5 ms·

We need to get rid of this whole industry. Our credit should be frozen by default and approved only via the method of our choice, not something we have to pay t

We need to get rid of this whole industry. Our credit should be frozen by default and approved only via the method of our choice, not something we have to pay to do. We should be able to view our credit report anytime we want. There is still plenty left for a business model for the credit bureaus.

SamReidHughes 9y ago
Another idea would be to deregulate the industry (is credit reporting not free speech?) but add a lot more teeth to libel laws.
- el_benhameen 9y ago
  That still puts the onus of correcting issues on the public (must sue a large, well-lawyered corporation to rectify incorrect information), and it has a lot of knock-on effects (loose libel laws seem like a very bad thing for a free press).
- pjc50 9y ago
  Libel laws are a terrible idea; there's a reason the US has a special law against extra-territorial enforcement of UK libel law.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  Why do we have to deregulate first?
- rhizome 9y ago
  Just libel? What about slander and RICO?
toomuchtodo 9y ago
While admirable, it's going to take incremental steps to get there. Please ask your representative (if you live in the US) to co-sponsor or support Elizabeth Warren's FREE Act and Equal Employment for All Act: "I Introduced the Freedom from Equifax Exploitation (FREE) Act with Senator Brian Schatz. Our bill gives you more control of your data. Companies like Equifax make billions selling access to your data without your consent, then charge you if you want to stop them. It's nuts. The FREE Act lets you freeze – and unfreeze – access to your credit file at no cost. It's like a free Do Not Call list for your credit data. The idea behind our bill is simple: Equifax doesn't pay you when they sell your data. You shouldn't have to pay them to stop selling it." "I also reintroduced the Equal Employment for All Act to prevent employers from asking job applicants for their credit histories. Credit reports are already riddled with errors. The Equifax hack will make it worse. Inaccurate reports shouldn't hurt your job chances. Bad credit doesn’t make you a bad employee. Workers should compete on the merits, not on their credit scores." https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/847975965364898 https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/847975... Press Release: https://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1837 https://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1837 Bill Text (Warning: PDF) https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2017_09_15_Freedom_from_Equifax_Exploitation_Act_Text.pdf https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2017_09_15_Fre... EDIT: GET INVOLVED!
logfromblammo 9y ago
The concept of frozen credit itself is wrong. Creditors need to positively identify those seeking to open new accounts or access existing accounts with a more rigorous process. Which is to say that in the absence of a government identity verification service, you really shouldn't be able to open a new account without showing up to a branch office in person. That would at least limit identity theft to those that bear some physical resemblance to you. If they could also take cheek-swab DNA samples directly from the applicant, establish shared secrets, and exchange cryptography certificates at that time, that would be great. The procedure should really be predicated on the possibility that they would later have to prove conclusively in court that the account-opener and the defendant are actually the same person.
- bangurhead 9y ago
  i'd like to personally say fuck off for the dna stuff and a fuck you for mentioning it so casually
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  > The procedure should really be predicated on the possibility that they would later have to prove conclusively in court that the account-opener and the defendant are actually the same person. Why is it not already this way? If a credit reporting agency falsely alleges that you have a history of failing to repay your debts (when in reality the person failing to pay is actually a scammer who has no relationship with you whatsoever) and that false allegation negatively impacts your ability to obtain a new credit line in the future, isn't that libel? Why aren't credit reporting agencies already being sued left and right as it is under existing law? If a company wants to make it their job to determine the credit-worthiness of individuals, then shouldn't they be required to make sure that information is accurate or face libel charges?
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    > Why is it not already this way? Because the credit industry can afford better lobbyists and lawyers than you. A normal, rational person would indeed know that to be libel, but US treats damage to reputation differently from Europe. I'm not a lawyer, but I think in the US you have to prove the allegation was false, that they knew it was false when making it, and that the false statement actually caused you harm. The businesses in the industry establish the reasonable norms for knowing when something is false. The CRAs say they trust the creditors to report accurate information, and the creditors say they trust the CRAs to match reports to the correct records. They both point at the identity thief as the true culprit. But you can't sue them, because they used your name, and no one knows who they really are. Essentially, it's a blame-shifting shell game that only holds up because of the massive amount of money flowing through the industry.

SamReidHughes 9y ago

Another idea would be to deregulate the industry (is credit reporting not free speech?) but add a lot more teeth to libel laws.

el_benhameen 9y ago
That still puts the onus of correcting issues on the public (must sue a large, well-lawyered corporation to rectify incorrect information), and it has a lot of knock-on effects (loose libel laws seem like a very bad thing for a free press).
pjc50 9y ago
Libel laws are a terrible idea; there's a reason the US has a special law against extra-territorial enforcement of UK libel law.
pavel_lishin 9y ago
Why do we have to deregulate first?
rhizome 9y ago
Just libel? What about slander and RICO?

toomuchtodo 9y ago

While admirable, it's going to take incremental steps to get there. Please ask your representative (if you live in the US) to co-sponsor or support Elizabeth Warren's FREE Act and Equal Employment for All Act: "I Introduced the Freedom from Equifax Exploitation (FREE) Act with Senator Brian Schatz. Our bill gives you more control of your data. Companies like Equifax make billions selling access to your data without your consent, then charge you if you want to stop them. It's nuts. The FREE Act lets you freeze – and unfreeze – access to your credit file at no cost. It's like a free Do Not Call list for your credit data. The idea behind our bill is simple: Equifax doesn't pay you when they sell your data. You shouldn't have to pay them to stop selling it." "I also reintroduced the Equal Employment for All Act to prevent employers from asking job applicants for their credit histories. Credit reports are already riddled with errors. The Equifax hack will make it worse. Inaccurate reports shouldn't hurt your job chances. Bad credit doesn’t make you a bad employee. Workers should compete on the merits, not on their credit scores." https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/847975965364898 https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/847975... Press Release: https://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1837 https://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1837 Bill Text (Warning: PDF) https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2017_09_15_Freedom_from_Equifax_Exploitation_Act_Text.pdf https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2017_09_15_Fre... EDIT: GET INVOLVED!

logfromblammo 9y ago

The concept of frozen credit itself is wrong. Creditors need to positively identify those seeking to open new accounts or access existing accounts with a more rigorous process. Which is to say that in the absence of a government identity verification service, you really shouldn't be able to open a new account without showing up to a branch office in person. That would at least limit identity theft to those that bear some physical resemblance to you. If they could also take cheek-swab DNA samples directly from the applicant, establish shared secrets, and exchange cryptography certificates at that time, that would be great. The procedure should really be predicated on the possibility that they would later have to prove conclusively in court that the account-opener and the defendant are actually the same person.

bangurhead 9y ago
i'd like to personally say fuck off for the dna stuff and a fuck you for mentioning it so casually
Ajedi32 9y ago
> The procedure should really be predicated on the possibility that they would later have to prove conclusively in court that the account-opener and the defendant are actually the same person. Why is it not already this way? If a credit reporting agency falsely alleges that you have a history of failing to repay your debts (when in reality the person failing to pay is actually a scammer who has no relationship with you whatsoever) and that false allegation negatively impacts your ability to obtain a new credit line in the future, isn't that libel? Why aren't credit reporting agencies already being sued left and right as it is under existing law? If a company wants to make it their job to determine the credit-worthiness of individuals, then shouldn't they be required to make sure that information is accurate or face libel charges?
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  > Why is it not already this way? Because the credit industry can afford better lobbyists and lawyers than you. A normal, rational person would indeed know that to be libel, but US treats damage to reputation differently from Europe. I'm not a lawyer, but I think in the US you have to prove the allegation was false, that they knew it was false when making it, and that the false statement actually caused you harm. The businesses in the industry establish the reasonable norms for knowing when something is false. The CRAs say they trust the creditors to report accurate information, and the creditors say they trust the CRAs to match reports to the correct records. They both point at the identity thief as the true culprit. But you can't sue them, because they used your name, and no one knows who they really are. Essentially, it's a blame-shifting shell game that only holds up because of the massive amount of money flowing through the industry.