Inexcusable Negligence

ID Theft Safeguard used to Steal IDs (from Laptop Security blog)

Even the most carefully laid plans can go awry. Federal prosecutors charged a Southern Californian woman this week with aggravated identity theft after she used a genealogy website to locate people who had recently died and to take over their credit cards.

Tracy June Kirkland was using Rootsweb.com to find the names, Social Security numbers and birth dates of people who had died. She would then call credit card companies randomly to see if "she" had an account, if "she" did, she would request a mailing address change and, in some cases, would add her own name as an authorized user. Ms. Kirkland repeated this scheme at least 100 times between October, 2005 and last month.

Rootsweb.com is a genealogical research site that, amongst other services, reproduces the Social Security Administration’s Death Index, which is a public list of people who have died, along with their birth dates and Social Security Numbers. The government publishes this list with such detail in order that banks can prevent people from applying for credit under any deceased people’s identities. The information is made public by the Freedom of Information Act.

Tracy Kirkland has found a loophole in the system by, instead of applying for new credit, simply co-opting existing credit accounts. This is the first time this exploit has been found, according to a spokesperson for the Social Security Administration.

"The reason the Social Security Administration has it out there is to prevent fraud, and when it’s used to perpetrate fraud it’s because not all the checks and balances were in place on the financial institution’s end."

So, what do you think? Should the Social Security Numbers be reported on the Death Index? Do you think the benefits to the prevention of identity theft outweigh the risks shown here?

You can feel the full court indictment here [PDF]

Via wired ; Logo: Rootsweb, a part of Ancestry.com and MyFamily.com Inc.Tags: rootsweb, identity theft, id theft, death index, breach

---

I could see how someone with access to the Social Security Numbers of recently deceased could be successful attempting this sort of fraud. But with consumers who passed away 2 or 3 years ago, there is no excuse for credit issuers to have not updated their electronic records. Anyone who has reviewed their own credit report knows that financial institutions do periodic inquiries in order to verify if their customer is still in the same risk category they were when the credit was first issued. Why is it then, that the issuers who gave out account information didn't notice that line which says "consumer has been reported deceased" and updated their database accordingly?

SS Death Index records are downloaded and incorporated into credit repository data on a regular basis, at the very least a few times a year. For a creditor to not know their customer is deceased is shear stupidity. Besides adding to the cost of total fraud loss, a loss which is passed on to the consumer, the survivors are left to deal with the credit issuer or even debt collectors to resolve the problem. As the article points out, the SS Death Index is public specifically to prevent this sort of fraud.

Obama's Team Again

Yid with Lid blog is reporting that yet another Obama "advisor" is targeting Israel for wrath. It is a sure sign of a Jew problem when credit cannot be given for blasting the Syrian attempt at entering the "nuclear club". How can anyone in their right mind (unless they have a "Wright" mind) not realize the necessity and correctness of that attack?

To boot, Mr. Joseph Cirincione is on record for believing that old fantasy that Israel's enemies have a right to blame Israel as just cause to attack Israel. You see, it seems that Cirincione believes that Iran is only seeking nukes because Israel has nukes. Now, in reality Iran only wants nukes so Iran can continue to harass and attack Israel (and American targets ie. Iraq intervention) and have a deterrent to Israel's response or to use them against Israeli (or American) targets directly at some point in the future. Cirincione asserting such a perverted theory is sure proof of antiJewism, IMHO. We all know that every good antiJew thinks Israel should just shut up and take it, right? And Sen. B.H. Obama, what do you think?

Follow Up To Name Our Glatt Kosher Restaurant

At this point lets just say, we wish you success but leave the marketing campaign to professionals next time.

---

Falafelgate Drama Mounts: ‘Spam Isn't Kosher’
NYMag.com

Earlier, we pointed out that there was something fishy about the fact that Kosher Village, the falafel joint that found its name via a $3,000 contest, reserved the domain name www.koshervillagenyc.com two weeks before the entry deadline. We received a call today from someone who said he submitted the name Kosher Village on March 20, but when he asked owner Nissim Oron for his $3,000, he was told that someone selected the name before him. Was it all a scam?

Oron tells us that, indeed, twenty people chose the name Kosher Village (there were 20,000 submissions in all), and all of them except one Adi Libson, who suggested the name first, would receive a certificate for free grub (for possibly as much as $50) as a consolation prize. As for why the restaurant secured a domain name before the deadline, Oron says he checked on the availability of about four domain names that he liked (another possibility was the ever-so-evocative Village Glatt), but he didn’t make a final decision until three days ago.

Finally, we received e-mails from readers who were incensed that the restaurant repeatedly sent its menu to everyone who entered the contest, with their e-mail addresses displayed (“We all know spam isn't kosher,” wrote one commenter). Oron says this was a mistake and that he shut down his servers as soon as he realized the e-mail had gone out. He’s planning to send everyone a coupon for a free sandwich — this time via U.S. mail, since he doesn’t plan to use the e-mail addresses again.


Related: Falafelgate Unfolds: Contest May Have Closed Early
(note the antiJew comment on comment #3)
Nameless Kosher Restaurant Chooses Contest Winner
Nameless Restaurant Attempts to Set Falafel-Pun Record

Name Our Glatt Kosher Restaurant

NYC Restaurant Holds Fake Contest, Misleads Customers, And Collects Email Addresses
hat tip Consumerist.com




A small glatt kosher restaurant in New York City's East Village ran a contest where people submitted names for the new restaurant. According to the official rules (all 33 words of it), the $3,000 "will be given to the first person who entered the name we will choose." Eric writes in to note that they've announced their new name—Kosher Village—but they haven't announced any winner. To make things more suspicious, they also registered the domain name "koshervillagenyc.com" on April 12th, over two weeks before the contest ended this past Monday the 28th. Eric adds that "the in-store sign for Kosher Village was put up this weekend, also before the contest deadline." So was there ever a $3k prize, or was the entire contest a scam to drum up publicity and collect email addresses?

contest home page

---

Sounds pretty fishy to me. But the menu looks pretty good and the prices are reasonable. I hope this is a mistake.

menu

OTOH, If the story is true, I would urge the OU Kashrus administrators to be certain that they want their heksher on this establishment. Its a sign of bad business to do such a thing, halachic considerations and legal considerations of fraud aside and a consumer fairly or unfairly could be led to presume things about the kashrus of an establishment that would be willing to hold a phony contest. Like I said, I hope it is an oversight and a mistake or bad information so that I can come back and report the matter closed. If anyone knows that an award was given, please let me and the Consumerist website know.

Barack Flees From His Wright

Is it time to move on from Jeremiah Wright since Barry has now fully repudiated his racist black preacher? Rev. Wright is playing either the good sacrificial lamb or is using the limelight to advance his putrid, racist, anti-American, anti-west, antiJew views from a national forum and leaving his student Barry H.O. in the dust for insulting him and dissing not only him (Wright) but the black church and all blacks as well. Wright transcript.

Obama cannot truly distance himself from Wright albeit he can reduce some of the damage. Obama's continuing to claim that he never heard such comments at Church after attending and participating for 20 years is just not believable or credible. He cannot separate himself from the other congregants, friends and neighbors who attended the same church and read the same church bulletin. Barack said at the press conference "(he)still very much value(s) the Trinity community". I wonder if the Trinity community still values Obama?

Wright's beliefs that Obama calls "wrong and destructive" have been known and commented upon long before Barack's first attempt to disclaim Wright and his philosophy in Philadelphia. Does Barack believe that Wright went too far only at the National Press Club or as he said in the NBC video the "world view" of Wright now concerns him? Barack is rightly concerned for suggestions by Wright that he is "posturing" seemingly to save his campaign. Either way Obama loses. B.O. is either just another politician (as Wright implied) now distancing himself from Wright, his pastor of 20 years, because he is compelled to do so for political reasons, whether or nor Obama believes in the same ideas that Wright does and has (if he does believe the same) merely couched the ideas in American political rhetoric.

If Obama now really wishes to separate himself from Wright, the question of course is why now? How did you (Barry) not know what your pastor of 20 years believes and has spoken about from the pulpit? Did you once agree with him but now you no longer do? Which comment finally caused your break with him? If you were not the candidate and were observing a candidate for President who was a member of a white supremacist church and only with a few months left before the national party primary decided to "distance" himself from his racist preacher would you give that candidate the same benefit of the doubt for which you now seek?

Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"

Taking Sharp Tone, Obama Breaks With Ex-Pastor (includes NBC video of press conference)

I can't help but reflect upon a question from my favorite parsha study book Vedibarta Bam appearing in the section for Parasha Kedoshim.


Vedibarta Bam — And You Shall Speak of Them, Volume III — Vayikra, Kedoshim by Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky

"You shall not cheat your friend and you shall not rob him." (19:13)

QUESTION: Why does the Torah emphasize "rei'acha" — "your friend?"

ANSWER: Once two good friends came to the Chassidic Rabbi, Reb Yitzchak of Vorka seeking his berachah to enter into partnership. The Rebbe asked them if they had written a partnership agreement, to which they replied in the negative. The Rebbe said, "In that case I will write one for you." He took a piece of paper, wrote on it, and handed it to the two friends saying, "Now you have your partnership agreement."

They opened the paper and saw only four letters: alef, beit, gimmel, daled. The Rebbe, noticing their amazement, said, "These four letters are the secret to your success. alef stands for emet, the beit for berachah, the gimmel for gezel, and the daled for dalot.

"If you will deal among yourself with emet — truth and honesty — there will be berachah — blessings in your enterprise. However, if you deal with gezel — cheating each other — then you will have dalut — poverty — i.e. your partnership will not succeed and you will end up in poverty."

The Torah is informing us that even if your partner is a good friend and you think he would not mind, you may not deceive him. Doing so will destroy both the friendship and the enterprise.

Barry and Jeremiah are going to end up like cheating partners. Their goals are not in common and they are cheating each other from a successful end. One wants to be President and one wants to be the new leader of an extremist black nationalist movement, both will fail.

PS - I have been asked to request a refuah shalyma for a young girl, Menucha Rochel bas Chana, Tehillim 1. Don't know the details. May HaShem heal her speedily.

---

Rev. Wright: The Gift that Keeps On Giving
Posted by Bobby Eberle
April 29, 2008 at 6:39 am
{excerpts)

The "Look at me, I'm Rev. Wright" tour was in full swing over the weekend and continued Monday with a speech to the National Press Club. During the speech and following question and answer session, the reverend, who says he's a preacher not a politician, touched on a number of political subjects and showed once again that he is driven by a racist philosophy and an increasingly growing ego. From accusations of the U.S. inventing AIDS to kill blacks, to saying there is a difference between black brains and white brains, to saying that criticism of him is criticism of all black churches, Wright provided more evidence of his true agenda. The more Wright speaks, the more questions should be addressed to Sen. Barack Obama. To be under Wright's influence for twenty years should give everyone second thoughts about Obama's philosophy and motivations.

Despite Wright's other comments saying that God should damn America, his political statements on Iraq, and more, Wright went on to say that the criticism of his comments are not an "attack on Jeremiah Wright" but rather "an attack on the black church." This is utterly crazy. As we have seen over and over again from politicians and the media, there is a tried and true tactic when debating political issues: if you can't win the debate, call your opponent a racist. When people stand up against raced-based policies and say that college admissions or hiring should be based on merit not skin color, those people are called racists. When people say that the borders need to be controlled for security reasons and that immigration laws should be enforced, those people are called racists. Now, Wright is using the same tactic. He wants a free license to say anything he wants because he's black.

Wright continues to dig a hole for Barack Obama. Either, after twenty years, Obama believes the same things that Wright does, or the whole relationship was a sham... an effort by Obama to build credibility in the black community in order to first get elected. In either case, the relationship reflects poorly on Obama, and as Obama himself recently attested, the comments by Wright are fair game. With no record of accomplishment by the young senator, his influences and background will draw even more scrutiny. Wright is providing more than ample fodder for that scrutiny.

(the whole article may be found here - will open in new window)

OBAMA Responds - AP

{excerpt}

The Illinois senator summoned reporters Tuesday to say he was outraged by the Rev. Wright's "divisive and destructive" remarks, scrambling to contain the flare-up in a controversy that has dogged him since clips of some of Wright's most objectionable remarks began circulating on TV and the Internet.

Obama said he belatedly condemned Wright's remarks because he did not see a transcript or video of Monday's appearance until the next day.

Below is an unanimated Barry H.O. distancing himself from his Pastor of 20 years about whom Obama says his hateful and racist remarks weren't observed from the pews of TUCC.

Disclosure and Deception

Legal Schmooze: How far can you go when selling a car?
By: Rabbi Michael Merdinger, Esq., Special to the Chronicle

A monthly column in which we look at how Jewish and American law take on today’s issues. For today: When you are a used car salesman. Having tried to sell two cars over the past several years, I can tell you that it’s a bit stressful — you want to market your car to get the best possible price but doing so raises some issues: how pretty a picture can I paint of my car when the picture is not quite so pretty? Do I have to tell the potential buyer about that sticking glove compartment or that oil drip? Can I tell the buyer that he’s getting a great price, even if he’s paying what’s really a reasonable price?

Let’s start with the easy things. Fraud is always bad. This is true in Missouri, in Kansas, in Jewish law and it stands to reason it’s true in our sister states as well. For example, thus sayeth the State of Kansas, that it’s a crime to try to sell somebody something through: “Deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or knowing misrepresentation of a material fact” (KS 21-4403). Done. You can’t affirmatively lie or misrepresent your vehicle (or whatever else you’re selling) to the potential buyer. You can’t say “nope, no oil leaks out of this king of the road.”

Missouri goes a step further. Not only are all those bad things like “deception, fraud, false pretense, misrepresentation” no-nos, but so are “concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact” (Missouri Revised Statutes 407.020). In other words, if you know about that oil drip, you’ve got to disclose. Now this wouldn’t apply to minor defects which are not “material facts” that the buyer relies on in purchasing the vehicle.

Jewish law takes yet another approach. The classic code of Jewish law by Rabbi Yosef Caro says, “If he knows that there is a flaw in his merchandise he must inform the potential purchaser.” (Choshen Mishpat 228:6). This is different from what we saw in the Missouri statute because it is not limited to a “material fact,” but extends even to flaws which are minor and wouldn’t necessarily even be sufficient to change the value of the goods.

Why is there such a difference? It seems to me that American law is primarily concerned with preventing business practices which are unfair and unjust. Rules of this nature help foster a marketplace which is reliable and in which people can feel comfortable doing business with each other — the Midwest as opposed to the Wild West. Kansas’ and Missouri’s rules agree on this principle, but differ about whether it extends to an act of omission (leaving out or concealing a material fact).

There’s an extra law on the books in Jewish law that’s relevant here as well, a prohibition of geneivat da’at, theft of the mind. A precise definition is beyond the scope of this column, but an example from the Talmud may serve as an introduction: “Do not pressure someone with an invitation to eat at your (home) when you know he won’t, or give him a gift when you know he won’t accept” (Chullin 94a). Why not? The problem is that the invitee increases his goodwill and good feeling towards the offeror, thinking that the offeror is a better friend than he really is. This is considered “theft” of the invitee’s goodwill. Accordingly, you can’t tell the potential buyer that you’re giving him such a great deal when in fact you’re giving him an okay deal, because you’re stealing goodwill.

For those who are thinking it’s impossible to sell a car if you have to “sell” its flaws, here’s a caveat. You can certainly market the good qualities of your car, pointing out all it has to offer, and you don’t have to advertise the flaws up front but only at a reasonable time during the discussions so the buyer can make an informed and unpressured decision.

Hopefully, he won’t care about the oil drip because you’ll have sold him already on the great sound system.

Rabbi Michael Merdinger, an Overland Park resident, is a graduate of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary of Yeshiva University and New York University School of Law. He can be reached at mfm@merdingerlaw.com.

---

Rabbi Merdinger explains in the above article that halacha requires disclosure of known flaws and prohibits deceptive promises and claims. I thought this was a good article for inclusion on the blog during a political season especially in terms of the two candidates vying for the democrat party nomination. Without naming names, while both candidates could qualify as lousy in both categories, one candidate excels in deception and the other in failing to provide adequate disclosure. Lets not bring up Israeli politics in this discussion shall we? No? Okay then.

Suffice it to say, the Olmert government is acting under a veil of official deception in terms of what is under negotiation with the arabians and who is doing the negotiating. Confirmations and denials regarding the accountability of the government to the citizenry are really asking for too much.

(http://zioncon.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html)

Visions of Obama Negotiating with Ahmadinejad

(Islamo Facism week sponsored by TerrorismAwareness.org, David Horowitz)

US Democrat Obama Urges Talks With Iran To Stabilize Iraq-AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP)--Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called Tuesday for a "diplomatic surge" including U.S. talks with Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.

The Illinois Senator battling Hillary Clinton called for more pressure on the Iraqi government to embrace political reconciliation and a regional "diplomatic surge that includes Iran."

"We should be talking to them as well," Obama told the top US General in Iraq David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.

"I do not believe we are going to be able to stablize the situation without that."

---

There is no better evidence that Barry H.O. is not ready for prime time than his desire to negotiate with Iran. The future of Iran does not lie with the leadership but with people of Iran. Instead of offering negotiations which protect and strengthen this madman, call for his overthrow. Why here Barry, why Iran?