The Dallas Morning News doesn't mention whether or not the DISD will be contacting the people who have had their SSNs appropriated, but they did offer this detail:

The DISD-issued Social Security numbers began with "200" – a prefix assigned to people in Pennsylvania, and Mr. Phillips' office noted that many ended with sequential numbers.

In general, though, with the exception of the occasional criminal background check, the fake SSNs were supposedly kept away from any legitimate use, and even if your SSN fits the description above the odds are low anything bad has happened. We're just amazed at the school district's monumentally bad judgment.

"Dallas ISD faulted for using fake Social Security numbers" [Dallas Morning News] (Thanks to AttorneyWrangler!)
(Photo: Getty)

Today I ordered 4 utilities without giving my SSN to any of them, and the last 1 of the 4 was AT&T. I asked nicely to not give it. When the CSR ask for my SSN I said "gosh, I really don' t like giving out my SSN, is there a way I can get your product (the specific gas, electricity, tele. service) without giving my SSN." The gas and electricity will do a deposit - spread out over 4 months and after 9 months of consecutive payments I get my deposit back. When I asked AT&T I got the following "We need it in case you don't pay and we need to find you, and you need it to give your SSN to get any utility." I countered with 'I've just got water, electricity and gas TODAY without giving my SSN.' The CSR relented and then asked for my birth date. I got a local service land line from AT&T without giving my SSN.

The takeaway: if you're willing to leave a security deposit, some companies may accept that instead of your SSN. And it never hurts to ask—if the CSR won't budge, you might try calling back at another time to see if you find someone who's more willing work with you.

(Thanks to Jess!)
(Photo: Beige Alert)

The average debit card transaction triggering an overdraft is for a $26 purchase. For this transaction,the bank makes an average loan of $19.95, or the amount overdrafted, and charges an average fee of $33 for each incident. This amounts to an average of $1.65 in fees per dollar borrowed. Thus, older adults pay more in fees than they receive in credit for the average debit card purchase triggering an overdraft.

Since Social Security payments are disbursed only once a month, a consumer on Social Security can rack up substantial daily balance fees waiting for her next check— trapping her in a cycle of overdraft fees and debt that's eerily similar to a payday loan scenario. If the consumers on Social Security were instead given a line of credit they could avoid this cycle of debt.

The Center for Responsible Lending illustrates this difference by sharing the story of Mary, a real consumer entirely dependent on Social Security:

Mary begins the year 2006 with $420.56 in her checking account, held at a large national bank. She makes a $380 ATM withdrawal and several smaller point-of-sale purchases on January 3, comes up short, and is overdrawn by January 4. She incurs a $34 overdraft fee for the initial overdraft. After two more purchases, and two more overdraft fees, she finds herself almost $200 below zero on January 9. For the next eleven days, Mary doesn’t spend any money from her checking account, but her checking account loses money, nonetheless. Her bank charges her a fee of $7 a day because of her ongoing negative balance. By the time a scheduled electronic withdrawal is made to pay a bill for $32.38 on January 20, Mary’s account is overdrawn by more than $300, and the bank rejects the transaction. Her bill goes unpaid, although the bank continues to charge daily negative-balance fees.

Finally, on January 25, Mary receives her monthly Social Security check of $904. However, her account is already $335 overdrawn and she still has an additional $500 in expenses for the month. Once these payments are made, Mary only has $31.09 left to live on until her next Social Security check comes in late February. Because of this, Mary almost immediately has a negative checking account balance again, once she makes three small ($20 or less) purchases on February 1. Over the next two days, Mary incurs two overdraft fees because of these purchases and conducts another transaction for $50, which also results in an overdraft.

Mary does not make any more purchases between February 8 and February 17. However, the bank again continues to charge her a fee of $7 a day because of her ongoing negative balance. On February 18, an automatic bill payment causes Mary’s account to go even farther into the red—a transaction that the bank approves even though her account is already below zero and she cannot even repay the $7 daily negative balance fee. Once Mary’s account dips to $314.91 below zero, the bank finally begins to refuse additional transactions, rejecting a utility bill for another month. The $7 daily negative balance fees continue to be assessed through February 21.

Finally, on February 22, Mary’s Social Security check comes in, and the account balance ends up above $400 once the bank subtracts the overdraft fees. Unfortunately, because Mary still has to pay her end of the month expenses totaling about $410, she is left with only $18.48 to tide her over until the end of March. This meager sum—even less than the $31.09 she had to make ends meet after being charged for overdrafts in February—virtually guarantees that Mary will continue to remain trapped in a cycle of accumulating overdraft fees month after month. In January and February, Mary paid $448 in overdraft fees in return for receiving $210.25 in credit from her bank, and was forced to live on $20 from a Social Security check of nearly $1,000. If Mary’s bank had instead offered her an 18 percent APR line of credit to cover overdrafts, she would have only paid about $1 in total fees for her overdrafts.

As you can see in the graph above, if Mary would have been offered a line of credit, she would have ended up with $420 at the end of two months and would have been able to pay her utility bills.

The Center for Responsible Lending is working to stop banks from being able to automatically drain Social Security funds from checking accounts, but the important takeaway for us is this: It's important that you or your family consider switching to a bank that allows you to link a savings account or offers a less expensive line of credit so that you can avoid these fees — particularly if you or your loved ones are retired and on a fixed income. There will likely be a fee for this service, but when you consider the alternative, it may be a wise choice.

Here's some basic information about overdraft protection from Bankrate. You can also compare accounts and overdraft fees with Bankrate's checking account finder.

Shredded SecurityOverdraft practices drain fees from older Americans (PDF) [Center For Responsible Lending via CL&P Blog]
(Photo: michael.kinne )

You might have a harder time finding kosher meat in the coming weeks, because the country's largest kosher meat packing plant, Agriprocessors, was raided this past Monday. At least 300 of its nearly 1000 employees were arrested for using fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers, and immigration officials have said they expect the number to go as high as 700.

Agriprocessors is located in Postville, Iowa, which might seem like an odd place for the nation's largest kosher meat packing plant:

About 200 Hasidic Jews arrived in Postville in 1987, when butcher Aaron Rubashkin of Brooklyn's Crown Heights neighborhood reopened a defunct meatpacking plant with his two sons, Sholom and Heshy, just outside the city limits. Business boomed at the plant, reviving the depressed economy while pitting the newcomers against the predominantly Lutheran community.

"Iowa meatpacking plant raided in ID theft investigation" [USA Today]

RELATED
"Immigration Authorities Arrest Hundreds in Raid on Nation’s Largest Kosher Meat Plant" [Forward]
(Photo: Getty Images)

Even if you are rejected by Social Security, you can apply for benefits again and again, which is what both lawsuits claim insurers are taking advantage of to avoid paying benefits. The suits cite the federal False Claims Act and contend "that the insurers were knowingly committing fraud."

The insurers have claimed this is just business as usual and it's their policy to require everyone to apply—a Cigna spokesperson disingenuously says, "Our goal is to ensure that each member receives all of the benefits to which he or she is entitled." But a former Gigna employee who's now a plaintiff in one of the suits says insurers abuse the practice by routing everyone to Social Security even when it's obvious they'll never qualify.

Forcing people who are injured to apply for Social Security before paying their claims appears to bolster insurers' profits in several ways. If claimants refuse to apply, the insurers can simply stop paying their benefits, said Dawn Barrett, an employee of the Cigna Corporation, who grew frustrated sending people to Social Security and who is now a plaintiff in one of the lawsuits. More typically, she said, people apply for Social Security when an insurer tells them to. That allows the insurer to reduce its claim reserves, money that is kept in conservative investments for benefit payments. And in the insurance industry, smaller reserves mean bigger profits.

"Insurers Faulted as Overloading Social Security" [New York Times]

Thirty-nine businesses or groups have reported losses of sensitive information involving about 87,500 Maryland residents in the three months since a state law took effect requiring that people be informed of such incidents, records show.

The breaches have included everything from SSNs showing through envelope windows to deliberate attacks on databases by hackers. Luckily for Maryland residents, a state law ensures that you can place credit freezes with each of the three major reporting companies for $5 each.

Not a Marylander? Check this interactive map for a quick overview of what your state enforces by way of disclosure laws in the event your data is compromised.

"No sure bets in personal data security" [Baltimore Sun]

RELATED
"CareFirst Dental HMO Exposes SSNs, Says You Should "Take It Seriously""
CSO Maps State By State Data Breach Disclosure Laws

Companies, is it really that expensive to offer 5 years, or 10 years, of credit monitoring to victims of your data security incompetence? Seriously, own up to your responsibility in exposing people to the risk of financial and credit problems and give them the tools they need to protect themselves. After all, it's your fault.

The Baltimore Sun, which first reported the breach, pushed The Dental Network for a reason why it took them three weeks to notify their members:

The company also created a Web site and phone line for members to learn more about the breach, which details the credit protections.

On the Web site, the company posted a list of frequently asked questions, including one about the delayed notification.

"Action was taken immediately and your personal data was secured within minutes of our learning of this accidental exposure," the response states. "With any such event, it takes time to gather the relevant information, identify the affected individuals, hold the necessary internal discussions, make the appropriate decisions and line up the assistance services that are being offered."

We searched their amateurish website (it explains a lot about the breach and the slow response) and can't find any mention of this special website or press release. If anyone has more information on either one, please send us a link or post it in the comments below.

Update: Here's the website for victims of the security breach: lds.thedentalnet.org (Thanks to the author of the original article, Liz F. Kay!)

"Patient data exposed online" [Baltimore Sun] (Thanks to Nick!)

According to the article, Richardson is likely in violation of a state law that prohibits unfair sales practices, as well as state laws "prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race or national origin in places of public accommodation." Even the group that Richardson claims membership in—Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement (RIILE)—is trying to distance itself from Richardson:

"There's no way I can defend what he did. It definitely isn't the policy of RIILE to go around and use your RIILE card to intimidate people," said Gorman in a phone interview. "That's not something that RIILE would promote ... to make citizen's arrest."

Genao said he is still upset over the encounter, which he called "loud in tone." Richardson called it "a discussion."

"I told [Richardson] I'm a U.S. citizen by choice, whereas he was just born here," said Genao. "I have every right to be here. I told him his behavior was shameful. And he went on to say that a lot of these illegal immigrants are criminals and we have to stop them, and he said he did this for his country — because it's going downhill, because of all these illegal immigrants.

"What [Richardson] should have done was say, 'Thank you for shopping with me.' That's all he had to do."

(Thanks to ElizabethD!)

"Store owner asks to see shoppers' Social Security cards" [The Providence Journal]

The law bars the government from sending a recipient's benefits directly to lenders. But many of these lenders are forging relationships with banks and arranging for prospective borrowers to have their benefits checks deposited directly into bank accounts. The banks immediately transfer government funds to the lenders. The lender then subtracts debt repayments, plus fees and interest, before giving the recipients a dime.

As a result, these lenders, which pitch loans with effective annual interest as high as 400% or more, can gain almost total control over Social Security recipients' finances.

One former payday lender employee says he was tasked with recruiting the elderly to come in for loans:

Mr. Harrod was a manager of a Check 'n Go store across the street from Fort Lincoln Senior Citizen's Village, a subsidized-housing complex for the elderly and disabled in Washington, D.C. Mr. Harrod says he was encouraged by his supervisors to recruit the elderly, and did so by often eating his lunch on nearby benches to strike up conversations with the complex's residents. According to Mr. Graves's analysis, there are at least four payday lenders within a mile-and-a-half of Fort Lincoln.

Like many payday borrowers, Mr. Hummel realized he couldn't pay off the loan when it was due so he went to another "payday" lender. Lenders rarely ask about other loans and debt, and borrowers often take out multiple loans in an effort to avoid defaulting. By February, Mr. Hummel had eight loans from eight lenders, at effective annual interest rates that ranged from 180% to 406%.

There should be a lender's prison, perhaps.

(Thanks to Diana!)

"High-Interest Lenders Tap Elderly, Disabled" [Wall Street Journal]
(Photo: Getty)

"YIKES!!!!" wrote one Wachovia executive in 2005, warning colleagues that an account used by telemarketers had drawn 4,500 complaints in just two months. "DOUBLE YIKES!!!!" she added. "There is more, but nothing more that I want to put into a note."

However, Wachovia continued processing fraudulent transactions for that account and others, partly because the bank charged fraud artists a large fee every time a victim spotted a bogus transaction and demanded their money back. One company alone paid Wachovia about $1.5 million over 11 months, according to investigators.

"We are making a ton of money from them," wrote Linda Pera, a Wachovia executive, in 2005 about a company that was later accused by federal prosecutors of helping steal up to $142 million.

In late 2003, a Wachovia executive announced to colleagues via e-mail that her unit, because of AmeriNet, had seen "an increase in our annual revenue projection."

• In 2004, Wachovia "held a lunch for the owner of a payment processor that the bank knew had drawn thousands of previous complaints." The company was sued by the FTC last year for bilking $69 million from retirees and other victims.


• An internal Wachovia fraud investigator pointed out that Suntasia's returned check rate was 79%, slightly higher than the 2.5% that regulators say indicates a high probability of fraud. Despite this, Wachovia continued to do business with Suntasia until the company was forced to close by a court order last year.


• Citizens Bank contacted Wachovia in 2006 and asked them to investigate a fraud-related account that was triggering high numbers of complaints from their customers. Wachovia left the account open until a court order forced it closed.

(Thanks to jbcrasher!)

"Papers Show Wachovia Knew of Thefts" [New York Times]

RELATED
"infoUSA Marketed Lists Of "Gullible" Seniors To Known Scammers, Wachvoia Processed The Unsigned Checks"
(Photo: Getty)

She had been garnished by a credit card company, courtesy of one of those cavernous collections law firms with one attorney (if that) and about 100 paralegals. The firm had saved her bank account information from when she paid off another credit card company that also was a client of the firm. She did not know the second credit card company even had a judgment against her, and it took her a week to find out who garnished her because her bank wouldn't talk, and this was done without notice. This is all legal by the way.....

Eventually at the firm's suggestion, she began faxing paperwork to the credit card company's lawyers to "prove" the funds were SSI and SSA. They'd receive the fax, come up with some reason that the paperwork was insufficient, a page missing, a smudged entry, but never call back to tell her things were amiss. She'd finally follow up, and then she'd hear the next excuse. This went on for two more exasperating weeks. Finally, after much prodding (she was sure the account would be voluntarily released any day now), she sought legal counsel from a legal aid office, which seemed a bit overworked (obviously), and frankly a little peeved that she believed the credit card company's lawyers were ever gong to release this. She was dressed down for being optimistic and trusting.

Five weeks after the garnishment, she finally got access to her "exempt" funds, having skipped needed medication, rent payments, insurance payments, and who knows what else. She would NEVER have gotten an attorney at all if I had not begged her to do so. She does not trust lawyers and had no idea how to find one even if she did want one. And, she had family to lend her money. Most people in this position don't. The point is that things are worse than this for most people in her shoes, and many poorer people do not feel they have access to a lawyer. They are right in many cases. That is why it makes no sense to make the consumer prove the garnished funds are not SSI or SSA.

The five federal agencies responsible for regulating banks have drawn up nine best practices for banks to follow:

• Promptly notify a consumer when a financial institution receives a garnishment order and places a freeze on the consumer's account;
• Provide the consumer with information about what types of federal benefit funds are exempt, including SSA and VA benefits, in order to aid the consumer in asserting Federal protections;
• Promptly determine, as feasible, if an account contains only exempt federal benefit funds such as SSA or VA benefits;
• Notify the creditor, collection agent, or relevant state court that the account contains exempt funds in cases in which the financial institution is aware that the account contains exempt funds;
• If state law or the court order will permit a freeze not to be imposed if the account is determined to contain only exempt federal benefit funds, act accordingly if that determination is made;
• Minimize the cost to a consumer when the consumer's account containing exempt federal benefit funds is frozen, such as by refraining from imposing overdraft, NSF, or similar fees while the account is frozen or refunding such fees when the freeze has been lifted;
• Allow the consumer access to a portion of the account equivalent to the documented amount of exempt federal benefit funds as soon as the financial institution determines that none of the exceptions to the federal protections against garnishment of exempt federal benefit funds are triggered by the garnishment order;
• Offer consumers segregated accounts that contain only federal benefit funds without commingling of other funds; and
• Lift the freeze on an account as soon as permissible under state law.
• 
  

Think Public Benefits are Exempt from Execution? Think Again [Credit Slips]
(Photo: O Pish Posh)

(Photo: Getty)

The Cains, of Palm Coast, Fla., took out a $31,000 loan from a SunTrust bank to buy a Ford Expedition in 2005. But last summer, Mr. Cain was diagnosed with bladder cancer and soon was unable to work. His wife, Elna, tried to find someone to take over the $690 monthly payments but couldn't, so she surrendered the SUV to the bank this January. After selling it at auction for $16,000, the bank told the Cains they owed it a balance of $15,703, which included late charges, repossession expenses and interest.

Mrs. Cain, 63, says she told the bank her husband's cancer had spread and he was confined to a wheelchair. They lost their health coverage when he had to quit working. A Vietnam vet, Mr. Cain has applied for veteran's benefits, but isn't yet receiving them.

He also applied for Social Security disability. On March 14, both his first disability check, $1,343, and Mrs. Cain's $1,161 regular Social Security hit their SunTrust account through direct deposit.

The same day, SunTrust took $1,924 out of their account. The next week, the Cains got a letter from SunTrust Recovery Department, dated March 15, thanking them for their payment.

What do you think? Poll inside...

Banks defend this practice by pointing to "set-off" clauses in the customer agreements, which allow them to collect money owed from an account. While this makes sense for routine charges, it seems devious for banks to use it to circumvent the federal laws against raiding citizen's Social Security benefits. — BEN POPKEN

Banks Tap Social Security Funds Too [WSJ] (Thanks to Chris!)

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

Blueprint for Financial Prosperity tells you how to get it replaced.

Then, when you get it, make a copy and put it in a safe deposit box or fireproof safe. — BEN POPKEN

How To Replace Destroyed or Lost Important Documents [Blueprint For Financial Prosperity]
(Photo: primeau)

The max Social Security that could be withheld from your pay last year was $5,840.40.

If your total withheld was greater than that, you can claim the difference as a tax credit on Form 1040, line 67, or on Form 1040A, line 43.

Don't quit your day job, but also make sure it and your moonlighting aren't costing you more they should. — BEN POPKEN

Two Jobs? Don't Overpay Social Security [WSJ]
(Photo: bryankennedy)

Recently, efforts by security watchdogs to remove public documents showing SS numbers from the internet have met with success, especially after one privacy gadfly (pictured, left, arguing with a landlord who posts his tenants' SS numbers online) enlisted the help of an unlikely collaborator: farm bureaus. — BEN POPKEN

Think Your Social Security Number Is Secure? Think Again [NYT]