8 ms·

I'd really like there to be a law that allows you to opt-out of credit reporting agencies. This would work similarly to the do-not-call list - I give them my so

by sxates 9y ago

I'd really like there to be a law that allows you to opt-out of credit reporting agencies. This would work similarly to the do-not-call list - I give them my social and they are instructed to disregard any data they receive that's associated with that number, and will destroy whatever information they currently have about it. Doing this potentially locks you out of getting credit, but if you can do it on a per-agency basis, then it's a good way for individuals to punish bad actors like Equifax. If even 10% of Americans opted out after the breach, their business would be over, the remaining agencies would have proper motivation to improve their security standards, and it would open a gap in the market that a better run startup could move into.

x0x0 9y ago
I doubt this would work. There are really only 3 vendors for this data, and most banks seem to have exclusive contracts by region for which data source they consult. This, of course, goes hand in hand with the plummeting amount of national banks available in the US. We're really down to Wells Fargo, Citi, Chase, BOA, and one or two others. In my experience, my two credit unions -- and credit unions kind of suck anyway -- are only set up with a single CRA. So people have few choices of creditors and have very little negotiating power. I think the right answer is for there to be exactly one CRA and for it to be a pseudo-public and very heavily regulated.
- anfilt 9y ago
  I would enjoy not having a credit score. However, I also don't take loans out. --EDIT Not sure why I get the down vote. Pretty neutral comment. I think the credit score is just a sham. If someone wants to get a loan I don't see how a single number has any bearing on reliability. It boils a multi variable question into one number. Further, the number could be quite misleading. Also I don't think any 3rd party should have this data without a written contract from the individual. Maybe that will get more down-votes, but I at least can see some disagreement in that. However, "I would enjoy not having a credit score" is just a statement... I view loans negatively. If I can't save up for it. I don't need it. I am certainly not going to pay more for something thanks to that pesky interest. I also got rid of all my credit cards 5 years ago, and made certain to never take out any more debt. Not even for a house. The only exception I could see is if I started a business as it allows for additional cash when needed. For example more orders than anticipated, and I don't get paid till the customer has the product. Either, customers suffer delays or infuse some extra cash to increase cash flow, but then immediately pay it back.
  - blindhippo 9y ago
    Loans can and should be used by individuals in two big ways: 1) spreading cash-flow over a long period (car loan) 2) investing in long-term gain (mortgage, education) By saying you shouldn't ever take on debt, it's similar to saying no business should take on investment capital, and governments should not invest in emerging markets. Determining how and where to take on liabilities, that is a more interesting discussion then simply saying debt is bad.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    While I don’t think you deserved downvotes, as there was no “superior” attitude to your philosophy on loans, it’s just not realistic for a large variety of people (ther very vast majority). How many people can buy a home, cash? Should everyone else be renters in perpetuity? All sorts of things people might miss out on, from pets, to country living etc, because they can’t lay down between $100,000 and $300,000+ to buy a home “without a loan”. (I realize that there are a number of caveats to my statements, not everyone has to live in the most expensive part of the country, but not everyone can live in rural Iowa or Detroit, and not everyone has to have a pet, I’m just talking of how for very many people, the “no loans ever” attitude is not realistic).
    - optimusclimb 9y ago
      > How many people can buy a home, cash? Should everyone else be renters in perpetuity? Currently renting by choice vs. "buying". One might argue that when you "buy" a home with a mortgage, you very much still are a renter - you're just renting money. Potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars, for 15-30 years.
      - freehunter 9y ago
        There is a vast difference between renting an apartment vs buying a home on credit. When I rent, I can't do anything to the building without the landlord's approval. They may prohibit painting, but when I buy a house I can paint all I want. A landlord may limit what I can do with the ground around my "property", while "owning" a home means I can dig all I want. Having a home means I can have as many pets as I want without incurring extra rent, too. I can also choose my own parking situation, which is harder when renting. So no. I reject the idea that having a mortgage is the same as renting. Owning a home, even while paying a mortgage, offers a lot more freedom, of course while still owing money to someone. But it is fundamentally different from renting.
mtremsal 9y ago
I'm thinking EU residents/citizens should be able to do so under the GDPR. The main concern is that the request would cascade to their 3rd parties (as data processors) and it might be difficult to anticipate the total reach of the request.
- adamnemecek 9y ago
  EU doesn't have Equifax.
  - dreamfactored 9y ago
    Applies to any EU citizen data anywhere.
    - kingnothing 9y ago
      Applies to EU citizen data for companies that operate in the EU. You can't enforce laws against a company outside of your realm of jurisdiction.
      - aussie1233 9y ago
        GDPR has what is called extra-territorial applicability.
        stryk 9y ago
        It may, but they'll play hell trying to enforce it worldwide, as if any countries would let them (some may).
        laingc 9y ago
        If it’s outside their jurisdiction, they can claim whatever applicability they like: the law is simply not enforceable outside that jurisdiction.
        9y ago
dreamfactored 9y ago
Should be under libel, severe penalties for incorrect and damaging info and you should be able to opt out of non-public info
- gruez 9y ago
  libel protects against untrue information. there's nothing protecting private information that you willingly gave up.
  - curun1r 9y ago
    I think the point is that when someone is a victim of identity fraud, their credit report contains entries which are untrue. Making credit reporting agencies liable for those untrue entries would force them to accept the pain of identity fraud themselves rather than pushing that pain onto the people covered by their reports. If, when there are errors on a credit report, consumers were allowed to sue and collect damages rather than having to fight to have the fraudulent entires removed, this would naturally result in a class of "ambulance chaser" attorneys that ran TV commercials and took cases on contingency, but it would benefit consumers as well since errors on a credit report would be more quickly and profitably resolved. The situation would be short-lived, however, as credit reporting agencies would have to make drastic changes in how they verify identities or risk hemorrhaging money from the lawsuits. But those changes are what needs to happen, so making them liable would be a means to an end.
    - rileymat2 9y ago
      It would be a minor change in wording for a credit reporting agency to say “a person claiming to be x did not pay back a debt” v “person x did not pay back a debt” in the case of identity theft. This would still be useful to the creditor, and ‘true’ to get around your liable idea.
      - cornholio 9y ago
        Not so fast. Aggregating the actions of all these persons claiming to be X in a single number or report is a clear indication they are related and considered pertinent data when a person claiming to be X demands credit - but in fact they are not, and the lack of pertinence is the blame of the agregator. Furthermore, this only affects the real X, since all impersonators can claim to be Y and get around the sloppy data gathering practices of the agencies.

by sxates 9y ago

x0x0 9y ago

I doubt this would work. There are really only 3 vendors for this data, and most banks seem to have exclusive contracts by region for which data source they consult. This, of course, goes hand in hand with the plummeting amount of national banks available in the US. We're really down to Wells Fargo, Citi, Chase, BOA, and one or two others. In my experience, my two credit unions -- and credit unions kind of suck anyway -- are only set up with a single CRA. So people have few choices of creditors and have very little negotiating power. I think the right answer is for there to be exactly one CRA and for it to be a pseudo-public and very heavily regulated.

anfilt 9y ago
I would enjoy not having a credit score. However, I also don't take loans out. --EDIT Not sure why I get the down vote. Pretty neutral comment. I think the credit score is just a sham. If someone wants to get a loan I don't see how a single number has any bearing on reliability. It boils a multi variable question into one number. Further, the number could be quite misleading. Also I don't think any 3rd party should have this data without a written contract from the individual. Maybe that will get more down-votes, but I at least can see some disagreement in that. However, "I would enjoy not having a credit score" is just a statement... I view loans negatively. If I can't save up for it. I don't need it. I am certainly not going to pay more for something thanks to that pesky interest. I also got rid of all my credit cards 5 years ago, and made certain to never take out any more debt. Not even for a house. The only exception I could see is if I started a business as it allows for additional cash when needed. For example more orders than anticipated, and I don't get paid till the customer has the product. Either, customers suffer delays or infuse some extra cash to increase cash flow, but then immediately pay it back.
- blindhippo 9y ago
  Loans can and should be used by individuals in two big ways: 1) spreading cash-flow over a long period (car loan) 2) investing in long-term gain (mortgage, education) By saying you shouldn't ever take on debt, it's similar to saying no business should take on investment capital, and governments should not invest in emerging markets. Determining how and where to take on liabilities, that is a more interesting discussion then simply saying debt is bad.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  While I don’t think you deserved downvotes, as there was no “superior” attitude to your philosophy on loans, it’s just not realistic for a large variety of people (ther very vast majority). How many people can buy a home, cash? Should everyone else be renters in perpetuity? All sorts of things people might miss out on, from pets, to country living etc, because they can’t lay down between $100,000 and $300,000+ to buy a home “without a loan”. (I realize that there are a number of caveats to my statements, not everyone has to live in the most expensive part of the country, but not everyone can live in rural Iowa or Detroit, and not everyone has to have a pet, I’m just talking of how for very many people, the “no loans ever” attitude is not realistic).
  - optimusclimb 9y ago
    > How many people can buy a home, cash? Should everyone else be renters in perpetuity? Currently renting by choice vs. "buying". One might argue that when you "buy" a home with a mortgage, you very much still are a renter - you're just renting money. Potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars, for 15-30 years.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      There is a vast difference between renting an apartment vs buying a home on credit. When I rent, I can't do anything to the building without the landlord's approval. They may prohibit painting, but when I buy a house I can paint all I want. A landlord may limit what I can do with the ground around my "property", while "owning" a home means I can dig all I want. Having a home means I can have as many pets as I want without incurring extra rent, too. I can also choose my own parking situation, which is harder when renting. So no. I reject the idea that having a mortgage is the same as renting. Owning a home, even while paying a mortgage, offers a lot more freedom, of course while still owing money to someone. But it is fundamentally different from renting.

mtremsal 9y ago

I'm thinking EU residents/citizens should be able to do so under the GDPR. The main concern is that the request would cascade to their 3rd parties (as data processors) and it might be difficult to anticipate the total reach of the request.

adamnemecek 9y ago
EU doesn't have Equifax.
- dreamfactored 9y ago
  Applies to any EU citizen data anywhere.
  - kingnothing 9y ago
    Applies to EU citizen data for companies that operate in the EU. You can't enforce laws against a company outside of your realm of jurisdiction.
    - aussie1233 9y ago
      GDPR has what is called extra-territorial applicability.
      - stryk 9y ago
        It may, but they'll play hell trying to enforce it worldwide, as if any countries would let them (some may).
      - laingc 9y ago
        If it’s outside their jurisdiction, they can claim whatever applicability they like: the law is simply not enforceable outside that jurisdiction.
        9y ago

dreamfactored 9y ago

Should be under libel, severe penalties for incorrect and damaging info and you should be able to opt out of non-public info

gruez 9y ago
libel protects against untrue information. there's nothing protecting private information that you willingly gave up.
- curun1r 9y ago
  I think the point is that when someone is a victim of identity fraud, their credit report contains entries which are untrue. Making credit reporting agencies liable for those untrue entries would force them to accept the pain of identity fraud themselves rather than pushing that pain onto the people covered by their reports. If, when there are errors on a credit report, consumers were allowed to sue and collect damages rather than having to fight to have the fraudulent entires removed, this would naturally result in a class of "ambulance chaser" attorneys that ran TV commercials and took cases on contingency, but it would benefit consumers as well since errors on a credit report would be more quickly and profitably resolved. The situation would be short-lived, however, as credit reporting agencies would have to make drastic changes in how they verify identities or risk hemorrhaging money from the lawsuits. But those changes are what needs to happen, so making them liable would be a means to an end.
  - rileymat2 9y ago
    It would be a minor change in wording for a credit reporting agency to say “a person claiming to be x did not pay back a debt” v “person x did not pay back a debt” in the case of identity theft. This would still be useful to the creditor, and ‘true’ to get around your liable idea.
    - cornholio 9y ago
      Not so fast. Aggregating the actions of all these persons claiming to be X in a single number or report is a clear indication they are related and considered pertinent data when a person claiming to be X demands credit - but in fact they are not, and the lack of pertinence is the blame of the agregator. Furthermore, this only affects the real X, since all impersonators can claim to be Y and get around the sloppy data gathering practices of the agencies.