4 ms·

> anyone who does it deserves a swift kick to the nuts. Let's say you want to buy a house and apply for mortgage. The bank can either look at your credit histo

by pps43 10y ago

> anyone who does it deserves a swift kick to the nuts. Let's say you want to buy a house and apply for mortgage. The bank can either look at your credit history to determine your probability of default, or not look at your credit history and assume your probability of default is the same as US average. The bank uses this probability and prime rate to decide what interest rate to offer you. If you paid your bills on time in the past, your credit history would be clean and you'll get a better rate.

dbg31415 10y ago
OK, joking aside... Sure... the bank has that info. Presumably the bank had to go through special screening and training to get access to it. I'm OK with that. One step better, it would be nice to have notification whenever any person or institution queried my info... but at least they have some level of screening. Huge difference between that, and just throwing all the information out there to the wind. Certainly your insurance rates would go down if all your health info were made public and the insurance provider was allowed to factor that in, right? It's creepy, it makes the world a worse place for existing. I guess what's nice is that when someone does a search, they probably know most of these sites aren't all that accurate to begin with... But my comments were more around how it would be nice to stop the spread of some things... companies that work to make a buck eroding our privacy for starters. I could set up a truck on the street in front of your house... document everything about you for a few months... it's creepy. On that note, the way to kill these sites off would be to just have Google de-list these sites. Now, I get that Google won't actually de-list sites... but treating them like the scammers they are would be a good change the the SERP ranking algorithm.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  > Presumably the bank had to go through special screening and training to get access to it. No, not really. They just have to ask you if it's OK preform that query from a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA) and have regulations around informing you about the sources they used to make decisions. Same for any 'background check' company. But if you want to participate in society you're going to have to authorize these sorts of searches... There's not a whole lotta choice. In the US The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regulates how the CRAs use that information. I'm no expert, but I believe the FCRA only applies if the information is being used to make credit, insurance, employment, housing, etc. decisions. It doesn't apply for personal curiosity. That's why those sites say "you agree not to use this information for employment, housing purposes, etc." When you use them. It's probably more useful to read the FCRA rather than listening to me though.
- ryanlol 10y ago
  >but treating them like the scammers they are would be a good change the the SERP ranking algorithm. Scammers? Your comments lead me to believe the exact opposite.
- pps43 10y ago
  > your insurance rates would go down if all your health info were made public and the insurance provider was allowed to factor that in, right? It's already happening, the only difference being that it's the people rather than insurance providers that make those decisions. Healthy young people do not buy insurance (because they will pay more in premiums than amount of healthcare they consume), premiums go up because average remaining customer needs more healthcare, etc. In the limit premiums are sky high and nobody has insurance. That's why universal health care makes sense. The key difference is that people have little control over their health, but a lot more control over how much they work, how much they spend, and whether they pay their bills on time.

by pps43 10y ago

dbg31415 10y ago

OK, joking aside... Sure... the bank has that info. Presumably the bank had to go through special screening and training to get access to it. I'm OK with that. One step better, it would be nice to have notification whenever any person or institution queried my info... but at least they have some level of screening. Huge difference between that, and just throwing all the information out there to the wind. Certainly your insurance rates would go down if all your health info were made public and the insurance provider was allowed to factor that in, right? It's creepy, it makes the world a worse place for existing. I guess what's nice is that when someone does a search, they probably know most of these sites aren't all that accurate to begin with... But my comments were more around how it would be nice to stop the spread of some things... companies that work to make a buck eroding our privacy for starters. I could set up a truck on the street in front of your house... document everything about you for a few months... it's creepy. On that note, the way to kill these sites off would be to just have Google de-list these sites. Now, I get that Google won't actually de-list sites... but treating them like the scammers they are would be a good change the the SERP ranking algorithm.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
> Presumably the bank had to go through special screening and training to get access to it. No, not really. They just have to ask you if it's OK preform that query from a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA) and have regulations around informing you about the sources they used to make decisions. Same for any 'background check' company. But if you want to participate in society you're going to have to authorize these sorts of searches... There's not a whole lotta choice. In the US The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regulates how the CRAs use that information. I'm no expert, but I believe the FCRA only applies if the information is being used to make credit, insurance, employment, housing, etc. decisions. It doesn't apply for personal curiosity. That's why those sites say "you agree not to use this information for employment, housing purposes, etc." When you use them. It's probably more useful to read the FCRA rather than listening to me though.
ryanlol 10y ago
>but treating them like the scammers they are would be a good change the the SERP ranking algorithm. Scammers? Your comments lead me to believe the exact opposite.
pps43 10y ago
> your insurance rates would go down if all your health info were made public and the insurance provider was allowed to factor that in, right? It's already happening, the only difference being that it's the people rather than insurance providers that make those decisions. Healthy young people do not buy insurance (because they will pay more in premiums than amount of healthcare they consume), premiums go up because average remaining customer needs more healthcare, etc. In the limit premiums are sky high and nobody has insurance. That's why universal health care makes sense. The key difference is that people have little control over their health, but a lot more control over how much they work, how much they spend, and whether they pay their bills on time.