Talk:Capital One

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2014 2017

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Split proposed

The 2019 security breach has so much information, including an ongoing trial, that it should be its own article. I propose 2019 Capital One security breach. Due to a conflict of interest, I will not be able to make this split myself, but I encourage editors without a COI to do so. White 720 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

As a consumer with no COI, I think this should stay right here. 74.102.1.100 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

COI edit request

• Specific text to be added or removed: REMOVING: Capital One publicly acknowledged on July 29, 2019, that they had found unauthorized access had occurred ten days earlier by an individual who had breached the account and identity security of 106 million people in the United States and Canada.[96] REPLACE WITH: On July 17, 2019, a GitHub user saw a post about a possible theft of information from Capital One [*]. That user notified Capital One, and the company then investigated [*]. On July 19, after determining that there had been an intrusion, Capital One notified the FBI [*].
• Reason for the change: Taken out of context
• References supporting change: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/united-states-v-paige-thompson

ONECapitalOne (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The source provided is a Primary Source. This is not sufficient for supporting the edits requested. Please find a non-primary source to support the requested content change. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The case summary is indeed extracted from the case documents. However, a press release about the case[1] would be a secondary source, and anyway is a source perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. Note that we use secondary sources primarily in order to avoid bias often inherent in primary sources. Here, in the DoJ press release, the risk of bias is negligible. — kashmīrī ^TALK 04:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That said, I somehow fail to see why the current wording would be problematic. It summarises the developments well without going into irrelevant details, doesn't it? — kashmīrī ^TALK 05:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

A press release from an organization that is reporting about it's own work is also a primary source. But your final comment pretty much hits the nail on the head - they aren't important details. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. With these edits we were attempting to clarify the situation in the article. I figured a case summary from the US Attorney's office would suffice as a secondary source, or that it would at least be sufficient in the sense of reliability, but I understand your perspective. I found this article, as well. Would this meet the secondary sourcing guidelines? There are others as well, but I don't want to spam this Talk page with links. ONECapitalOne (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've looked over the gizmodo article, re-read the DOJ press release, and the original sourcing via Capital One's 'FAQ' page archived at archive.org, and I still don't see what material difference these small details make. Your original request stated "Reason for the change: Taken out of context" - but the opening text is true and correct. What you're requesting be removed does not appear to be taken out of context. At best (worst?), your edits could be additions after the text you requested be replaced. But these details are so minor I still fail to see their value. The article could stand to be updated to acknowledge the final judgement in the case, but my interest in the matter isn't great enough to motivate me to put in that effort. Perhaps another editor will be inclined to do so. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

COI edit request 2/26/24

• Specific text to be added or removed: "In 2022, Thompson was convicted of five felonies and two misdemeanors. She was sentence to time served and five years of probation."
• Reason for change: Provides important context with verifiable information
• References supporting change: https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/prewrite-do-publish-capital-one-hacker-receives-tk-years-sentence-a-20189

ONECapitalOne (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 08:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

COI edit request 3/12/24

• Specific text to be added: under Capital One response, REMOVE: "Critics lambasted the bank's effort to downplay the hack while investigations were ongoing, and described the bank as more concerned about its image than the needs of its clients. Several Capital One customers stated that the first time they heard about the hack was through the media and the bank did not disclose the breach or explain its implications to affected customers." REPLACE with: Capital One was alerted to the incident on July 17, 2019. The FBI arrested and charged Paige Thompson within ten days of that alert, and on July 29, Capital One issued a press release about the hack. At that time there was also a banner on Capital One’s website that directed customers to a fact sheet and FAQ page, though several Capital One customers stated the first time they heard about the hack was through the media."
• Reason for change: existing copy is inaccurate, and there is no citations to support critics "lambasting" Capital One. Replacing text explains clearly and concisely the chain of events, and what Capital One said publicly.
• References supporting change: https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/capital-one-hack-no-customer-notification.html Thank you. ONECapitalOne (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have removed the unsourced claim which says Critics lambasted the bank's effort to downplay the hack while investigations were ongoing, and described the bank as more concerned about its image than the needs of its clients, and have expanded the section with citations to reliable sources. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

COI Edit Request 4/12/24

*Specific Text to be Added: under Federal Reserve Action, REPLACE with:

On August 6, 2020, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors announced a cease and desist order against Capital One resulting from the breach. The order mandated, among other things, several actions for Capital One to comply with for risk management.

In 2023, the Federal Reserve terminated that 2020 order, stating the matter to be resolved. A separate consent order from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) was terminated in 2022, with the OCC reporting that “the bank had reached a level of safety and soundness no longer requiring extra oversight.”

*Reason for change: Attributable citations support the matter was resolved and terminated to Federal Reserve and OCC standards.

*References supporting change:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/enf20200806a1.pdf

https://www.bankingdive.com/news/fed-terminates-capital-one-2020-enforcement-action-data-breach-aws-paige-thompson-occ-106-million/686725/

https://www.bankingdive.com/news/capital-one-occ-consent-order-2019-data-breach-106-million-customers-paige-thompson-aws/632143/

Thank you. ONECapitalOne (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)