YankeeJim:Paranoia's destructive. Protection is easy, just keep the eyes open and be aware.
I was the victim 3 weeks ago of a debit hack, Cosco in Canada, within 3 hours i noticed the charges and called the bank, the bank had already cancelled the card, within 30 minutes I had a new card and within 2 days my money was returned. Canadian banks are pretty good when it comes to security.
The target story is good also, lot's of lawsuits as well, seems if a company wishes to store this type of data, they better ensure it's security. It's also beyond me why any company, unless it was absolutely vital, would wish to open themselves to any kind of liability by keeping any sensitive information on file. Target will survive I'm sure.
YankeeJim: Guess what? I had to show my license to prove I was the check maker.
Are you suggesting "showing" your license is equivalent to "providing a duplicate copy" for the company to store in their database is equivalent. Because I would have to beg to differ there if you were.
My eyes are obviously open, but the impression I'm getting I'm in the minority.
Dare I suggest anything that would limit this companies liability, be cheaper for them to do, would protect their customers information, allow them to provide a more efficient service and gets more people verified. What possible use could come from getting more people verified and making the process safe and secure, other then requiring it. Wonder what that might prevent here. HMM Sorry I'm to stupid to figure that out, but all this get's me is a paranoid label.
At this point, with the present process, even if I won a random to Scotland to play SA I would not take it, if it meant being verified with the present process. You can call it paranoid, I call it prudent protection.