Identity theft feared in Cingular store break-in

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ever notice how folks when they are proven wrong, resort to insults?

Ever notice how trolls when they are proven wrong, resort to talking about
insults?

---

› See More: 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]...
> > Ever notice how folks when they are proven wrong, resort to insults?
>
> Ever notice how trolls when they are proven wrong, resort to talking about
> insults?

Yes, just as I read this.

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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.

The same place they got their addresses to send the letters, genius.

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:44:54 -0600, "Scott Stephenson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"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.
>
Where did they get their addreses?

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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.

Yes, you are - but you can try to offer PROOF as to why you aren't.

See genius, this is called a pissing contest, and much like you're opinion
it doesn't work very well.

"The Etobian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:44:54 -0600, "Scott Stephenson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"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.
> >
> Where did they get their addreses?

Would they have received any of the information intime to prevent any
possibility of identity theft?

In article <[email protected]>,
Shawn Hearn <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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?

my son is.

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

>
> my son is.

Then the answer is "no".

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:47:20 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.


why do you say that?

After Berkley and Jenkins' data base was compromised, they didn't
contact any of their customers to advise them. My credit card issuer
closed the credit card and opened a new one. They sent me a letter
notifying me that they did this AFTER they had closed the account and
BEFORE they issued me a new card with the new account number on it!

BJ's never mentioned anything about the problem they had either in a
communication to me or a notice posted in their retail locations!

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:46:28 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.


Usually it is the policy for credit card companies NOT to divulge the
addresses or [phone numbers of their card holders and in fact in some
states it is forbidden by law for a merchant to ask a customer for
these data!

Of course, no matter what they did they'd be open to lawsuits. These
days nothing is off limits. Proving the identity theft was directly
caused by the break-in and further proving that faster notice would have
prevented it would be VERY difficult to prove unless Plaintiff could
show that the perpetrator obtained the information from the break-in and
not from another source and that the identity theft incidents occured
prior to the notice.
The best indication of the validity of such a suit would be the
willingness of a good lawyer to accept the case on a contingency basis.

From:Robert M.
[email protected]

> 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.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:11:19 GMT, [email protected] wrote:


>After Berkley and Jenkins' data base was compromised, they didn't
>contact any of their customers to advise them. My credit card issuer
>closed the credit card and opened a new one. They sent me a letter
>notifying me that they did this AFTER they had closed the account and
>BEFORE they issued me a new card with the new account number on it!
>
>BJ's never mentioned anything about the problem they had either in a
>communication to me or a notice posted in their retail locations!

Which information was compromised? If it was limited to the credit
card number and did not include sufficient information for anyone to
steal identities, AND if BJ's assumed all of the risk to accounts held
with them, then BJ's did the proper thing.

It really wasn't a Cingular Wireless store, it wasn an authorized agent.

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/04/4/2/18427577.cfm

Cellphone customers warned of ID theft

Herald staff

EVERETT -- Cingular Wireless is warning up to 650 local customers that their
account information -- including some credit card numbers -- was stolen from
a Go Wireless store in Everett last week, police said.

The personal information was kept on two computers at the store, 210 SW
Everett Mall Way Suite B. Burglars broke in about 3:30 a.m. March 26 and
stole 28 cellphones, caused extensive damage and took the computers, said
Everett Sgt. Boyd Bryant.

"The records in the computers are protected by passwords, so it may be
tougher to access them," Bryant said. "The company hopes that the suspects
are not able to get the information from the computers."

Cingular sent out letters alerting customers, but "we don't have any
documented cases where someone's identity was taken (from the computers) and
used to defraud them of money," Boyd said.

No arrests have been made, he said.

Anyone with information about the burglary is asked to call the Everett
Police Department Tip Line at 425-257-8450.

For more information about identity theft, visit the Everett Police
Department's Web site at www.everettwa.org/police and click on prevention
brochures.





"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Hunter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Friday, April 2, 2004
> >
> > Identity theft feared in Cingular store break-in
> >
> > SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF
> >
> > EVERETT -- More than 600 customers may have had such personal
information
> > as names, Social Security or credit card numbers stolen during a
break-in
> > last week at a Cingular Wireless store at 210 S.W. Everett Mall Way.
> >
> > The affected customers received letters this week alerting them to the
> > possibility of identity or bank theft. They include customers who signed
> > cellular phone contracts and bought products at the store.
>
> 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.

":P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It really wasn't a Cingular Wireless store, it wasn an authorized agent.
>

Hmmm- guess Cingular didn't need the Kelly girls after all, did they Robert?

And I guess if customers did get letters from Cingular, they went WAY above
and beyond for their customers- after all, it wasn't even their store.
Wouldn't you agree, Robert?

If you have any problems with this, Robert, have a chat with your son, the
lawyer- he'll explain the total lack of liability on Cingular's part.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 22:30:59 GMT, The Etobian <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Which information was compromised? If it was limited to the credit
>card number and did not include sufficient information for anyone to
>steal identities, AND if BJ's assumed all of the risk to accounts held
>with them, then BJ's did the proper thing.


As far as I can tell BJ's did NOTHING with respect to notifying ME,
all the actions were taken by MBNA!