Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those shady dog walkers and housekeepers! Definitely not as trustworthy as a nanny.

Stop. Not PP but the issue is that they had strangers in and out of the house, with sensitive personal information lying out. It wouldn't matter what the person's occupation is, PPs employer's need to respect their responsibility as an employer to protect her information.

She specifically mentioned the housekeeper and the dog walker, not anyone else. She sees them as less trustworthy, obviously.

It doesn't matter who they are. Of COURSE employers have a responsibility to safeguard sensitive information such as an employee's SSN. I can't believe this question even needs to be asked.

I did let it slide, seeing that I didn't say anything to them.

But now I have employers sign a statement about it.

You didn't let it slide. You had a fit!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a fit when I saw that a new employer had left my personal info papers laying right on the kitchen counter in plain sight. They had the dog walker in that day, plus the housekeeper.

Now when I give them these things, I have them both sign a statement agreeing to take reasonable precaution to safeguard my personal identity information.

OP here. Both the dog walker and the housekeeper were American born. Surprise! So was the irresponsible employer.

If I encounter that again, I will not let it side.

*slide

Anonymous wrote:I had a fit when I saw that a new employer had left my personal info papers laying right on the kitchen counter in plain sight. They had the dog walker in that day, plus the housekeeper.

Now when I give them these things, I have them both sign a statement agreeing to take reasonable precaution to safeguard my personal identity information.

OP here. Both the dog walker and the housekeeper were American born. Surprise! So was the irresponsible employer.

If I encounter that again, I will not let it side.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those shady dog walkers and housekeepers! Definitely not as trustworthy as a nanny.

Stop. Not PP but the issue is that they had strangers in and out of the house, with sensitive personal information lying out. It wouldn't matter what the person's occupation is, PPs employer's need to respect their responsibility as an employer to protect her information.

She specifically mentioned the housekeeper and the dog walker, not anyone else. She sees them as less trustworthy, obviously.

Most likely the dog walker and housekeeper (surely the housekeeper at least) were foreign, so the chance that they would not hesitate to steal someones identity for money is quite high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those shady dog walkers and housekeepers! Definitely not as trustworthy as a nanny.

Stop. Not PP but the issue is that they had strangers in and out of the house, with sensitive personal information lying out. It wouldn't matter what the person's occupation is, PPs employer's need to respect their responsibility as an employer to protect her information.

She specifically mentioned the housekeeper and the dog walker, not anyone else. She sees them as less trustworthy, obviously.

Most likely the dog walker and housekeeper (surely the housekeeper at least) were foreign, so the chance that they would not hesitate to steal someones identity for money is quite high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those shady dog walkers and housekeepers! Definitely not as trustworthy as a nanny.

Stop. Not PP but the issue is that they had strangers in and out of the house, with sensitive personal information lying out. It wouldn't matter what the person's occupation is, PPs employer's need to respect their responsibility as an employer to protect her information.

She specifically mentioned the housekeeper and the dog walker, not anyone else. She sees them as less trustworthy, obviously.

Or...maybe they were the only people in and out of the house other than her employers that day, genius? You're trying to create something where there isn't. Stop it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those shady dog walkers and housekeepers! Definitely not as trustworthy as a nanny.

Stop. Not PP but the issue is that they had strangers in and out of the house, with sensitive personal information lying out. It wouldn't matter what the person's occupation is, PPs employer's need to respect their responsibility as an employer to protect her information.

She specifically mentioned the housekeeper and the dog walker, not anyone else. She sees them as less trustworthy, obviously.

Anonymous wrote:Those shady dog walkers and housekeepers! Definitely not as trustworthy as a nanny.

Stop. Not PP but the issue is that they had strangers in and out of the house, with sensitive personal information lying out. It wouldn't matter what the person's occupation is, PPs employer's need to respect their responsibility as an employer to protect her information.

Those shady dog walkers and housekeepers! Definitely not as trustworthy as a nanny.

I had a fit when I saw that a new employer had left my personal info papers laying right on the kitchen counter in plain sight. They had the dog walker in that day, plus the housekeeper.

Now when I give them these things, I have them both sign a statement agreeing to take reasonable precaution to safeguard my personal identity information.

This is great info. Thank you!

We keep documents in a safe at home. When you no longer employ your nanny shred the documents that you no longer need. On your home computer where you do your taxes make sure to run anti-virus software. Macs are generally safer than Windows PC computers.

Most identity theft occurs from people who respond to phishing attempts or large scale data losses at companies.

What's the best way, seeing the high risk of identity fraud?