As Equifax sheds its top execs, more experts are casting attention on the business practice of charging consumers for monitoring their personal data at bureaus that otherwise give them little control over their financial identities.
It’s a story you’ll watch unfold time and time again. The breach. The headlines. The confusion. The public apologies. The finger-pointing. And it’s often followed by some form of the following: “But I was compliant.” Compliance is never enough. The challenges are understandable. Taking the path of least resistance is not.Read this white paper to learn the value of a holistic approach to security.
Richard Smith has resigned from the embattled Atlanta credit reporting company and will be replaced by Paulino do Rego Barros Jr., a seven-year company veteran. Board member Mark Feidler, a former telecom executive, was named nonexecutive chairman.
After Equifax disclosed a devastating data breach, much of the attention focused on whether the company did everything it could in response. But the scary truth may be that this is the sort of incident that goes beyond a single company's ability to fix.
SourceMedia's PayThink conference is an annual gathering of key decision-makers in the financial services and payments industries. This year's event, which took place in Phoenix this September, brought several key ideas to light.
While the payments industry may believe a "breach fatigue" has set in, it may have been the expectation of a cowed and apathetic public that partly led to Equifax’s maligned response after its data breach was finally made public.
Security professionals have long argued against the use of static identifiers like passwords and Social Security numbers, while consumers have long questioned why a handful of bureaus can claim to be the ultimate judges of their identities.