4 ms·
> It is Experian, Transunion and Equifax, by holding this fraudulent loan against Alice, who are victimizing Alice. Credit Reporting agencies report the data p
by g051051 9y ago
> It is Experian, Transunion and Equifax, by holding this fraudulent loan against Alice, who are victimizing Alice.
Credit Reporting agencies report the data passed to them by companies such as banks. In your scenario BigBank thinks it's given a loan to Alice, and when they don't get repaid, report that to the CRAs. Alice is a victim of the thief because her identity was appropriated to secure the funds. BigBank is a victim of the thief because they were defrauded. The CRA is a victim because they were just reporting the information that was provided to them in good faith by their customer BigBank. So saying that the CRAs are "victimizing" Alice is completely false.
Alice bears the burden and risk of clearing her name, just as a victim of car theft bears the burdens of reporting the crime, getting another vehicle, dealing with the any outstanding loans, etc. These burdens are inflicted by the thief, not the bank or CRA.
> perpetuated by the credit reporting agencies as a way to absolve themselves of responsibility, [...] and to avoid realistic identity-verifiction which might slow or complicate the practice of issuing large amounts of debt to the general public.
This completely misunderstands the role of a CRA. The CRA doesn't have to verify identity, it's up to the credit grantor to ensure they are dealing with the person they think they are.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoYour comparison is bullshit. I have control over how I secure my car from being stolen. It's complete nonsense to equate that to me being responsible for a bank's failure to protect themselves against fraud where I have no power whatsoever to influence how the bank secures itself against fraudulent loan applications.
- g051051 9y agoYour statement is nonsense. Regardless of your efforts, the best you can ever hope for is to minimize the chance of your car being stolen. You can never prevent it completely. If your car is stolen in spite of your best efforts, are you at fault? Do you still have to deal with the consequences as a victim of that theft?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoWhich thus makes it equivalent to a scenario where you have no power to influence things whatsoever?
- g051051 9y agoWhich makes your statement (that you have sufficient control to prevent the possibility of theft of your property) completely invalid. You can do everything right, and through no fault of your own have things go wrong.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago> Which makes your statement (that you have sufficient control to prevent the possibility of theft of your property) completely invalid. Luckily, I didn't say that.
- g051051 9y ago> I have control over how I secure my car from being stolen. Really? Those were your exact words, in the context of claiming that your ability to secure your car made the comparison to identity theft invalid.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoYes, really. Having control over how I secure my car does not in any way imply that I can guarantee success. However, as a matter of fact, you can essentially get arbitrarily close to that, it's just a matter of your effort. Which is in contrast to banks being defrauded and blaming me for it, where I can not do anything about how the bank protects itself against the fraud. The problem is that the power to do anything about the problem and the blame is not aligned, which leads to a situation that is equivalent to the bank leaving the key in the ignition of the unlocked car, not allowing you to change anything about that setup, and then expecting you to foot the bill when the car inevitably does get stolen.