The only disgusting part is the one where vendors get to claim someone owes them without adequate proof and makes it a random person’s obligation to prove they do not owe the vendor rather than a vendor having to prove they did their due diligence in confirming someone’s identity.
> The disgusting part is the whole reason the providers demanded SS # is to defend their own interests to threaten clients with collection agencies and credit score dips. The neglect of these same now cause clients to risk getting credit score dips through no fault of their own.
I do not expect un-hackable systems and organizations to exist, so I would not find this “disgusting”, without knowing how the leak happened. It might be disgusting if there was a complete disregard for handling of the data, which might be true in this case, but I was responding to your comment as is there very idea that a mobile carrier can lend to a customer was disgusting.
> The disgusting part is the whole reason the providers demanded SS # is to defend their own interests to threaten clients with collection agencies and credit score dips. The neglect of these same now cause clients to risk getting credit score dips through no fault of their own.
I do not expect un-hackable systems and organizations to exist, so I would not find this “disgusting”, without knowing how the leak happened. It might be disgusting if there was a complete disregard for handling of the data, which might be true in this case, but I was responding to your comment as is there very idea that a mobile carrier can lend to a customer was disgusting.