3 ms·
> it's the criminals who have caused millions of dollars of damage. Yes, that's true. But as the poster above already said some things are simply not safe to d
by fnordfnordfnord 9y ago
> it's the criminals who have caused millions of dollars of damage.
Yes, that's true. But as the poster above already said some things are simply not safe to do. If I wanted to warehouse explosives, I wouldn't be allowed to do it near a populated area, I'd have to put my warehouse far away from populates areas. But absent that prohibition, let's say I found a cheap space in town, and so I loaded it up with tons of explosive material. Then a homeless fellow breaks in one night and manages to start a fire, burns the place. He survives, but the explosives were set off and half the town blew up. You'd think it's okay if I shrugged my shoulders and pointed at the homeless fellow?
Credit reporting bureaus have free reign to screw up here because there's no oversight like the BATFE and no reasonable way for them to be sued into oblivion when they screw up so badly as Equifax has clearly done here.
>Credit bureaux facilitate comprehensible risk management,
How anyone can trust Equifax to do anything anymore is beyond me. There is still no corrective force here to cause these companies to become competent with data security. This is a farce.
- scrumper 9y agoWe're all arguing under a parent post which wants to reform the industry to bring some externalities back onto the agencies' books. If it's legal to operate an explosives warehouse in town at the time you do it, then unfortunately yes I have to answer that, provided you'd complied with applicable laws in securing your warehouse full of bombs, then you could shrug your shoulders. But you'd then be shrugging in the face of a barrage of lawsuits (as is happening now with Equifax). Soon after your homeless guy blew up the block the laws would be changed. And that's the situation we're in now: rubble everywhere, with a chance to make legislative changes to prevent a recurrence.