach victims (March, 2018).
Equifax said in September (2017) that 143 million persons were affected. That was about 44 percent of the United States population. In October (2017), Equifax revised upward the number affected by 2.5 million to 145.5 million persons. What's the new total? Equifax didn't have the guts to admit it in its March 1st announcement. Since the company doesn't seem to want to admit it, I'm going with 147.9 million persons affected -- about 45.6 percent of the population.
So, it took Equifax almost six months after its initial announcement to determine exactly who was affected during its massive data breach. This does not inspire confidence. Instead, it suggests that the company's internal systems and intrusion detection mechanisms failed miserably.
Equifax Set up a Flawed System to Prevent and Mitigate Data Security Problems
Equifax Ignored Numerous Warnings of Risks to Sensitive Data
Equifax Failed to Notify Consumers, Investors, and Regulators about the Breach in a Timely and Appropriate Fashion
Equifax Took Advantage of Federal Contracting Loopholes and Failed to Adequately Protect Sensitive IRS Taxpayer Data
Equifax’s Assistance and Information Provided to Consumers Following the Breach was Inadequate.
Equifax's latest breach update highlights item #3: the company's failure to promptly notify consumers. When consumers aren't notified promptly, they are unable to take action to protect their sensitive personal and payment information.
Have we heard the last from Equifax? Will it provide future updates with even more persons affected? I hope not, but the company's track record suggests otherwise.
Equifax has foisted upon the country a cluster f--k of epic proportions = #FUBAR. Businesses and consumers depend upon secure, reliable credit reports. The United States economy relies upon it, too. Equifax executives need to experience direct consequences: fines, terminations, and jail time. Without consequences, executives won't adequately secure sensitive personal and financial information -- and this will happen again. What do you think?
Earlier this month, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat - Massachusetts) issued a report about her office's investigation in to the massive Equifax data breach. Key findings from the report:
"Equifax Set up a Flawed System to Prevent and Mitigate Data Security Problems. The breach was made possible because Equifax adopted weak cybersecurity measures that did not adequately protect consumer data. The company failed to prioritize cybersecurity and failed to follow basic procedures that would have prevented or mitigated the impact of the breach. For example, Equifax was warned of the vulnerability in the web application software Apache Struts that was used to breach its system, and emailed staff to tell them to fix the vulnerability – but then failed to confirm that the fixes were made...
Equifax Ignored Numerous Warnings of Risks to Sensitive Data. Equifax had ample warning of weaknesses and risks to its systems. Equifax received a specific warning from the Department of Homeland Security about the precise vulnerability that hackers took advantage of to breach the company’s systems. The company had been subject to several smaller breaches in the years prior to the massive 2017 breach, and several outside experts identified and reported weaknesses...
Equifax Failed to Notify Consumers, Investors, and Regulators about the Breach in a Timely and Appropriate Fashion. The breach occurred on May 13, 2017, and Equifax first observed suspicious signs of a problem on July 29, 2017. But Equifax failed to notify consumers, investors, business partners, and the appropriate regulators until 40 days after the company discovered the breach. By failing to provide adequate information in a timely fashion, Equifax robbed consumers of the ability to take precautionary measures to protect themselves...
Equifax Took Advantage of Federal Contracting Loopholes and Failed to Adequately Protect Sensitive IRS Taxpayer Data. Soon after the breach was announced, Equifax and the IRS were engulfed in controversy amid news that the IRS was signing a new $7.2 mil lion contract with the company. Senator Warren’s investigation revealed that Equifax used contracting loopholes to force the IRS into signing this “bridge” contract, and the contract was finally cancelled weeks later by the IRS after the agency learned of additional weaknesses in Equifax security that potentially endangered taxpayer data.
Equifax’s Assistance and Information Provided to Consumers Following the Breach was Inadequate. Equifax took 40 days to prepare a response for the public before finally announcing the extent of the breach – and e ven after this delay, the company failed to respond appropriately. Equifax had an inadequate crisis management plan and failed to follow their own procedures for notifying consumers. Consumers who called the Equifax call center had hours-long waits. The website set up by Equifax to assist consumers was initially unable to give individuals clarity other than to tell them that their information “may” have been hacked – and that website had a host of security problems in its own right. Equifax delayed their public notice in part because the company spent almost two weeks trying to determine precisely which consumers were affected..."
Senator Warren's investigation was one of several underway. The importance of this investigative report cannot be overstated for several reasons. First, the three national credit reporting agencies (e.g., Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) maintain reports about the credit histories and worthiness of all adults in the United States. That's extremely sensitive -- and valuable -- information that affects just about everyone. And, the country's economy relies on the accuracy and security of credit reports.
The credit reporting industry includes national agencies, regional agencies, and a larger list of "consumer reporting companies" -- businesses that collect information about consumers into reports for a variety of decisions about credit, employment, residential rental housing, insurance, and more. The CFPB compiled this larger list in 2017 (Adobe PDF; 264k bytes).
Senator Warren's report highlighted fixes needed:
"Federal Legislation is Necessary to Prevent and Respond to Future Breaches. Equifax and other credit reporting agencies collect consumer data without permission, and consumers have no way to prevent their data from being collected and held by the company – which was more focused on its own profits and growth than on protecting the sensitive personal information of millions of consumers. This breach and the response by Equifax illustrate the need for federal legislation that (1) establishes appropriate fines for credit reporting agencies that allow serious cybersecurity breaches on their watches; and (2) empowers the Federal Trade Commission to establish basic standards to ensure that credit reporting agencies are adequately protecting consumer data."
Download the full report (Adobe PDF; 672k bytes) titled, "Bad Credit: Uncovering Equifax's Failure to Protect Americans' Personal Information." Senator Warren's report is also available here. The CFPB list of consumer reporting companies is also available here.
My personal view: data breaches like Equifax's will stop only after executives at credit reporting agencies suffer direct consequences for failed information security: jail time or massive personal fines. There has to be consequences. What do you think?
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. has agreed to a $3.5 million settlement agreement regarding five small data breaches the Massachusetts-based healthcare organization experienced during 2012. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. does business under the name Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA). This represents one of the largest HIPAA settlements ever by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS).
The five small data breaches, at different locations across the United States, affected about 521 persons:
Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Duval Facility: On February 23, 2012, two desktop computers were stolen during a break-in. One of the computers contained the electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI) of 200 persons, including patient name, admission date, date of first dialysis, days and times of treatments, date of birth, and Social Security number
Bio-Medical Applications of Alabama, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Magnolia Grove: On April 3, 2012, an unencrypted USB drive was stolen from a worker's car while parked in the organization's parking lot. The USB device contained the ePHI of 245 persons, including patient name, address, date of birth, telephone number, insurance company, insurance account number (a potential social security number derivative for some patients) and the covered entity location where each patient was seen.
Renal Dimensions, LLC d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Ak-Chin: On June 18, 2012, an anonymous phone tip reported that a hard drive was missing from a desktop computer, which had been taken out of service. The hard drive contained the ePHI of 35 persons, including name, date of birth, Social Security number and Zip code. While the worker notified a manager about the missing hard drive, the manager failed t notify the FMCNA Corporate Risk Management Department.
Fresenius Vascular Care Augusta, LLC: On June 16, 2012, a worker's unencrypted laptop was stolen from her car while parked overnight at home. The laptop bag also include a list of her passwords. The laptop contained the ePHI of 10 persons, including patient name, insurance account number (which could be a social security number derivative) and other insurance information.
WSKC Dialysis Services, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Blue Island Dialysis: On or about June 17 - 18, 2012, three desktop computers and one encrypted laptop were stolen from the office. One of the desktop computers contained the ePHI of 31 persons, including patient name, dates of birth, address, telephone number, and either full or partial Social Security numbers.
Besides the hefty payment, terms of the settlement agreement (Adobe PDF) require FMCNA to implement and complete a Corrective Action Plan:
Conduct a risk analysis,
Develop and implement a risk management plan,
Implement a process for evaluating workplace operational changes,
Develop an Encryption Report,
Review and revise internal policies and procedures to control devices and storage media,
Review and revise policies to control access to facilities,
Develop a privacy and security awareness training program for workers, and
Submit progress reports at regular intervals to HHS.
The Encryption report identifies and describes the devices and equipment (e.g., desktops, laptops, tables smartphones, etc.) that may be used to access, store, and transmit patients' ePHI information; records the number of devices including which utilize encrypted information; and provides a detailed plan for implementing encryption on devices and media which should contain encrypted information and currently don't.
Some readers may wonder why a large fine for relatively small data breaches, since news reports often cite data breaches affecting thousands or millions of persons. HHS explained that the investigation by its Office For Civil Rights (OCR) unit:
"... revealed FMCNA covered entities failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its ePHI. The FMCNA covered entities impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of patients by providing unauthorized access for a purpose not permitted by the Privacy Rule... Five breaches add up to millions in settlement costs for entity that failed to heed HIPAA’s risk analysis and risk management rules.."
OCR Director Roger Severino added:
"The number of breaches, involving a variety of locations and vulnerabilities, highlights why there is no substitute for an enterprise-wide risk analysis for a covered entity... Covered entities must take a thorough look at their internal policies and procedures to ensure they are protecting their patients’ health information in accordance with the law."
After a surge in data breaches in North Carolina during 2017, state legislators have proposed stronger data breach laws. The National Law Review explained what prompted the legislative action:
"On January 8, 2018, the State of North Carolina released its Security Breach Report 2017, which highlights a 15 percent increase in breaches since 2016... Health care, financial services and insurance businesses accounted for 38 percent, with general businesses making up for just more than half of these data breaches. Almost 75 percent of all breaches resulted from phishing, hacking and unauthorized access, reflecting an overall increase of more than 3,500 percent in reported hacking incidents alone since 2006. Since 2015, phishing incidents increased over 2,300 percent. These numbers emphasize the warning to beware of emails or texts requesting personal information..."
So, fraudsters have tricked many North Carolina residents and employees into both opening fraudulent e-mail and text messages, and then responding by disclosing sensitive personal information. Not good.
Details about the proposed legislation:
"... named the Act to Strengthen Identity Theft Practices (ASITP), announced by Representative Jason Saine and Attorney General Josh Stein, attempts to combat the data breach epidemic by expanding North Carolina’s breach notification obligations, while reducing the time businesses have to comply with notification to the affected population and to the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office. If enacted, this new legislation will be one of the most aggressive U.S. breach notification statutes... The Fact Sheet concerning the ASITP as published by the North Carolina Attorney General proposes that the AG take a more direct role in the investigation of data breaches closer to their time of discovery... To accomplish this goal, the ASITP proposes a significantly shorter period of time for an entity to provide notification to the affected population and to the North Carolina Attorney General. Currently, North Carolina’s statute mandates that notification be made to affected individuals and the Attorney General without “unreasonable delay.” Under the ASITP, the new deadline for all notifications would be 15 days following discovery of the data security incident. In addition to being the shortest deadline in the nation, it is important to note that notification vendors typically require 5 business days to process, print and mail notification letters... The proposed legislation also seeks to (1) expand the definition of “protected information” to include medical information and insurance account numbers, and (2) penalize those who fail to maintain reasonable security procedures by charging them with a violation under the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act for each person whose information is breached..."
Good. The National Law Review article also compared the breach notification deadlines across all 50 states and territories. It is worth a look to see how your state compares. A comparison of selected states:
Time After Discovery of Breach
10 calendar days
Puerto Rico (Dept. of Consumer Affairs)
15 calendar days
North Carolina (Proposed)
California (Protected Health Information)
30 calendar days
45 calendar days
90 calendar days
Most expedient time & without unreasonable delay
California (other), Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico (other)
Uber is in the news again. And not in a good way. The popular ride-sharing service experienced a data breach affecting 57 million users. While many companies experience data breaches, regulators say Uber went further and tried to cover it up.
"Hackers stole the personal data of 57 million customers and drivers... Compromised data from the October 2016 attack included names, email addresses and phone numbers of 50 million Uber riders around the world, the company told Bloomberg on Tuesday. The personal information of about 7 million drivers was accessed as well, including some 600,000 U.S. driver’s license numbers..."
Second, details about the coverup:
"... the ride-hailing firm ousted its chief security officer and one of his deputies for their roles in keeping the hack under wraps, which included a $100,000 payment to the attackers... At the time of the incident, Uber was negotiating with U.S. regulators investigating separate claims of privacy violations. Uber now says it had a legal obligation to report the hack to regulators and to drivers whose license numbers were taken. Instead, the company paid hackers to delete the data and keep the breach quiet."
Geez. Not tell regulators about a breach? Not tell affected users? 48 states have data breach notification laws requiring various levels of notifications. Consumers need notice in order to take action to protect themselves and their sensitive personal and payment information.
Third, Uber executives learned about the breach soon thereafter:
"Kalanick, Uber’s co-founder and former CEO, learned of the hack in November 2016, a month after it took place, the company said. Uber had just settled a lawsuit with the New York attorney general over data security disclosures and was in the process of negotiating with the Federal Trade Commission over the handling of consumer data. Kalanick declined to comment on the hack."
Reportedly, breach victims with stolen drivers license information will be offered free credit monitoring and identity theft services. Uber said that no Social Security numbers and credit card information was stolen during the breach, but one wonders if Uber and its executives can be trusted.
"... reached a settlement with [New York State Attorney General] Schneiderman’s office in January 2016 over its abuse of private data in a rider-tracking system known as “God View” and its failure to disclose a previous data breach that took place in September 2014 in a timely manner."
Several regulators are investigating Uber's latest breach and alleged coverup. CNet reported:
"The New York State Attorney General has opened an investigation into the incident, which Uber made public Tuesday. Officials for Connecticut, Illinois and Massachusetts also confirmed they're investigating the hack. The New Mexico Attorney General sent Uber a letter asking for details of the hack and how the company responded. What's more, Uber appears to have broken a promise made in a Federal Trade Commission settlement not to mislead users about data privacy and security, a legal expert says... In addition to its agreement with the FTC, Uber is required to follow laws in New York and 47 other states that mandate companies to tell people when their drivers' license numbers are breached. Uber acknowledged Tuesday it had a legal requirement to disclose the breach."
The Financial Times reported that the U.K. Information Commissioner's Office is investigating the incident, along with the National Crime Agency and the National Cyber Security Centre. New data protection rules will go into effect in May, 2018 which will require companies to notify regulators within 72 hours of a cyber attack, or incur fines of up to 20 million Euro-dollars or 4 percent of annual global revenues.
Let's summarize the incident. It seems that a few months after settling a lawsuit about a data breach and its data security practices, the company had another data breach, paid the hackers to keep quiet about the breach and what they stole, and then allegedly chose not to tell affected users nor regulators about it, as required by prior settlement agreements, breach laws in most states, and breach laws in some international areas. Geez. What chutzpah!
What are your opinions of the incident? Can Uber and its executives be trusted?
Earlier this month, Discover sent me a replacement credit card. The letter with the replacement card stated:
"Notice of Data Breach What happened: we recently learned your Discover card account might have been part of a data breach. Please know, this breach did not involve Discover card systems. What we are doing to resolve: we are issuing you a new card with a new account number, security code, and expiration date to reduce the possibility of fraud on your account... So as a safety precaution, we are issuing you a new card to protect your Discover card account information from being misused"
Good. I like the proactive protection, and hope that the retailer absorbed the costs of replacement cards for all affected consumers like me. However, the letter from Discover didn't identify the retailer. I called Discover's customer service hotline. The phone representative wouldn't identify the retailer, either. I'd shopped at four retail stores during the past month, and assumed it was one of them. It wasn't.
On Saturday, I received via postal mail a breach notification letter from Equifax dated October 23, 2017:
"We are writing with regard to the cybersecurity incident Equifax announced on September 7, 2017. At Equifax, our priorities with regard to this incident are transparency and continuing to provide timely, reassuring support to every consumer. You are receiving this letter because the credit or debit card number used to pay for a freeze service, credit score, or disclosure of your Equifax credit file was accessed. We have no evidence that your credit file itself was accessed."
So, confirmation that it was Equifax's fault. What to make of this? Keep reading.
First, thanks Equifax for the postal mail notice. However, this isn't timely communication. Why? Equifax considers it's September 7th press release timely communication. How many consumers read Equifax press releases? Did you? My guess, most don't.
Thankfully, I read online newspapers and was aware of the breach soon after Equifax's September 7th announcement. Yet, my postal letter from Equifax arrived seven weeks after its September 7th press release (and almost three months after it first discovered the breach on July 29). This incident is a reminder for consumers not to rely upon postal mail for breach notices. Many states' breach notice laws allow for companies to post public notices online in websites and/or in newspaper advertisements. This allows companies to skip (the expense of) mailing individual breach notices via postal mail.
The October 23rd Equifax breach letter also stated:
"On September 7, 2017, Equifax notified U.S. customers of the data security incident, including that 143 million U.S. consumers were impacted. On October 2, 2017, following the completion of the forensic portion of the investigation of the incident, Equifax announced that the review determined that approximately 2.5 million additional U.S. consumers were potentially impacted. Equifax also announced that credit card numbers for approximately 209,000 consumers and certain dispute documents, which included personal identifying information, for approximately 182, 000 consumers were accessed."
So, I am one of the "lucky" 209,000 consumers in the United States whose payment information was exposed stolen in addition to other sensitive personal information. Thanks Equifax for failing to protect my sensitive personal -- and payment -- information you are entrusted to protect.
Second, to upgrade earlier this year from slow, antiquated DSL to fiber broadband from Verizon, I used my credit card to pay for a temporary lift of the security freeze on my Equifax credit report. Why did Equifax retain my payment information for this transaction? Why did it retain that payment information in a complete and UN-encrypted format?
"Tips for protecting customer information: a) Truncate all credit card information; b) Avoid storing CID data in your records or within sales data; c) Secure your site; d) Store data securely; e) Protect your data with firewalls; f) Limit authorized use and require passwords; g) Avoid storing customer or credit card information on your web server Refer to your Merchant Operating Regulations for further card-not-present (CNP) requirements for the submission of sales."
So, it seems that Equifax failed to follow Discover's data security guidelines for merchants. (Browse privacy guidelines for merchants by other card issuers.) I do not have any ongoing services or subscriptions with Equifax, so there seems to be no need for it to retain my full credit card payment information. Not good. I called the Equifax customer service hotline. The phone representative could not explain why Equifax retained my payment information. Not good.
Third, Equifax failed to customize the letter for my situation. In 2008, I placed security freezes on my credit reports at Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. So, Equifax already knows I have a security freeze in place, and failed to customize the letter accordingly. Rather than explain what applies to customers in my situation, instead the letter repeated the same general fraud-prevention advice for all consumers: how to contact the FTC, visit annualcreditreport.com for free copies of credit reports, file a police report if a victim of identity theft, place a fraud alert or security freeze on my credit reports for protections, and how to lift/remove an existing security freeze. Not good.
This was fast becoming a crappy customer experience.
Fourth, while on the phone with Equifax's customer service I asked if the TrustedID Premier credit monitoring service it ofered would work with the security freezes in place at all three credit reporting agencies. The phone representative said yes, but that the "credit file lock feature" would not work. What's that? According to the Equifax FAQ page:
"What is the difference between a credit file lock and a security freeze? At their most basic level, both prevent new creditors from accessing your Equifax credit report, unless you give permission or take an action such as removing, unlocking or lifting the freeze or lock. Both a security freeze and a credit file lock help prevent a lender or other creditor from accessing a consumer’s credit report to open unauthorized new accounts.
Security freezes were created in the early 2000’s, are subject to regulation by each state and use a PIN based system for authentication.
Credit file locks were created more recently, are mobile-enabled and use modern authentication techniques, such as username and passwords and one-time passcodes for better user experience."
So, the "credit file lock" feature is new and different from a security freeze. The new feature allows mobile users to easily and quickly unlock/lock your Equifax credit reports. That seems beneficial for consumers needing frequent and quick access to credit. According to the FAQ page, the new feature will be "free, for life." The above description gives the impression that security freezes are antiquated.
"The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service you have with us. This information can include: Social Security number and credit card information; Payment history and transaction history; Credit scores and credit history"
The "depend on the product or service you have" seems vague and broad. Just tell me! Plus, "transaction history" could include geo-location: where you bought something since some purchases are made at brick-and-mortar retail stores. It could also include when and where you use the "credit file lock" feature. So, even though the policy doesn't explicitly mention geo-location data collection, it seems wise to assume that it does. For the new "credit file lock" feature to work on your phone, it probably needs to know your location -- where you and your phone are.
So, this new feature seems to be a slick way for Equifax to collect (and archive) location data about when, where, the duration, and frequency of consumers' travels in the physical world -- something it couldn't get previously through the traditional security freeze process. Remember, any app on your smartphone can collect location data.
Plus, the "credit file lock" feature won't work with a security freeze in place. According to the customer service representative, consumers need to remove a security freeze for the credit file lock feature to work. This is a new, important wrinkle which consumers must understand in order to make informed decisions.
The representative said it would be free to remove the security freeze on my Equifax credit report in order to use the new feature. I asked if the TrustedID Premier service Equifax offers would work with credit reports from Innovis. The rep said no. The duration of my phone call was long since the representative needed to place me on hold and check with others in order to answer my questions. This did not instill confidence.
Fifth, the letter from Equifax did not mention any of the new threats nor the additional protection steps consumers must take, both of which you can read about in this October 10th blog post. Even though I've written about privacy, data breaches and credit monitor for the past 10+ years, like you there are new things to learn. It seems that Equifax is hoping that breach victims will take the easy route: enroll in TrustedID Premier -- which is free for now, but will likely cost you later.
While looking for unprotected data in cloud storage services, a security researcher found unprotected information for as many as 1.8 million voters in Chicago. CBS Chicago reported:
"It was Friday Aug. 11 in Silicon Valley. John Hendren, a marketing representative for IT security firm UpGuard, was looking for insecure data in the cloud. He randomly plugged in "Chicago … db," for “Chicago database,” and hit the jackpot. He found names, addresses, birth dates, driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of Social Security numbers for up to 1.8 million Chicago voters..."
How the breach happened:
"Chicago’s vendor is ES&S, out of Omaha, Nebraska. The company has been paid more than $5 million since 2014 by the Chicago Board of Elections. The company placed the data folder on Amazon Web Services (AWS) with the wrong security settings, Tom Burt, the firm’s CEO, recently told Chicago officials. Burt says managers missed the gaffe, and the database remained online for six months, until UpGuard found it. Company officials say they don’t believe the information ended up on the “dark web” for identity thieves to attain..."
The CBE's breach notice (Adobe PDF) provided a more complete list of the data elements exposed:
"... The personal information contained in the back-up files included voter names, addresses, and dates of birth, and many voters’ driver’s license and State ID numbers and the last four digits of Social Security numbers. Upon discovery of the Incident, ES&S promptly took the AWS server off-line, secured the back-up files, and commenced a forensics investigation. ES&S also hired two specialized third-party vendors to conduct searches to determine whether any personal information stored on the back-up files was available on the Dark Web. The results of ES&S’ investigations have not uncovered any evidence that any voter’s personal information stored on the AWS server was misused..."
This is bad for several reasons. First, the data elements exposed or stolen are enough for cyber criminals to do sufficient damage to breach victims. Second, just because the post-breach investigation didn't find misuse of data doesn't mean there wasn't any. It simply means they didn't find any misuse.
"... a crook need only figure out where and when you were born--information often easily found on social networking sites like Facebook--to guess your number in as few as 1000 tries... Social Security numbers were never meant to be used for widespread identification. They were conceived solely to track taxes and benefits... Every Social Security number starts with three digits known as an "area number." Smaller states might have only one, whereas New York, for example, has 85. The next two digits are "group numbers," which can be anything from 01-99, but don't correspond to anything specific. The last four digits, the "serial number," are assigned sequentially..."
So, it's long past time to stop using the last four digits of Social Security numbers as identification. Fourth, the incident makes one wonder when -- if ever -- the unprotected data folder would have been discovered by ES&S or CBE, if the security researcher hadn't found it. That's unsettling. It calls into question the security methods and managerial oversight at ES&S.
So, strong data security measures and methods seem wise; if not necessary. The latest incident makes one wonder about: a) the data security language and provisions in CBE's outsourcing contract with ES&S, and b) the agency's vendor oversight.
Will Chicago residents demand better data security? I hope so. What do you think?
During the weekend, Whole Foods Markets announced in a customer notification update that it had "resolved" a recent data breach involving the unauthorized access of customers' payment information in certain stores. The customer notification update stated:
"Whole Foods Market has resolved the incident previously announced on September 28, 2017, involving unauthorized access of payment card information used at certain venues such as tap rooms and full table-service restaurants located within some stores. These venues use a different point of sale system than the company’s primary store checkout systems, and payment cards used at the primary store checkout systems were not affected. Whole Foods Market learned of the unauthorized access on September 23, 2017. The company conducted an investigation, obtained the help of a leading cyber security forensics firm, and contacted law enforcement. Whole Foods Market replaced these point of sale systems for payment card transactions and stopped the unauthorized activity..."
Reportedly, the breach included about 100 locations. The company operates about 473 stores nationwide.
The breach method used by criminals and the types of payment information accessed:
"The investigation determined that unauthorized software was present on the point of sale system at certain venues. The software copied payment card information—which could have included payment card account number, card expiration date, internal verification code, and cardholder name—of customers who used a payment card at these venues at dates that vary by venue but are no earlier than March 10, 2017 and no later than September 28, 2017."
Besides the replacement of affected point-of-sale terminals, the customer notification did not elaborate about exactly how the breach was "resolved," how the malware was installed in the terminals, nor how the resolution will keep this type of breach from happening again. Often, a resolution includes the hardening of certain computer systems, improved malware detection software, improved managerial oversight, and/or the training of employees. This seems especially important for retail stores with multiple, exposed payment terminals.
Within the Whole Foods website, its September 28, 2017 press release headline links to the same October 20th customer information update. It seems the company deleted the September press release. Why do this? It makes it difficult for readers to determine what's new or changed since the September 28 disclosure.
Plus, hacking details matter. As readers of this blog know, unattended, free-standing payment terminals in retail stores have long been high-value targets for criminals armed with skimming devices. Was the malware introduced locally (e.g., manually by a person) at each terminal or centrally through the company's computer network? Sadly, the update did not explain. Hopefully, future updates will.
Until then, it's hard for customers to trust that the breach was fully "resolved." Replacing the affected terminals is no guarantee that the malware won't be re-introduced into the replacement terminals. If I continue to shop there, I'll use cash. What do you think?
"It has always been Equifax’s intention to write to those consumers whose information had been illegally compromised, but it would have been inappropriate and irresponsible of us to do so before we had absolute clarity on what data had been accessed. Following the completion of an independent investigation into the attack, and with agreement from appropriate investigatory authorities, Equifax has begun corresponding with affected consumers.
We would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that Equifax correspondence will never ask consumers for money or cite personal details to seek financial information, and if they receive such correspondence they should not respond. For security reasons, we will not be making any outbound telephone calls to consumers. However, customers can call our Freephone number on 0800 587 1584 for more information.
Today Equifax can confirm that a file containing 15.2m UK records dating from between 2011 and 2016 was attacked in this incident. Regrettably this file contained data relating to actual consumers as well as sizeable test data-sets, duplicates and spurious fields... we have been able to place consumers into specific risk categories and define the services to offer them in order to protect against those risks and send letters to offer them Equifax and third-party safeguards with instructions on how to get started. This work has enabled us to confirm that we will need to contact 693,665 consumers by post... The balance of the 14.5m records potentially compromised may contain the name and date of birth of certain UK consumers. Whilst this does not introduce any significant risk to these people Equifax is sorry that this data may have been accessed."
Below is the tabular information of risk categories from the Equifax UK announcement:
12,086 consumers who had an email address associated with their Equifax.co.uk account in 2014 accessed
14,961 consumers who had portions of their Equifax.co.uk membership details such as username, password, secret questions and answers and partial credit card details - from 2014 accessed
29,188 consumers who had their driving license number accessed
We will offer Equifax Protect for free. This is an identity protection service which monitors personal data. Products and services from third party organizations will also be offered at no cost to consumers. In addition to the services set-out above, further information will be outlined in the correspondence.
637,430 consumers who had their phone numbers accessed
Consumers who had a phone number accessed will be offered a leading identity monitoring service for free.
Some observations seem warranted.
First, the announcement was vague about whether the 15.2 million U.K. persons affected were included in the prior breach total, or in addition to the prior total. Second, the U.K. unit will send written breach notices to all affected consumers via postal mail, while the U.S. unit refused. The U.K. unit did the right thing, so their users are confused by and don't have to access a hastily built site to see if they were affected.
To protect themselves and their sensitive information, many victims of the massive Equifax data breach have signed up for the free credit monitoring and fraud resolution services Equifax arranged. That's a good start. Some victims have gone a step further and placed Fraud Alerts or Security Freezes on their credit reports at Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. That's good, too. But, is that enough?
The answer to that question requires an understanding of what criminals can do with the sensitive information accessed stolen during the Equifax breach. Criminals can commit types of fraud which credit monitoring, credit report alerts, and freezes cannot stop. Consumer Reports (CR) explained:
"Freezing your credit report specifically at Equifax will also prevent crooks from registering as you at the government website, my Social Security, and block them from attempting to steal your Social Security benefits. But taking these steps won't protect you against every identity fraud threat arising from the Equifax data breach."
Sadly, besides credit and loan fraud the Equifax breach exposed breach victims to tax refund fraud, health care fraud, and driver's license (identity) fraud. This is what makes the data breach particularly nasty. CR also listed the data elements criminals use with each type of fraud:
"With your Social Security number, crooks can file false income tax returns in your name, take bogus deductions, and steal the resulting refund. More than 14,000 fraudulent 2016 tax returns, with $92 million in unwarranted refunds, were detected and stopped by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as of last March... Data from the Equifax breach can be used to steal your benefits from private health insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid when the identity thief uses your coverage to pay for his own medical treatment and prescriptions... Using your driver’s license number, identity thieves can create bogus driver’s licenses and hang their moving violations on you...."
The CR article suggested several ways for consumers to protect themselves from each type of fraud: a) request an Identity Protection PIN number from the IRS; b) request copies of your medical file from your providers and review your MIB Consumer File each year; and c) request a copy of your driving license record and get your free annual consumer report from ChexSystems, Certegy, and TeleCheck - the three major check verification companies.
Do these solutions sound like a lot of preventative work? They are. You have Equifax to thank for that. Will Equifax help breach victims with the time and effort required to research and implement the solutions CR recommended? Will Equifax compensate breach victims for the costs incurred with these solutions? These are questions breach victims should ask Equifax and TrustedID Premier.
Consumers and breach victims are slowly learning the consequences of a data breach are extensive. The consequences include time, effort, money, and aggravation. You might say breach victims have been mugged. Worse, consumers are saddled the burden from the consequences. That isn't fair. The companies making money by selling consumers' credit reports and information should be responsible for the burdens. Things are out of balance.
Yahoo, now within Verizon's Oath business unit, announced on Tuesday an update in the the number of accounts hacked during its massive data breach in 2013. The announcement stated:
"... [Yahoo] is providing notice to additional user accounts affected by an August 2013 data theft previously disclosed by the company on December 14, 2016. At that time, Yahoo disclosed that more than one billion of the approximately three billion accounts existing in 2013 had likely been affected... Subsequent to Yahoo's acquisition by Verizon, and during integration, the company recently obtained new intelligence and now believes, following an investigation with the assistance of outside forensic experts, that all Yahoo user accounts were affected by the August 2013 theft... Yahoo is sending email notifications to the additional affected user accounts..."
That's 3 billion accounts hacked! It almost boggles the mind. Consumers with questions should also visit the Yahoo 2013 Account Security Page which has been updated with information released this week. Key information about the breach and consumers' data stolen:
"On December 14, 2016, Yahoo announced that, based on its analysis of data files provided by law enforcement, the company believed that an unauthorized party stole data associated with certain user accounts in August 2013... the stolen user account information may have included names, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, hashed passwords and, in some cases, encrypted or un-encrypted security questions and answers. The investigation indicates that the information that was stolen did not include passwords in clear text, payment card data, or bank account information. Payment card data and bank account information are not stored in the system the company believes was affected... No additional notifications regarding the cookie forging activity are being sent in connection with this update..."
Obviously, affected users should change their passwords, security questions, and security answers -- if they haven't already. Some consumers are confused about whether e-mail breach announcements they have received are authentic and truly from Yahoo. The tech company advised:
"... email from Yahoo about this issue will display the Yahoo icon when viewed through the Yahoo website or Yahoo Mail app. Importantly, the email does not ask you to click on any links or contain attachments and does not request your personal information. If an email you received about this issue prompts you to click on a link, download an attachment, or asks you for information, the email was not sent by Yahoo and may be an attempt to steal your personal information. Avoid clicking on links or downloading attachments from such suspicious emails."
"Verizon has combined these assets with its existing AOL business to create a new subsidiary, Oath, a diverse house of more than 50 media and technology brands that engages more than a billion people around the world. The Oath portfolio includes HuffPost, Yahoo Sports, AOL.com, MAKERS, Tumblr, BUILD Studios, Yahoo Finance, Yahoo Mail and more, with a mission to build brands people love."
Reportedly, the Oath portfolio will include products, services, and apps covering content partnerships, virtual reality (VR), artificial intelligence (AI), and the Internet of Things (IoT).
The announcement this week by Yahoo is a reminder of the importance of post-breach investigations and how long these investigations can take to uncover complete details about the hack. It is unwise to assume that everything is known at the time of the initial breach notification. It is also unwise to assume that companies can immediately improve their data security and systems after a massive breach.
Equifax disclosed on Monday, October 2, that 2.5 more persons than originally announced were affected by its massive data breach earlier this year. According to the Equifax breach website:
"... cybersecurity firm Mandiant has completed the forensic portion of its investigation of the cybersecurity incident disclosed on September 7 to finalize the consumers potentially impacted... The completed review determined that approximately 2.5 million additional U.S. consumers were potentially impacted, for a total of 145.5 million. Mandiant did not identify any evidence of additional or new attacker activity or any access to new databases or tables. Instead, this additional population of consumers was confirmed during Mandiant’s completion of the remaining investigative tasks and quality assurance procedures built into the investigative process."
The September breach announcement said that persons outside the United States may have been affected. The October 2nd update addressed that, too:
"The completed review also has concluded that there is no evidence the attackers accessed databases located outside of the United States. With respect to potentially impacted Canadian citizens, the company previously had stated that there may have been up to 100,000 Canadian citizens impacted... The completed review subsequently determined that personal information of approximately 8,000 Canadian consumers was impacted. In addition, it also was determined that some of the consumers with affected credit cards announced in the company’s initial statement are Canadian. The company will mail written notice to all of the potentially impacted Canadian citizens."
So, things are worse than originally announced in September: more United States citizens affected, fewer Canadian citizens affected overall but more Canadians' credit card information exposed, and we still don't know the number of United Kingdom residents affected:
"The forensic investigation related to United Kingdom consumers has been completed and the resulting information is now being analyzed in the United Kingdom. Equifax is continuing discussions with regulators in the United Kingdom regarding the scope of the company’s consumer notifications...
And, there's this statement by Paulino do Rego Barros, Jr., the newly appointed interim CEO (after former CEO Richard Smith resigned):
"... As this important phase of our work is now completed, we continue to take numerous steps to review and enhance our cybersecurity practices. We also continue to work closely with our internal team and outside advisors to implement and accelerate long-term security improvements..."
To review? That means Equifax has not finished the job of making its systems and websites more secure with security fixes based upon how the attackers broke in, which identify attacks earlier, and which prevent future breaches. As bad as this sounds, the reality is probably worse.
"... during Tuesday's hearing, former CEO Smith added that he first heard about "suspicious activity" in a customer-dispute portal, where Equifax tracks customer complaints and efforts to correct mistakes in their credit reports, on July 31. He moved to hire cybersecurity experts from the law firm King & Spalding to start investigating the issue on August 2. Smith claimed that, at that time, there was no indication that any customer's personally identifying information had been compromised. As it turns out, after repeated questions from lawmakers, Smith admitted he never asked at the time whether PII being affected was even a possibility. Smith further testified that he didn't ask for a briefing about the "suspicious activity" until August 15, almost two weeks after the special investigation began and 18 days after the initial red flag."
Didn't ask about PII? Geez! PII describes the set of data elements which are the most sensitive information about consumers. It's the business of being a credit reporting agency. Waited 2 weeks for a briefing? Not good either. And, that is a most generous description since some experts question whether the breach actually started in March -- about four months before the July event.
Wired reported the following about Smith's Congressional testimony and the March breach:
"Attackers initially got into the affected customer-dispute portal through a vulnerability in the Apache Struts platform, an open-source web application service popular with corporate clients. Apache disclosed and patched the relevant vulnerability on March 6... Smith said there are two reasons the customer-dispute portal didn't receive that patch, known to be critical, in time to prevent the breach. The first excuse Smith gave was "human error." He says there was a particular (unnamed) individual who knew that the portal needed to be patched but failed to notify the appropriate IT team. Second, Smith blamed a scanning system used to spot this sort of oversight that did not identify the customer-dispute portal as vulnerable. Smith said forensic investigators are still looking into why the scanner failed."
Geez! Sounds like a managerial failure, too. Nobody followed up with the unnamed persons responsible for patching the portal? And Equifax executives took a leisurely (and perhaps lackadaisical) approach to protecting sensitive information about consumers:
"When asked by representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois about what data Equifax encrypts in its systems, Smith admitted that the data compromised in the customer-dispute portal was stored in plaintext and would have been easily readable by attackers... It’s unclear exactly what of the pilfered data resided in the portal versus other parts of Equifax’s system, but it turns out that also didn’t matter much, given Equifax's attitude toward encryption overall. “OK, so this wasn’t [encrypted], but your core is?” Kinzinger asked. “Some, not all," Smith replied. "There are varying levels of security techniques that the team deploys in different environments around the business."
Geez! So, we now have confirmation that the "core" information -- the most sensitive data about consumers -- in Equifax's databases is only partially encrypted.
Context matters. In January of this year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) took punitive action against TransUnion and Equifax for deceptive marketing practices involving credit scores and related subscription services. That action included $23.1 million in fines and penalties.
Thanks to member of Congress for asking the tough questions. No thanks to Equifax executives for taking lackadaisical approaches to data security. (TransUnion, Innovis, and Experian executives: are you watching? Learning what mistakes not to repeat?) Equifax has lost my trust.
Until Equifax hardens its systems (I prefer NSA-level hardness), it shouldn't be entrusted with consumers' sensitive personal and payment information. Consumers should be able to totally opt out of credit reporting agencies that fail with data security. This would allow the marketplace to govern things and stop the corporate socialism benefiting credit reporting agencies.
What are your opinions?
[Editor's note: this post was amended on October 7 with information about the CFPB fines.]
"Equifax Inc. learned about a major breach of its computer systems in March -- almost five months before the date it has publicly disclosed, according to three people familiar with the situation... Equifax hired the security firm Mandiant on both occasions and may have believed it had the initial breach under control, only to have to bring the investigators back when it detected suspicious activity again on July 29, two of the people said..."
"... the Bloomberg story is "attempting to connect two separate cybersecurity events and suggesting the earlier event went unreported." Instead, Equifax says the breach described by Bloomberg was a "security incident involving a payroll-related service." The incident, which Equifax refers to as the "March event," was reported to customers, affected individuals and regulators, as well as covered by the media, it says. "Mandiant has investigated both events and found no evidence that these two separate events or the attackers were related."
Equifax appears to refer a breach involving TALX its payroll, human resources, and tax services subsidiary formally known as Equifax Workforce Solutions. The Bank Info Security news report explained:
"In early March, Equifax began notifying individuals whose employers use TALX for payroll services that it had detected unauthorized access to its web-based portal. Employees use the TALX portal to access their W-2, which is the annual income reporting form that U.S. employees need to file their federal tax return. That's also a key document for fraudsters, because it puts them one step closer to being able to fraudulently file and claim a tax refund in someone else's name.
In the March attack, hackers had luck accessing TALX accounts by guessing registered users' personal questions, according to Equifax's breach notifications. By answering the questions correctly, fraudsters were able to reset a PIN needed to access an account. With the fresh PIN, they were able to obtain an electronic copy of victims' W-2. The unauthorized access incidents occurred between April 17, 2016, and March 29, 2017, Equifax says..."
"... one goal of the attackers was to use Equifax as a way into the computers of major banks, according to a fourth person familiar with the matter. This person said a large Canadian bank has determined that hackers claiming to sell celebrity profiles from Equifax on the dark web -- information that appears to be fraudulent, or recycled from other breaches -- did in fact steal the username and password for an application programming interface, or API, linking the bank’s back-end servers to Equifax.
According to the person and a Sept. 14 internal memo reviewed by Bloomberg, the gateway linked a test and development site used by the bank’s wealth management division to Equifax, allowing the two entities to share information digitally."
So, there was a breach in March. Was it the TALX hack, the hack via a bank, both, or something else? If the Bloomberg report is accurate, then the post-breach consequences listed probably apply:
"... will complicate the company’s efforts to explain a series of unusual stock sales by Equifax executives. If it’s shown that those executives did so with the knowledge that either or both breaches could damage the company, they could be vulnerable to charges of insider trading... New questions about Equifax’s timeline are also likely to become central to the crush of lawsuits being filed against the Atlanta-based company. Investigators and consumers alike want to know how a trusted custodian of so many Americans’ private data could let hackers gain access to the most important details of financial identity... the revelation of an earlier breach will likely raise questions for the company’s beleaguered executives over whether that [March] investigation was sufficiently thorough or if it was closed too soon. For example, Equifax has said that the hackers entered the company’s computer banks the second time through a flaw in the company’s web software that was known in March but not patched until the later activity was detected in July."
If true, then consumers are left with more questions: which bank(s)? What fixes have been implemented so this doesn't happen again? Why wasn't this disclosed sooner? How many consumers were affected? Exactly how did the hackers gain access? Was it the same or a different group of hackers? Which consumers' data elements were accessed/stolen?
The cynic in me wonders if Equifax executives are using its TALX breach as cover -- to avoid having to admit to another massive (and embarrassing) data breach.
Regardless of which news report is accurate, there are plenty of reasons for consumers to feel uneasy about Equifax's breach(es), data security protections, and breach notifications. Equifax is a custodian of extremely valuable and sensitive information about consumers. It makes money selling that information to potential lenders, and consumers have a right to have their questions answered fully.
On Friday, September 15, the attorneys general in several states sent a joint letter to Equifax as a result of the credit reporting agency's response to a massive data breach affecting about 143 million persons in the United States. The participating attorneys general are concerned about the impacts and costs to consumers. They want Equifax to respond better to the needs of consumers, extend the duration of the sign-up period for breach victims, and waive the fees of certain services. Perhaps most importantly, they are concerned about Equifax benefiting unjustly due to a situation it created.
The joint letter explained:
"... Chief among the issues causing confusion and concern are the inclusion of terms of service that required consumers to waive their rights, the offer of competing fee-based and free credit monitoring services by Equifax, and the charges consumers incur for a security freeze with other credit monitoring companies like Experian, TransUnion, and Innovis.
Initially, in order to enroll in the free credit monitoring that Equifax offered to all Americans, it appeared that Equifax attached certain conditions to the offer, including mandatory arbitration, among other things. The fact that Equifax’s own conduct created the need for these services demands that they be offered to consumers without tying the offer to complicated terms of service that may require them to forgo certain rights. It was not until after urging from our offices and public condemnation that Equifax withdrew these objectionable terms from its offer of free credit monitoring.
We remain concerned that Equifax continues to market its fee-based services to consumers affected by its data breach. Consumers who view Equifax’s homepage are offered both Equifax fee-based credit monitoring services, as well as its services offered at no cost. Again, at the urging of our offices and following criticism in the media, Equifax made its offer of free credit monitoring services more prominent so that it can be more easily found by consumers. Although these changes are an improvement over the site’s original offering, which presented a much less prominent link when compared to Equifax’s fee-based offering, they do not address all of our concerns.
We believe continuing to offer consumers a fee-based service in addition to Equifax’s free monitoring services will serve to only confuse consumers who are already struggling to make decisions on how to best protect themselves in the wake of this massive breach. We object to Equifax seemingly using its own data breach as an opportunity to sell services to breach victims. Selling a fee-based product that competes with Equifax’s own free offer of credit monitoring services to victims of Equifax’s own data breach is unfair, particularly if consumers are not sure if their information was compromised.
Equifax cannot reap benefits from confused consumers who are likely only visiting Equifax’s homepage because they are concerned about whether the breach affects them and their families. If there is any substantial benefit consumers can obtain by purchasing the fee-based services over the free credit monitoring, then we strongly suggest that Equifax upgrade its free credit monitoring service to provide equivalent protection. On the other hand, if the services are equivalent, then we fail to understand why Equifax continues to offer its fee-based services to those affected by the breach if equivalent services are obtainable at no cost. Either way, we request that Equifax disable links to its fee-based services until the sign-up period for the free service has ended. Additionally, the cutoff date of November 21, 2017 for consumers to avail themselves of the free services provided appears to us to be rather short-sighted and we suggest that date be extended to at least January 31, 2018.
Our offices are also receiving complaints from proactive consumers who have requested a security freeze. Although Equifax is not charging consumers a fee for its own security freeze service, these consumers are furious that they have been forced to pay for a security freeze with other companies, such as Experian and TransUnion, when this privacy breach was no fault of their own. We agree with these consumers that it is indefensible that they be forced to pay fees to fully protect themselves from the fallout of Equifax’s data breach.
Accordingly, we believe Equifax should, at a minimum, be taking steps to reimburse consumers who incur fees to completely freeze their credit..."
The participating attorneys general are from Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Read the announcement by Christopher S. Porrino, the State of New Jersey Attorney General. A copy of the joint letter is also available here (Adobe PDF).