Identity theft feared in Cingular store break-in

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Letters? They didn't have the DECENCY to hire some Kelly girls and make
> > phone calls? Such negligence is ACTIONABLE if any suffers adverse
> > consequences as a result of the multi day delay in letting folks know.
>
> Yes, letters, as required by law. Phone calls- not required by law, and
> generally not accepted as a trackable form of communication. No
negligence-
> not actionable.


BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT..........WRONG!!!!!

---

› See More: Identity theft feared in Cingular store break-in

Robert M. wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Hunter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>None of the customers who have contacted the company so far has been a
>>victim of fraud, he said.
>
>
> Like they'd publicize it if they knew. They are now open to MAJOR
> lawsuits.

You are just a wealth of information on every topic that comes up Robert. NOT
Where do you have to go to be as smart as you? Idiot

Mr.Excitement wrote:

> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>>Letters? They didn't have the DECENCY to hire some Kelly girls and make
>>>phone calls? Such negligence is ACTIONABLE if any suffers adverse
>>>consequences as a result of the multi day delay in letting folks know.
>>
>>Yes, letters, as required by law. Phone calls- not required by law, and
>>generally not accepted as a trackable form of communication. No
>
> negligence-
>
>>not actionable.
>
>
>
> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT..........WRONG!!!!!
>
>
Wow Robert, neat new sock puppet????

"Mr.Excitement" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> They (we) would have called the 3 major credit agencies and put a fraud
> watch on their SSN's and got their names off of the pre-approved credit
card
> mailings list. They would have also called the SS Administration and had
> THEM flag the number for fraud.
>
> Yep, that's what "they" are supposed to do. I'm surprised you didn't know
> that, as you seem to know alot.............. maybe even everything?
>

I knew all that, and unlike you, I know that the few precious days that you
guys are freaking out about pale in comparison to the 30+ days it takes the
credit bureaus to process the fraud alert. Nice try, though.

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 18:41:10 -0700, "Scott Stephenson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Now, let me get this straight- the information taken were things like names,
>addresses, SS#, and credit card #'s. Now, other than cancelling credit
>cards (which are going to be protected anyway), just what would these people
>have done about the other information in that week. Moved? Changed names?
>
How about placing fraud alerts with the three credit bureaus?

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> "Mr.Excitement" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > They (we) would have called the 3 major credit agencies and put a fraud
> > watch on their SSN's and got their names off of the pre-approved credit
> card
> > mailings list. They would have also called the SS Administration and
had
> > THEM flag the number for fraud.
> >
> > Yep, that's what "they" are supposed to do. I'm surprised you didn't
know
> > that, as you seem to know alot.............. maybe even everything?
> >
>
> I knew all that, and unlike you, I know that the few precious days that
you
> guys are freaking out about pale in comparison to the 30+ days it takes
the
> credit bureaus to process the fraud alert. Nice try, though.

Wrong again (Nice try though)

In article <[email protected]>,
Jerry Springer <[email protected]> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Hunter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>None of the customers who have contacted the company so far has been a
> >>victim of fraud, he said.
> >
> >
> > Like they'd publicize it if they knew. They are now open to MAJOR
> > lawsuits.
>
> You are just a wealth of information on every topic that comes up Robert. NOT

You are entitled to your opinion. In this case Cingular could be in a
world of hurt if the stolen info was used during the DAYS between when
they could have notified people and when people were actually notified.
Its called negligence.

In article <[email protected]>,
Jerry Springer <[email protected]> wrote:

> Where do you have to go to be as smart as you? Idiot



Ever notice how folks when they are proven wrong, resort to insults?

In article <[email protected]>,
"Mr.Excitement" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 8 days between the time of the break in and the time I rec'd the letter.

The correct thing for Cingular to have done was to hire Kelley Girls and
telephone every victim. Waiting days to send letters that take days for
folks to receive is negligence and leaves them open to lawsuits if
anything untoward happened during the interim.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Mr.Excitement" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > Letters? They didn't have the DECENCY to hire some Kelly girls and make
> > > phone calls? Such negligence is ACTIONABLE if any suffers adverse
> > > consequences as a result of the multi day delay in letting folks know.
> >
> > Yes, letters, as required by law. Phone calls- not required by law, and
> > generally not accepted as a trackable form of communication. No
> negligence-
> > not actionable.
>
>
> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT..........WRONG!!!!!

OK, Better yet. make a phone call, and follow up with a letter.

Again Cingular was negligent.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Hunter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > None of the customers who have contacted the company so far has been a
> > victim of fraud, he said.
>
> Like they'd publicize it if they knew. They are now open to MAJOR
> lawsuits.

What are your qualifications to make such a claim? Are you an
attorney?

In article <[email protected]>,
Jerry Springer <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> Wow Robert, neat new sock puppet????

Must be one of these blind apologists for Cingular. Quick to the insults
when proven wrong.

Cingular was negligent.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "The Etobian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 16:14:58 -0700, "Scott Stephenson"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"The Etobian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >>
> > >> No they had a duty to inform their customers the *minute* they knew
> > >> their personal information was compromised. They also have a duty to
> > >> assist any customer who suffers *ANY* loss arising from that theft.
> > >
> > >Did I miss the part where they said that they were leaving the customers
> out
> > >in the cold on this?
> > >
> > Not permanently, but there seems to have been a lag between
> > recognition that the theft occurred and notification to affected
> > customers. I didn't say they were leaving the customers out in the
> > cold, but my point was that any undue delay in providing notification
> > increased exposure to affected customers' credit.
> >
>
> Now, let me get this straight- the information taken were things like names,
> addresses, SS#, and credit card #'s. Now, other than cancelling credit
> cards (which are going to be protected anyway), just what would these people
> have done about the other information in that week. Moved? Changed names?

The trouble is that with a name, date of birth, and social security
number, an identity thief can easily open up credit cards in the victim's
name and ruin that person's credit.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> OK, Better yet. make a phone call, and follow up with a letter.
>

And where do you propose they get the numbers of those people who had been
in the store and used their CC to just purchase accessories?

> Again Cingular was negligent.

"Mr.Excitement" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Wrong again (Nice try though)
>
>

No I'm not- but you can try to offer some PROOF, instead of just sticking
your tongue out like a three year old.