Do you think you are safe because you shred your credit card bills (after paying them of course), change your password often and don't respond to e-mails from banks where you've never been a customer? Think again. Identity thieves are now using a new high tech device to take advantage of new features on credit cards. This new device, which costs less than $100, allows identity thieves to electronically pick your pocket without ever touching you.
Newer credit and debit cards, as well as some driver's licenses and passports, are being made with radio frequency identity chips that transmit information. This relatively new feature has opened up an opportunity for identity thieves to use a small device to intercept the signals being transmitted by getting close to you, within 7 feet, from what I am told. Thus, sporting events (like the Cubs/Cardinals game I went to over the weekend) are treasure troves, since at any time you are within 7 feet of multiple people.
Many of the banks/credit card companies whose cards use these new identity chips offer protective sleeves for the credit cards. But for those of us who already have a "George Costanza wallet" issue - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoPf98i8A0g if you don't understand the reference - this is not a good option. Another option is a whole new type of billfold - a new type that is made of lighweight steel. Never tried a wallet like that myself, but it is said to hamper the success of this type of identity theft.
As I have said before, there is no fool proof way to prevent identity theft. Do your best, but be prepared to take action if and when it happens to you. Dispute the fraudulently opened accounts early and often, with as much detail and supporting proof as you can. And, when that doesn't work, hire someone like me to sue the credit bureaus and/or fraudulent credit grantors using the protections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Only in a courtroom are your rights equal to the power of these corporations.
Custom Search
September 28, 2011
July 31, 2011
No Need for Credit Repair Companies
All I've got to say in response to this article is AMEN!!! Check out what I'm talking about here --> http://rapidcityjournal.com/business/your-credit-resource-you-can-correct-errors-on-your-credit/article_aa159bf8-bb40-11e0-bb72-001cc4c03286.html
July 23, 2011
More about the social network credit bureau
I wrote previously about a new consumer reporting agency called the Social Intelligence Corporation that mines date from social networking websites such as Facebook and MySpace to build a consumer report about you. My previous post is here - http://fcralawyer.blogspot.com/2011/06/social-intelligence-new-social-network.html
The latest article which provides a good bit of detail of how the Social Intelligence Corporation will operate is here - http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202501431464&How_Do_FTCApproved_Social_Media_Background_Checks_Work
The latest article which provides a good bit of detail of how the Social Intelligence Corporation will operate is here - http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202501431464&How_Do_FTCApproved_Social_Media_Background_Checks_Work
July 21, 2011
Ways to prevent identity theft
Here's a link to another list of steps to take to help protect yourself from identity theft. Enjoy.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/article/211611/3/Kens-Top-10-Ways-to-Protect-Personal-Information
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/article/211611/3/Kens-Top-10-Ways-to-Protect-Personal-Information
July 20, 2011
Identity thief arrested at her own wedding
When the audience was asked whether anyone objected to this marriage, the police said "we do!". A woman was arrested at her own wedding on a Michigan warrant for identity theft recently. Police actually allowed Tammy Lee Hinton of Port Richey, Michigan to finish her wedding before hauling her off to jail. She was held for less than half an hour before the new hubby bailed her out. Wonder if he had some wedding cake on the way to the jail?
According to authorities Hinton used a computer to commit her crimes and charged around $3,000 in utility bills under her victim’s name in 2009. However when she learned there was a warrant for her arrest in Michigan, she fled to Florida.
Way to start off a marriage, huh?
According to authorities Hinton used a computer to commit her crimes and charged around $3,000 in utility bills under her victim’s name in 2009. However when she learned there was a warrant for her arrest in Michigan, she fled to Florida.
Way to start off a marriage, huh?
Way to go Senator Gillibrand!
Talk about a no brainer. U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New York is pushing legislation that will force the removal of Social Security numbers from Medicare cards and communications from Medicare.
Forty million Americans carry Medicare cards with their Social Security number on them. They also receive letters and other communications from Medicare that include their Social Security numbers. As a result, these people are at an increased risk of identity theft if their cards or communications from Medicare are compromised.
“Listing Social Security numbers on Medicare cards needlessly leaves millions of New Yorkers susceptible to identity theft,” said Gillibrand. “We must protect Medicare beneficiaries by deterring identity theft. Removing Social Security numbers from Medicare cards is simple step to help keep our seniors personal information secure.”
The proposed legislation, aptly named the Social Security Number Protection Act, would eliminate the display of Social Security numbers on Medicare cards and would stop the Department of Health and Human Services from collecting Social Security numbers and from listing Social Security numbers in communications to Medicare beneficiaries.
I think this legislation is long overdue and, based on what I've read (which does not include the text of the proposed legislation), is a no brainer. Good to see someone in Washington proposing something useful. Good job, Senator Gillibrand!
Forty million Americans carry Medicare cards with their Social Security number on them. They also receive letters and other communications from Medicare that include their Social Security numbers. As a result, these people are at an increased risk of identity theft if their cards or communications from Medicare are compromised.
“Listing Social Security numbers on Medicare cards needlessly leaves millions of New Yorkers susceptible to identity theft,” said Gillibrand. “We must protect Medicare beneficiaries by deterring identity theft. Removing Social Security numbers from Medicare cards is simple step to help keep our seniors personal information secure.”
The proposed legislation, aptly named the Social Security Number Protection Act, would eliminate the display of Social Security numbers on Medicare cards and would stop the Department of Health and Human Services from collecting Social Security numbers and from listing Social Security numbers in communications to Medicare beneficiaries.
I think this legislation is long overdue and, based on what I've read (which does not include the text of the proposed legislation), is a no brainer. Good to see someone in Washington proposing something useful. Good job, Senator Gillibrand!
Credit Scores Disclosed for Free Starting Tomorrow ...
but only when you suffer an adverse action based on a credit report, such as when your credit application is denied.
Starting tomorrow, July 21, 2011, the latest amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act go into effect. The new amendments require lenders or other users of credit scores to include those scores on their adverse action letters they send consumers who suffer the adverse actions. The publication of the score will be in addition to the reasons for the adverse action and the identity of the consumer reporting agency whose report was used in the decision to deny credit already required to be part of the adverse action letter.
This is a helpful change to the law. Before, consumers would only know what score was assigned to them during a credit application if litigation resulted and the lender's files were subpoenaed. Scores purchased even thirty seconds later from the consumer reporting agency could bear little resemblance to the score used in the adverse action, since lenders often use their own credit scoring models, which differ from the credit scoring models used by the CRAs. If you do buy a score, buy it directly from FICO, as that's the scoring model most lenders use.
Starting tomorrow, July 21, 2011, the latest amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act go into effect. The new amendments require lenders or other users of credit scores to include those scores on their adverse action letters they send consumers who suffer the adverse actions. The publication of the score will be in addition to the reasons for the adverse action and the identity of the consumer reporting agency whose report was used in the decision to deny credit already required to be part of the adverse action letter.
This is a helpful change to the law. Before, consumers would only know what score was assigned to them during a credit application if litigation resulted and the lender's files were subpoenaed. Scores purchased even thirty seconds later from the consumer reporting agency could bear little resemblance to the score used in the adverse action, since lenders often use their own credit scoring models, which differ from the credit scoring models used by the CRAs. If you do buy a score, buy it directly from FICO, as that's the scoring model most lenders use.
July 19, 2011
Is your child a victim of ID theft?
Identity thieves are not ones to discriminate based on age. In fact, some of their favorite targets are children. This is so for various reasons, not the least of which is that their crime is likely to go undiscovered longer if the ID theft victim is a child.
A recent study performed by Debix, an identity theft monitoring company, found that 4000 children's identities had been stolen or otherwise compromised out of only 40,000 children surveyed.
So what do you do to protect your children's identity? First, when your child turns 16, check his credit report. This should leave enough time to correct any errors caused by any identity theft before the child starts college and starts needing credit in his own name.
Second, watch out for any early signs of identity theft. If your minor son or daughter starts getting collection calls or preapproved credit offers, then you should request his credit reports from the Big Three to see what's up.
When you request the report, the credit bureaus should respond that there is no report regarding your child. If they have a report, then your child is either the victim of identity theft or a mixed file. How do you tell the difference? Two ways - first, if all three bureaus have a file on your child, its probably identity theft. If only one has a file, its likely a mixed file. But, the only way to know for sure is to contact the creditors who appear on the report and find out what Social Security number was used to open the accounts. If its your child's SSN, then he or she is a victim of identity theft. If its a different but similar SSN, its a mixed file and all the blame lies with the credit bureau's faulty matching logic.
In either scenario, the first step after learning of the problem is to dispute the errors to the credit bureaus in writing. If that doesn't work, after multiple tries, then you need to hire someone like me to sue the bureaus' for your child. Remember, I'm only an e-mail away.
A recent study performed by Debix, an identity theft monitoring company, found that 4000 children's identities had been stolen or otherwise compromised out of only 40,000 children surveyed.
So what do you do to protect your children's identity? First, when your child turns 16, check his credit report. This should leave enough time to correct any errors caused by any identity theft before the child starts college and starts needing credit in his own name.
Second, watch out for any early signs of identity theft. If your minor son or daughter starts getting collection calls or preapproved credit offers, then you should request his credit reports from the Big Three to see what's up.
When you request the report, the credit bureaus should respond that there is no report regarding your child. If they have a report, then your child is either the victim of identity theft or a mixed file. How do you tell the difference? Two ways - first, if all three bureaus have a file on your child, its probably identity theft. If only one has a file, its likely a mixed file. But, the only way to know for sure is to contact the creditors who appear on the report and find out what Social Security number was used to open the accounts. If its your child's SSN, then he or she is a victim of identity theft. If its a different but similar SSN, its a mixed file and all the blame lies with the credit bureau's faulty matching logic.
In either scenario, the first step after learning of the problem is to dispute the errors to the credit bureaus in writing. If that doesn't work, after multiple tries, then you need to hire someone like me to sue the bureaus' for your child. Remember, I'm only an e-mail away.
July 18, 2011
The Fourth Credit Bureau?
But what a lot of people don't realize is that there are many, many consumer reporting agencies outside of the Big Three. I was reminded of this recently when I read a Washington Post article entitled "Five Facts about the Fourth Bureau". At first I thought there might be a new bureau emerging (kind of like Shemp, the fourth stooge). Instead, the article lumps together all the smaller, unorthodox consumer reporting agencies as the "fourth bureau".
The other bureaus tend to cover topics that are missed by the Big Three. Some can be seen as niche market CRAs, such as the ones that collect information about rent paying history, which they then sell to potential landlords. Other types of information collected by the "fourth bureau" are payment histories regarding utilities payments, cellphone bills, magazine subscriptions and gym memberships. Some even keep up with whether consumers return their rental movies on time. Others include companies that compile investigative consumer reports and that provide criminal history type reports that can be used for background checks.
These smaller bureaus can play important roles as over 30 million U.S. consumers don't show up in the Big Three's databases. These consumers are in a credit morass, as they can not get a loan without a credit history and can not get a credit history without getting loans. But they can rent apartments, rent movies, sign up for utilities, etc. The payment histories generated by these actions can sometimes be used in place of a more traditional credit report.
But these types of payment histories can also hurt a consumer's chances of getting credit if they do not reflect a responsible payment pattern, or if they contain damaging errors, which they are apt to contain. Approximately 25% or more of the Big Three's reports contain damaging errors, so the other bureaus are likely to have a similar error rate. The good news ... even though these companies are not the "Big Three", they are still subject to the vast majority of the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including the requirement that they provide to consumers upon request a complete report of all information in their database about the consumer and 15 U.S.C. 1681i's requirement that they reasonably investigate consumer's disputes of inaccurate information.
The down side ... to get your report from the small bureaus will cost you some money (approximately $11) since the yearly free credit report requirement only applies to the Big Three. Consumers can also get a free credit report from any CRA if they are denied credit (or suffer some other adverse action) as a result of the contents of the CRA's report.
The same rules regarding disputing errors also apply to the "fourth bureau" ... namely disputing in writing and dispute often. If that doesn't work, hire someone like me to sue for damages resulting from the errors (which usually also includes the benefit of a corrected credit report. Funny how a lawsuit will do things that a multitude of even the best dispute letters can not.) If any of you need help with the Big Three or the "fourth bureau", I'm only an e-mail away.
July 17, 2011
Starbucks' new iPhone app a risk for identity theft?
According to 9News.com (Colorado's News Leader), Starbucks' new iPhone app, that allows iPhone users to pay for purchases, check gift card balances and purchase gift cards for others, is causing identity theft concerns.
Actually, the identity theft concerns are not really related to Starbucks' app as the concerns would apply to many apps. Any app that encourages the storage of personal financial information (i.e. credit card info, passwords, etc.) on a mobile device increases the chances of identity theft, just because mobile phones are easier to lose than a desktop computer. Just ask my niece, who loses her cell phone at what seems like a rate of one a month. But that's a subject for another blog.
One of the next waves of technology will no doubt be some way to pay for purchases using your cell phone rather than a credit card. But the trade off for something so convenient is the increased risk of identity theft. Just like the trade off of being able to receive instant credit decisions while you wait to buy a toaster at Sears is that the decision must be based on information that can be transmitted to Sears while you wait.
True story - I once had a client who was unable to purchase a toaster on credit at a Sears because of an error on his credit report. The defendant in the case was Experian, one of the three national credit bureaus. Their argument regarding the credit denial was that he was not denied credit due to the error but due to the statement added to his credit report regarding the error, indicating that he was an identity theft victim and that he should be called at his home number to verify his identity before being granted credit. In the case of instant credit, he would never be home to receive the verification call, since he would be out shopping, waiting for the credit decision. Kind of a catch 22, huh? Client should have used his cell phone number but, then again, this was back before everyone had cell phones.
Anyway, the trade off for "instant" stuff is almost always going to be an increased risk of something such as identity theft. The trick is first recognizing the increased risk and then building safeguards into the app to handle the increased risk. Hopefully, the apps of Starbucks and others take this into account when designing their apps.
Actually, the identity theft concerns are not really related to Starbucks' app as the concerns would apply to many apps. Any app that encourages the storage of personal financial information (i.e. credit card info, passwords, etc.) on a mobile device increases the chances of identity theft, just because mobile phones are easier to lose than a desktop computer. Just ask my niece, who loses her cell phone at what seems like a rate of one a month. But that's a subject for another blog.
One of the next waves of technology will no doubt be some way to pay for purchases using your cell phone rather than a credit card. But the trade off for something so convenient is the increased risk of identity theft. Just like the trade off of being able to receive instant credit decisions while you wait to buy a toaster at Sears is that the decision must be based on information that can be transmitted to Sears while you wait.
True story - I once had a client who was unable to purchase a toaster on credit at a Sears because of an error on his credit report. The defendant in the case was Experian, one of the three national credit bureaus. Their argument regarding the credit denial was that he was not denied credit due to the error but due to the statement added to his credit report regarding the error, indicating that he was an identity theft victim and that he should be called at his home number to verify his identity before being granted credit. In the case of instant credit, he would never be home to receive the verification call, since he would be out shopping, waiting for the credit decision. Kind of a catch 22, huh? Client should have used his cell phone number but, then again, this was back before everyone had cell phones.
Anyway, the trade off for "instant" stuff is almost always going to be an increased risk of something such as identity theft. The trick is first recognizing the increased risk and then building safeguards into the app to handle the increased risk. Hopefully, the apps of Starbucks and others take this into account when designing their apps.
June 28, 2011
Identity theft - the latest summer risk for kids?
Its summer. I know this due to the repeated "I'm bored" comments I hear from my nine year old.
Summer also brings additional risk of identity theft to children. Thanks to the additional free time caused by the long days of summer, children spend more time in front of the computer or on their internet capable cell phones. With this additional time online comes the additional risk of identity theft.
Why would an identity thief want to steal the identity of a child? Basically because the child's credit history is a blank slate and can be misused longer than an adult's credit history, since the kid is not out doing the things that cause identity theft victims to learn of the theft of their identity, like applying for credit.
“The younger the victim, the more time these thieves have to exploit the child’s identity,” said Sandy Chalmers, Administrator of the Wisconsin Division of Trade and Consumer Protection. “Identity theft against a child can go undetected for years and do a lot of damage to their good name.”
So, parents, please warn your kids not to give out personal information online unless and only if its to a reliable source. And, be sure to monitor what your kids are doing online. A little bit of prevention can prevent a lot of problems later on.
Summer also brings additional risk of identity theft to children. Thanks to the additional free time caused by the long days of summer, children spend more time in front of the computer or on their internet capable cell phones. With this additional time online comes the additional risk of identity theft.
Why would an identity thief want to steal the identity of a child? Basically because the child's credit history is a blank slate and can be misused longer than an adult's credit history, since the kid is not out doing the things that cause identity theft victims to learn of the theft of their identity, like applying for credit.
“The younger the victim, the more time these thieves have to exploit the child’s identity,” said Sandy Chalmers, Administrator of the Wisconsin Division of Trade and Consumer Protection. “Identity theft against a child can go undetected for years and do a lot of damage to their good name.”
So, parents, please warn your kids not to give out personal information online unless and only if its to a reliable source. And, be sure to monitor what your kids are doing online. A little bit of prevention can prevent a lot of problems later on.
June 27, 2011
Social Intelligence - a new social network credit bureau?
According to a recent article on pcworld.com, the Federal Trade Commission has authorized a new company called "Social Intelligence" to conduct background checks of consumers based not on their credit or criminal histories, but instead using the online social network activity. This means there is yet another way that your online activity (or posts online regarding your less than stellar offline activity) can affect consumers' ability to land a job.
It was a big deal when companies started running a credit report on job applicants during the vetting process. But this made sense. Sometimes its because the job applicant would be handling large sums of money and, if they are in deep debt, they may be more likely to embezzle from the company.
This is even bigger. Now, a potential employer doesn't have to expend its own resources to check your online identity, it can hire Social Intelligence to do it for you. According to the PC World article, the potential employer would indicate what type of activity its worried about (i.e. illegal drug use, racism, or other illegal activity) and then Social Intelligence would allegedly only report back to the potential employer about anything it found related to those areas of concern.
But, in reality, Social Intelligence would be a consumer reporting agency (as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act) and thus would have to comply with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including maintaining its database of information in such a way that the reports it generates are done so utilizing "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" and that it would have to perform reasonable investigations of any disputes made by the consumer of items reported to the potential employer.
How, pray tell, is Social Intelligence going to perform a "reasonable investigation" of the online content? That's got potential for some interesting case law.
The moral of the story, though, is to quit posting your business on Facebook and quit tweeting from the bar, etc. Limit your Facebook posts to the kind of things an employer wants to see - i.e. things that demonstrate stability and maturity, not childish or inappropriate behavior. This isn't new advice. I've been telling clients for a while to watch what they post (and to make their profiles "private" to limit access to what they do post), because defense lawyers have started trolling plaintiff's facebook and other online profiles for juicy information to use against them later.
So, listen up folks, watch what you post 'cause it could come back to haunt you.
It was a big deal when companies started running a credit report on job applicants during the vetting process. But this made sense. Sometimes its because the job applicant would be handling large sums of money and, if they are in deep debt, they may be more likely to embezzle from the company.
This is even bigger. Now, a potential employer doesn't have to expend its own resources to check your online identity, it can hire Social Intelligence to do it for you. According to the PC World article, the potential employer would indicate what type of activity its worried about (i.e. illegal drug use, racism, or other illegal activity) and then Social Intelligence would allegedly only report back to the potential employer about anything it found related to those areas of concern.
But, in reality, Social Intelligence would be a consumer reporting agency (as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act) and thus would have to comply with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including maintaining its database of information in such a way that the reports it generates are done so utilizing "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" and that it would have to perform reasonable investigations of any disputes made by the consumer of items reported to the potential employer.
How, pray tell, is Social Intelligence going to perform a "reasonable investigation" of the online content? That's got potential for some interesting case law.
The moral of the story, though, is to quit posting your business on Facebook and quit tweeting from the bar, etc. Limit your Facebook posts to the kind of things an employer wants to see - i.e. things that demonstrate stability and maturity, not childish or inappropriate behavior. This isn't new advice. I've been telling clients for a while to watch what they post (and to make their profiles "private" to limit access to what they do post), because defense lawyers have started trolling plaintiff's facebook and other online profiles for juicy information to use against them later.
So, listen up folks, watch what you post 'cause it could come back to haunt you.
June 04, 2011
Horrible decision on s-2(b) claim
A bad decision was rendered recently, dismissing a consumer's claim against a furnisher who failed to perform a reasonable investigation of the consumer's dispute of the collection of a fraudulently opened account.
In Healey v. Trans Union, a decision rendered May 18, 2011, by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington threw out a consumer's 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b) claim against a furnisher because the Court found that the furnisher's investigation, which was non-existent as best as I can tell, was sufficient.
Healey was the victim of identity theft. The impostor opened an account with Sprint, which eventually resulted in the fraud Sprint account being sold to DRS, a collection agency. Despite numerous disputes made by Healey to DRS regarding the fraudulent nature of the collection account, DRS continued to report the account to the credit bureaus for inclusion on Healey's credit reports.
Healey then disputed the DRS collection account to the credit bureaus, including Trans Union and Experian, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i. Apparently, Healey did not possess evidence that Trans Union forwarded the 1681i dispute to Trans Union and thus could not establish that DRS's requirement to perform a reasonable investigation of the dispute pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b) was ever triggered. Thus, dismissal of the s-2(b) claim against DRS relating to the Trans Union dispute was proper.
However, the dismissal of the s-2(b) claim related to the Experian dispute is another matter. There was proof that Experian complied with 1681i and forwarded the dispute to DRS. However, the Court found that summary judgment was appropriate because there was no evidence regarding what exactly DRS did to investigate and it was Healey's duty to establish that DRS' investigation was not reasonable. DRS obviously failed to include in its "investigation" a review of its own files regarding Healey's previous disputes. As a result, it is clear that DRS did not perform even the most elementary investigation of Healey's dispute to Experian regarding the DRS collection. However, the Court did not think so and, as a result, wrongly (in my opinion) granted summary judgment.
Unfortunately for Healey, it was a sad day for justice in the western district of Washington.
In Healey v. Trans Union, a decision rendered May 18, 2011, by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington threw out a consumer's 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b) claim against a furnisher because the Court found that the furnisher's investigation, which was non-existent as best as I can tell, was sufficient.
Healey was the victim of identity theft. The impostor opened an account with Sprint, which eventually resulted in the fraud Sprint account being sold to DRS, a collection agency. Despite numerous disputes made by Healey to DRS regarding the fraudulent nature of the collection account, DRS continued to report the account to the credit bureaus for inclusion on Healey's credit reports.
Healey then disputed the DRS collection account to the credit bureaus, including Trans Union and Experian, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i. Apparently, Healey did not possess evidence that Trans Union forwarded the 1681i dispute to Trans Union and thus could not establish that DRS's requirement to perform a reasonable investigation of the dispute pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b) was ever triggered. Thus, dismissal of the s-2(b) claim against DRS relating to the Trans Union dispute was proper.
However, the dismissal of the s-2(b) claim related to the Experian dispute is another matter. There was proof that Experian complied with 1681i and forwarded the dispute to DRS. However, the Court found that summary judgment was appropriate because there was no evidence regarding what exactly DRS did to investigate and it was Healey's duty to establish that DRS' investigation was not reasonable. DRS obviously failed to include in its "investigation" a review of its own files regarding Healey's previous disputes. As a result, it is clear that DRS did not perform even the most elementary investigation of Healey's dispute to Experian regarding the DRS collection. However, the Court did not think so and, as a result, wrongly (in my opinion) granted summary judgment.
Unfortunately for Healey, it was a sad day for justice in the western district of Washington.
April 19, 2011
Photo Contest
Cute pic, huh? This is my 3 year old son in his "frog" hat. He's in a photo contest on Facebook and I would appreciate all your votes. Here's how you vote. You must first "like" the photographer's Facebook page at Studio 8 One 8. You then must also "like" my son's pic. Do both and you have officially voted for my cute little boy. Fail to do either and your vote won't count, much like a hanging chad.
Thanks a TON!
April 01, 2011
Online Video Gamers also at Risk of Identity Theft
Here's a link to an article about online gamers at risk for ID theft - online gamers, take heed. Or you won't be typing "Woot" anytime soon.
Here's the link -
Here's the link -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
