Here's How Congress Should Respond to the Equifax Breach

  • There is very little doubt that Equifax’s negligent security practices were a major contributing factor in the massive breach of 145.5-million Americans’ most sensitive information. In the wake of the breach, EFF has spent a lot of time thinking through how to ensure that such a catastrophic breach doesn’t happen again and, just as importantly, what Congress can do to ensure that victims of massive data breaches are compensated fairly when a company is negligent with their sensitive data. In this post, we offer up some suggestions that will go a long way in accomplishing those goals.

    A Federal Victims Advocate to Research and Report on Data Breaches

    When almost half of the country has been affected by a data breach, it’s time for Congress to create a support structure for victims at the federal level.

    Once a consumer’s information is compromised, there is a complex process to wade through to figure out who to call, what kind of protections to place on one’s credit information, and what legal remedies are available to hold those responsible accountable. To make it easier for consumers, a position should be created within the executive branch and given dedicated resources to support data breach victims.

    This executive branch official, or even department, would be charged with producing rigorous research reports on the harm caused by data breaches. This is important because the federal courts have made it very hard to sue companies like Equifax. The judiciary has effectively blocked litigation by setting too high a standard for plaintiffs to prove they were harmed by a data breach. Federal research and data analyzing the financial harm Americans have faced will help bridge that gap. If attorneys can point to authoritative empirical data demonstrating that their clients have been harmed, they can make companies like Equifax accountable for their failures to secure data.

    Federal Trade Commission Needs to Have Rule-making Authority

    Speaking of the executive branch, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has a crucial role to play in dealing with data breaches. As it stands now, federal regulators have little power to ensure that entities like Equifax aren’t negligent in their security practices. Though Americans rely on credit agencies to get essential services—apartments, mortgages, credit cards, just to name a few—there isn’t enough oversight and accountability to protect our sensitive information, and that’s concerning.

    Equifax could have easily prevented this catastrophic breach, but it didn’t take steps to do so. The company failed to patch its servers against a vulnerability that was being actively exploited, and on top of that, Equifax bungled its response to the data breach by launching a new site that could be easily imitated.

    To ensure strong security, Congress needs to empower an expert agency like the FTC, which has a history and expertise in data security. This can be accomplished, by restoring the FTC’s rule-making authority to set security standards and enforce them. The FTC is currently limited to only intervening in matters of unfair and deceptive business practices, and this authority is inadequate for addressing the increasingly sophisticated technological landscape and collection of personal data by third parties.

    Congress Should Not Preempt State Data Breach Laws

    While empowering executive agencies to address data breaches, Congress should take care in ensuring that states don’t lose their own laws dealing with data breaches. Any federal law passed in response to the data breach should be the foundation—not the ceiling— upon which states can build upon according to their needs.

    States are generally more capable of quickly responding to changing data collection practices. For example, California has one of the strongest laws when it comes to notifying people that their information was compromised in a data breach. Among other things, it prescribes a timeline to notify victims and the manner in which it should be done. By the time a company has to comply with California’s laws, the company has infrastructure in place to notify the rest of the country. Given this, Congress should not pass a law that would gut states’ ability to have strong consumer friendly data breach laws.

    Create a Fiduciary Duty for Credit Bureaus to Protect Information

    Congress must also acknowledge the special nature of credit bureaus. Very few of us chose for our most sensitive information to be hoarded by an entity like Equifax that we have no control over. Yet the country’s financial infrastructure relies on them to execute even the most basic transactions. Since credit bureaus occupy a privileged position in our society’s economic system, Congress needs to establish that credit bureaus have a special obligation and a fiduciary duty to protect our data.

    Ultimately, companies like Equifax, Experian, and Transunion serve a purpose, but they lack a duty of care towards the individuals whose data they have harvested and sell because they are not the bureaus’ customers. Without obligations to adequately protect consumer data, we will likely see lax security that will lead to more breaches on the scale of Equifax.

    Give People their Day in Court

    The first big problem for those seeking a remedy for data breaches is just getting into court at all, especially in sufficient numbers to make a company take notice. For too many people impacted by data breaches, they learn to their great dismay that somewhere in the fine print they agreed to a mandatory arbitration clause. This means that they cannot go to court at all or must engage in singular arbitration, rather than a class-action lawsuit.

    After the Equifax breach, a lot of the focus has been on binding arbitration clauses because of the company’s egregious attempt to use it to deny people their day in court. Companies like Equifax shouldn’t be able to prevent people from going to court in exchange for weak assistance like credit-monitoring services given the scale of the breach and harm

    As Congress debates how to protect Americans’ legal rights after a breach, the focus should go beyond just prohibiting mandatory arbitration clauses. Congress should preserve, protect, and create an unwaiveable private right of action for Americans to sue companies that are negligent with sensitive data.

    We Don’t Need Additional Criminal Laws

    A knee-jerk reaction to a significant breach like Equifax is to suggest that we need additional criminal laws aimed at those who are responsible. The reality is, we don’t know who was behind the Equifax breach to hold them accountable. More significantly, knowing their identity does nothing to ensure that Equifax actually applies crucial security patches when they are available. We don’t need increased criminal penalties—we need to incentivize protecting the data in the first place.

    Another good reason for this is that these additional criminal anti-hacking laws more often end up hurting security researchers and hackers who want to do good. For instance in Equifax’s case, a security researcher had warned the company about its security vulnerabilities months before the actual breach happened; yet the company seemed to have done nothing to fix them. The security researcher couldn’t go public with the findings without risking significant jail time and other penalties.

    Without a meaningful way for security testers to raise problems in a public setting, companies have little reason to keep up with the latest security practices and fearing the resulting negative publicity. If Congress uses the Equifax breach to enhance or expand criminal penalties for unauthorized access under laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), we’d all be worse for it. Laws shouldn’t impede security testing and make it harder to discover and report vulnerabilities.

    Free Credit Freezes, Not Credit Monitoring Services

    Lastly, Congress needs to provide guidance on the immediate aftermath of a data breach. It’s become almost standard practice to offer credit-monitoring services to data breach victims. In reality, these services offer little protection to victims of data breaches. Many of them are inadequate in the alerts they send consumers, and more fundamentally, there’s little utility in being informed of improper usage of one’s credit information after it’s alreadybeen exploited. Consumers will still potentially have to spend hours to get their information cleared up with the various credit bureaus and entities where the information was used fraudulently.

    Instead, Congress should legislate that victims of data breaches get access to free credit freezes, which are much more effective in preventing financial harm to victims of data breaches, at all major credit bureaus. There are proposals in Congress along these lines and we are glad to see that.

    There’s no question that the Equifax breach has been a disaster. We at EFF are working with congressional offices to pass sensible reforms to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

Tmux Commands

screen and tmux

A comparison of the features (or more-so just a table of notes for accessing some of those features) for GNU screen and BSD-licensed tmux.

The formatting here is simple enough to understand (I would hope). ^ means ctrl+, so ^x is ctrl+x. M- means meta (generally left-alt or escape)+, so M-x is left-alt+x

It should be noted that this is no where near a full feature-set of either group. This - being a cheat-sheet - is just to point out the most very basic features to get you on the road.

Trust the developers and manpage writers more than me. This document is originally from 2009 when tmux was still new - since then both of these programs have had many updates and features added (not all of which have been dutifully noted here).

Action tmux screen
start a new session tmux OR
tmux new OR
tmux new-session
re-attach a detached session tmux attach OR
tmux attach-session
re-attach an attached session (detaching it from elsewhere) tmux attach -d OR
tmux attach-session -d
screen -dr
re-attach an attached session (keeping it attached elsewhere) tmux attach OR
tmux attach-session
screen -x
detach from currently attached session ^b d OR
^b :detach
^a ^d OR
^a :detach
rename-window to newname ^b , <newname> OR
^b :rename-window <newn>
^a A <newname>
list windows ^b w ^a w
list windows in chooseable menu ^a "
go to window # ^b # ^a #
go to last-active window ^b l ^a ^a
go to next window ^b n ^a n
go to previous window ^b p ^a p
see keybindings ^b ? ^a ?
list sessions ^b s OR
tmux ls OR
tmux list-sessions
screen -ls
toggle visual bell ^a ^g
create another window ^b c ^a c
exit current shell/window ^d ^d
split window/pane horizontally ^b " ^a S
split window/pane vertically ^b % ^a |
switch to other pane ^b o ^a <tab>
kill the current pane ^b x OR (logout/^D)
collapse the current pane/split (but leave processes running) ^a X
cycle location of panes ^b ^o
swap current pane with previous ^b {
swap current pane with next ^b }
show time ^b t
show numeric values of panes ^b q
toggle zoom-state of current pane (maximize/return current pane) ^b z
break the current pane out of its window (to form new window) ^b !
re-arrange current panels within same window (different layouts) ^b [space]
Kill the current window (and all panes within) ^b killw [target-window]
  • Criteo is an ad company. You may not have heard of them, but they do retargeting, the type of ads that pursue users across the web, beseeching them to purchase a product they once viewed or have already bought. To identify users across websites, Criteo relies on cross-site tracking using cookies and other methods to follow users as they browse. This has led them to try and circumvent the privacy features in Apple’s Safari browser which protects its users from such tracking. Despite this apparently antagonistic attitude towards user privacy, Criteo has also been whitelisted by the Acceptable Ads initiative. This means that their ads are unblocked by popular adblockers such as Adblock and Adblock Plus. Criteo pays Eyeo, the operator of Acceptable Ads, for this whitelisting and must comply with their format requirements. But this also means they can track any user of these adblockers who has not disabled Acceptable Ads, even if they have installed privacy tools such as EasyPrivacy with the intention of protecting themselves. EFF is concerned about Criteo’s continued anti-privacy actions and their continued inclusion in Acceptable Ads.

    Safari Shuts out Third Party Cookies…

    All popular browsers give users control over who gets to set cookies, but Safari is the only one that blocks third-party cookies (those set by a domain other than the site you are visiting) by default. (Safari’s choice is important because only 5-10% of users ever change default settings in software.) Criteo relies on third-party cookies. Since users have little reason to visit Criteo’s own website, the company gets its cookies onto users’ machines through its integration on many online retail websites. Safari’s cookie blocking is a major problem for Criteo, especially given the large and lucrative nature of iPhone’s user base. Rather than accept this, Criteo has repeatedly implemented ways to defeat Safari’s privacy protections.

    One workaround researchers detected Criteo using was to redirect users from sites where their service was present to their own. For example, if you visited and clicked on a product category, you would be first diverted to and then redirected to Although imperceptible to the user, this detour was enough to persuade the browser that is a site you chose to visit, and therefore a first party entitled to set a cookie rather than a third party. Criteo applied for a patent on this method in August 2013.

    …And Closes the Backdoor

    Last summer, however, Apple unveiled a new version of Safari with more sophisticated cookie handling—called Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP)—which killed off the redirect technique as a means to circumvent the cookie controls. The browser now analyzes if the user has engaged with a website in a meaningful way before allowing it to set a cookie. The announcement triggered panic among advertising companies, whose trade association, the Interactive Advertising Bureau, denounced the feature and rushed out technical recommendations to work around it. Obviously the level of user “interaction” with Criteo during the redirect described above fails ITP’s test, which meant Criteo was locked out again.

    It appears that Criteo’s response was to abandon cookies for Safari users and to generate a persistent identifier by piggybacking on a key user safety technology called HSTS. When a browser connects to a site via HTTPS (i.e. a site that supports encryption), the site can respond with an HTTP Strict Transport Security policy (HSTS), instructing the browser to only contact it using HTTPS. Without a HSTS policy, your browser might try to connect to the site over regular old unencrypted HTTP in the future—and thus be vulnerable to a downgrade attack. Criteo used HSTS to sneak data into the browser cache to produce an identifier it could use to recognize the individual’s browser and profile them. This approach relied on the fact that it is difficult to clear HSTS data in Safari, requiring the user to purge the cache entirely to delete the identifier. For EFF, it is especially worrisome that Criteo used a technique that pits privacy protection against user security interests by targeting HSTS. Use of this mechanism was documented by Gotham City Research, an investment firm who have bet against Criteo’s stock.

    In early December, Apple released an update to iOS and Safari which disabled Criteo’s ability to exploit HSTS. This led to Criteo revising down their revenue forecasts and a sharp fall in their share price.

    How is Criteo Acceptable Advertising”****?

    "… w__e sort of seek the consent of users, just like we had done before_."__1_ - Erich Eichmann, CEO Criteo

    _"Only users who don’t already have a Criteo identifier will see the header or footer, and it is displayed only once per device. Thanks to [the?] Criteo advertisers network, most of your users would have already accepted our services on the website of another of our partner. On average, only 5% of your users will see the headers or footers, and for those who do, the typical opt-out rate is less than .2%._" - Criteo Support Center

    Criteo styles itself as a leader in privacy practices, yet they have dedicated significant engineering resources to circumventing privacy tools. They claim to have obtained user consent to tracking based on a minimal warning delivered in what we believe to be a highly confusing context. When a user first visits a site containing Criteo’s script, they received a small notice stating, _"_Click any link to use Criteo’s cross-site tracking technology." If the user continues to use the site, they are deemed to have consented. Little wonder that Criteo can boast of a low opt-out rate to their clients.

    Due to their observed behaviour prior to the ITP episode, Criteo’s incorporation into the Acceptable Ads in December 2015 aroused criticism among users of ad blockers. We have written elsewhere about how Acceptable Ads creates a clash of interests between adblocking companies and their users, especially those concerned with their privacy. But Criteo’s participation in Acceptable Ads brings into focus the substantive problem with the program itself. The criteria for Acceptable Ads are concerned chiefly with format and aesthetic aspects (e.g. How big is the ad? How visually intrusive? Does it blink?) and excludes privacy concerns. Retargeting is unpopular and mocked by users, in part because it wears its creepy tracking practices on its sleeve. Our view is that Criteo’s bad behavior should exclude its products from being deemed “acceptable” in any way.

    The fact that the Acceptable Ads Initiative has approved Criteo’s user-tracking-by-misusing-security-features ads is indicative of the privacy problems we believe to be at the heart of the Acceptable Ads program. In March this year, Eyeo announced an Acceptable Ads Committee that will control the criteria for Acceptable Ads in the future. The Committee should start by instituting a rule which excludes companies that circumvent explicit privacy tools or exploit user security technologies for the purpose of tracking.


    read more
  • Have you ever sent a motivational text to a friend? If you have, perhaps you tailored your message to an activity or location by saying “Good luck in the race!” or “Have fun in New York!” Now, imagine doing this automatically with a compuuuter. What a great invention. Actually, no. That’s not a good invention, it’s our latest Stupid Patent of the Month.

    U.S. Patent No. 9,069,648 is titled “Systems and methods for delivering activity based suggestive (ABS) messages.” The patent describes sending “motivational messages,” based “on the current or anticipated activity of the user,” to a “personal electronic device.” The patent provides examples such as sending the message “don’t give up” when the user is running up a hill. The examples aren’t limited to health or exercise. For example, the patent suggests sending messages like “do not fear” and “God is with you” when a “user enters a dangerous neighborhood.”

    The patent’s description of its invention is filled with silly, non-standard acronyms like ABS for “activity based suggestive” messages or EBIF for “electronic based intelligence function.” These silly acronyms create an illusion of complexity where plain, descriptive language would reveal the mundane nature of the supposed invention. For example, what the patent grandly calls EBIF appears to be nothing more than standard computer processing.

    The ’648 patent is owned by Motivational Health Messaging LLC. While this may be a new company, at least one of the people behind it has been involved in massive patent trolling campaigns before. And the two named inventors have both been inventors on patents that trolls have asserted hundreds of times. One is also an inventor listed on patents asserted by infamous patent troll Shipping and Transit LLC. The other named inventor is the inventor on the patents asserted by Electronic Communication Technologies LLC. Those two entities (with their predecessors) brought over 700 lawsuits, many against very small businesses. In other words, the ’648 patent has been issued to Troll Co. at 1 Troll Street, Troll Town, Trollida USA.

    We believe that the claims of the ’648 patent are clearly invalid under the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank, which held abstract ideas do not become eligible for a patent merely because they are implemented in conventional computer technology. Indeed, the patent repeatedly emphasizes that the claimed methods are not tied to any particular hardware or software. For example, it states:

    The software and software logic described in this document … which comprises an ordered listing of executable instructions for implementing logical functions, can be embodied in any non-transitory computer-readable medium for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device, such as a computer-based system, processor-containing system, or other system that can fetch the instructions from the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device and execute the instructions.

    The ’648 patent issued on June 30, 2015, a full year after the Supreme Court’s Alice ruling. Despite this, the patent examiner never even discussed the decision. If Alice is to mean anything at all, it has to be applied to an application like this one.

    In our view, if Motivational Health Messaging asserts its patent in court, any defendant that fought back should prevail under Alice. Indeed, we would hope that the court would strongly consider awarding attorney’s fees to the defendant in such a case. Shipping & Transit has now had two fee awards made against it for asserting patents that are clearly invalid under Alice. And the Federal Circuit recently held that fee awards can be appropriate when patent owners make objectively unreasonable argument concerning Alice.

    In addition to the problems under Alice, we believe the claims of the ’648 patent should have been rejected as obvious. When the application was filed in 2012, there was nothing new about sending motivational messages or automatically tailoring messages to things like location. In one proposed embodiment, the patent suggests that a “user walking to a hole may be delivered ABS messages, including reminders or instructions on how to play a particular hole.” But golf apps were already doing this. The Patent Office didn’t consider any real-world mobile phone applications when reviewing the application.

    If you want to look for prior art yourself, Unified Patents is running a crowdsourcing contest to find the best prior art to invalidate the ’648 patent. Aside from the warm feelings that come from fighting patent trolls, there is a $2000 prize pool.

    Despite the weakness of its patent, Motivational Health Messaging LLC might still send out demand letters. If you receive such a letter, you can contact EFF and we can help you find counsel.

    We have long complained that the Patent Office promotes patent trolling by granting obvious and/or abstract software patents. The history of the ’648 patent shows how the Patent Office’s failure to properly review applications leads to bad patents falling into the hands of trolls.

    read more