Many consumers may receive their credit card bills every month and simply write a check for whatever amount they can afford to pay, without even glancing at the summary of all their monthly purchases.

But this is a bad idea, and a report from TIME Magazine highlights why: Consumers who take the time to carefully go through their monthly credit card bills—and bank statements—will be far more likely to discover any erroneous or even fraudulent charges made to their account. And the problem with this type of entry on a monthly bill is that, if it is the result of fraud, rather than a simple error, it can be very difficult to spot.

[Credit Check Tool: Try Credit.com's Free Credit Report Card]

The days of thieves gaining access to a credit card or bank account number and maxing it out are largely over, as criminals have become smarter about ripping off their identity theft victims, the report said. Instead of stealing thousands of dollars at a time, many might simply try to get away with making smaller charges. Usually, these can be as small as $2 to $10, and benefit the thief because they likely have access to a number of compromised accounts and can draw small amounts from each, rather than large sums from one.

And in many cases, even when consumers do notice a transaction on their account they don’t recognize, they won’t bother to dispute it if it’s for a sum that small, the report said. But not doing so can really make the stolen amount add up quickly, meaning that borrowers might end up being victimized more than they would have if their card had simply been maxed out in one fraudulent purchase.

[Featured Products: Compare credit score, report, and monitoring plans at Credit.com]

Experts recommend that consumers dispute every purchase they don’t recognize on their monthly credit card bills and bank statements not only because it will save them money, but it can also protect their credit. A major portion of a consumer’s credit score is made up of the amount of debt being carried versus their total account maximums, meaning that every little bit added to their balances can end up being problematic if it’s not paid off. Obviously, fraudulent purchases can make it harder to pay down a credit card bill, particularly if they’re allowed to add up.

Jim has a question about his roommate and credit information.  Jim is careful to always pay his bills on time, keep his credit balances low and has a pretty good credit score.  Rick, his roommate, is quite the opposite and is frequently late with his credit payments and has several credit cards with high balances. (If you don’t know already, you’ll want to learn how credit scores really work.)

Jim heard that it’s possible that some of Rick’s credit information may end up on his credit report given they have the same address and thus negatively impact his credit rating.  Can this happen?

Generally speaking, it is unlikely that the information reported on Rick’s credit accounts will randomly show up on Jim’s credit file—even though they currently have the same mailing address.

[Credit Check Tool: Try Credit.com's Free Credit Report Card]

The credit reporting agency databases and reporting processes are constructed at the individual level—not a household level. For example, a person has established credit in his/her name before they get married. That individual credit (or any new credit they open in the future in their name only) will be linked to their individual file only even though they are married and live at the same address.  Any joint credit they open together would be reported on both of their credit files.

As such, a roommate’s credit history should not be intermingled with their roommate’s credit report information and vice versa even though they live at the same address. The only way an account would show up on both parties’ reports is if the two people opened joint credit together.

As a general practice, everyone should periodically check their credit report to ensure the information being reported is accurate.  I would suggest this is an even more important exercise when you are living with roommates as they potentially have access to your personal identity information (SSN, account numbers, etc.) and can use this information to falsely assume your identity to gain access to your credit.

If you find inaccurate information on your credit file, follow the dispute resolution instructions provided by the credit reporting agencies so that it can be investigated and resolved. In addition, be aware and careful about safeguarding your personal information when living with others. Contact the credit bureaus and local authorities if you feel you are the victim of fraud abuse.

[Featured Products: Compare credit score, report, and monitoring plans at Credit.com]

Image: rjs1322, via Flickr.com

Late last month, a major processor of debit and credit card payments suffered a data breach that exposed the account data for more than 1.5 million cards. Now, experts wonder if more can be done at the federal level to better protect consumers’ sensitive financial details.

Data breaches that exposed private account information, and even personal data on consumers, have hit major payment processors in the past, and though 1.5 million sounds like a lot of victims, it was relatively considered relatively small within the industry, according to a report from the Daily Beast. However, it has nonetheless prompted concern among consumers and experts alike that the federal government might not be doing enough to ensure that companies in the payment processing industry are doing enough to ensure that both various types of card transactions are being properly protected.

[Free Resource: Check your credit for free before applying for a credit card]

Experts also caution that though information on 1.5 million accounts was exposed during the breach, the actual number of transactions whose details might have been accessible is likely considerably higher, the report said. In fact, some say that the 1.5 million figure might even be on the lower end of the number of accounts that might actually have been affected.

“[The breach] brings into question the very security of the credit- and debit-card industry and whether or not it’s safe to use such payment cards,” Beth Givens, director of the nonprofit data breach tracking agency the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, told the news site.

Some have also said that they do not believe Global Payments did enough to begin notifying affected consumers and business partners like Visa and MasterCard as early as it could have, the report said. This, too, would ultimately fall under the purview of federal regulators, meaning that more stringent rules may need to be introduced.

[Featured Products: Research and compare Identity theft protection plans at Credit.com]

There has been an increasing movement at the federal level to introduce more protections for consumers’ credit card accounts, as well as to alert borrowers more expediently when their personal or financial information is exposed in a data breach. The most recent statistics show that data breaches affect millions of consumers every year, and while there are numerous laws at the state level for how notifications have to be issued to those exposed in such an incident, there is no overarching federal rule.

Image: Tawheed Manzoor, via Flickr.com

No doubt you’ve seen the studies that show how social networking sites hurt productivity, and I am pretty sure you’ve read, heard or watched countless stories about how companies have tried to solve that problem. And you would have to be living in a cave in Bora Bora—specifically a cave without WiFi—to not know that when computers go down because of a denial of service attack or security breach, productivity takes a hit

However, some really shocking news that you’ve probably heard nothing about is turning what you think you know about that topic upside-down.

[Credit Check Tool: Try Credit.com's Free Credit Report Card]

Some twelve weeks ago, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) was the target of a sophisticated hack attack. The EDA is a relatively tiny unit of the Department of Commerce, with only 215 employees, that makes grants to distressed communities from six regional offices. The hackers installed a virus that was so virulent the EDA was cut off from the rest of the Commerce Department, as well as the rest of government, and all its systems were shut down in order to prevent the virus from spreading through the system.

What’s shocking about this attack is not that it happened; in recent months NASA, the Department of Defense and the State Department (to name a few) all experienced serious attacks. In fact, five years ago the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security was shut down by a hack. The Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team reported that the number of breaches in federal systems grew in four years from under 6,000 to over 44,000 in fiscal year 2011, the Washington Post reported.

None of that is surprising. Here’s what is: Remarkably, despite the return to pre-historic fax-machine technology, the EDA seems to be functioning fairly well, perhaps even better in some ways. The Washington Post reported that as a result of the lack of cyber connectivity, human contact between bureaucrats and aid-seekers had increased dramatically, and things were actually getting done.

[Related: Read more columns by Adam Levin]

The beleaguered folks at the EDA still have no e-mail, no Google, and no Instant Messaging. Heaven forbid they have to use the US Post Office, to the extent it still exists. Also, they don’t have access to their Facebook accounts, dating sites, Internet gaming, and, er….. more “inappropriate” forms of pictorial entertainment.

One can’t help but recall that in 2010 it was reported that employees at the Securities Exchange Commission had been surfing some pretty graphic websites (and I don’t mean National Geographic) as much as eight hours a day. Some of the employees who were exposed (forgive the pun) were earning more than $200,000 a year, and much of the activity uncovered had happened during the financial meltdown of 2008 and 2009. (Note: some federal employees do have access to Facebook and other social media sites at work, and others don’t.)

So, why did this happen at the EDA of all places? Let’s forget about the fact that the threat and reality of security breaches have now become part of the otherwise serene workaday world of government employees everywhere. It’s simply is what is. Indeed, perhaps the most shocking thing about this attack is that the perpetrators knew there was such a thing as the EDA.

Why not go after one of the thirteen different government agencies which, according to USA Today, “fund 209 different science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programs – and 173 of those programs overlap with at least one other program.” Better yet, why not one of the 1,271 government agencies that works on security and counter-terrorism? Or wouldn’t the Bureau of Indian Affairs have been a more unique target? And how could they miss this one: the US Department of Agriculture, which granted $700,000 to the University of New Hampshire to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows? That investigation produced the earthshaking conclusion that, “Cows emit most of their methane through belching, only a small fraction from flatulence.” OK, perhaps I should stop milking this theme.

[Featured Products: Compare credit score, report, and monitoring plans at Credit.com]

I decided that I would conduct my own hypothetical investigation to try and answer the question of just who was behind this scurrilous attack. Mentally, I rounded up the usual suspects.

I instantly ruled out everybody’s hacker of choice, the Chinese. Certainly, they would have no motive to stop the federal government from giving away more of the money that we borrowed from them in the first place, right? So, how about those fun-loving government disrupters who are aligned with “hacktivist” organizations? Naw… I just don’t see them wanting to prevent aid from being given to distressed communities. The main-stream liberal community would be okay with narrowing the distance between the sources of government largesse and the people who actually need the money. Wait, could it be right-wing extremists? After all, they are pretty sensitive about the 78 to 81 card-carrying Communists in Congress—and I have no doubt that crew sees the EDA as yet another manifestation of Communism.

Try as I might, I just couldn’t figure out who was responsible for this successful hack. On the one hand, the right must be pleased by the idea of shutting down government agencies one by one, or at least slowing the torrent of government grants. On the other, the left would be pleased by the newly responsive EDA’s contact with its needy clientele. And everyone, I think, would be ecstatic that the employees of any given government agency could no longer socially network, or otherwise dillydally, on taxpayer time.

The truth is stranger than anything I can deduce from the facts in evidence here. The web-based tools of productivity out there may have some unplanned inefficiencies—Google docs, IM, email, etc—because on the other side of getting things done is having a wee bit too much free time, and that time can be spent using web-based tools of inefficiency. (There’s also the notion that the speed afforded those with tools of productivity may be a tad faster than the speed of human thought and innovation.)

So, my final, unscientific conclusion is simply this: sometimes chance is the catalyst of evolution. Perhaps the country’s fascination with Mad Men explains the phenomenon somewhat, which for lack of any fancy way of putting it, we might call good, old-fashioned face-to-face, phone-to-phone, people-powered productivity.

[Featured Products: Research and compare Identity theft protection plans at Credit.com]

This story originally appeared on Credit.com.

For those of us who care about privacy, these past seven days have truly sucked.

With relatively little fanfare in the midst of a cacophonous (that means “noisy” Senator Santorum) parade of news, three significant events seriously undermined our constitutional right to privacy and highlighted (in a muted sort of way) the extent to which new business practices and perhaps the second oldest human inclination (criminality) have continued the relentless assault on our individual rights and liberties. The worst part is that it seems we’re all becoming accustomed to it. Indeed, these affronts to our privacy seem to be becoming part of the country’s genetic makeup… perhaps even as American as apple pie.

[Credit Check Tool: Try Credit.com's Free Credit Report Card]

First, credit and debit card processor Global Payments, Inc. acknowledged it is the yet the latest flavor of the month in the data breach derby. It took the company three weeks to notify customers and law enforcement officials that there had been an “unauthorized access” to its systems, and that the card numbers and sensitive data of as many as 10 million consumers may have been compromised. MasterCard, Visa and American Express confirmed that they were affected, along with banks and other institutions that issue cards bearing their logos. But then something happened rather suddenly — almost magically: the impact of the breach was downgraded. Within hours of the initial release, the number of “exposed” consumers dropped from 10 million to “only” 1.5 million. It was pointed out that Global Payments has but a paltry 3.5% share of the market, servicing “only” 800,000 or so merchant accounts.

So, are you having a “here we go again,” or a “who cares if it didn’t happen to me” moment?

I realize that it feels like just another swell in an ocean of data breaches that have washed over (and drowned some of) us in the past few months. However, that this breach was minimized so quickly — and so quickly disappeared from the news cycle — is a matter of grave concern.

[Related: Read more columns by Adam Levin]

Breaches of this magnitude have become accepted as “oh well, just another day in paradise.”

I’m afraid that the breach notification minstrels have so inundated us with countless tales of database compromises we have come to accept them as little more than white noise in the village square — the voice of the town crier droning on in the background. The media has become numb, perhaps not understanding the seriousness of the situation. But the parts of government tasked with law enforcement surely could take greater notice of instances where numbers are quickly and drastically altered (one could be forgiven for jumping to the conclusion that these things happen in order to assuage consumer anxiety in the interest of business as usual). The jury is still out as to this particular compromise.

Meanwhile, as the Global Payments media “perp” walk was picking up and then losing steam, an article appeared in the New York Times that was truly chilling. The Times report was based upon 5,500 pages of documents provided to it by the American Civil Liberties Union from over 200 police departments across the land. These internal records detailed a clandestine practice that state and local police departments seem to have adopted as standard operating procedure — cell phone tracking. So my friends, like the authorities did to the citizen-sheep in Orwell’s 1984, it’s time to erase your preconceptions. It’s not just the CIA, the NSA, Apple, Google, or Murdoch’s marauders that are following you around anymore.

[Featured Products: Compare credit score, report, and monitoring plans at Credit.com]

Don’t believe that stuff you see on “The Wire.” By and large these intrusions are carried out without a search warrant or any kind of judicial or civil oversight. In fact, according to the Times, the practice has become so widespread and routine some wireless carriers are actually offering a catalog of “surveillance fees” to police departments to determine a suspect’s location, trace phone calls and texts or provide other services.

And then, as icing on an ever growing constitutionally compromised cake, the Supreme Court ruled in yet another 5 to 4 decision that strip searches could be conducted by police prior to the incarceration of any person arrested, for any reason–including minor traffic violations. The specific case the court decided had to do with the arrest of a man who was a passenger in a car driven by his wife which was pulled over for speeding. Somehow the traffic cop determined that the gentleman in question was the subject of an arrest warrant based on his failure to pay a fine—indeed, a traffic fine–some years earlier. Get this — not only had the victim paid the fine, but he actually had proof of that payment in his possession in the car. However, while the New Jersey DMV in its infinite wisdom was figuring out what was going on, the innocent passenger spent a week in two jails, and he was–now legally–strip-searched in both.

“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority. The Court seemed to be unperturbed by certain facts, such as: at least 10 states have laws preventing this kind of thing;  federal policy precludes it; and according to an amicus brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedure.

Is this still United States of America, the land of the free?

[Featured Products: Research and compare Identity theft protection plans at Credit.com]

I believe we are witnessing a remarkable conspiracy of the profane, accomplished with no communication among the co-conspirators, and perhaps without any evil intent whatsoever — and certainly without much thought. No matter how much it costs or how often it happens, the private sector seems to be unable to effectively protect our data, and thus our privacy. And many companies within that private sector have found a way to profit from that lack of privacy, by collecting information on us and selling it to advertisers, or even to our friendly local police department. And at the very moment when it is most needed to protect an absolutely essential element of our personal freedom, the Supreme Court seems quite willing to strip us of our privacy, and our dignity, quite literally, even if our arrest was false or the charge against us was trivial.

Maybe I made a mistake and took Soma last night instead of Sominex, and this morning I awoke in Aldous Huxley’s dystopian “World State.” It certainly feels like “everyone belongs to everyone else,” doesn’t it?

Image: StevenDePolo, via Flickr