Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CEO Nabbed for Identity Theft From Own Employees

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the alright-people-I'm-going-to-need-some-maiden-names dept.

150

BuzzardsBay writes "And you think your boss is a jerk? Check out this VARBusiness story about a tech CEO the feds say was using his employees' personal information to apply for loans and credit cards to the tune of $1 million. Somewhere a whole lot of businesses who bought this guy's managed-services pitch are cringing with the thought of who is taking care of their data now. And 50 employees are gonna have to sweat out their credit reports even as they look for new jobs. Now that's a lousy boss!"

cancel ×

150 comments

I'm a bit slow (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684303)

Hang on. And we're NOT talking about Hewlett-Packard here?

Re:I'm a bit slow (2, Funny)

Maddog787 (1021593) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685727)

Just wait - he'll show up in Brazil sipping margaritas with Enron's Ken Lay after his alleged death!

Re:I'm a bit slow (2, Insightful)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 7 years ago | (#16686093)

Margaritas are mexican. Maybe you meant caipirinhas?

Re:I'm a bit slow (1)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687261)

Must do, because it's not like you can get margaritas just anywhere, is it?

Re:I'm REAL slow (1)

Maddog787 (1021593) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685791)

Just wait - he'll show up in Brazil sipping margaritas with Enron's Ken Lay after his alleged death! See www.escapeartist.com

At least (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16684311)

He didn't commit ID theft, that would have been horrible.

Re:At least (1)

memprime (879730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685093)

You are an idiot.

As stated in the article:

Federal law enforcement officials Tuesday arrested the well-known CEO of White Plains, N.Y.-based MSP provider Compulinx on charges of stealing the identities of his employees in order to secure fraudulent loans, lines of credit and credit cards, according to an eight-count indictment unsealed by the U.S. Attorney's office in White Plains.

Re:At least (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16685431)

Sir, I do believe that he was joking.

Sincerely yours,
memprime

one or the other (1)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684313)

Now that's a lousy boss!

Well, he's either a lousy boss, or a very creative criminal.

Re:one or the other (1)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684369)

Funny how often those two things coincide. In this day and age of corperate America the object is not so much to find a boss that doesn't steal(honest)but one that's doing such a good job of stealing from clients that they don't need to steal from you!

Re:one or the other (1)

ViciousAndCruel (1000116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684861)

He's a lossy boss.

Re:one or the other (2, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685105)

I guess he's not a criminal until convicted, so here's hoping. I'm taking bets on whether his laywer will try to invent some creative legal defense based on his victims' employment contract. "Employees have no expectation of privacy on company-owned computer systems," or "all goods and information produced during the term of employment are sole property of Jackass Inc." you know, those kind of clauses. Or maybe the boss will sue the company for careless handling of personal information in violation of state privacy law (proven, naturally, by the fact that he was able to steal so much $$$). OK, I'm obviously paranoid, but I didn't start out this way, so there must be a reason for it.

Re:one or the other (1)

jbrader (697703) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685171)

The reason you're paranoid is that I'm out to get you. See you soon.

Re:one or the other (1)

TheGrinningFool (1014867) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687351)

Note that creative != proficient. He did get caught, after all.

evil CEOs are no worse than dying dotcoms (1)

victorvodka (597971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684315)

What do you suppose happens to your identity when a dotcom with DBs full of identities are crashing and burning? If there's a chance to patch things up by selling those identities, let me tell you, I've worked for people who would have done so gladly. None of you ever joined Collegeclub.com, did you?

Re:evil CEOs are no worse than dying dotcoms (3, Funny)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684377)

"What do you suppose happens to your identity when a dotcom with DBs full of identities are crashing and burning?"

I expect I still have my identity no matter what.

But, in all seriousness, I'm not worried about ID theft.

You see, I have already destroyed my creditworthiness completely. It's hardly a risk that someone will take my info and get any kind of loan or credit card based on them.

Re:evil CEOs are no worse than dying dotcoms (1)

cptgrudge (177113) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684557)

You see, I have already destroyed my creditworthiness completely. It's hardly a risk that someone will take my info and get any kind of loan or credit card based on them.

Security through financial obscurity, huh? I can dig it.

What happens if you ever want to actually get a loan, though?

Re:evil CEOs are no worse than dying dotcoms (2, Funny)

Nataku564 (668188) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684583)

You steal someone else's identity, of course.

Re:evil CEOs are no worse than dying dotcoms (1)

LindseyJ (983603) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684587)

Well there's two basic types of loans any bank will give out. There's the sort where you sit down with an officer and talk about your credit rating and equity and so forth. And then there's the type where you sit down with an officer and talk about the calibre of gun you have under your shirt.

Re:evil CEOs are no worse than dying dotcoms (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685165)

"And then there's the type where you sit down with an officer and talk about the calibre of gun you have under your shirt."

I don't understand. I could probably liquidate part of my gun collection, but I'd have to do that through a FFL dealer, not at a bank. And the one piece I have that's worth more than a thousand bucks, would never fit in a shirt anyway.

Re:evil CEOs are no worse than dying dotcoms (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685739)

The trick lies in liquidating the officer instead of the gun. Unfortunately, though, it tends to attract other officers who want to liquidate you instead.

Re:evil CEOs are no worse than dying dotcoms (1)

indifferent children (842621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687273)

but I'd have to do that through a FFL dealer

That's not actually a legal requirement (unless I missed something). I've seen firearms for sale by individuals (not FFLs) at flea markets, in newspapers, etc. Is there a law in your state, or is there a new federal law that sales have to go through FFLs?

I actually like this idea. It would do almost nothing to prevent honest citizens from buying and selling guns, but could make it harder for criminals to buy guns. It could also hamper straw-buyers from buying hundreds of guns and reselling them without background checks or paperwork. ATF could go to a straw-buyer and demand to either see the guns that he purchased, or know which FFL he sold them through.

To keep this requirement from being abused by FFLs, and to keep it from hindering the legal buying and selling by individuals, FFLs should be required to charge no more than a small fee ($5? $10?) to conduct the background check and handle the paperwork.

Re:evil CEOs are no worse than dying dotcoms (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685143)

>What happens if you ever want to actually get a loan, though?

Well, last time I got laughed out of the bank :-)

Ok, I exaggerate a bit. But I am enormously in debt and I don't think I have ever paid a bill on time in my entire life.

I am sick of people beating up on executives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16684333)

CEOs run America. They provide a safe ship in which we are all protected from the ravaging storms of free market and evil euro trading blocks.

My question is... why do you hate America?

No... allow me. Troll -1 :-)

I'm European (1)

mrjb (547783) | more than 7 years ago | (#16686177)

Bring on the evil euro trading blocks >:)

It's not what you signed up for, that's for sure (0, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684339)

While it may seem wholly inappropriate for a business to use its employees' identities to defraud credit companies into providing loans, perhaps we should take a step back and look at the reason the CEO had to resort to such tactics in the first place. It is deathly hard to get a business loan.

While some entrepreneurs in hot sectors have to beat off VCs with their bare hands, other entrepreneurs in more established sectors can't get a second glance from VCs, much less banks. So if you've got this great idea and no one is going to fund it, what do you do?

Either you say "screw it" and give up your dream, or you try to find different cash reserves. That's what the CEO did. If the company did well, the payoff would be more than enough to pay back all the loans and extra on top of that for the burden of putting the employees in debt inwittingly.

I'm not saying that the CEO should be let off the hook for his criminal actions. I just think that the system should be set up to reward risk takers rather than banks that refuse to lend. It would go a long way towards improving the economy.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684399)

"screw it" and give up your dream, or you try to find different cash reserves.

      I have a dream about going to the Bahamas for 5 months and living a life of luxury. I figure I need about $500K to do this. It's ok if I rob a bank to finance this, then? I figure a bank is a "different cash reserve".

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684515)

That's not what this is about, though. The company needed money to continue in business. Whether it was to pay salaries or to finance acquisitions, the money was earmarked for business purposes, not a 5 month vacation in the Bahamas for the CEO.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16684633)

Great, could you please post your personal information? I will see to it that at least one small "company that needs money to continue in business" puts it to good use. If the company turns around and actually makes money, I will personally see to it that "your bills" are paid. If your credit suffers from the larger line of credit that you've taken out, tough luck, from late payments, we'll say sorry. The great thing about this is that you'll know your credit is being used where those employees didn't.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684643)

Holy cow. Way to miss the point.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (4, Insightful)

Danse (1026) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684747)

The company needed money to continue in business. Whether it was to pay salaries or to finance acquisitions, the money was earmarked for business purposes, not a 5 month vacation in the Bahamas for the CEO.

He isn't the one that gets to make such calls. He deserves no leniency for his actions. If he had actually made the company successful, it still wouldn't excuse him. If he had a good idea, then he should have been able to get money to finance it. If he couldn't convince people that his ideas were solid and that they would get a return on their money, then he didn't deserve to be running the company. He's like every other schmuck out there that can't launch whatever idea he has. It doesn't give anyone the right, the obligation, or the duty to commit crimes in order to finance their business.

If anything, crimes like these need to have more severe penalties. There's far too much identity theft going on. Anyone caught doing it should be severely punished. White-collar crime in general should be punished much more severely than it is now, if only because it's so hard to build the cases in the first place. It's the same logic they're using for giving out harsh penalties for file-sharers. If the chances of getting caught are low, then the punishment must be more severe to have the desired deterrent effect.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687075)

Whether it was to pay salaries or to finance acquisitions, the money was earmarked for business purposes,

      I am willing to bet that the money was NOT "earmarked" for "business purposes" by these people, umm what do you call them again, oh yeah, the actual OWNERS of the money. This is theft, plain and simple.

      You're trying to say that the end justifies the means. All I did was give you a different "end" to point out the flaw in your argument. According to you: if I kill you in order to help an old lady cross the road, that's ok then.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16684479)

Either you say "screw it" and give up your dream, or you try to find different cash reserves.

Sounds like the dilemma facing most Americans, but you don't hear a whole lot of people calling for everyone else to go out of their way to pave the road to their dreams, except for the socialists.

No, instead, they're expected to work hard, save their money, and one day they'll have the money to do what they want, within reason.

In other words, whatever this guy wanted to do was either not within reason, or he just needed to reinvest his company's profits in fashions more in line with his goals.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684499)

I'm impressed how you took a post emphasizing the move towards wider availability of capital to entrepreneurs as something socialist.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684539)

I'm impressed how you took a post emphasizing the move towards wider availability of capital to entrepreneurs as something socialist.

But when a system is not re-arranging capital based on a person's ability to impress investors/lendors on the merits of a business plan and other positive things - and is instead risking capital because, essentially, everyone who asks for it gets it (from where, I wonder?)... well, that's socialized business investment/lending.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

Virtual_Raider (52165) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684527)

What this guy did is just plain old fraud. IF — however unlikely — he was thinking something along the lines of what you describe, he should have approached his employees and ask them for their support. This "I borrowed without permission" bullshit is just a cynical attempt at reality-engineering to make things appear as something other that theft.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

nologin (256407) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684603)

... perhaps we should take a step back and look at the reason the CEO had to resort to such tactics in the first place.

I figure either the person in question is either a sociopath or just plain incompetent. Because when a CEO has to resort to such tactics, he/she has already failed to do their job...

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684625)

And because of that the employees will be branded as delinquent for the next 7 years.

By all means, throw the guy in jail. What he did was wholly illegal and unethical. However that doesn't solve any problem. Would it not be more prudent to both improve access to capital and provide a minimum level of protection for those hurt by identity fraud?

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 7 years ago | (#16686907)

At a minimum, the CEO should be tortured to death. There is no excuse for what he is alleged to have done. If he is guilty, mere execution is far too lenient.

From reading your posts, you should be joining him in whatever punishment he does receive. Those that rationalize evil are worse than those that do it.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (3, Insightful)

4iedBandit (133211) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684617)

Wait a minute. You want me to have sympathy for the CEO of a company who commited credit fraud using his employees confidential information?

You know, this is really taking the whole victim mentality to the next level of insanity. "It's not his fault really, society forced him to because no one would loan him money." Give me a break!

Theft is wrong. Stealing from your employees is NEVER excusable. Please don't ask me to have sympathy for the crook. Corporations have a myriad of ways to legally screw employees without having to resort to outright theft.

You know, there are some things in the world that really are black or white, right or wrong. This is one of them. Please stop turning everything gray.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

LS (57954) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685265)

You fell into a troll's trap and modded insightful. Not bad!

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

beanyk (230597) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687643)

You know, there are some things in the world that really are black or white, right or wrong. This is one of them. Please stop turning everything gray.


I don't know ... there are different opinions on how to spell "grey" ...

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16684689)

I just think that the system should be set up to reward risk takers rather than banks that refuse to lend.

Risk takers are rewarded. But it's not much of a risk when it's someone else's money now is it? If you're going to fail and go bankrupt it's not like that bank will ever see its loan back anyway.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

wkitchen (581276) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684695)

I just think that the system should be set up to reward risk takers rather than banks that refuse to lend. It would go a long way towards improving the economy.
If you removed the risk, they wouldn't be "risk takers" anymore. They'd just be takers.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

vga_init (589198) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684759)

If risk taking were rewarded, it wouldn't be risk. We reward success, not failure. Asking for rewards before results doesn't make sense. We may reward ingenuity, but not daring.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

topham (32406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684951)


If I knew who you were, and that you had a position of authority with any company I would submit your name to the local authorities for investigation.
I would also submit your information to your companies accountants and list of some ethical concerns.

There is absolutely no justification for committing fraud (which is what this is) against employees, merely to stay in business.

If a company ends up in that position it may wish to ASK the employees to support the company, but you can't require it!

based on your nickname I expect you simply enjoy playing devils advocate, inspite of the pointlessness in this instance.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

Medgur (172679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685021)

They wouldn't be risk takers if the system was set up to consistently reward them, now would they?

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685045)

How come this doesn't hold good when employees steal money from their bosses? How come these arguments espoused by your Holy Thou not present whenever an employee has stolen from his boss to fund some "Hot idea" to "beat off" VCs?? Am sure you would be recommending "hang until death" for such an employee.... But when it comes to bosses, it is "please give me a break..." kind of plaintive wail from an overworked boss.... Surprising isn't it? There are TWO kinds of citizens really: "one who works for others", and "one for whom others work"... I think we (US) never grew out of the slave-owner mentality.... really. If this were EU or better yet France, am sure the boss's fortune would be seized and distributed to those affected, in addition to him being made "favorite" of Bubba...

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

udderly (890305) | more than 7 years ago | (#16686949)

How come this doesn't hold good when employees steal money from their bosses?

This reminds me of when I worked for a Fortune 500 company some years back. The manager of my location *routinely* shaved time off of employee time cards in order to make his wage budget. But this guy would routinely have thieving employees arrested AND would manage to work up a big load of righteous indignation.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685159)

While some entrepreneurs in hot sectors have to beat off VCs with their bare hands,
Now there's a mental image I definitely don't need seared into my brain. *** shudder *** They should at least wear latex gloves. :D

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

Associate (317603) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685187)

This reminds me of an ATM tech years ago. ATM as in Automated Teller Machine. He borrowed several thousands of dollars to bankroll his cocaine business. He had a deal go bad and lost all the money he was going to put back into the machine. Was he rewarded for his risk taking venture? If you count restitution, parole (yeah, no jail time as long as he made restitution payments), unemployment.

Re:It's not what you signed up for, that's for sur (1)

indifferent children (842621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687315)

some entrepreneurs in hot sectors have to beat off VCs with their bare hands

This is why I stopped looking for investors and folded my company.

Glad to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16684341)

I'm safer posting my personal information on the web

then why the AC post? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16684379)

If you really felt safe, then why did you post as an Anonymous Coward?? Hmmmm? Why?? Hmm??

And if you are asking why I am posting as an Anonymous Coward, well that is none of your business anyways. Harrumph.

Re:then why the AC post? (2, Funny)

indifferent children (842621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687347)

If you really felt safe, then why did you post as an Anonymous Coward??

Hey, the Coward family has been plagued by their name for years. They thought they were doing the son a favor by naming him "Anonymous".

How did he do it? (1)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684351)

The article seems light on details. Did the guy use some sort of key logger or computer filter, or did he go the low tech route and just use his employee's files from their hiring? Curiosity.

social security numbers... (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684423)

The article seems light on details. Did the guy use some sort of key logger or computer filter, or did he go the low tech route and just use his employee's files from their hiring? Curiosity.

Do you have any common sense? Employers are -required- to have your SS # on file as a course of payroll/taxes.

Re:social security numbers... (1)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 7 years ago | (#16686453)

You still need mothers maiden name, etc.

Re:social security numbers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16687029)

That is predominantly a "security" measure, and is rarely checked against any information. Besides, if you apply with some broad, generic last names, you would probably get a few successes if the name is checked. (ie Johnson, Smith, Thomas)

Re:social security numbers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16687909)

You still need mothers maiden name, etc

No, you don't.

I started a company with a similar unethical scumbag. He opened a credit card in my name for "the company." Luckily, I found out before the card came in. It was a pain in the ass dealing with the credit card company because while the birth date, SSN, and other information he did have were correct, mother's maiden name and other information were not correct.

And yes, we quickly folded that company soon after. I'm only out the 20k he kept from the last contract because the idiots sent the check to him because "that was the address on the contract". (And, yes, I have a court case to sue him, but my lawyer - who is one of those good lawyers - pointed out that I would win, but that said scumbag was broke, and court costs plus lawyer fees plus other expenses would be cost prohibitive. So all I would get is the satisfaction of winning a court case. Whoop-tee-do.)

And that wasn't the really bad part. He also dipped into the money "withheld" from employees to pay taxes (which goes into a company savings account). Luckily we also found out about that before the quarterly taxes were due and were able to pay it before the deadline. That's a fine and possible jailtime.

But otherwise, everything is perfectly normal (1)

sk999 (846068) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684359)

"Bartlett added that he hoped the Compulinx business could continue uninterrupted despite the CEO's legal woes."

Right.

Re:But otherwise, everything is perfectly normal (1)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684969)

The board should fire the CEO, or if hes the majority holder, first his ownership should be distributed among the employee's whose identities he stole, then the 'new' board shuld fire him, and feel free to hire a new CEO and continue running the company.

I don't know about you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16684381)

... but I rushed to check the article to see if it was my CEO!

Why be an employee? (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684385)

1. Incorporate
2. ??? = Work as a subcontracing corporation
3. Profit!!!

(4. -- Don't release ANY legal information to your general contractor)

I've done this for 18 years, and the tax breaks and freedoms are incredible.

Re:Why be an employee? (1)

hvnarsana (995157) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684647)

This is a brilliant idea.. I am reading Rich dad poor dad and the author talks of the exact same thing. Helps you save on anything and you can literally deduct depreciation, etc right ou of your income and pay tax on what's left alone!

Why be a contractor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16685609)

Because you also have to be a salesman as well. If I could sell, I'd have my own store.

Re:Why be an employee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16686245)

Not so in the United Kingdom, where the tax department has cracked down on one man "companies" in the past few years.

Not in Germany, either. (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687099)

You'll be considered an employee as far as taxation goes if more than a certain percentage of your revenue comes from only one general contractor.



If the IRS hasn't figured this little trick out, they're kinda slow.

Oh Boy (1)

billsoxs (637329) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684435)

and I thought my boss was a pr#$k. This beats anything he has ever done.

sweat out their credit reports? (2, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684529)

And 50 employees are gonna have to sweat out their credit reports even as they look for new jobs

Makes you wonder why the courts don't automatically order credit reports of victims cleaned. The burden should NOT be on the victims, even if it is just a matter of sending a letter to the three agencies with a copy of the court docket or similar...

Fun trivia I learned from the manager at my co-op bank branch today: utility (cable, phone, power, gas, etc) companies have been moving towards a new electronic check cashing system ,where your bank never gets the cancelled check back.

Fun, if you need to prove to a credit reporting agency that you DID in fact pay a bill (or a credit line was not listed on your account) since that involves...drumroll please...sending in a copy of the cancelled checks! Likewise for electronic fund transfers and automatic credit card billing. The deck is stacked even further against consumers, just like how you have to pay to get your report if you don't live in certain states...and even if you get the report for free, you don't get your FICO score...

Re:sweat out their credit reports? (1)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684563)

I believe your bank should be sending you copies of your "canceled" checks or providing them online. My bank does this, and they make it clear that they are for the same purpose as the real canceled checks were back in the days when banks actually shipped paper checks to the fed.

Re:sweat out their credit reports? (1)

RobertinXinyang (1001181) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684929)

It seems that most of the people here on slashdot agree with the American premise that a person with poor credit should not be able to get a job. Use the saps at this company as an example, they were stupid enough to take this job; they deserve to spend the rest of thier lives flipping burgers.

I do not agree with this mindset. However, it seems to be the American way, Social Darwinism at near it's worst.

Re:sweat out their credit reports? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16686753)

> American premise that a person with poor credit should not be able to get a job

As an employer, I don't want to hire a thief. If someone has stolen from a bank, hospital, or someone else that has put something negative on their credit report then they probably won't have any trouble with stealing from me. I've found that nearly 100% of the people that are thieves will be bad employees. They might not actually steal, but it usually isn't long before they do something that loses us a customer. If they make the bad decision to steal money, then you can't expect them to make good decisions at work.

Of course the obvious problem with this is incorrect information on a credit report. I always go over negative credit reports with the people we interview even if we have no intention of hiring them. Very often they don't realize that the person or company they stole from put something on their credit report. This helps the world in general because it makes it less likely for them to steal in the future when they realize there are concrete consequences when they steal.

Re:sweat out their credit reports? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684975)

I work for a company in the financial services industry.

Legislation was passed years ago (Check21) that allows for check imaging to be used as a permanent, legal record of the transaction.

This doesn't explain why the slow-ass banks still take three days to clear your check. We have lightning fast systems and the appropriate legislation, and they are still sitting on your money. Actually, I can explain it: because it benefits them. Unfortunately, Check21 puts very few responsibilities on the banks. They can still hold deposits for 2-7 days even though the electronic transfer happened in mere hours.

Obviously, a consumer-protection amendment to Check21 needs to be made.

Re:sweat out their credit reports? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685579)

Should make the perp do the letter sending.

Do it to too many and you could be in jail for a very long time sending letters and making phone calls.

1998 called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16685645)

...they want their fun trivia back.

"Fun trivia I learned from the manager at my co-op bank branch today: utility (cable, phone, power, gas, etc) companies have been moving towards a new electronic check cashing system ,where your bank never gets the cancelled check back"

Re:sweat out their credit reports? (2, Informative)

wolfgang_spangler (40539) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687929)

The deck is stacked even further against consumers, just like how you have to pay to get your report if you don't live in certain states...and even if you get the report for free, you don't get your FICO score...

Do you know what a FICO score is? It is a measure of credit worthiness designed by a company based on statistics and probability. It is the product that is sold by a company, the Fair Isaac Corporation. It is the opinion of that company how likely you are to pay back a loan. Why do you feel you should be provided with this for free?

What state is not covered by the free credit reporting measure enacted by the government?

Makes you wonder why the courts don't automatically order credit reports of victims cleaned. The burden should NOT be on the victims, even if it is just a matter of sending a letter to the three agencies with a copy of the court docket or similar...

I do like that though, and have often wondered the same thing myself.

I had to check it out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16684535)

I was afraid it might be one of the smaller companies I've worked for in the last 7 years. Lucky for me it wasn't.

Massive Installation? (2, Funny)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684567)

This cracks me up...

Compulinx also manages a massive IT infrastructure, which includes four data centers, more than 300 servers and a whopping 40 TB of storage.


What is this? One midrange disk array?

I bet if the editor walked into their datacenter they'd find more than 40TB...

Re:Massive Installation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16684661)

Hey, I would love to have 40 TB at my disposal. At the moment our project just has 3TB and at a cost of 28K per TB, I'm trying to hunt down the funds for an extra 2 TB.

Re:Massive Installation? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685139)

$28K per terabyte? I certainly hope that's in some sort of massive RAID that has 15 copies of the data across the continent at any given time. Or transfers at the speed of RAM.

Re:Massive Installation? (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687653)

$28K per terabyte?

Well, that's only $28/GB which isn't too far off once you get into high-level hardware, 20% net utilization (dual RAID-10 arrays plus hot spares), SCSI drives that were probably built a few years ago (36/72GB disks with a higher $/GB), backups, the SAN hardware, etc.

Even a low-end SATA storage unit runs about $2-$3/GB. And with SCSI drives you're typically looking at $6-$8/GB at the low-end with it being pretty easy to get up into the $15/GB range once you include stuff like backups.

Re:Massive Installation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16685281)

Then don't by NetApp for a measley 4TB. :-)

Re:Massive Installation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16686371)

you're nuts. Get a panasas system for a third the cost. Did you buy some expensive netapp gx system?

$28k per TB??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16687657)

Sheesh, what kind of idiot is in charge of your purchasing? Xserve RAID is 1/10th that price, fully supported, and it's probably not even the cheapest.

Re:Massive Installation? (1)

rk (6314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685033)

You're right. Criminy, I've got about 10% of this much space on home file servers. 40TB was big 10 or maybe even 5 years ago. Not today, it isn't.

Granted, a terabyte on enterprise class hardware costs a bit more than consumer grade stuff, but still. The little newspaper I work for has almost that much in one chassis in one rack.

Re:Massive Installation? (1)

darekana (205478) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685421)


What is this? One midrange disk array?

I bet if the editor walked into their datacenter they'd find more than 40TB...

Is varbusiness.com a porno site?

their boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16684627)

he must have been one of those linux fags. spending his money so he can suck the dicks of junkies in dark allies.

I thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16684635)

I thought you would never get fired if you chose Microsoft?

well at least that solves the old problem: (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684639)

1. hire lots of employees
2. ???
3. profit!

at least we know what the ??? is now

This reminds me, for some odd reason... (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 7 years ago | (#16684829)

Anybody know whatever happened to Scott Draeker? (Or the employee whose credit card was used to make payroll?...)

Still think so (0, Troll)

syousef (465911) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685371)

Actually I still think my boss is a jerk...

(I'm definitely kidding. Got 2 of the best bosses I've ever had just at the moment. And they don't even read slashdot, so this isn't just a suck up).

i dont believe it (1)

allresistanceisfutil (1021589) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685677)

There is only one word to sum up this story and thats unbeleivable!

Re:i dont believe it (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 7 years ago | (#16686273)

There is only one word to sum up this story and thats unbeleivable!

Except that's not a word. :)

Come to that, neither is the one before it.

Re:i dont believe it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16686805)

It was obviously a troll.... if he spelled "believe" right in the title!

For your years of great service (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#16685793)

I wonder how many employees were supposed to get an extra large bonus this Christmas.

Put this in your pipe and smoke it! (1)

welshasp (930720) | more than 7 years ago | (#16686043)

I just had to log in and take a crack at this one! One reason I love slashdot is when I read a post that really embodies the gist of it all and cracks me up. It's like taking a baseball bat, dipping it in epoxy and rolling it in crushed glass the way some of you call people on their bulls$%t! It really gets me fired up and makes me feel hopeful for the future. As a matter of fact, I feel slashdot should have a prime time news show! I'm so sick of the tongue biting mass media that gears itself for an eighth grade education level! Who decided that anyways? As for this guy, let's see how he likes sharing a cell with Big Bubba, he fu!@$d up, got caught & whined about it. Maybe Big Bubba will put his arm around him and sympathize in that special kind of way. I say don't cry now, you weren't crying when you were basically being a purse snatcher. And about the courts having credit reports cleared up, why isn't this the case? If we raise enough h#ll and it seeps into enough heads something can be done. I'm on fire and pacing the floor chomping at the bit here!

Re:Put this in your pipe and smoke it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16686961)

IAWTC

The name should've given it away (1)

jigyasubalak (308473) | more than 7 years ago | (#16686147)

Now, it can be safely said that his employees weren't so discerning as to
tell a Chalk from Cheese :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...