Send in a driver's license and verify with the state the license comes from?

Tyler Durden and Mr. Robot both have solutions to this problem.

There are a lot of ways they could do it, my point was there has to be a way to lift it without the PIN. That mechanism has to exist.

Sure but a web based entry consisting solely of the compromised info shouldn't be the way.

New equifax ceo speaks:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-to-consumers/

Imagine a world where instead of using his populist bully pulpit to call black NFL players SOBs, he used it to go after the Equifax CEO walking away with a $90M golden parachute.

Unintended consequences: Four of the last five tenants I had to screen for one of my rentals has had their credit frozen and their credit report came back blank/non-verified.

You don't get to move in unless you or a co-signer can verify a credit score above 700, and this credit freeze bull**** makes running applications a logistical pain in the dick. Gotta actually talk to every applicant now, find out of they froze their credit, wait three days for it to unfreeze, hope they actually followed through on doing it, keep track of who's where on the timeline, etc. It costs $15 every time I run one, and I'll be damned if I'm going to eat the cost of re-screening people after the first one (or two) attempts fail due to a freeze.

so you are going to pass the cost on to your applicants?

Don’t think I’ve ever applied for rent at a place that didn’t charge for the credit check. Usually much more than fifteen bucks tho

You could just have the applicants supply the credit reports. That's worked at the last couple places I've lived.

In our haste to protect the financial information of 140,000,000 Americans, we never considered that our nation's slumlords might get stuck with $15 fees and paperwork.

Today, they pay $15 along with submitting their application online. After that, I need to collect it manually, and yes, now I have to start charging people another $15 fee if we have to run their report again. It's a pain in the ass no matter how you look at it, and dealing with applications is not the best use of my time.

I see applications from competitors in the area with ridiculous application fees upwards of $50. Seems like a real dick move to me, tbh. Your credit report and background check cost me $15 and the click of a button. The rest of it should be cost of doing business and built into rents, because most people are screened out from the credit/background check. Why charge everyone $50 when you're going to reject most of them anyway? That kind of greed is how you wind up getting yourself regulated.


My system is built for efficiency, and that sounds woefully inefficient. The fewer people actually showing up at my office, the happier I am. We moved to an online SAS platform 2 years ago, and it has been fantastic. 100% online applications/screening/leases. Everything is automatically tied to the applicant for compliance with filing requirements, etc. I rarely ever even see the tenants any more.

Just another example of technology eating jobs, I suppose. We used to have someone in charge of all the paperwork and bull**** involved with rental season. She moved out west, and we signed up for the software platform instead of replacing her. She did other things, obviously, but that was a $48k salary largely replaced by a $200/month subscription. I absorbed the rest of the workload. There went all my extra 2p2 time.

You are probably going to need to change your procedures down the road or sell of your properties.

This magic button to get you what you want in an even more magical number is not ultimately going to be sustained.

Or, we double the application fee and pocket the difference when the first credit pull goes through without a problem. That's the path of lease resistance, but then I'm turning into one of those jerks I mentioned in my post that deliberately over-charges everyone, even when I know it won't cost me that much every time.

It's not fair, but that's life.

Just completed, today, study, shows 2.5 million more accounts exposed. Bringing total up to 14.5 million.


https://usat.ly/2khzdmj

That should read 145 million.

Maybe it’s my paranoia, but I will never click one of those url shortened links.

I recognize the poster. I don't generally click any links at all from people I don't recognize.

Oops thanks.

As for the links I understand the paranoia. That was the link USA Today gave me straight off the app. I just saw it in notifications.

I don’t even really understand the current day need for shortened links.

Should I not feel invincible behind a sandbox, with all unknown third-party page elements blocked on top of that? Come to think of it, maybe I should disable 1st-party scripts before clicking something shady. But blocking is all redundant if sandboxing does what it's supposed to, no?

https://arstechnica.com/information-...quifax-breach/

Reads of gross negligence

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNBC/stat...45520888754176

If you trust your sandboxing

bad news

6 FRESH HORRORS FROM THE EQUIFAX CEO'S CONGRESSIONAL HEARING
https://www.wired.com/story/equifax-...ess-testimony/

good news

US Studying Ways To End Use of Social Security Numbers For ID
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/10...numbers-for-id

LOL news

IRS awards multimillion-dollar fraud-prevention contract to Equifax
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/1...ontract-243419