Businesses don't care - it is the consumers being hurt, not the businesses using Equifax's services. It would be like a local store that keeps getting broken into and robbed in the middle of the night. Would a person stop buying from them just because they're losing stuff? It doesn't effect them (assuming the data doesn't get modified). As long as they have what the person wants at a reasonable price when they want it, why should they care that the business has a loss problem?

The most likely reason why it could become an issue is if the losing business ends up having to raise prices to compensate, or has to shutter its doors. THEN you can just go to a competitor.

All remediation wasn't yet fully in place, or maybe, it was contracted out and the subcontractor failed, so they will never, ever, use that firm again, lesson learned. Or some other pass the buck statement.

You're holding it wrong. :)

When he says "password", I think he may mean "passcode". After the passcode is entered to unlock the phone, it will then unlock using only TouchID for a week before requiring the passcode again be entered (unless two days go by without being unlocked). The passcode prompt often appears to be random since you keep unlocking the phone with a finger, then suddenly it says no, give me the passcode instead (often at a rather inconvenient time).

Like you, I don't get Apple/iCloud password prompts unless performing very specific actions where it makes sense. If I did, I would know since my Apple password is long, complex, and a pain in the ass to enter.

Oh you poor naive fool.

Congress deliberately passes broad sweeping laws that leave a lot of discretion for the enacting agencies since Congress can't be bothered by the minutia. In this case it is the FCC that put the current Net-Neutrality provisions in place, not Congress, and the FCC can take them away. The comments aren't a vote, but they will certainly be used by the politicians to justify their actions - "Look, we were doing what the public demanded. 90% of those commenting were against Net Neutrality, so we did what they public wanted us to do."

Exactly, the two sides are still communicating, though not as well. Think about it this way - if they weren't communicating it would be impossible for a person to do common activities like walking, since the each half controls a leg and without coordinating the legs couldn't move cooperatively and the person would just fall down. Likewise, driving would be a nightmare, and the list goes on.

That is maybe the most accurate and succinct description of the Trump agenda ever written.

That is very specious. All candidates attempt to divide the electorate with the intent that the division puts the majority on their side of the divide. That for example was a desired consequence of Hillary calling Trump supporters "deplorables" - to split the electorate into two sides and, as the strategy tried, to either support her, or be a member of a deplorable group. Division and politics go hand in hand.

They can force you to give handwriting sample and to read selected text to evaluate your voice. I am certain they can legally compel you to look at a phone. That is why people concerned about it should disable the biometric access before entering the border area, or any area where they fear such coercion. Then they just need to determine if contempt charges or monkey wrench cryptography (depending on jurisdiction) is worth the consequences.

Is your name, address, birthdate, social security number, etc., with TransUnion and Experian different than the information leaked by Equifax? If so, why do you only worry about locking Equifax?

About 15 years ago when I moved and signed up with Comcast for a cable modem (they were the only high speed choice there - too far for DSL), the lady tried to upsell me by adding a TV package. She said If I bundled the two I would get a $15 discount. and mentioned various TV packages from $40 to over $100. I asked if there was anything cheaper since I had heard about a basic "must carry" level, and she admitted it existed and was $8. I confirmed with her that by signing up for a $8 basic TV package, I would get a $15 discount off the pair, and she said yes. So by letting TV signals enter my house (no TV attached though), I paid $7 less than just getting Internet. Sadly, about three years later the price increases and new FCC taxes for cable TV made the TV portion more expensive than the discount so I dropped it. I still have a grandfathered plan though that gives me 100Mbps at half the cost of my neighbors.

Fired or not, he is still a viable Exhibit A, and now with Google being on record showing how they treat people who try to raise constructive criticism to diversity issues.

Shooting may be satisfying, but too extreme (IMO, YMMV), and sued would fail big time due to freedom of the press.

I think you have discovered their probable intent. I suspect the article's author will be rewarded since the vast majority will read and accept the article's implied message without looking further. It is the small minority that will seek truth, and not just drink what is fed to them.

Google didn't report it, they found that he did those searches after they were already looking at him, at least that is what the article implies since it is scant on details. My question though is how they know about the searches? Was it forensics on his computer, or did they get the search history from Google? I'm betting the former.

I don't doubt it, but I think he is spinning it. Think about the problem of attribution in the cyber realm, then think about what good such an agreement would be? All it would do is become something for groups to use to try and attack others in public while doing absolutely nothing to stop any of the cyber attacks. The administration probably "ignored it" (meaning told them to take a hike) because they saw it as a nothing-burger proposed solely for propaganda reasons.

News reports as I write, on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, are quoting two congressmen saying both are sure the person they spoke to and asked whether democrats or republicans were playing, is the person whose photo is appearing on the news broadcasts. How are the early reports wrong?

Actually, that is close to how a lot of drug research is done. 1) Create new drug, 2) throw at a lot of cultures to see what effect it has on any of them, 3) follow up where an effect is observed, 4) market. For example, Rogaine was originally developed to treat ulcers and hypertension, and Viagra to treat hypertension and mild heart problems, and look where they went.