Revised headline: A year later, the vast majority of people have faced little fallout from having data about them inadvertently made public.
Nearly all of the dire predictions made at the time of the breach have been wrong to date.
Nearly all of the dire predictions made at the time of the breach have been wrong to date.
2) It's still a bit early to trust the data, but so far identity theft rates do not appear to be up significantly in the aftermath of the equifax breach.
And that's acceptable to virtually everyone.
(When in this case, to stretch the metaphor, the droplets all had strong profit incentives related to storing and making decisions based on peoples' data, and that they were pretty demonstrably negligent at protecting their charge?)
All I'm really saying is, these breaches won't ever stop if the cost of a response remains substantially lower for these companies, than the profitability of being the (ir)responsible ones and maintaining the data in a negligent state.
> Tell that to my coworker who spent all day on the phone last week fighting identify fraud with his bank.
I'm saying that identity theft happened before the Equifax breach, and the Target breach, and the Yahoo! breach, etc. It will continue to happen. What we need is some sort of reform, like a national ID system with stronger ways to identify people (like fingerprints) and strong penalties for the criminals, not the organizations that get victimized. Note that anything like this will probably result in restricting access to credit or raising the cost of it.
People like to blame the CRAs for this, but it's the businesses that don't do due diligence in verifying identity that are at fault.
I would like, if you are one of the entities with control over this situation, if you bet against this. How much will it cost me to get you, as a service provider, to start betting against this?
It wasn't inadvertently, they made decisions and said "eh whatever"