You may have noticed the inability to access this site recently. Well, I fixed that over the weekend and all is well. However, if you registered in the past week or so, you will have to register again. Sorry about that.

Oh, and my sump pump failed, leaving my basement with two inches of water. Happy birthday to me.

I’ve been seeing commercials on TV for freetripplescore.com or whatever the hell it is. They say you can get all three credit reports and scores for free from them. Note, if you sign up for some shit first…
WRONG!

Anyone can get all three of their credit reports for FREE once a year per the Fair Credit Reporting Act. There are other reasons why you may be able to get an additional copy of a report in less than 12 months, but I won’t get into that right now. The easiest way to do this is to go to AnnualCreditReport.com.
As for your credit score, credit bureaus may offer them to you, but this is not your actual credit score. Your real credit score is calculated by the Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO). Go to MyFICO.com. Each score will cost you (as of the day I post this) $15.95. This fee also provides a copy of the credit report from the bureau you chose. You can get all three for $47.85.

Questions? Post them in the comments and I’ll answer them.

Bank Technology News | Thursday, May 1, 2008
By Glen Fest
Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal could not be less pleased with The Bank of New York Mellon (BNY) from a mass data breach episode reported last week.
Not the least of the issues is the volume: a theft involving the personal information of up to 4.5 million customers of BNY Mellon and other institutions, including People’s United Bank and Wachovia. The AG was also flabbergasted the breach came due to the loss of a box containing six to 10 backup tapes off a truck owned by Archival Systems. The tapes were left unattended at a door with a broken lock during the February incident. Making things worse was the fact that the tapes were unencrypted, according to Blumenthal’s letter. News reports also indicate BNY didn’t report the breach for two months.
The AG raised the heat some more by scolding BNY for what he called its insufficient response to the
loss. “BNY began notifying the affected customers six weeks ago, and is offering one year of credit
monitoring through Equifax,” Blumenthal wrote. “Given this extraordinarily serious security breach, this offer of protection is grossly inadequate.”
As part of his investigation of the incident, Blumenthal demanded a response from BNY by this week
detailing the bank’s data prevention and breach response measures, a list of compromised issuers, what type of data was lost, and corporate policies on back-up tapes.

The big thing I want to point out here is that the AG of CT is completely correct in saying the credit monitoring offered to these people is grossly inadequate.  Little credit lesson here.

Credit monitoring services are useless to prevent identity theft.  They will only alert you after the fact.  Not to mention, it could take a few months for Equifax to get the information to report to you.  How?  Because there are three credit bureaus.   If someone has all your information, and they open accounts under your name, there is a good chance that the bank the account was opened with reports to one of the other two bureaus (Trans Union or Experian).  While it is true that this information will propagate to Equifax, it could take a couple months.  At that point, once Equifax has the information that this account now exists, they will contact you.  By then, not only has the account been opened without your authorization, but it’s been open for a couple months!

What you want to do is issue a fraud alert for your credit reports.  Anyone can do this for free.  The first time you sign up for an alert, you only need to call only one bureau and that bureau will notify the other two. With this type of alert, you are only notified you when someone tries to open a new credit card or a new account in your name.  Note that no one will be able to open new credit under your name without your authorization.  Not even you.  This means you will not be able to get “instant approval” for new accounts.

After the initial 90-day period, you must contact all three credit bureaus every 90 days in order to maintain the alert.

Now, if your identity has been stolen and you have a police report, you can get a fraud alert for 7 years.

If you live in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, Texas, Vermont, or Washington state, you can have a “credit freeze”  out on your credit reports.  This means no one can open new accounts or even perform inquiries on your credit reports.  You will need to contact each of the three credit bureaus to have this activated.  If you wish to apply for new credit, you must contact the bureaus again to un-freeze your reports.  This can cost up to $30 per transaction but may be waived in some states if your identity has been stolen.

Thats all from me today.  Hope you learned something useful.  Feel free to leave any additional questions in the comments.  I’ll answer them.

(CNN) — The California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, “does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that “responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”

“We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

The ruling takes affect in 30 days.

Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, filed a lawsuit saying they were victims of unlawful discrimination. A lower court ruled San Francisco acted unlawfully in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation for being conservative. Six of its seven judges are Republican appointees.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he is “profoundly grateful” for the decision and for the court’s “eloquence” in its delivery.

“After four long years, we’re very, very gratified,” he said.

Shannon Minter, attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the case, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the ruling “a moment of pure happiness and joy for so many families in California.”

“California sets the tone, and this will have a huge effect across the nation to bringing wider acceptance for gay and lesbian couples,” he said.

Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, issued a statement saying, “Today’s ruling affirms that committed couples, gay and straight, should not be denied the duties, obligations and protections of marriage. … This decision is a vital affirmation to countless California couples — straight and gay — who want to make and have made a lifelong commitment to take care of and be responsible for each other.”

Groups opposing same-sex marriage also reacted strongly to the ruling.

“The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench,” said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.

“So-called ’same-sex’ marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.”

The organization said that a constitutional marriage amendment should be placed on the November ballot and that national efforts should be made to generate a federal marriage amendment.

“The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people,” Barber said.

A constitutional amendment initiative specifying that marriage is only between a man and a woman is awaiting verification by the secretary of state’s office after its sponsors said they had gathered enough signatures to place it on the statewide ballot. The parties cannot appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Herrera said, as federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the state laws. “This is the final say,” he said.

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the majority’s conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.

In 2004, San Francisco officials allowed gay couples in the city to wed, prompting a flood of applicants crowding the city hall clerk’s office. The first couple to wed then was 80-year-old Phyllis Lyon and 83-year-old Dorothy Martin, lovers for 50 years.

“We have a right just like anyone else to get married to the person we want to get married to,” Lyon said at the time.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom called the ruling a victory not just for the city “but for literally millions of people. … What the court did is simply affirm their lives.”

CNN’s Ted Rowlands reported that “huge cheers” went up in San Francisco when the ruling was announced.

In California, a 2000 voter referendum banned same-sex marriage, but state lawmakers have made two efforts to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both bills.

“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement issued Thursday. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages in 2004, and gay couples need not be state residents there to wed.

New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut permit civil unions, and California has a domestic-partner registration law. More than a dozen other states give gay couples some legal rights, as do some other countries.

“It’s a throwaway line, but I think it’s true: As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation,” Newsom said. “And I don’t think people should be paranoid about that. … Look what happened in Massachusetts a number of years ago. Massachusetts is doing just fine. The state is doing wonderfully.”

The state law in question in the case, which consolidated six cases, was the Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22. Oral arguments in March lasted more than three hours.

“There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state’s general legislative policy and preference,” the ruling said.

“Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of Section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a ‘union between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”

Newsom compared the ruling to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Virginia case overturning that state’s ban on interracial marriage.

“This is about civil marriage. This is about fundamental rights,” he said.

The ruling may make the same-sex marriage issue more important in November elections.

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain supports “traditional” marriage but opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying individual states should decide the issue. He also backs some legal benefits for same-sex couples.
Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton both oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions. They also oppose a constitutional ban.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Both sides in the gay marriage debate will be watching California’s highest court Thursday to see if the nation’s biggest state goes the way of Massachusetts and legalizes same-sex marriage.

The California Supreme Court was scheduled to rule on a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

“What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone,” said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.

Supporters and opponents of gay marriage predicted a number of possible outcomes from the California court’s seven justices, six of whom were appointed by Republican governors.

Like the top court in Massachusetts, they could hold that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying constitutes unlawful discrimination and order state lawmakers to remedy the situation.

Less likely but still feasible, they could bypass the Legislature and simply strike the one man-one woman definition from the marriage statutes, according to Kors. In that instance, the soonest couples could start walking down the aisle would be in 30 days, the time it typically takes for Supreme Court opinions to become final, he said.

A majority of the justices could also join the top courts in four other states that have upheld gay marriage bans.

Such a decision would leave any subsequent changes in the hands of voters or the Legislature, which has twice passed laws to make gay marriage legal. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed them both times, citing the ban approved by voters in 2000.

“If California issues a decision legalizing same-sex marriage, it will reinvigorate the fight for same-sex marriage” nationally, said Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. “But if they affirm that marriage is for a man and a woman, then what has happened is that Massachusetts is leading a one-state parade.”

Lorence and Kors agreed that there is another, more nuanced option. The court could strike down the 2000 ban, known as Proposition 22, but give the Legislature the leeway of devising a solution that falls short of allowing marriage for all.

That’s what the New Jersey Supreme Court did in 2006. After that court ruled that gay couples should receive the same legal protections as husbands and wives, New Jersey legislators opted to allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, designed to give them spousal rights without marriage.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It’s therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California’s current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signature to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

The cases before the California court were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco’s monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom’s direction.
On the Net:
Decision to be posted at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme