Chris Hoofnagle of the University of California at Berkly penned a very interesting report which seeks to Measure identify theft by institution. Specifically Chris used the Freedom of Information act to obtain data from the FTC which was then used to identify the institution or institutions where the identity thieves either establish fraudulent account or impacted existing accounts.

Basically, how good is your bank at protecting you?

I highly recomend a review of the report, because some of the data does need to be taken with a gain of sand. First the sorce data covers only 3 months, and not consecutive months, in 2006. Secondly, the bigger banks take the brunt of the conclusions from the data. While Chris has appropriately factored for size, based on incidents per $billion in deposits, he has not (and, to be fair, could not) balance for name or number of users. The biggest bank naturally draws the attention from the bad guys.

The following is the breakdown per bank directly from Chris’ report:

The most interesting point, which Chris makes rather firmly, is that the 25 institutions (and this is not just banks, but also service providers and retail outlets) account for just under 50% of all identity thefts — at least for those three months in 2006. The top 5 account for almost 1 out of ever 4 events.

It would be very hard to stay away from the top 25 institutions, as all the major banks and major service providers are accounted for here. None the less there is a clear message that not all providers are policing incidents of identity theft equally.

HSBC is the worst with 21.3 incidents per billion in deposits. They are also the 9th largest, and all of those above them in size perform better. Still, the largest institution, Bank of America, has 17.6 incidents per billion in deposits. And the best among the big banks? Wachovia Bank - they only had 4.9 incidents per billion in deposits are all also the 4th largest institution on the list.

So take it with a grain of salt - but I am not sure I would keep my business with HSBC, Bank of America, or Washington Mutual.

Also reporting:
Concurring Opinions

Forbes is calling it, rightly, “The Mother of all EU Fines”:

The latest episode in Microsoft’s tempestuous relationship with the European Competition Commission ended with a bang Wednesday, as Commissioner Neelie Kroes slapped down an 899 million euro ($1.35 billion) fine on the company for not completely complying with an antitrust ruling that dated back to 2004. It is by far the largest EU fine ever imposed on a company.

Wow - I cannot even imagine that much money. That is a price tag that will pain even the cash rich Microsoft.

Here is the reasoning behind the EU’s decision:

The fine, which Microsoft will probably pay, is entirely retrospective, relating to a period of “non-compliance” before Oct. 22, 2007. It relates to the “unreasonable prices” the Commission is claiming Microsoft charged, before that date, to other software developers for access to documents that explained how they could create software that interfaced with Microsoft servers.

Between June 21, 2006, when that information was made available, and Oct. 21, 2007, Microsoft had charged software developers royalties of 0.7% on the revenues of their products that were developed using protocols the software giant had provided.

After that date, Microsoft agreed to reduce the rate to 0.4%, following directives from the Commission to charge a more “reasonable” rate. (See: “EU’s Hard Line Cows Microsoft”) But it probably knew that fines were ahead for the prior period, when it had charged a higher rate.

Microsoft is heading the same way as UK telecom giant BT. They will soon be put into a regulatory box where they are not permitted to compete with the competition. The EU needs to seriously consider these business practices before harming more businesses.

The Democrats Insanity broadens! The latests concerning the inbound chair of the Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson.

From the Washington Times:

A Mississippi Democrat in line to become chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee has warned the nation’s largest uniform supplier it faces criminal charges if it follows a White House proposal to recheck workers with mismatched Social Security numbers and fire those who cannot resolve the discrepancy in 60 days.

This was part of the President Bush supported initiative to help employers know which of their employees are illegals by flagging incorrect or mis-matched Social Security Numbers.

Rep. Bennie Thompson said in a letter to Cintas Corp. it could be charged with “illegal activities in violation of state and federal law” if any of its 32,000 employees are terminated because they gave incorrect Social Security numbers to be hired.

“I am deeply troubled by Cintas’ recent policy change regarding the Social Security Administration’s ‘no match’ letters,” Mr. Thompson said in the Nov. 2 letter. “It is my understanding that hundreds of Cintas’ immigrant workers have received these letters. I am extremely concerned about any potentially discriminatory actions targeting this community.”

Heaven forbid we discriminate against those who break the law. Cintas and other companies should be very worried about this, as this is a prime example of being caught between a rock and a hard place. Hiring Illegals is a crime and, so it seems, is firing them.

To be clear the “no match” letters are supported by the president, the Social Security Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security. Where this blockhead gets off threatening American Business for following these guidelines is beyond me. Perhaps he needs to keep enough illegals around to ensure he gets re-elected next time around.

Also Reporting:
Michelle Malkin
Captains Quarters
American Pundit

In a press release posted Tuesday on Wal-Marts news site, Wal-Mart has taken a stand to not support either side in controversial issues. This is exactly the course of action I recommended corporations like Wal-Mart and Ford to take - any other course of action polarizes the customer base.

Respect for the individual is one of the core values that have made us into the company we are today. We take pride in the fact that we treat every customer, every supplier and every member of our individual communities fairly and equally.

We are working hard to make our corporate contributions reflect the values of our customers, communities, and associates. As Sam Walton said, “Each Wal-Mart store should reflect the values of its customers and support the vision they hold for their community.

Wal-Mart will not make corporate contributions to support or oppose highly controversial issues unless they directly relate to our ability to serve our customers.

Wal-Mart does not have a position on same sex marriage and we do not give preference to gay or lesbian suppliers. Wal-Mart does have a strong commitment to diversity among our associates and against discrimination everywhere.

Wal-Mart is also making note of their support for the Salvation Army, specifically allowing them to be outside any Wal-Mart stores. A move that is likely aimed directly at there main competition, Target, who will not permit the seasonal Salvation Army collection stations at their stores.

Good move Wal-mart. My wife is happy she can now shop at your stores without sacrificing her values.

This article, from Fox News, was quote and interesting read, if a bit on the odd side:

This will be the third year that Target has banned the bell-ringers from its stores. But Salvation Army spokeswoman Melissa Temme said other changes could make up much of the $9 million the charity used to raise each year in front of Target stores.

Besides the cash donation, Target will donate the profits from a $9.99 Salvation Army ornament that is hitting store shelves this week, Temme said. It will also put a link on its Web site to accept Salvation Army donations.

“We expect it to be successful. We don’t know what to expect as far as the ultimate monetary gain,” Temme said. “But we know that this will enable us to help more people simply because we’ll be bringing in more money.”

Target said it has “a long-standing relationship that includes providing financial resources for disaster relief, as well as supporting local chapters through grant and volunteer programs.”

I understand what Target is trying to do here,. In order to make up blocking the Salvation Army from collecting donations in front of their stores, Target is donating $1 Million, proceeds from ornament sales, and offering online shoppers a way to donate. Good, that goes a long way to make up for it.

The thing I don’t understand is why? Why block the Salvation Army in the first place, why take a major departure from practically every other national store chain, and why offend people who see the good value of the Salvation Army? It seems much easier, for everyone involved, to just let holiday tradition go on.

I respect Target’s choice, and see they are reaching here, but there has to be more to the story. I will admit, the blocking of the Salvation Army, the greatest charity of the past several decades, was the main reason Target got none of my family’s spending last Christmas. This Christmas I will shop at Target because of the steps they have taken – but they sure are taking the long complicated route.

Maybe their marketing department just can’t admit they screwed up.

I picked up the following from the Dow Jones Newswire:

Ford Motor Co. (F), in the midst of a massive restructuring of its North American operations, on Monday reported a preliminary third-quarter net loss of $5.8 billion, or $3.08 per share, representing the company’s largest quarterly loss since 1992.

The auto maker also said it will restate earnings results dating back to 2001 to correct the accounting for certain transactions entered into to hedge interest-rate risk. The restatement for all periods, including the third-quarter results, should be finalized by the time the company files its quarterly report with the Securities and Exchange Commission next month.

[…]

North American operations continued to be the biggest drag on the overall performance. The company’s automotive operations in the region posted a pre-tax loss of $2 billion, up from $1.2 billion a year ago and compared with $1.3 billion in the second quarter. North American automotive revenue fell to $15.4 billion from $18.2 billion, as sales of pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles suffered amid concerns about high fuel prices and rising interest rates, among other factors.

Ouch. A loss of almost $6 Billion (with a B) or $3.08 represents a huge problem from Ford, its shareholders, and the employees. I will not presume to speak to the business factors of what is going on inside Ford. However, I do have to question if there is a philosophical reason behind this drastic drop.

I am tempted, as a Conservative Christian, to point to Fords vocal support for the Homosexual Agenda. As you may know, several Conservative Christian Groups including the American Family Association, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family and American Values have called for a boycott of Ford for its outspoken support to homosexual groups and gay marriage. You would be hard pressed to find an American company who has contributed more than Ford to these causes.

I have to question the logic of any organization who would intentionally place themselves into such an emotive argument such as Homosexual rights. No matter which side Ford would have chose, they would have alienated no small number of potential buyers. Why not stay silent on the issue? Ford is not alone, Wal-Mart is taking a similar road.

I am confident that Ford’s problems are deeper than the various boycotts. I am sure Ford would point to the international competition from companies like Toyota, which surly has some merit. Yet there seems to be a shocking lack of good sense at the executive level over at Ford. Perhaps the name Ford doesn’t automatically indicate the wisdom and capability to run one of the world’s largest auto makers.

I divested myself of my Ford stock around this time last year. Yes, it was for ethical reasons, but it looks like it was good financial sense as well. Ford is a major employer, and feeds about 110,000 US families. I hope they find and address this problem quickly, for the sake of those families. I believe the first step is to focus on making good quality cars, not corporate activism.