4 ms·
> it has generally been cheaper to trust people and write off the bad apples than to verify more This is not the issue here. If a bank want to do this, go ahea
by Noughmad 9y ago
> it has generally been cheaper to trust people and write off the bad apples than to verify more
This is not the issue here. If a bank want to do this, go ahead, as long as they cover the losses. The problematic part is that if a bank gives a loan in my name to someone else, I get punished for it, not the bank.
- zxcmx 9y agoTell me which party to the transaction you are as you make this rational decision. Or explain that you don't understand the industry or any of the regulatory frameworks involved. Have you ever accepted a payment? EDIT: not sure if I misread you, probably responding to a comment in flight. Your initial position seemed to be different to what I read now. I get that "identity fraud" as an industry position is a shitty attempt at moving risk but that was not the comment I was reponding to. Sorry if that sucks.
- beagle3 9y agoThe party who gets a call from collectors or who is denied credit. If I publish your nude pictures in a newspaper, you are similarly not a party to this transaction, but you are hurt by it. This is similar.
- zxcmx 9y agoI apologise but I think you have a poor understanding of the way this stuff works. Everyone absolutely wants to extend you credit.
- _jal 9y agoNo, you're missing the poster's point. They're saying the problem is this: You want to do business with company A. Company A asks company B for information about you. Company B lies to company A. Now company A won't do business with you, because company B lied about you. Company B in this scenario is a company like Experian.