Home > Identity Theft > The Michaels & Fox Data Breaches: Coincidence or Cohesion?

Comments 0 Comments

So why do I connect these two events?

From the time that I was in grade school, I have always been a fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s brilliant fictional character Sherlock Holmes. I’ve read all the stories. I’ve seen all the movies with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. I’ve seen all the movies without Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. I’ve seen every episode of every TV series featuring the character, most particularly the ones starring Jeremy Brett, which I find to be the renditions most faithful to Conan Doyle’s original work. One of the things that always fascinated me about the character was not only his brilliant forensically scientific thinking, but also his pithy expressions of complex and enduring ideas. For example:

“But is it coincidence? Are there not subtle forces at work of which we know little?”  From The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier.

[Free Tool: Obtain your Identity Risk Score from Credit.com]

Had Sherlock ever lived, and were he alive today, would he not perceive those subtle forces at work in both the Fox and Michaels debacles? That the humans who act on those subtle forces probably don’t know each other and never will has nothing to do with it—the subtle forces are a pervasive part of the modern world in which we live. Whether for prank or profit, the vulnerability of the digital systems on which we—and indeed our entire economy—rely have served to create those forces, just as the sun and the moon create our wind and weather.

My point is really quite simple: new technology brings with it new opportunity, new convenience, and new problems. When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton famously (and probably apocryphally) said “that’s where the money is.” Now the money is everywhere in digital form. Clever thieves don’t need guns. And those thieves are aided and abetted by everyone who hacks databases and publishes private information. As we have often said in this column, once your personal information is out there, it’s OUT THERE. So while LulzSec and the Fox breaches likely played no role in the Michaels fraud, whatever the motives of LulzSec may be, they are potential enablers of for-profit criminals, identity thieves who grab every piece of personal data that they can, correlate various bits of information from different sources, and thereby make their attempt to perpetrate fraud more sophisticated and more likely to succeed.

[Related article: 77 Million People Affected by Playstation Hack]

The digital world has made mincemeat of coincidence. The attacks on Michaels and Fox are part of the suddenly obvious zeitgeist of exploiting data vulnerability—for whatever purpose. And everyone who does it helps everyone else to do it, sooner or later, for better or worse. Right now, the only countermeasure we have is to remain cautious and vigilant, individually and as a society. If you check your bank account online every day, you can’t be too harmed at an ATM machine, given the ubiquitous daily limits on cash withdrawals. And Michaels, which no doubt has a security department, needs to get on the stick and work with law enforcement to prevent further compromises, and to design systems and procedures to more effectively protect their customers from problems like this in the future.

As another favorite fictional character of mine once said: “Keep watching the skies.”

Note: Regarding the moniker LulzSec—I’ve spent all week trying to figure out the meaning of that abstruse name, and all I know is that “lulz” is Internet slang for laughs, and according to the group’s twitter page, LulzSec stands for “The Lulz Boat.” Maybe Gavin McCloud is behind this?

Pages: 1 2

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other sponsored content on Credit.com are Partners with Credit.com. Credit.com receives compensation if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any financial products or cards offered.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team