Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The victims only have themselves to blame.

#1 Let Crapca$t in the door
#2 Trusted Crapca$t not to raid the liquor cabinet or take the keys to the sports car.

Yes and no on the victim blaming aspect. Here Comcast seems to have gone a bridge too far in carelessness (not to say cheap shortcutting).

End users do need to take security precautions. However, providers are aware of the technical limitations of knowledge on how to do that, on the part of many of their customers.

For instance, most providers take the trouble to assign a unique password to access a user's account these days. Also, their setup crews usually bother to establish a nondefault password on a WiFi network, even if the access to a router page to tinker with those settings has poor default security (which is often the case).
 
What a timely article, just got my Xfinity Mobile SIM card in the mail, was going to port over this weekend, think i’ll see how this plays out. First T-Mobile does this, now Xfinity, how many kicks from the mule does it take?
 
A small number until the news broadcast to every hacker on Earth. Wait a month and will see if it stays a very small number. Off Grid looking better each day!:(
 
Update: Called Xfinity Mobile. They stopped automated phone number transfers. If one wants to transfer an Xfinity number, now requires a one on one with a special Xfinity department. The pin no longer an avaiable option until the system updated. From what I gathered, system update in some form of beta testing.

I gave them a bit of tough love about Security today. Essentially saying Security is not an after thought. Get your **** together. ;)
 
The most interesting thing to me about this story is that Comcast has a cellular service. Seriously.
 
Going on for a longtime. 1970’s, rarely locked the doors in my neighborhood. Nothing ever went missing. Today deadbolts and security plus camera systems the normal.

The decline continues. A truly sad story.
Simply not true. Crime has been on the decline since the 90’s. Depending on crime type, its generally no different percapita than it was in the 70’s and acually, lower for burglury and vehicle threat. Your memory of the 70’s predated 24 hour news cycles. So we are simply more aware of crime. When you had only an hour of news in the 70’s, Walter Cronkite had to stick to the big stories.

The spreading of incorrect information continues. A truer sad story.

Stats
 
Simply not true. Crime has been on the decline since the 90’s. Depending on crime type, its generally no different percapita than it was in the 70’s and acually, lower for burglury and vehicle threat. Your memory of the 70’s predated 24 hour news cycles. So we are simply more aware of crime. When you had only an hour of news in the 70’s, Walter Cronkite had to stick to the big stories.

The spreading of incorrect information continues. A truer sad story.

Stats

With all do respect that percapita is BS. In my city, percapita crime down. The city population numbers, 26k 1970’s and today 140k. My neighborhood followed the trend. Five times plus as many people today. Even if the numbers per x lower, the numbers of crimes are greater in my locations at least four times then in the 1970’s. Why the BS about percapita are totally misleading.

Put more rats in an area, add more people, the percapita down, but the total numbers are higher. End of the day, more crimes daily then in the 1970’s daily per area. Numbers game to make those who jobs require improved results.

Sum it it up if in 1970’s 10 crimes committed per thousand (2,600). Use 5 crimes per thousand today (7,000). Tell me how that is less crime. The BS story per capita.
 
Last edited:
With all do respect that per capita is BS. In my city, per capita crime down. The city population numbers, 26k 1970’s and today 140k. My neighborhood followed the trend. Five times plus as many people today. Even if the numbers per x lower, the numbers of crimes are greater in my locations at least four times then in the 1970’s. Why the BS about per capita are totally misleading.

Put more rats in an area, add more people, the per capita down, but the total numbers are higher. End of the day, more crimes daily then in the 1970’s daily per area. Numbers game to make those who jobs require improved results.

Sum it it up if in 1970’s 10 crimes committed per thousand (2,600). Use 5 per thousand today (28,000). Tell me how that is less crime. The BS story per capita.
Per capita IS the normal measure- always has been. It means if you live in a neighborhood of similar density as you did in the 70’s, say, all 1/3 acre lots, there are fewer crimes in that neighborhood than there were before. Yes, the population is growning. There are more neighborhoods. Brilliant of you to notice. But for every 100,000 people in a city or town, fewer of them are robbed today than in the 70’s. Not to mention the OP statement of these crimes apparently not occurring- you may have left your doors unlocked, and there may have been fewer humans around, but each one of those humans had a greater chance of a crime being committed against them. Odds of a crime happening to any individual are simply reduced today. But stick with you math as you like. Just avoid a career in statistics or probability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gasu E.
Per capita IS the normal measure- always has been. It means if you live in a neighborhood of similar density as you did in the 70’s, say, all 1/3 acre lots, there are fewer crimes in that neighborhood than there were before. Yes, the population is growning. There are more neighborhoods. Brilliant of you to notice. But for every 100,000 people in a city or town, fewer of them are robbed today than in the 70’s. Not to mention the OP statement of these crimes apparently not occurring- you may have left your doors unlocked, and there may have been fewer humans around, but each one of those humans had a greater chance of a crime being committed against them. Odds of a crime happening to any individual are simply reduced today. But stick with you math as you like. Just avoid a career in statistics or probability.

The failure densities per area. One example, we had a warehouse district with not-too many population per square miles. Low density, very high crime rate percapita. Today converted to extreme density, condos. The crime rate per thousand way down, however per square mile explosive crime rate. The numbers of crime per square mile off the charts. What was a percapita high crime rate way down, the numbers of crime per area off the charts. Do these folks feel safer, generall No. That percapita numbers needs adjusting to population densities. Otherwise a BS number.
 
With all do respect that percapita is BS. In my city, percapita crime down. The city population numbers, 26k 1970’s and today 140k. My neighborhood followed the trend. Five times plus as many people today. Even if the numbers per x lower, the numbers of crimes are greater in my locations at least four times then in the 1970’s. Why the BS about percapita are totally misleading.

Put more rats in an area, add more people, the percapita down, but the total numbers are higher. End of the day, more crimes daily then in the 1970’s daily per area. Numbers game to make those who jobs require improved results.

Sum it it up if in 1970’s 10 crimes committed per thousand (2,600). Use 5 crimes per thousand today (7,000). Tell me how that is less crime. The BS story per capita.
Like cell service it’s location, location. location. Plus your town is a small neighborhood in large cities so your results may vary. By the way I think you added a zero to both results. 10x26=260, 5x140=700. With your example had the crime rate stayed the same, it would be double or 1400.
 
It’s no different than the small business routers/firewalls Comcast provided forever where the default username was “cusadmin” and the default password was “highspeed”. If they were that bad with business class networking equipment why does anyone think their consumer stuff would be any better?
 
Maybe do an article on what ATT does with their account security for iPhone launches.
 
Per capita IS the normal measure- always has been. It means if you live in a neighborhood of similar density as you did in the 70’s, say, all 1/3 acre lots, there are fewer crimes in that neighborhood than there were before. Yes, the population is growning. There are more neighborhoods. Brilliant of you to notice. But for every 100,000 people in a city or town, fewer of them are robbed today than in the 70’s. Not to mention the OP statement of these crimes apparently not occurring- you may have left your doors unlocked, and there may have been fewer humans around, but each one of those humans had a greater chance of a crime being committed against them. Odds of a crime happening to any individual are simply reduced today. But stick with you math as you like. Just avoid a career in statistics or probability.

I dunno about anyone else here but I was only speaking of the decline of trust by people who used to leave a cigar box out with the produce, some change and a few bucks plus a note saying Please Try to Make Your Own Change. Not so much about general crime rates.

Regardless of stats on crime -- and I live in an area where there's not usually much of it (although that might be because there aren't any deputy sheriffs handy so no one's sure who's packing a subsitute for a 911 call)-- I don't see many of those cigar box, make-your-own change, casual approaches to making sales to a presumably honest customer base. It's just not done any more, I guess.

About the closest I can summon up there is that our local general store (which is no longer in business, although over thrashed profit margins, not thievery by customers) used to extend credit to all customers a month at a time until such time as they proved unworthy of it via not settling up for cash or good plastic within 10 days of the new month.

They didn't have a cigar box on the counter to make your own change though. And there was a sign in the window that noted if you shoplifted you'd get a free ride from the sheriff to the slam.

I always figured the proprietor had a weapon back behind the deli counter in case someone decided to take a whole ham on credit without properly introducing himself first. But, there were never any such incidents that I was aware of for at least the last 25 or so years of that store's existence.

Still he didn't trust us to make our own change in that last quarter-century of trade, as had earlier been the case in that store (which opened in the mid 19th century) and up in New England when I was in school in the 1960s.

And so I mark it as a decline in something attitudinal in the USA, something about both trust and honesty, and a sad thing a decline in either one of those is, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: notabadname
How backwards are things in the US?

Do the network providers not tell you to change your default passwords or something?

We've always been told to change the default password on anything we get from a provider, be it mobile phone, broadband modem. It is also staggering to think that after all this time so many people still don't look to change these things on their own initiative. Especially on devices that are now so important to everyones daily lives.

To those shout about a law suit, if Comcast don't tell you to change the default password then it may be possible. However if it is anywhere in the material provided, no matter how fine the print, they will not have a leg to stand on.
 
What a timely article, just got my Xfinity Mobile SIM card in the mail, was going to port over this weekend, think i’ll see how this plays out. First T-Mobile does this, now Xfinity, how many kicks from the mule does it take?
I've had an account for a month now. It never occurred to me during this month that I was never prompted to set a pin.

I have a privacy.com account and I set up a card to use with my Xfinity Mobile account and I set the limit very low.

The nice thing about XfInity Mobile is that if I use no data during the month, I have no charges so I don't want to get rid of this line.

I expect there will be changes regarding the pin soon.
 
I've had an account for a month now. It never occurred to me during this month that I was never prompted to set a pin.

I have a privacy.com account and I set up a card to use with my Xfinity Mobile account and I set the limit very low.

The nice thing about XfInity Mobile is that if I use no data during the month, I have no charges so I don't want to get rid of this line.

I expect there will be changes regarding the pin soon.
The by the Gig plan is what I chose. I have been using Xfinity WiFi with a VPN for a month now and it works well for me everywhere I go. This vulnerability is just stupid. Off topic, I use an American Express prepaid card that I load with cash anywhere. Linking a burn card service to my bank account makes no sense, might as well use my bank card with the built in fraud protection.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.