Meant to Combat ID Theft, Unemployment Benefits Letter Prompts ID Theft Worries:
My first thought when a reader shared a copy of the letter was that he recently had been the victim of identity theft. It took a fair amount of digging online to discover that the nebulously named "Cardholder Services" address in Florida referenced at the top of the letter is an address exclusively used by U.S. Bank.
That digging indicated U.S. Bank currently manages the disbursement of funds for unemployment programs in at least 17 states, including Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The funds are distributed through a prepaid debit card called ReliaCard.
To make matters more confusing, the flood of new unemployment applications from people out of work thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic reportedly has overwhelmed U.S. Bank's system, meaning that many people receiving these letters haven't yet gotten their ReliaCard and thus lack any frame of reference for having applied for a new payment card.
Reached for comment about the unhelpful letters, U.S. Bank said it automatically mails them to current and former ReliaCard customers when changes in its system are triggered by a customer – including small tweaks to an address — such as changing "Street" to "St."
"This can include letters to people who formerly had a ReliaCard account, but whose accounts are now inactive," the company said in a statement shared with KrebsOnSecurity. "If someone files for unemployment and had a ReliaCard in years past for another claim, we can work with the state to activate that card so the cardholder can use it again."
U.S. Bank said the letters are designed to confirm with the cardholder that the address change is valid and to combat identity theft. But clearly, for many recipients they are having the opposite effect.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday May 08 2020, @10:25PM (1 child)
I'm sorry, but if you hadn't set this all up via direct deposit, then you shouldn't be surprised that it's going to be a fuckhuge hassle. If you had no choice in the matter then I feel for you, but if you aren't being paid in cash then direct deposit should be set up whenever possible.
There was only 1 situation when I could have chosen to receive a check or prepaid debit card, and that situation was when I was a struggling idiot many years ago with my account overdrawn 200 bucks and I needed every cent of that check to survive until the next check to pay the bank what I owed. There is literally no other fucking reason why people should choose to accept paper checks or prepaid debit cards when given the choice between those or direct deposit.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday May 08 2020, @10:35PM
Lame self-reply, but in the state of California many years ago it was decided that unemployment funds would be issued to an unemployment account set up through Bank of America rather than issued directly from the state. After having to pay bank fees and put of with the Bank of America always bugging people to start checking accounts, people bitched and moaned so much that, although Bank of America still received the unemployment funds on behalf of the recipient, they would agree to bounce all those funds to an account of the recipient's choice free of charge.
There are still minor hassles, though. Every new unemployment claim has to be configured at Bank of America to set up the funds to be bounced to the account of choice. I didn't realize this when I filed my second claim and had no access to my unemployment funds because my B of A atm card hadnt arrived in the mail yet, and the old card was expired. If your B of A unemployment account isn't set up to auto-transfer the funds, and you don't have a current ATM card for the B of A account, then you can't pull money out. Then, when you get your card, they literally have a separate dedicated card reader and network just for UI accounts. They can't do it up front where the tellers are, the teller has to go to the back where the dedicated UI infrastructure is.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2020, @10:52PM (7 children)
Either way, the reaction is gonna be bad. You get sued by idiots for not warning them, or get idiots panicking because their reading comprehension is too low and your CYA letter came out of the blue.
This is what happens when you try to implement socialism on top of capitalism I guess.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2020, @11:05PM (1 child)
Non-sequitur much?
Or are you just trying to blame "socialism" (a favorite bugaboo that doesn't apply here, no matter how hard you try to make it do so) when the culprits are really incompetence and poor communication?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2020, @12:06AM
See my reply to below, you non-comprehension of the English language idiot.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2020, @11:07PM (4 children)
I'd add that the U.S. Treasury seems to be able to get checks/direct deposits out without causing confusion, while the *private* contractor doesn't seem to be able to do so.
So you're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2020, @12:03AM (3 children)
Uhh... I never said socialism was bad. I said " implementing socialism on top of capitalism " AKA privatization of public services, you fucking retard. You're the type who would panic when you got this kind of letter, I'm guessing
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2020, @12:18AM (2 children)
If you don't want people to misunderstand you, you should say what you mean, in concrete terms, rather than make vague generalizations and expect all of us to know exactly what's on your mind.
My "clear" understanding of your statement [soylentnews.org]:
was that the failure you invoked involved providing support to the unemployed *at all*, rather than what you actually meant.
As talented as I might be, I am (currently) unable to read the minds of AC Soylentils. As such, if you'd like to present your thoughts, it would certainly be helpful if you presented them coherently and with a minimum of ambiguity.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2020, @12:25AM (1 child)
Blah blah blah. Boils down to: you said socialism and I didn't understand so you must be alt-right trumpy!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2020, @02:31AM
wat
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 08 2020, @11:08PM
Turned 65 last year and signed up for Medicare. Got several letters with minor address changes after that, seems to have calmed down by now. At least they were on Medicare letterhead so I knew where they came from. This deal with the generic "Cardholder Services" label would be easy to mistake for spam/phishing.
Separate comment--
Recently stopped cable TV service and, after turning in the cable box, there was a refund due of ~$40. Instead of sending me a check, they sent a debit card with that balance. The card was cheap, mag stripe only, no chip. Asked the cashier at Aldi if they could charge a specific amount to a card and they did, to the penny. Then made up the balance of the grocery bill in cash.
At first it seemed kind of odd, but in hindsight getting the debit card saved me a trip to the bank. Of course if anyone had grabbed that letter out of the mailbox they could have spent the ~$40 on the card just as easy as if it was an envelope full of cash.
(Score: 3, Touché) by captain normal on Friday May 08 2020, @11:44PM (1 child)
I keep getting calls from "Rachel" at "Cardholder Services". Haven't filed for unemployment because I'm fully retired. Even from self-employment so the only funds I get from the Government are Social Security Administration payments, those go straight to the bank. Wonder if I could sue U.S.Bank for violating the "Do Not Call' registry rules?
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 09 2020, @12:28AM
> "Rachel" at "Cardholder Services".
I know that bitch, she's been calling me too.
(this was a thing, maybe 5-10 years ago, thanks for the bad memory!)