October, 29 2015, 11:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Mike Litt, U.S. PIRG Education Fund
Office: 202-461-3830
Email: mlitt@pirg.org
New Report: Consumers Should Get Security Freezes Before Next Data Breach
Security Freezes Are Only Way to Prevent New Account Identity Theft
WASHINGTON
Credit monitoring and other services that are usually offered to data breach victims and other concerned consumers do nothing to prevent identity theft; they only detect certain types of fraud after it has occurred. A report released today by U.S. PIRG Education Fund aim to increase the awareness and use of the security freeze, also known as a credit freeze. The report explains that the freeze is the only security measure that can prevent new account identity theft.
"Only the security freeze can prevent someone from opening a new credit account in your name," said Mike Litt of U.S. PIRG. "Credit monitoring services may tell you but only after you've already been victimized. Worse, they are often offered after simple retail credit number breaches, even though they offer no help against unauthorized use of your existing accounts, which is the fraud most likely to occur from that type of breach."
A security freeze works by preventing a consumer's credit report from being shared with potential new creditors, such as banks or credit card companies. Most creditors will simply not issue credit if they cannot see the applicant's credit report or score derived from it. The report recommends that the best course of action for most consumers is to place security freezes with the three major national credit bureaus until they want to apply for credit, at which time they can easily unfreeze or "thaw" their reports.
"Whether your personal information has been stolen or not, your best protection against someone opening new credit accounts in your name is the security freeze, not the often-offered credit monitoring services, which only alert you after a new account has been applied for or opened," added Litt. "For this kind of ID theft, only a security freeze offers peace of mind."
The report, "Why You Should Get a Security Freeze Before Your Information is Stolen." offers the following information for consumers:
- It explains the best steps consumers can take against new account financial identity theft, such as placing a security freeze on their "Big 3" credit reports.
- It explains the process of freezing and temporarily unfreezing reports when you need new credit yourself.
- It warns consumers about "phishing" and social engineering schemes used by thieves trying to obtain more information from breach victims, or any consumer, to enable more complex forms of identity theft. For example, a thief who has obtained only a credit card number may call you to trick you into giving up the Social Security Number needed to facilitate new account identity theft. Thieves will also send "phishing" emails containing malicious links. They will also seek to combine breached information with additional information easily available about you online.
- The report warns of newer types of identity theft and additional harms enabled by breaches of health insurance companies (theft of medical services), the IRS (theft of tax refunds) and even the federal government's Office of Personnel Management (new account identity theft and reputational harm).
"Only the security freeze offers peace of mind against new account financial identity theft, but consumers still need to be vigilant about other identity threats and potential harms posed by the easy availability of non-public personal information, from both breaches and other sources," said PIRGER. "Check your accounts regularly, don't give out information to someone who phones - call the number on your bank or health insurance card instead -- and don't click on email links."
The report reiterates that neither credit monitoring nor a security freeze can detect or prevent unauthorized use of existing credit accounts or other types of fraud or identity theft. Regarding fraud on existing accounts, many banks and credit card companies already have mechanisms in place to detect such fraud and remove unauthorized purchases. Positively, the report notes that as of October 1, nearly all credit and debit cards have been replaced with "chip" cards. At the same time, most merchants will also replace their "swipe" terminals with "swipe or dip" terminals. A "chip" card that is dipped does not transfer actual account numbers to the merchant's computer at all, greatly reducing the number of potential existing account fraud victims. However, consumers should be aware that while chip cards will stop most in-person retail fraud they will have no effect on online fraud, although PIN debit cards will. Most banks, however, are only issuing "Chip and Signature," not "Chip and PIN" cards.
"If you can avoid running up credit card debt, always use credit cards online, not debit cards," added Litt. "If you haven't lost your actual debit card, but only had the account number stolen, your legal rights are quite strong, but why face cash flow problems after losing money from your bank account while you wait for the bank to investigate and put it back?"
The report also notes that paid credit monitoring services, which generally range from $9.99/month-$19.99/month or more, are not necessary because federal law requires each of the three major credit bureaus to provide a free credit report every year to all customers who request one -- if requests for reports from one of the three credit bureaus are staggered every four months or so, free credit monitoring can essentially be achieved.
"Sure, a credit monitoring service might detect theft faster than you might on your own, depending on when the theft occurs and when you check your reports. But is it worth the $10 - $20 or more in monthly fees to find out about theft after someone has already attempted to or successfully opened a new account in your name when you can monitor your own accounts and prevent such activity with less costly security freezes?" asked Litt.
U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being. With a strong network of researchers, advocates, organizers and students in state capitols across the country, we take on the special interests on issues, such as product safety,political corruption, prescription drugs and voting rights,where these interests stand in the way of reform and progress.
LATEST NEWS
Call What's Coming the 'Donald J. Trump Recession,' Says Economist
"While a recession may not be fully baked into the cards at this point, the risk is evident and it's almost entirely coming from Donald Trump's policies."
Mar 10, 2025
As U.S. financial markets continued their downward spiral on Monday amid rapidly mounting concerns about the impacts of President Donald Trump's erratic and destructive tariff policies, one economist argued that the president has almost single-handedly engineered economic conditions that could result in a recession in the near future.
"Past recessions have been the result of policy errors or disasters," Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote Monday. "The most typical policy error is when the Federal Reserve Board raises interest rates too much to counter inflation. That was clearly the story in the 1974-75 recession as well as the 1980-82 double-dip recession."
"Then we have recessions caused by collapsing financial bubbles, the 2001 recession following the collapse of the stock bubble and the 2008-09 recession following the collapse of the housing bubble. And of course, we had the 2020 recession because of the Covid pandemic," he added. "But now Donald Trump is threatening us with a recession, not because of something that is any way unavoidable, but rather because as president he has the power to bring on a recession."
Baker pointed specifically to Trump's decision to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China, which the economist estimates will cost Americans roughly $2,000 per household as companies push the costs of the tariffs onto consumers in the form of higher prices.
Trump is going to give us a recession, because he can cepr.net/publications...
[image or embed]
— Dean Baker (@deanbaker13.bsky.social) March 10, 2025 at 12:04 PM
Retaliatory measures are also likely to inflict pain on Americans: On Monday, Ontario announced it would charge 25% more for the electricity it provides to Minnesota, New York, and Michigan in response to Trump's tariffs on Canadian imports, a move that's expected to hike electricity bills significantly for ratepayers in those states.
China, meanwhile, hit back at Trump Monday with an additional 15% tariff on U.S. farm products, including chicken, pork, soybeans, and beef.
Trump's tariff policies, and the widespread confusion surrounding their implementation, have sparked a sell-off on Wall Street and broader fears about the state of the U.S. economy as the labor market shows signs of stalling and consumer confidence plunges.
"While a recession may not be fully baked into the cards at this point, the risk is evident and it's almost entirely coming from Donald Trump's policies," Baker argued, noting that while the recession threat is "first and foremost" driven by tariffs, they "are just one possible route."
"The other is Elon Musk's DOGE team attack on the government. If there was ever any doubt, it is now clear that this outfit has nothing to do with increasing government efficiency," Baker wrote. "The direct impact of Musk's job cuts on both the budget and the economy is likely to be small. The bigger impact is the uncertainty they have created in large sectors of the economy."
"In short, Donald Trump has good reasons for telling us that his MAGA policies might give us a recession," he added. "It's hard to know how bad this recession would be, but it will definitely be the 'Donald J. Trump recession.'"
"Will the Trump slump turn into a recession? How will Trump lie and cheat his way out of it? Stay tuned."
Baker's assessment came a day after Trump declined to rule out the possibility of an economic recession in the U.S. this year and downplayed the effects of his tariffs, claiming without a shred of evidence that they will make the country "so rich you're not going to know where to spend all that money."
Trump previously insisted that the U.S. stock sell-off was attributable not to his chaotic tariff announcements, but to "globalists that see how rich our country is going to be and they don't like it."
Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote Monday that just seven weeks after Trump's inauguration, "the bottom is falling out" of the U.S. economy.
"Stocks are plunging. Treasury yields are falling. Consumer confidence is dropping. Inflation is picking up," Reich wrote. "The cost of living—the single biggest problem identified by consumers over the last several years—is going up, not down. Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum, and his threatened 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, are playing havoc with supply chains inside and outside America."
"Even before this Trump slump, only the richest 10% of Americans had enough purchasing power to keep the economy going with their spending. The bottom 90%—including most Trump voters—were barely getting by. The next eighteen months could be rough on millions of people," he continued. "Will the Trump slump turn into a recession? How will Trump lie and cheat his way out of it? Stay tuned."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump EPA and Citibank Sued for 'Illegally' Freezing Green Energy Funds
"This program was designed to save money for hard-working Americans who are struggling to pay for groceries and keep the lights on," said the head of a climate group that had been awarded funds to finance green energy expansion.
Mar 10, 2025
The need for a federal lawsuit filed Monday presents "more evidence of a constitutional crisis," according to one campaigner, as plaintiffs pushed back against the Trump administration's unlawful freezing of funds appropriated by Congress to help fuel a green energy transition in marginalized communities nationwide.
The lawsuit was announced Saturday by Climate United Fund, a nonprofit green investment fund, and was received Monday by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who previously presided over President Donald Trump's criminal trial regarding his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
The group is accusing the Environmental Protection Agency and Citibank of "illegally withholding" $7 billion that had been awarded to Climate United through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which set up a $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, also known as the Green Bank.
The Green Bank was established to fund solar power, energy-efficient housing projects, and electric vehicles. Climate United has reported that it used funds to begin pre-construction on a solar energy project across the University of Arkansas system, invest in electric trucks at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach with plans for nationwide expansion, and launch a grant program for low-income communities to start clean energy projects.
For the last two weeks, The New York Times reported, Climate United and seven other nonprofits that were awarded funding through the Green Bank have been unable to withdraw the money from their accounts at Citibank.
"They have essentially acted as if they control the power of the purse, but very clearly written into the Constitution is the separation of powers that grants Congress and Congress alone the power of making funding decisions."
The Times reported that the EPA appeared to have frozen the funds after EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called for a "termination" of the agreement the Biden administration made with Citibank when the money was allocated to the nonprofits.
Zeldin made that demand last month after the right-wing group Project Veritas, released a hidden-camera video in which it had surreptitiously recorded an EPA employee saying before Trump took office that the agency was attempting to spend federal money on climate programs before the Republican president was inaugurated.
Zeldin suggested the comments signaled the Green Bank was "designed to obligate all of the money in a rush job with reduced oversight" and was "irresponsibly shoveling boat loads of cash to far-left, activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity."
Climate United and the other groups impacted by the funding freeze have been struggling to pay their staff, the Times reported.
"This isn't about politics; it's about economics," said Beth Bafford, CEO of Climate United. "This program was designed to save money for hard-working Americans who are struggling to pay for groceries and keep the lights on. We're going to court for the communities we serve—not because we want to, but because we have to."
In his statement about the Green Bank funding last month, Zeldin said he was referring the matter to the Office of the Inspector General, suggesting an accusation of potential fraud.
Days after Zeldin's directive, federal prosecutor Denise Cheung resigned after declining to freeze an unidentified bank's accounts for a government contractor, saying she had not found "sufficient evidence" of criminal activity. Cheung's resignation is believed to have stemmed from Zeldin's accusations regarding the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
In an interview with "Living on Earth" on Public Radio Exchange last month, Jillian Blanchard, vice president of climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government, said Zeldin's push to claw back $20 billion that was awarded last year through legislation passed by Congress suggests that "this executive [branch] seems to believe that they have and should have more power than both Congress and the courts."
"They have essentially acted as if they control the power of the purse, but very clearly written into the Constitution is the separation of powers that grants Congress and Congress alone the power of making funding decisions," said Blanchard.
The Trump administration has already been blocked from freezing funds that were were appropriated by Congress. In January the president moved to block federal grants and loans in an order that was swiftly blocked by federal courts, with one judge saying the funding freeze was "likely unconstitutional."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unparalleled Attack on the Rule of Law' by Trump Puts US on Global Watchlist
"The Trump administration seems hellbent on dismantling the system of checks and balances which are the pillars of a democratic society," said one senior leader with the group CIVICUS.
Mar 10, 2025
An organization that tracks threats to civic freedoms announced Monday that it has added the United States to its watchlist, citing the Trump administration's "unprecedented" executive orders that the group says undermine democratic institutions, rule of law, and global cooperation.
"The Trump administration seems hellbent on dismantling the system of checks and balances which are the pillars of a democratic society," said Mandeep Tiwana, interim co-secretary general of CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society activists and organizations, in a statement Monday.
"This is an unparalleled attack on the rule of law in the United States, not seen since the days of McCarthyism in the twentieth century. Restrictive executive orders, unjustifiable institutional cutbacks, and intimidation tactics through threatening pronouncements by senior officials in the administration are creating an atmosphere to chill democratic dissent, a cherished American ideal," Tiwana continued.
The CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist, which highlights countries where there is a serious decline in "respect for civic space," also noted declines in the status of four other countries on Monday: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Italy, Pakistan, and Serbia. Democratic Republic of the Congo and Pakistan earned a rating of "repressed," while the watchlist considers the civic space rating of Italy and the United States to be "narrowed." Serbia earned the civic space rating of "obstructed."
"Open" is the highest ranking a country can receive, and denotes when "citizens and civil society organizations are able to organize, participate, and communicate without hindrance."
"Narrowed" is the second-highest tier rating, and countries earn this designation when people can exercise civic freedoms, including the freedoms of association, peaceful assembly, and expression, though occasionally violations of these rights occur.
Following his return to the White House, "Trump has issued at least 125 executive orders, dismantling federal policies with profound implications for human rights and the rule of law," according to the group.
Other actions that CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist highlights include: rolling back federal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, implementing a widespread pause on foreign aid, taking steps to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development and laying off employees there, and withdrawing from the World Health Organization, the U.N. Human Rights Council, and the Paris Climate Agreement.
"These measures come amid a broader potential curb on the freedom of association," according to the group, which points to the passage of the so-called "nonprofit killer" bill in the U.S. House of Representatives in November, 2024. If it became law, the bill would allow the Treasury Department to revoke the tax-exempt status of non-profits it deems to be supporting terrorism.
The group points to Trump's January 30 executive order which is purportedly aimed at combating antisemitism. In an accompanying fact sheet with the order, Trump is quoted saying: "To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before."
Critics had warned that the executive order could chill political speech on campuses, according to The Guardian, and it is freshly in the news after Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, who helped lead the Gaza solidarity encampment on Columbia University's campus.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said described Khalil's arrest as being "in support of President Trump's executive orders prohibiting antisemitism," according to The Associated Press.
The group also highlighted recent actions that touch on press freedom concerns. For example, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced in February that the administration will now decide which outlets get to participate in the presidential press pool, in a break with precedent.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular