15 ms·

Equifax Lobbied to Kill Rule Protecting Victims of Data Breaches

893 points by Dowwie 9y ago

Top19 9y ago
Wow if anything this is quite worse than the article says. You can read Equifax's original letter in all of its Orwellian double-speak: https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=CFPB-2016-0020-3961&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=CFPB-... It's absolutely shocking to me how many times they use the words "serve the public interest". The sell-out that wrote that letter btw is this guy: https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/s/david-stein https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/s/david-stein
- Top19 9y ago
  oh man even worse this guy used to work in regulation for the government as part of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Such a clear case of "regulatory capture", or the process where former employees of regulatory agencies leave to go reveal all their thinking and decision making tactics to the highest bidder.
  - amluto 9y ago
    That's not really what regulatory capture means...
    - Top19 9y ago
      Would you say it's part of the process though?
      - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
        No,the problem is not that they reveal anything about what they were thinking. That's pretty much public knowledge, and doesn't need protection. It's that they modify their thinking and their actions while in the regulatory agency in ways that benefit the business interests, in exchange for a cushy job after their time in office. Or the reverse, that they originate from the businesses and go to the agency to implement the business policies.
    - c3534l 9y ago
      Regulatory capture is when regulators later join the people they were regulating This compromises their ability to regulate because they anticipate working that industry later. David Stein used to regulate the financial industry. Now he works in it. That's exactly what regulatory capture is.
      - acjohnson55 9y ago
        I'd say that that's a mechanism of regulatory capture, but not the phenomenon, itself. As Wikipedia puts it: "Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating." There are many ways this happens without a revolving door.
        jacquesm 9y ago
        IE, the EPA at the moment.
        vermontdevil 9y ago
        Yep look at hairdressing, taxi, funeral homes industries for examples.
        jnbiche 9y ago
        And banking, for another example.
      - tacomonstrous 9y ago
        What you've described is the revolving door, which is logically disjoint from regulatory capture.
  - ethan_g 9y ago
    To be clear, regulatory capture is when the regulator advances the interests of the industry rather than of the public. Revolving door is a separate issue. There's an interesting argument that the revolving door actually prevents regulatory capture through encouraging regulators to be more strict. The idea is that the more onerous the regulations, the more desireable it is for corporations to hire former regulators who know the system. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Matt Levine's take on it: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-06-26/strict-regulation-makes-the-revolving-door-spin-faster https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-06-26/strict-re...
    - willvarfar 9y ago
      The problem with civil servants taking high paid jobs when they leave is that it can be a payoff for being biased for the company. If companies can dangle the carrot of an eventual job the civil servant will avoid actions that sink their chances. There's a lot of stuff on real revolving doors in the UK in the magazine Private Eye. Stomach turning really.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        Nobody is arguing in favor of the revolving door, they're just pointing out how it differs from regulatory capture. Don't argue for the sake of argument.
    - michaelt 9y ago
      The revolving door doesn't require regulators to be more strict. All it needs is for companies to give big rewards (six figure salary for a day a month of work) to regulators who have previously done things the companies like. Then their replacements will know strengthening regulations is against their personal interests. You don't hire an ex-regulator for their expertise, you hire them as payment for services already rendered.
    - joe_the_user 9y ago
      There's an interesting argument that the revolving door actually prevents regulatory capture through encouraging regulators to be more strict. So "interesting" now means is "deceptive and ingenuous". In a hypothetical world where corporations were akin to mom-and-pop bakeries that would need to hire power, sophisticated regulators to guide them through a very tough state, that argument might be plausible. In the real world where corporations are powerful, forward-looking institutions who know full well that paying people involves a process of rewarding behavior, this argument says more about the person advancing it than anything else. And sure, a lot of smart people might claim this, just as similar stable of smart people operate in the stable of the corporations writing arguments for newspapers and magazine. But maybe all those people aren't at all tainted in their views. I'm sure they could come up with hypothetical situations where they aren't.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > former employees of regulatory agencies leave to go reveal all their thinking and decision making tactics to the highest bidder. This implying thinking and decision making tactics of regulators should be some kind of closely guarded secret? These people are essentially writing the laws that rule our economy, I'd think if anything should be public that's their thinking and decision making tactics.
    - ethan_g 9y ago
      Unfortunately, regulations are complicated, vague, and enforced unequally. And yes, sometimes they're even secret, because of fear that if their exact model is publicized, the banks will just optimize around it. "Security through obscurity", essentially. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-says-stress-test-models-will-stay-a-secret-2015-06-25 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-says-stress-test-models...
      - smsm42 9y ago
        > Unfortunately, regulations are complicated, vague, and enforced unequally. All true, they are. But how implying helping somebody to navigate this mess is somehow bad thing? The bad thing is complicated, vague and capriciously enforces law, not people trying to deal with it. > And yes, sometimes they're even secret, because of fear that if their exact model is publicized, the banks will just optimize around it This is the opposite of how the law should work. It's like the argument of making the laws and the courts secret because otherwise criminals would know the law and would learn how to avoid being prosecuted, and would also be able to hire lawyers for the same purpose. Yes, they are, and that's how a normal country works. The opposite is how a totalitarian police state works. Sure, it's probably harder to get away with a financial crime in North Korea - but it's also impossible to live a normal life and enjoy freedoms we all have. I'd rather let some crooks slip through now and then than turn the country into North Korea.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Fun fact: Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, works at the same firm. These guys are the embodiment of the revolving door.
  - ohthehugemanate 9y ago
    Well here's your chance to agree with Donald trump: he made everyone sign an ethics pledge that they would not lobby within 5 years of their tenure in government. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/executive-order-ethics-commitments-executive-branch-appointees https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/execu... getting Congress to pass a law that puts some teeth behind the promise is another question.
    - Pxtl 9y ago
      Even without lobbying, large corps can still use sweetheart positions in the private sector as a "reward" for friendly legislators who retire. Obviously targeting lobbying is an improvement, but it's not enough. And also, I'm wondering how that impacts a not-for-profit that a politician decides to champion after retirement... Is that "lobbying"?
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      From what I have read he is stacking agencies with lobbyists from industries they are supposed to regulate. So no, there is no reason to agree with him.
    - rgbrenner 9y ago
      saying "everyone" isn't correct, because trump will give you a waiver if he wants you in his cabinet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/31/white-house-grants-ethics-waivers-to-17-appointees-including-four-former-lobbyists/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05...
    - fencepost 9y ago
      > here's your chance to agree with Donald trump: he made everyone sign an ethics pledge that they would not lobby This seems like a case of "Do as I say, not as I do." Ignoring the question of what percentage of senior people have left due to being fired, the potential for legal cases against them, inability to personally pay for anticipated legal expenses, or some combination thereof, there's also the fact that it's still early in the Trump administration. The bigger factor is likely the massive number of (former?) lobbyists being hired into positions of influence. In fact, it seems that the lobbying ban you pointed to also removed a lot of restrictions that had been in place [1], and that there's been both noticeable granting of waivers and significant resistance to releasing information on those waivers [2]. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-weakens-obama-ethics-rules-234318 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-wea... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/politics/lobbyists-ethics-waivers-trump-administration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/politics/lobbyists-eth...
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  The sell-out that wrote that letter btw is this guy: I don't think it's a good idea to post someone's personal information in such a flippant way. He's not a public official and the whole point here is to witch hunt him. It comes up with his name, phone number and email address.
  - yardie 9y ago
    He's a lobbyist. Every interaction he has with the government is a matter of public record. If he felt he didn't want that information public then he shouldn't be a lobbyist.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      Posting the document is fine. Posting a link to his contact page while calling him a sellout is probably overstepping. The sole reason for posting the second link is to say "Look at this person. Isn't he horrible? Here's his name, phone number and email address." HN is almost a top-500 website by traffic. A lot of people come here. How likely is it that people here will start harassing him just because it's easy? His info is right there.
      - jweir 9y ago
        If posting the document is fine - which you didn't read - then posting a link to his corporate bio is fine. It is in the effing document. It is already public record.
        sillysaurus3 9y ago
        I'm well aware. There's a major distinction between someone's info being in a document vs linking to his info with "This guy is a sellout:" This post is currently #1 on HN. The comment is the top comment. That means all of HN's traffic that reads comments is going to that person's contact info. If you don't agree, just downvote and move on. Personal swipes are unnecessary.
- samstave 9y ago
  >>>David Stein advises clients on retail financial services, credit reporting, financial privacy, payments, fair lending, and technology and e-commerce issues. He assists banks, non-bank lenders, consumer reporting agencies, payments and technology companies, and their vendors with regulatory, compliance, supervision, enforcement, and transactional matters. Notice hw he in no manner of speak "assists" any of the consumers/users of said services? This guy is a shill POS.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- smsm42 9y ago
  Why you call him a "sell-out"? He seems to be professional consultant. His main argument seems to be that CFPB does not have legal right to enforce the regulations he is talking about. That may be true or false - I have no idea, for that one needs to be a lawyer specializing in regulation law and parse the documents establishing CFPB and all accompanying regulations and caselaw. Which is way beyond my abilities, and I suspect, most of people here. But how it is "Orwellian"? He also raises a very correct argument that considering only benefits of successful class action and not the costs of the litigation and the fallout for both consumers and credit industry is just wrong. I mean, if you win $10 from successful lawsuit but would be forced to pay $20 more next time you need a credit check (numbers are just an invented example, of course), then this setup won't be worth it for you. Again, his point may be wrong - maybe benefits of class actions are much larger than the costs - but this point is certainly in no way is "Orwellian". And if he is right, avoiding such regulation would definitely be in the public interest, in a very direct sense of the term. We have tons of regulations which serve as nothing more than a feeding ground for unsavory opportunistic plaintiff lawyers, with no benefit for purported victims (which get peanuts while lawyers are getting millions, and often the lawyers just buy plaintiffs for minuscule sums in order to mass-file lawsuits) and huge costs for everybody else. Last thing we need is more of these.
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    He also raises a very correct argument that considering only benefits of successful class action and not the costs of the litigation and the fallout for both consumers and credit industry is just wrong. I mean, if you win $10 from successful lawsuit but would be forced to pay $20 more next time you need a credit check (numbers are just an invented example, of course), then this setup won't be worth it for you. This argument confuses a payoff to plaintiffs with costs to the credit bureau's customers - but the plaintiffs would not be the customers of the credit bureau but everyone monitored (involutarily!) by the credit bureau. Just as much, the purpose of the state allowing a lawsuit would not be to give money to the plaintiffs but rather to give the credit bureau a disincentive for doing what they did - manage their subjects' (now victims) data poorly. Which is to repeat what other have noted - the average American isn't the credit bureau's customer, they are the credit bureau's product (the customers are employers and landlords). If having a secure credit-check system costs more, let the credit bureau's actual customers pay more. And sure, landlords sometimes pass credit-check costs on to tenants but that's just one more part of the whole abusive system that it would be nice to see reigned-in (though naturally I'm not optimistic).
- VeronicaJJ123 9y ago
  Is using words like "sell-out" for a professional doing his job consistent with HN policies? This is a genuine question and not a rhetorical one.
kartan 9y ago
I will like to know what's the ethical standards of the people that are trying to push for this legislations. Do they realize that they can be victims themselves of this kind of abuse? I guess that it's the tragedy of the commons. They can suffer the consequences, but they are ripping all the benefits. When I say the Ferengi* in Star Trek, I found it hilariously unrealistic. Nowadays the possibility of corporations with rights but without responsibility is a scary possible future. Reality can surpass fiction. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi
ransom1538 9y ago
Question. Can't we just let this company die? Do we really need a new law created by congress (EG HIPAA 2.0). Wont this just destroy the ability to create startups quickly? I understand it will help lawyers get fat and happy, but enforcing 'privacy' laws would be a trolling circus.
- samfisher83 9y ago
  Do I really want a startup doing this stuff? Iterate fast and break things? I would rather just have a heavily regulated industry with a lot of checks and balances handle very important data like this. Why could you even access the core databases from the front end? Why isn't the data on completely separate server where all queries are completely scrubbed and verified?
  - ransom1538 9y ago
    Heavily regulated like: airlines, healthcare, public schools, prisons and drugs?
    - samfisher83 9y ago
      Air travel is pretty safe.
      - neurotech1 9y ago
        That and if an airline has a major crash, there is a high probability they'll be out of business relatively soon, or forced to acquire a new brand. * Pan Am had two 747 crashes in 11 years. Flight 103 & Flight 1736 (Tenerife) although the airline was not directly to blame for either crash. * TWA 800 (along with 9/11) led to the collapse of airline. * Valuejet 592 crashed in Florida in 1996, grounded for several months, and then merged with Airtran Airlines in 1997.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Those are interesting questions, but distract fromt he central one of just why we should continue to let Equifax exist.
late2part 9y ago
Perhaps the world would be a better place if Equifax went out of business. The other two members of the oligarchy could easily shoulder the load.
- foobiekr 9y ago
  there is no reason to believe the others are better.
  - Ensorceled 9y ago
    They might get better if they know the consequences of bad behaviour is bankruptcy.
    - late2part 9y ago
      Yep. Kill the chicken to scare the monkey.
    - click170 9y ago
      I agree with your intention, but I worry about the consequences: One thing worse than a group of companies controlling credit ratings is one company having a monopoly on controlling credit ratings and being "too big to fail". What exactly is the best case scenario here I wonder? More credit rating companies equals more competition but greater attack surface and chance of breach, but fewer companies approaches a monopoly situation which isn't good for consumers either. This feels like a lose-lose...
      - jMyles 9y ago
        > What exactly is the best case scenario here I wonder? It seems clear: a transition away from the economic and financial models of the industrial age, which Experian, TransUnion and Equifax - along with the banking cartels and various national reserve banks - represent. Fortunately, that's happening; the best-case scenario seems inevitable. This is a time for optimism.
pmiller2 9y ago
Well, I think if you compromise the identities and credit files of 150m+ Americans, "full disgorgement of revenue" is a fair punishment.
KGIII 9y ago
I wonder if this act can be used in court to demonstrate intent to remain negligent? The idea being that they lobbied for this because they had decided to not invest in better security.
Hannahd96 9y ago
I hate these people! Let them die!
glasz 9y ago
so i have been sort of monitoring this equifax thing. yesterday or the day before i was thinking "let's see what the aftermath brings to light"... let's reflect for a moment: biggest leak of personal data of us citizens - right after the opm debacle. the same company funds strategies detriment to its customers. i bet everybody feels like it can't get any worse. i'm not very old, limited experience but i will predict, brace yourselves, this will go on and on. _nothing_ will change because people don't fucking care and the minority who does care does not have the electorial power it needs to change this system. i'm waiting for the same thing to happen in germany. it's even worse here because virtually only one company has the monopoly over private credit ratings. everybody is annoyed and _nobody_ cares. we have major elections this month and all those sheep will vote safe. this is going to be fun. good luck over there, friends.
jimjimjim 9y ago
that place is evil. Mister Burns style evil. evil should be punished not rewarded. (i am already familiar with the phrases: all corporations are like that. everyone is doing it.)
user68858788 9y ago
It can be assumed that, if a law can be made to increase profits, corporations will lobby for it, regardless of public interest. Assuming anything else is naive and dangerous.
justinjlynn 9y ago
This type of behaviour shouldn't be surprising at all. Corporations are, on the average, amoral -- a result of human group behaviour. As with wild animals, one doesn't get mad at them for following their instincts -- yet, one shouldn't hesitate to carry a gun lest they themselves become lunch.
- transitionnel 9y ago
  Thanks for the grounding simile. Everyone gives something to take part in and benefit by society. Corporations form, and seem to refund to their members all that they gave and occasionally more. We do not measure the externalities well, only the benefits. An externality estimator would be a great economic tool, does anyone know of one?
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    Some might say that this is a function of government -- that is, the collective will of society forcing corporations and/or individuals to take into account otherwise hidden externalities. Though this is a somewhat contentious view, it makes sense to me.
wallabie 9y ago
Boy, the IBTimes has always been a terrible place to read articles, especially with its autoplaying videos, but now when you scroll down (after having stopped the video of course) it inexplicably jumps to the lower right corner of the screen and then PULLS the article to the top of the screen where the video used to be. So while you're reading and scrolling, the article just jumps away from you and you lose your place. Incredible. How anyone thought this is good web design is beyond me. Then again, IBTimes has always been a really shitty place for journalism overall.
lefstathiou 9y ago
I selfishly prefer that we limit the damages that can be sought from businessss by victims of cyber crime. I don't have the resources and capability to fight against state sponsored hackers, neither does the NSA, any major corporation or anyone on HN. It would be nice to know that I won't be risking jail or bankrupting my company by bringing my services to market. The call to arms to punish these companies can have far reaching ramifications on the cost of services and ones willingness on the margin to build them.
emodendroket 9y ago
Well you can't say lobbying doesn't have great ROI.
whataretensors 9y ago
I had my identity stolen 10 years ago. 6 months ago I finally had the last of it wrapped up. I hope. It was a miserable experience that costs a ridiculous amount of time, money, and effort to clean up. And it seemed completely random. This breach is likely worse than anyone can predict. It could lead to a near unlimited amount of identities for organized crime groups. To illustrate, my wait times on the phone to the IRS was usually between 1-3 hours(during off-peak seasons too). At this point it might be worth scrapping the social security system and switching to private keys.

893 points by Dowwie 9y ago

Wow if anything this is quite worse than the article says. You can read Equifax's original letter in all of its Orwellian double-speak: https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=CFPB-2016-0020-3961&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=CFPB-... It's absolutely shocking to me how many times they use the words "serve the public interest". The sell-out that wrote that letter btw is this guy: https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/s/david-stein https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/s/david-stein

Top19 9y ago
oh man even worse this guy used to work in regulation for the government as part of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Such a clear case of "regulatory capture", or the process where former employees of regulatory agencies leave to go reveal all their thinking and decision making tactics to the highest bidder.
- amluto 9y ago
  That's not really what regulatory capture means...
  - Top19 9y ago
    Would you say it's part of the process though?
    - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
      No,the problem is not that they reveal anything about what they were thinking. That's pretty much public knowledge, and doesn't need protection. It's that they modify their thinking and their actions while in the regulatory agency in ways that benefit the business interests, in exchange for a cushy job after their time in office. Or the reverse, that they originate from the businesses and go to the agency to implement the business policies.
  - c3534l 9y ago
    Regulatory capture is when regulators later join the people they were regulating This compromises their ability to regulate because they anticipate working that industry later. David Stein used to regulate the financial industry. Now he works in it. That's exactly what regulatory capture is.
    - acjohnson55 9y ago
      I'd say that that's a mechanism of regulatory capture, but not the phenomenon, itself. As Wikipedia puts it: "Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating." There are many ways this happens without a revolving door.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        IE, the EPA at the moment.
      - vermontdevil 9y ago
        Yep look at hairdressing, taxi, funeral homes industries for examples.
        jnbiche 9y ago
        And banking, for another example.
    - tacomonstrous 9y ago
      What you've described is the revolving door, which is logically disjoint from regulatory capture.
- ethan_g 9y ago
  To be clear, regulatory capture is when the regulator advances the interests of the industry rather than of the public. Revolving door is a separate issue. There's an interesting argument that the revolving door actually prevents regulatory capture through encouraging regulators to be more strict. The idea is that the more onerous the regulations, the more desireable it is for corporations to hire former regulators who know the system. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Matt Levine's take on it: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-06-26/strict-regulation-makes-the-revolving-door-spin-faster https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-06-26/strict-re...
  - willvarfar 9y ago
    The problem with civil servants taking high paid jobs when they leave is that it can be a payoff for being biased for the company. If companies can dangle the carrot of an eventual job the civil servant will avoid actions that sink their chances. There's a lot of stuff on real revolving doors in the UK in the magazine Private Eye. Stomach turning really.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      Nobody is arguing in favor of the revolving door, they're just pointing out how it differs from regulatory capture. Don't argue for the sake of argument.
  - michaelt 9y ago
    The revolving door doesn't require regulators to be more strict. All it needs is for companies to give big rewards (six figure salary for a day a month of work) to regulators who have previously done things the companies like. Then their replacements will know strengthening regulations is against their personal interests. You don't hire an ex-regulator for their expertise, you hire them as payment for services already rendered.
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    There's an interesting argument that the revolving door actually prevents regulatory capture through encouraging regulators to be more strict. So "interesting" now means is "deceptive and ingenuous". In a hypothetical world where corporations were akin to mom-and-pop bakeries that would need to hire power, sophisticated regulators to guide them through a very tough state, that argument might be plausible. In the real world where corporations are powerful, forward-looking institutions who know full well that paying people involves a process of rewarding behavior, this argument says more about the person advancing it than anything else. And sure, a lot of smart people might claim this, just as similar stable of smart people operate in the stable of the corporations writing arguments for newspapers and magazine. But maybe all those people aren't at all tainted in their views. I'm sure they could come up with hypothetical situations where they aren't.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > former employees of regulatory agencies leave to go reveal all their thinking and decision making tactics to the highest bidder. This implying thinking and decision making tactics of regulators should be some kind of closely guarded secret? These people are essentially writing the laws that rule our economy, I'd think if anything should be public that's their thinking and decision making tactics.
  - ethan_g 9y ago
    Unfortunately, regulations are complicated, vague, and enforced unequally. And yes, sometimes they're even secret, because of fear that if their exact model is publicized, the banks will just optimize around it. "Security through obscurity", essentially. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-says-stress-test-models-will-stay-a-secret-2015-06-25 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-says-stress-test-models...
    - smsm42 9y ago
      > Unfortunately, regulations are complicated, vague, and enforced unequally. All true, they are. But how implying helping somebody to navigate this mess is somehow bad thing? The bad thing is complicated, vague and capriciously enforces law, not people trying to deal with it. > And yes, sometimes they're even secret, because of fear that if their exact model is publicized, the banks will just optimize around it This is the opposite of how the law should work. It's like the argument of making the laws and the courts secret because otherwise criminals would know the law and would learn how to avoid being prosecuted, and would also be able to hire lawyers for the same purpose. Yes, they are, and that's how a normal country works. The opposite is how a totalitarian police state works. Sure, it's probably harder to get away with a financial crime in North Korea - but it's also impossible to live a normal life and enjoy freedoms we all have. I'd rather let some crooks slip through now and then than turn the country into North Korea.
maxxxxx 9y ago
Fun fact: Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, works at the same firm. These guys are the embodiment of the revolving door.
- ohthehugemanate 9y ago
  Well here's your chance to agree with Donald trump: he made everyone sign an ethics pledge that they would not lobby within 5 years of their tenure in government. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/executive-order-ethics-commitments-executive-branch-appointees https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/execu... getting Congress to pass a law that puts some teeth behind the promise is another question.
  - Pxtl 9y ago
    Even without lobbying, large corps can still use sweetheart positions in the private sector as a "reward" for friendly legislators who retire. Obviously targeting lobbying is an improvement, but it's not enough. And also, I'm wondering how that impacts a not-for-profit that a politician decides to champion after retirement... Is that "lobbying"?
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    From what I have read he is stacking agencies with lobbyists from industries they are supposed to regulate. So no, there is no reason to agree with him.
  - rgbrenner 9y ago
    saying "everyone" isn't correct, because trump will give you a waiver if he wants you in his cabinet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/31/white-house-grants-ethics-waivers-to-17-appointees-including-four-former-lobbyists/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05...
  - fencepost 9y ago
    > here's your chance to agree with Donald trump: he made everyone sign an ethics pledge that they would not lobby This seems like a case of "Do as I say, not as I do." Ignoring the question of what percentage of senior people have left due to being fired, the potential for legal cases against them, inability to personally pay for anticipated legal expenses, or some combination thereof, there's also the fact that it's still early in the Trump administration. The bigger factor is likely the massive number of (former?) lobbyists being hired into positions of influence. In fact, it seems that the lobbying ban you pointed to also removed a lot of restrictions that had been in place [1], and that there's been both noticeable granting of waivers and significant resistance to releasing information on those waivers [2]. [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-weakens-obama-ethics-rules-234318 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-wea... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/politics/lobbyists-ethics-waivers-trump-administration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/politics/lobbyists-eth...
sillysaurus3 9y ago
The sell-out that wrote that letter btw is this guy: I don't think it's a good idea to post someone's personal information in such a flippant way. He's not a public official and the whole point here is to witch hunt him. It comes up with his name, phone number and email address.
- yardie 9y ago
  He's a lobbyist. Every interaction he has with the government is a matter of public record. If he felt he didn't want that information public then he shouldn't be a lobbyist.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Posting the document is fine. Posting a link to his contact page while calling him a sellout is probably overstepping. The sole reason for posting the second link is to say "Look at this person. Isn't he horrible? Here's his name, phone number and email address." HN is almost a top-500 website by traffic. A lot of people come here. How likely is it that people here will start harassing him just because it's easy? His info is right there.
    - jweir 9y ago
      If posting the document is fine - which you didn't read - then posting a link to his corporate bio is fine. It is in the effing document. It is already public record.
      - sillysaurus3 9y ago
        I'm well aware. There's a major distinction between someone's info being in a document vs linking to his info with "This guy is a sellout:" This post is currently #1 on HN. The comment is the top comment. That means all of HN's traffic that reads comments is going to that person's contact info. If you don't agree, just downvote and move on. Personal swipes are unnecessary.
samstave 9y ago
>>>David Stein advises clients on retail financial services, credit reporting, financial privacy, payments, fair lending, and technology and e-commerce issues. He assists banks, non-bank lenders, consumer reporting agencies, payments and technology companies, and their vendors with regulatory, compliance, supervision, enforcement, and transactional matters. Notice hw he in no manner of speak "assists" any of the consumers/users of said services? This guy is a shill POS.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
smsm42 9y ago
Why you call him a "sell-out"? He seems to be professional consultant. His main argument seems to be that CFPB does not have legal right to enforce the regulations he is talking about. That may be true or false - I have no idea, for that one needs to be a lawyer specializing in regulation law and parse the documents establishing CFPB and all accompanying regulations and caselaw. Which is way beyond my abilities, and I suspect, most of people here. But how it is "Orwellian"? He also raises a very correct argument that considering only benefits of successful class action and not the costs of the litigation and the fallout for both consumers and credit industry is just wrong. I mean, if you win $10 from successful lawsuit but would be forced to pay $20 more next time you need a credit check (numbers are just an invented example, of course), then this setup won't be worth it for you. Again, his point may be wrong - maybe benefits of class actions are much larger than the costs - but this point is certainly in no way is "Orwellian". And if he is right, avoiding such regulation would definitely be in the public interest, in a very direct sense of the term. We have tons of regulations which serve as nothing more than a feeding ground for unsavory opportunistic plaintiff lawyers, with no benefit for purported victims (which get peanuts while lawyers are getting millions, and often the lawyers just buy plaintiffs for minuscule sums in order to mass-file lawsuits) and huge costs for everybody else. Last thing we need is more of these.
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  He also raises a very correct argument that considering only benefits of successful class action and not the costs of the litigation and the fallout for both consumers and credit industry is just wrong. I mean, if you win $10 from successful lawsuit but would be forced to pay $20 more next time you need a credit check (numbers are just an invented example, of course), then this setup won't be worth it for you. This argument confuses a payoff to plaintiffs with costs to the credit bureau's customers - but the plaintiffs would not be the customers of the credit bureau but everyone monitored (involutarily!) by the credit bureau. Just as much, the purpose of the state allowing a lawsuit would not be to give money to the plaintiffs but rather to give the credit bureau a disincentive for doing what they did - manage their subjects' (now victims) data poorly. Which is to repeat what other have noted - the average American isn't the credit bureau's customer, they are the credit bureau's product (the customers are employers and landlords). If having a secure credit-check system costs more, let the credit bureau's actual customers pay more. And sure, landlords sometimes pass credit-check costs on to tenants but that's just one more part of the whole abusive system that it would be nice to see reigned-in (though naturally I'm not optimistic).
VeronicaJJ123 9y ago
Is using words like "sell-out" for a professional doing his job consistent with HN policies? This is a genuine question and not a rhetorical one.

kartan 9y ago

I will like to know what's the ethical standards of the people that are trying to push for this legislations. Do they realize that they can be victims themselves of this kind of abuse? I guess that it's the tragedy of the commons. They can suffer the consequences, but they are ripping all the benefits. When I say the Ferengi* in Star Trek, I found it hilariously unrealistic. Nowadays the possibility of corporations with rights but without responsibility is a scary possible future. Reality can surpass fiction. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi

ransom1538 9y ago

Question. Can't we just let this company die? Do we really need a new law created by congress (EG HIPAA 2.0). Wont this just destroy the ability to create startups quickly? I understand it will help lawyers get fat and happy, but enforcing 'privacy' laws would be a trolling circus.

samfisher83 9y ago
Do I really want a startup doing this stuff? Iterate fast and break things? I would rather just have a heavily regulated industry with a lot of checks and balances handle very important data like this. Why could you even access the core databases from the front end? Why isn't the data on completely separate server where all queries are completely scrubbed and verified?
- ransom1538 9y ago
  Heavily regulated like: airlines, healthcare, public schools, prisons and drugs?
  - samfisher83 9y ago
    Air travel is pretty safe.
    - neurotech1 9y ago
      That and if an airline has a major crash, there is a high probability they'll be out of business relatively soon, or forced to acquire a new brand. * Pan Am had two 747 crashes in 11 years. Flight 103 & Flight 1736 (Tenerife) although the airline was not directly to blame for either crash. * TWA 800 (along with 9/11) led to the collapse of airline. * Valuejet 592 crashed in Florida in 1996, grounded for several months, and then merged with Airtran Airlines in 1997.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Those are interesting questions, but distract fromt he central one of just why we should continue to let Equifax exist.

late2part 9y ago

Perhaps the world would be a better place if Equifax went out of business. The other two members of the oligarchy could easily shoulder the load.

foobiekr 9y ago
there is no reason to believe the others are better.
- Ensorceled 9y ago
  They might get better if they know the consequences of bad behaviour is bankruptcy.
  - late2part 9y ago
    Yep. Kill the chicken to scare the monkey.
  - click170 9y ago
    I agree with your intention, but I worry about the consequences: One thing worse than a group of companies controlling credit ratings is one company having a monopoly on controlling credit ratings and being "too big to fail". What exactly is the best case scenario here I wonder? More credit rating companies equals more competition but greater attack surface and chance of breach, but fewer companies approaches a monopoly situation which isn't good for consumers either. This feels like a lose-lose...
    - jMyles 9y ago
      > What exactly is the best case scenario here I wonder? It seems clear: a transition away from the economic and financial models of the industrial age, which Experian, TransUnion and Equifax - along with the banking cartels and various national reserve banks - represent. Fortunately, that's happening; the best-case scenario seems inevitable. This is a time for optimism.

pmiller2 9y ago

Well, I think if you compromise the identities and credit files of 150m+ Americans, "full disgorgement of revenue" is a fair punishment.

KGIII 9y ago

I wonder if this act can be used in court to demonstrate intent to remain negligent? The idea being that they lobbied for this because they had decided to not invest in better security.

Hannahd96 9y ago

I hate these people! Let them die!

glasz 9y ago

so i have been sort of monitoring this equifax thing. yesterday or the day before i was thinking "let's see what the aftermath brings to light"... let's reflect for a moment: biggest leak of personal data of us citizens - right after the opm debacle. the same company funds strategies detriment to its customers. i bet everybody feels like it can't get any worse. i'm not very old, limited experience but i will predict, brace yourselves, this will go on and on. _nothing_ will change because people don't fucking care and the minority who does care does not have the electorial power it needs to change this system. i'm waiting for the same thing to happen in germany. it's even worse here because virtually only one company has the monopoly over private credit ratings. everybody is annoyed and _nobody_ cares. we have major elections this month and all those sheep will vote safe. this is going to be fun. good luck over there, friends.

jimjimjim 9y ago

that place is evil. Mister Burns style evil. evil should be punished not rewarded. (i am already familiar with the phrases: all corporations are like that. everyone is doing it.)

user68858788 9y ago

It can be assumed that, if a law can be made to increase profits, corporations will lobby for it, regardless of public interest. Assuming anything else is naive and dangerous.

justinjlynn 9y ago

This type of behaviour shouldn't be surprising at all. Corporations are, on the average, amoral -- a result of human group behaviour. As with wild animals, one doesn't get mad at them for following their instincts -- yet, one shouldn't hesitate to carry a gun lest they themselves become lunch.

transitionnel 9y ago
Thanks for the grounding simile. Everyone gives something to take part in and benefit by society. Corporations form, and seem to refund to their members all that they gave and occasionally more. We do not measure the externalities well, only the benefits. An externality estimator would be a great economic tool, does anyone know of one?
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  Some might say that this is a function of government -- that is, the collective will of society forcing corporations and/or individuals to take into account otherwise hidden externalities. Though this is a somewhat contentious view, it makes sense to me.

wallabie 9y ago

Boy, the IBTimes has always been a terrible place to read articles, especially with its autoplaying videos, but now when you scroll down (after having stopped the video of course) it inexplicably jumps to the lower right corner of the screen and then PULLS the article to the top of the screen where the video used to be. So while you're reading and scrolling, the article just jumps away from you and you lose your place. Incredible. How anyone thought this is good web design is beyond me. Then again, IBTimes has always been a really shitty place for journalism overall.

lefstathiou 9y ago

I selfishly prefer that we limit the damages that can be sought from businessss by victims of cyber crime. I don't have the resources and capability to fight against state sponsored hackers, neither does the NSA, any major corporation or anyone on HN. It would be nice to know that I won't be risking jail or bankrupting my company by bringing my services to market. The call to arms to punish these companies can have far reaching ramifications on the cost of services and ones willingness on the margin to build them.

emodendroket 9y ago

Well you can't say lobbying doesn't have great ROI.

whataretensors 9y ago

I had my identity stolen 10 years ago. 6 months ago I finally had the last of it wrapped up. I hope. It was a miserable experience that costs a ridiculous amount of time, money, and effort to clean up. And it seemed completely random. This breach is likely worse than anyone can predict. It could lead to a near unlimited amount of identities for organized crime groups. To illustrate, my wait times on the phone to the IRS was usually between 1-3 hours(during off-peak seasons too). At this point it might be worth scrapping the social security system and switching to private keys.