3 ms·

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.

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.