5 ms·

This sounds like the most efficient solution to me. There is no need (and for many, no desire) for the government to take on the role of tracking citizens. A m

This sounds like the most efficient solution to me. There is no need (and for many, no desire) for the government to take on the role of tracking citizens. A minor but strategic change in liability law around privacy would shift incentives in the way you describe and suddenly it becomes in the best financial interests of the companies to protect the data. Indeed this is the only kind of incentive they will respond to. Nationalizing the credit industry doesn't really solve any real problems as far as I can tell.

Frondo 9y ago
Frankly speaking, if we're going to be tracked (and we are, lots and lots), I want the government as involved as possible, whether through strict regulations or through being the central repository for that information. Maybe do it state-by-state, so long as each state follows some federal guidelines and each state provides a way to interoperate with the rest, and with private businesses that need access to that information, if the feds freak you out. Why? Because I can, in theory, have my say in how the government operates. I can vote, I can submit comments, I can go talk to elected officials, whatever. I have zero recourse when private companies schlep my data around and wreck my life. Voting with your vote is best, but I can't even vote with my dollar with Equifax.
- turk184 9y ago
  You have too much faith in government--voting has not reined in the rogue elements of the US government. Far from it. $2Trillion budget, black programs, black sites, renditions, and then plenty of run of the mill bullcrap going on, too like IRS targeting groups for political purposes, ATF "gun walking" schemes that backfired, PATRIOT Act, mass surveillance programs, do I need to even go on?
- blowski 9y ago
  Totally agree with you. I know people who refuse to vote, use doctors, etc, to "prevent the government getting data about them" - but are registered on Facebook, Google, carry a smartphone, etc. I don't understand how people can be so paranoid about the government, and simultaneously so trusting of large corporations.
  - nopzor 9y ago
    I think people who have that view feel that corporations can't arrest you, can't seize your assets, can't restrict your travel, etc etc.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      Let me tell them about two little companies called United Fruit and Standard Fruit... (now Chiquita and Dole respectively)
    - devdas 9y ago
      Like say, the East India Company?
  - jnicholasp 9y ago
    The opposite condition also exists: I don't understand how some people can be so paranoid about large corporations, and so trusting of government. They are both merely human organizations with large powers, and subject to corruption. We should be wary of both of them.
    - zvpxdlk 9y ago
      The difference is that governments are made up of people who are voted in
      - kazinator 9y ago
        That's hardly the case. Firstly, examples of governments that have any people voted in at all are cherry-picked. Around the world, there are governments that are not voted in, or are "voted" in by a sham process which only has the external appearances of democracy. Secondly, in democracies, a fairly common pattern is that the government consists of some seats that are voted in (parliament) plus some that are appointed (senate). The power is divided accordingly. (A minor point is that it is not uncommon for the leader of the elected party to appoint people for the uppermost staff positions: a so-called "cabinet" or whatever.) Thirdly, government in the broad sense includes not only the parliament and senate political structure but all of the institutions of the government that actually get various things done throughout the governed region, and all the levels of bureaucracy employing large numbers of people. All of that staff is not elected; they are just people hired into positions and they generally keep those positions across government changes. That bureaucracy has considerable power of its own; not every single decision they make which affects you goes through a parliamentarian that you elected!
- Spooky23 9y ago
  He's a nasty one - my wife got a big box in the mail from Enfamil last week. "Congratulations on your new baby, here's some stuff to get you started!" One problem. She didn't know that she had been pregnant and suffered a near fatal (to her) complication and miscarriage 7.5 months ago. Only a few parties were aware of this: My family (not posted on Facebook), two health insurance companies, the hospital, two pharmacies and the Ob/Gyn practice. Last week would have been the due date. One of more of those entities, who are all supposed to protecting her privacy failed to do so to extract a few more bucks.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    > One of more of those entities, who are all supposed to protecting her privacy failed to do so to extract a few more bucks. I would suggest that that is not "failing to protect" private data, but "actively exploiting".
codemac 9y ago
You and I have different meanings for the word, efficiency. My definition: the most efficient has the least wasted effort and the maximum productivity. I do not think having individuals & classes going off and suing everyone they can, every company buying piles of insurance against these suits (because how could they reasonably guarantee perfect privacy?) and having insurance providers coming to evaluate each institution... This is only legally efficient, in that it requires the least amount of nuance in law. There's a reason we have public infrastructure and services, and it is for efficiency.
ethbro 9y ago
We already have this in the US for another industry: HIPAA for health records. And it generally works pretty well. In the law, the government lays out rough things it wants to see (e.g. access restrictions, auditing logs, etc) + penalties (financial and otherwise) and then lets the industry find a way to meet them. Furthermore, there's a legal distinction between willful and accidental non-compliance. It's absolutely added cost, but generally seems to accomplish its privacy intent.
- Aloha 9y ago
  No one I know who works with HIPAA would call it a 'good' solution. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/810648 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/810648
  - mmagin 9y ago
    Unfortunately this link wants me to login.
    - Aloha 9y ago
      https://www.google.com/search?q=Problems+with+HIPAA https://www.google.com/search?q=Problems+with+HIPAA I just googled it, and it was the first result
  - ethbro 9y ago
    What specific components do you think are problematic? I've worked as a developer with health care providers and insurance companies for 5 years, and other than it being annoying as "some regulation exists" no one I've talked to feels it's a bad solution to the problem. Asking industries to be happy about privacy regulation seems an unreasonable goalpost.
  - mikestew 9y ago
    By my quick reading, the majority of that article is spent dismantling the complaints of those at the beginning of the article. In summary, the complainers appear to be either overly cautious, or flat out misinterpret the law. Besides, I’d be willing to bet that those at Equifax would have similar things to say about a comparable credit reporting law, just like how some medical practitioners don’t like HIPAA.
smnrchrds 9y ago
The US government is already tracking the financials of its citizens. Even foreign financial institutions are required to report financial activities of all US citizens. Otherwise, they will face heavy sanctions and fines. IRS would not become any more invasive if they are also tasked with maintaining credit histories. They are already as invasive as it can get.

Frondo 9y ago

Frankly speaking, if we're going to be tracked (and we are, lots and lots), I want the government as involved as possible, whether through strict regulations or through being the central repository for that information. Maybe do it state-by-state, so long as each state follows some federal guidelines and each state provides a way to interoperate with the rest, and with private businesses that need access to that information, if the feds freak you out. Why? Because I can, in theory, have my say in how the government operates. I can vote, I can submit comments, I can go talk to elected officials, whatever. I have zero recourse when private companies schlep my data around and wreck my life. Voting with your vote is best, but I can't even vote with my dollar with Equifax.

turk184 9y ago
You have too much faith in government--voting has not reined in the rogue elements of the US government. Far from it. $2Trillion budget, black programs, black sites, renditions, and then plenty of run of the mill bullcrap going on, too like IRS targeting groups for political purposes, ATF "gun walking" schemes that backfired, PATRIOT Act, mass surveillance programs, do I need to even go on?
blowski 9y ago
Totally agree with you. I know people who refuse to vote, use doctors, etc, to "prevent the government getting data about them" - but are registered on Facebook, Google, carry a smartphone, etc. I don't understand how people can be so paranoid about the government, and simultaneously so trusting of large corporations.
- nopzor 9y ago
  I think people who have that view feel that corporations can't arrest you, can't seize your assets, can't restrict your travel, etc etc.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Let me tell them about two little companies called United Fruit and Standard Fruit... (now Chiquita and Dole respectively)
  - devdas 9y ago
    Like say, the East India Company?
- jnicholasp 9y ago
  The opposite condition also exists: I don't understand how some people can be so paranoid about large corporations, and so trusting of government. They are both merely human organizations with large powers, and subject to corruption. We should be wary of both of them.
  - zvpxdlk 9y ago
    The difference is that governments are made up of people who are voted in
    - kazinator 9y ago
      That's hardly the case. Firstly, examples of governments that have any people voted in at all are cherry-picked. Around the world, there are governments that are not voted in, or are "voted" in by a sham process which only has the external appearances of democracy. Secondly, in democracies, a fairly common pattern is that the government consists of some seats that are voted in (parliament) plus some that are appointed (senate). The power is divided accordingly. (A minor point is that it is not uncommon for the leader of the elected party to appoint people for the uppermost staff positions: a so-called "cabinet" or whatever.) Thirdly, government in the broad sense includes not only the parliament and senate political structure but all of the institutions of the government that actually get various things done throughout the governed region, and all the levels of bureaucracy employing large numbers of people. All of that staff is not elected; they are just people hired into positions and they generally keep those positions across government changes. That bureaucracy has considerable power of its own; not every single decision they make which affects you goes through a parliamentarian that you elected!
Spooky23 9y ago
He's a nasty one - my wife got a big box in the mail from Enfamil last week. "Congratulations on your new baby, here's some stuff to get you started!" One problem. She didn't know that she had been pregnant and suffered a near fatal (to her) complication and miscarriage 7.5 months ago. Only a few parties were aware of this: My family (not posted on Facebook), two health insurance companies, the hospital, two pharmacies and the Ob/Gyn practice. Last week would have been the due date. One of more of those entities, who are all supposed to protecting her privacy failed to do so to extract a few more bucks.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > One of more of those entities, who are all supposed to protecting her privacy failed to do so to extract a few more bucks. I would suggest that that is not "failing to protect" private data, but "actively exploiting".

codemac 9y ago

You and I have different meanings for the word, efficiency. My definition: the most efficient has the least wasted effort and the maximum productivity. I do not think having individuals & classes going off and suing everyone they can, every company buying piles of insurance against these suits (because how could they reasonably guarantee perfect privacy?) and having insurance providers coming to evaluate each institution... This is only legally efficient, in that it requires the least amount of nuance in law. There's a reason we have public infrastructure and services, and it is for efficiency.

ethbro 9y ago

We already have this in the US for another industry: HIPAA for health records. And it generally works pretty well. In the law, the government lays out rough things it wants to see (e.g. access restrictions, auditing logs, etc) + penalties (financial and otherwise) and then lets the industry find a way to meet them. Furthermore, there's a legal distinction between willful and accidental non-compliance. It's absolutely added cost, but generally seems to accomplish its privacy intent.

Aloha 9y ago
No one I know who works with HIPAA would call it a 'good' solution. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/810648 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/810648
- mmagin 9y ago
  Unfortunately this link wants me to login.
  - Aloha 9y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=Problems+with+HIPAA https://www.google.com/search?q=Problems+with+HIPAA I just googled it, and it was the first result
- ethbro 9y ago
  What specific components do you think are problematic? I've worked as a developer with health care providers and insurance companies for 5 years, and other than it being annoying as "some regulation exists" no one I've talked to feels it's a bad solution to the problem. Asking industries to be happy about privacy regulation seems an unreasonable goalpost.
- mikestew 9y ago
  By my quick reading, the majority of that article is spent dismantling the complaints of those at the beginning of the article. In summary, the complainers appear to be either overly cautious, or flat out misinterpret the law. Besides, I’d be willing to bet that those at Equifax would have similar things to say about a comparable credit reporting law, just like how some medical practitioners don’t like HIPAA.

smnrchrds 9y ago

The US government is already tracking the financials of its citizens. Even foreign financial institutions are required to report financial activities of all US citizens. Otherwise, they will face heavy sanctions and fines. IRS would not become any more invasive if they are also tasked with maintaining credit histories. They are already as invasive as it can get.