Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Technology

Congresswoman Destroys Equifax CEO Mark Begor About Privacy (fastcompany.com) 195

An anonymous reader shares a report: In a congressional hearing on Tuesday, Representative Katie Porter (D-CA) asked whether Equifax CEO Mark Begor would be willing to share his address, birth date, and Social Security number publicly at the hearing. Begor declined, citing the risk of "identity theft," letting Porter criticize Equifax's legal response to the 2017 security breach that exposed almost 150 million people's data of that sort to an unknown intruder. The company had unsuccessfully asked a judge presiding over a class-action suit over the breach to dismiss it, saying the plaintiffs hadn't "sufficiently alleged injury and proximate causation" to bring suit, as Yahoo Finance reported late last month.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congresswoman Destroys Equifax CEO Mark Begor About Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @10:38AM (#58188518) Homepage

    But they won't do that. Because he's rich. Filthy rich.

    • by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @10:45AM (#58188580) Homepage
      The only way to fix this is to make data breaches MUCH more expensive than what it costs to make their systems secure. With a side order of mandatory executive jail time just to be sure.
      • by kaizendojo ( 956951 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @11:46AM (#58188994)
        Which is correct of course, but never going to happen under this administration.
      • Just implement the GDPR in the US. But I'm sure by the time it is adopted, it will be crippled by loopholes.

      • In theory, sure. The companies keep too much information and therefore make it too valuable, right?

        The problem is now it is easy enough for a hacker to crack multiple (softer) targets and assemble much of the same data. Perfect security is impossible, and the problem gets worse the further down you go. Once you talk about employee exfiltration of data they had the right to access, things become darn near impossible.

        • Perfect security is impossible, and the problem gets worse the further down you go

          This limitation is much more often used as an excuse than it is reached. If someone says, "Perfect security is impossible" you better check for SQL injection attacks, because they most likely have them. Better make sure their passwords are encrypted, too.

      • Such a breach and handling of it should constitute penalty of bringing the company down magnitude - it has to be felt not only by C[ET.]Os but by shareholders as well, who have to start putting attention on how the company is managed not only how much dividend they get - otherwise all will remain business as usual.

        Class action lawsuit is justified, as the genie is out and there's no way to put him back, unless 150mln people changed their SSNs they will remain susceptible to identity theft for the rest of t

      • it would be too easy to use a data breach as a form of attacking somebody's company. Some breaches are going to happen and be genuinely out of the person's control.

        Large breaches should be treated as negligence cases. That'll help. But a better and real long term solution is to force companies to build systems that prevent breaches from causing problems. Somebody shouldn't be able to get a mortgage with a SS# and a smile. It doesn't help that such loans are often guaranteed, often sold by salesmen on co
    • But they won't do that. Because he's rich. Filthy rich.

      They also won't do it because there is no evidence that he did anything wrong.

      The breach occurred in March 2017.

      He became CEO in April 2018.

    • This guy should be in prison. But they won't do that. Because he's rich. Filthy rich.

      So, you're in favor of jailing innocent people?

      After all, Mark Begor was not the CEO when the leak happened (that would be Richard Smith), nor was he even the CEO who handled most of the aftermath (that would be Paulino do Rego Barros Jr.). Mr. Begor only started as CEO in April 2018, nearly a year after the leaks were first discovered. He may be as slimy as the rest for all I know, but he wasn't a part of what happened back then. So far as I can see, he's simply the guy trying to clean up the mess.

      It's fin

  • and what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @10:42AM (#58188550) Homepage Journal

    So she got her 15 minutes of fame, but does it change anything? Aside from the headline, is there any effect?

    • Re:and what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @10:50AM (#58188610) Homepage Journal

      Well in theory he adds to the debate over privacy laws and corporate punishment for breeches, and also the positive publicity and public sentiment might encourage others to join her in supporting laws that address the issue.

      Obviously the system is far from perfect, but it's perhaps not a total waste of time.

    • That's to be seen.

      I'm still celebrating a congressperson doing something for their constituents for a change. Could we just have that? It's not like those moments are so numerous that we shouldn't cherish them.

      • by Tom ( 822 )

        But what exactly did she do?

        Has a law been changed? A fine been issued? A court case been filed? Has the company or the executive been in any way punished? Or just mildely inconvenience for two minutes?

    • So she got her 15 minutes of fame, but does it change anything? Aside from the headline, is there any effect?

      Probably not.

      It's kind of like the Senate hearing yesterday with all the heads of the pharmas getting grilled about drug prices.
      A republican senator was annoyed by the answer from the Pfizer guy about how they manipulate patents to keep price gouging going.
      The senator made a comment about how, since he was on the judiciary committee they would "take a look at that".
      Sure you will.

      How much does pharma contribute to their campaigns?

    • I would argue the headline is the effect. Hopefully it will be another notch in the idea that this data is too powerful for people to hold, or that it is worthless. Either outcome works.

      • by Tom ( 822 )

        It's not the first headline of this type, and not the first case of someone protecting his own privacy while playing it fast and loose with others.

        So again, what it actually accomplishes?

        It's the same question I ask about political comedians and satire. I enjoy it a lot, but I always wonder if it doesn't provide a harmless outlet for dissatisfaction that should better make efforts towards change their outlet.

    • So she got her 15 minutes of fame, but does it change anything? Aside from the headline, is there any effect?

      Well now, he did let us know - via the attempt to persuade a judge to dismiss a court class-action suit - that such personal information of millions of people exposed was "no harm done"; but if the same information about him was exposed, it would be simply devastating! Glad he cleared that up, and all thanks to our "useless" open congressional investigations process. /sarcasm

      • by Tom ( 822 )

        I got that, but

        a) CEOs of this type are often psychopaths. They have no problem with this kind of conflicting information. (I don't mean that as an insult, it's a proven fact that some personality types are more common among top-level managers than in the general population)

        b) what exactly does this change except confirming a suspicion? That's the point. Will it have any effect on the court case? Will it have any effect on stock prices? Revenue? Anything?

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @10:44AM (#58188562)
    not that it hurts to call folks out for their bullshit, but by itself it's little more than impotent rage. If you want change you need to get a lot more people like her in office. And that means showing up for primary elections so you have real choices in the general election.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by EmagGeek ( 574360 )

      Are you kidding me? It was a spectacle of epic proportions. She was doing nothing more than grandstanding.

      There is a big difference between making persuasive, coherent arguments in favor of change, and acting like a petulant child and throwing a screaming temper tantrum at someone.

      Everyone already knows that Equifax screwed up. We don't needs some blowhard reminding us of what we already know. If you want change you need FEWER people like her and MORE people who are willing to actually discuss the issue rat

      • by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @11:06AM (#58188708)

        "Destroys"

        Slashdot editors are 7th graders. It's a wonder they aren't posting shit in Text Speak.

        • "Destroys"

          Slashdot editors are 7th graders. It's a wonder they aren't posting shit in Text Speak.

          Should have been pwns, obviously!

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Welcome to click-bait YouTube politics, where every other video is "X DESTROYS feminazi sjw" but if you actually have the misfortune to watch it that's almost never the case.

      • Yes, they screwed up. But so far I have not seen a single congresscritter to do more than shrug and click their tongue while rolling their eyes. Maybe finally we'll see some kind of movement.

        Please let me hope.

      • The context was a question about actual harm. Giving out your private information raises the potential for actual harm. A breach likewise does not mean actual harm. Until you can point to specific people who suffered identity theft, there is no actual harm.

        And sadly after so many breaches it gets harder to say that it was this particular breach that caused injury.

        The difference between potential and actual is important.

      • Isn’t “nothing more than grandstanding” pretty much the definition of congressional hearings?
      • by thomn8r ( 635504 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @03:46PM (#58190326)

        We don't needs some blowhard reminding us of what we already know.

        Actually, we do. Otherwise people just forget about it an then it's as if it never happened in the fist place.

      • Are you kidding me? It was a spectacle of epic proportions. She was doing nothing more than grandstanding.

        There is a big difference between making persuasive, coherent arguments in favor of change, and acting like a petulant child and throwing a screaming temper tantrum at someone.

        She was getting Mark to make a public contradictory statement on the record about value of privacy given Equifax's lawyers have argued to the contrary in court.

        Derisive characterizations "petulant child" "screaming temper tantrum"...are in my view absolutely ridiculous having listened to the exchange.

        Everyone already knows that Equifax screwed up. We don't needs some blowhard reminding us of what we already know.

        What to do about it is still very much in play on multiple levels. As a lawmaker it's important to get a read on the extent to which industry gives a fuck / recognizes a problem and willing to change themselve

    • What we need is ranked choice voting.

      The primaries are manipulated contests that usually involve party insiders pushing other favored insiders.

      And if you live in a one-party district like me, the "real" election is the primary because the other party candidate is usually some total freak who's only running because the other party will literally let anyone brave enough to run do so. But because of party manipulation and the "endorsed" label that gets handed out by the party's internal process, the primary i

  • by Anonymous Coward

    "Destroys" is a curious claim. He goes back to his job tomorrow at the same salary and position, They keep running things the same way they have before. Minor blush over being called out in public and all is forgotten. But the congress critter will brag about how she said something smart rather than actually accomplishing anything.

    This generation needs to learn, Words do not destroy, only actions do. Perhaps this misconception is part of the reason why people are so afraid of words. Or maybe they've

    • by kamakazi ( 74641 )

      No, they have to be spoken in fake Latin.

    • by k6mfw ( 1182893 )
      Yes, they are bankrupting that word. I see this all the time, however, when I first saw this expression I first thought, "wow, that famous person used C4 on another famous person?" For the rest of us should not use that expression or may get an inquiry from law enforcement personnel.
  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @10:52AM (#58188628)

    The problem I have with congressional hearings, it is that you a forced to go to a roasting session, and a scolding that one hasn't had sense they were 8 years old.
    The problem is that these do little to fix the problems, politician zingers only really hurt people with political ambitions. A CEO doesn't need to win popular vote, He is fine being the most hated man in the world just as long as he gets his pay. Besides after the hearing, most CEO's will get out of the public eye, and most people will forget such insults and scolding told to him.
    These hearings shouldn't be about punishing a guy, no matter how nasty they are. But trying to get information so Congress can craft laws and policies to prevent it from happening again.

    I am sure Mark Begor as an adult, will fly home in his personal jet, and not loose much sleep, because a Congresswomen got a good zing on him.

    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      The problem I have with congressional hearings, it is that you a forced to go to a roasting session, and a scolding that one hasn't had sense they were 8 years old. The problem is that these do little to fix the problems, politician zingers only really hurt people with political ambitions. A CEO doesn't need to win popular vote, He is fine being the most hated man in the world just as long as he gets his pay. Besides after the hearing, most CEO's will get out of the public eye, and most people will forget such insults and scolding told to him. These hearings shouldn't be about punishing a guy, no matter how nasty they are. But trying to get information so Congress can craft laws and policies to prevent it from happening again.

      I am sure Mark Begor as an adult, will fly home in his personal jet, and not loose much sleep, because a Congresswomen got a good zing on him.

      Committees are mostly about sound bites, nothing more. Half the time the committee members aren't even asking questions, they are just making statements. Every now and then you get something big out of a committee, but that only happens in an actually bipartisan committee which is rare these days.

    • The whole point is to look like you care all while in reality few in government really gives a damn, and those that do are too small in number to accomplish anything. I don't know if term limits would help to flush out the constipated career politicians, but it would be a great start. Then do something about corporate lobbyists.....
    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      I think this is a necessary part of the political process. In an ideal world we'd all dispassionately weigh our opinions, carefully ensuring that they're consistently applied to ourselves and others. But we don't, not most of us. We live in a world controlled by the snap judgments of millions of voters, snap judgments informed by voter preconceptions. So it's strategically important to shape those preconceptions.

      This is why corporations hire public relations people to cover their tracks on things like pri

    • These zingers are how you help build a narrative that can be used in campaigns to change who gets elected to Congress.

      From that, you can actually change things. If the elections go your way.

      It's a slow and tedious process thanks to all the veto points in our political system. If you'd prefer something that could react more quickly, we'd need some major changes in the fundamentals of how our government works.

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      It's only a zinger because he has no good answer to it and no valid defense against it. I know it's a long shot, but if enough legislators are paying attention, they will remember that next time legislation that might limit data collection comes up.

  • Nothing matters (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dallas May ( 4891515 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @10:52AM (#58188630)

    Nothing matters. This has no meaning. He won't lose his job. He won't even lose a second of sleep. He doesn't care about this or anything. Nothing matters.

    Because he's rich. Wealth is the only virtue American culture acknowledges.

  • by barakn ( 641218 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @11:01AM (#58188672)

    Millions of people were forced to spend their time getting credit reports because of the breach, and time is money, so clearly millions of people were injured to the tune of at least a couple of bucks apiece.

  • A good start (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @11:11AM (#58188748)

    You slapped him with words. I do appreciate this. Really.

    Now let actions follow to match the bite to the bark!

  • by GregMmm ( 5115215 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @11:14AM (#58188762)

    This is what someone calls "destroying" they need to be put in a bubble the rest of their lives. That CEO has had much tougher talks and dealings to get to where he is now. Not easy climbing the corporate ladder.

    Besides, this is just politics. It's only popular right now. This will be forgotten and gone soon enough.

  • by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @11:15AM (#58188766)

    "Destroyed"? Hardly. This congressional hearings do nothing anyway, they are a waste of time. Congress critters hold them to make it look like they are "doing something".

  • by thereddaikon ( 5795246 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @11:18AM (#58188790)
    So what did she do? Send him to the shadow realm? Hit him with a good 'ole Kamehameha?

    Nope. She just chewed him out. Can we chill with the over dramatic headlines? I want to destroy modern journalism and replace with something that just tells me what happened.

    • by Shotgun ( 30919 )

      I would have accepted "She introduced legislation."

    • Do you even have a suggestion to make it better?

      My own suggestion involves solutions linked to the problems the journalists keep telling us about.

      • Yes journalism is broken and has been for a long time. I think the combination of the lack of money in reporting these days and the consolidation of news media has led us to this point. Now everything is over sensationalized for clicks and reporters flaunt their own opinions and agendas blatantly. That's not to say that there wasn't a problem with journalism in the past either, this same shit helped start the spanish american war. To fix it I think the first step is breaking up the media empires we have no
        • by shanen ( 462549 )

          Hm... Is your handle some sort of radish joke?

          Anyway, on the substance, I think you are focusing on one of the old financial models, the eyeballs (or earlobes) for advertisers model. The main proponent of that model these days is probably CNN rather than the clickbait websites. I think it works extremely badly, especially since con artists like #PresidentTweety know how to milk it for free publicity. But it has MANY flaws and weaknesses because time is linear and real news is not.

          I think the most successful

  • If -anyone- really cared about security, you wouldn't post mind-numbing personal details about yourself on social media. You wouldn't buy an always on spyware devices like Alexa or Google home, or Nest (Wait? What? NEST has a microphone? - yep), you wouldn't tolerate smart phones and apps constantly digesting your behavior and movement.
    So long as you don't care about your privacy, corporations won't either.
    • How are all of those things I allow to leak about me going to allow people to use and trash my credit record or saddle me with fake debt? I know what I'm allowing out, and I'm fine with it. If I'm not fine with it, it doesn't get to the net.

  • Damn, the devolution of Slashdot into a clickbait headline service is now complete.

    Number 7 will shock you!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    A more meaningful dialogue would have been something like
    - Porter - would you take this $100 bill to post your information on line now, or even $1000, I have the cash in hand
    - Begor - that's personal information
    - Porter - how about $10,000, I have a suitcase of cash here
    - Begor - Congresswoman, I don't want to engage in this sort....
    - Porter - answer the question yes or no
    - Begor - this sort of hypothetical...
    - Porter - let the record show that Begor wouldn't not take $10,000 to post his personal informatio

  • by cellocgw ( 617879 ) <cellocgw&gmail,com> on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @12:51PM (#58189414) Journal

    The problem is that the USA has somehow allowed these credit rating companies to provide data to banks, loan agencies, corporate hiring departments, insurance agencies, etc., without any laws related to verification of the data provided.

    It's easier to get your consciousness uploaded to Mr. Frostee than it is to get incorrect info removed from your credit report. There's nothing requiring the credit bureaus to fact-check and verify the sewage coming into their databases, let alone anything requiring them to change the contents of the database when correct material is supplied.

    That's what needs to be fixed.

  • "destroys" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @12:59PM (#58189450) Journal

    Ok she had a great point, but can we stop using yahoo phrasing in our headlines?

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @01:09PM (#58189508) Journal
    The banks and lenders want to lend without any delay. Anytime anyone has an impulse to borrow and spend, these lenders want to lend before that impulse passes. That is why they lend without proper verification. Crooks take advantage of it, give false data, take the money and run.

    Now the banks come after the name on their record. Now it is up to the innocent victim who has to prove he/she was not the person who borrowed.

    Right now, a bank with all its financial muscle can accuse someone of defaulting on a loan. The alleged defaulter needs to spend time, and energy to fight it off. And in the end you can't get the money spent on defense back from the bank.

    We just have to change the law to say, "If a lender falsely accuses someone of default, it should pay the accused the amount claimed as restitution and the cost of defending the claim". Banks will become lot more diligent in processing the loan application, and be a lot more careful before it brings in the muscle to collect.

  • The World Weekly News is right up your alley, too bad they folded in 2007.

    Or you could try the Sun, or the Daily Fail.

    Seriously. Destroyed? Destroyed would be 50 years in prison, forfeit the car, homes, boats, jets, possessions. That would be "Destroyed."

    *sigh*

  • Is I was like OMG dat Congress woman like totally *destroyed* that equinox CEO. It was so incredible I like literally could not even anymore. I literally died right there and I'm still dying now.

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Working...