4 ms·

Why would YOU have to do it? For me it's enough that officials have access to this information (and common folks when requested, but with valid motivation). And

Why would YOU have to do it? For me it's enough that officials have access to this information (and common folks when requested, but with valid motivation). And as a result I don't have problems with my identity being out in the open (and I don't get a single spamy mail)

greglindahl 8y ago
The reason this is done in public is because plenty of fraud happens when only officials can get access to property ownership and tax info -- even in countries that are relatively less corrupt. Also, the bit about mortgages means that mortgages rates are lower when appraisals are more accurate; the largest inputs to home value appraisals in the US are sales data and tax data.
- ktosobcy 8y ago
  But the thing is - not only officials can get that data. Its simply not that easily available (so you can't harvest it like mails on the Web) As for house market - in other counties (where dará is more hidden) it still works. and as far as I know housing market in the US is quite... weird, so it seems this data doesn't help that much?
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    A housing market that's full of fraud and that has extra-high interest rates still "works". I don't think you're understanding my point at all, or maybe you don't mind fraud. But in any case, those are the problems that transparency are trying to help solve.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      You seem to be repeating the talking point without addressing the counter-argument. Why is a system where people can access that data, just with a couple of roadblocks to avoid mass harvesting, not enough to avoid fraud?
      - greglindahl 8y ago
        I'm just describing the problems that the current system appears to be designed to solve. If you want to design a new system, great, have at it. I don't have an opinion about that, other than that you probably should try to solve the same problems.

4 ms·

Why would YOU have to do it? For me it's enough that officials have access to this information (and common folks when requested, but with valid motivation). And

by ktosobcy 8y ago

greglindahl 8y ago
The reason this is done in public is because plenty of fraud happens when only officials can get access to property ownership and tax info -- even in countries that are relatively less corrupt. Also, the bit about mortgages means that mortgages rates are lower when appraisals are more accurate; the largest inputs to home value appraisals in the US are sales data and tax data.
- ktosobcy 8y ago
  But the thing is - not only officials can get that data. Its simply not that easily available (so you can't harvest it like mails on the Web) As for house market - in other counties (where dará is more hidden) it still works. and as far as I know housing market in the US is quite... weird, so it seems this data doesn't help that much?
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    A housing market that's full of fraud and that has extra-high interest rates still "works". I don't think you're understanding my point at all, or maybe you don't mind fraud. But in any case, those are the problems that transparency are trying to help solve.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      You seem to be repeating the talking point without addressing the counter-argument. Why is a system where people can access that data, just with a couple of roadblocks to avoid mass harvesting, not enough to avoid fraud?
      - greglindahl 8y ago
        I'm just describing the problems that the current system appears to be designed to solve. If you want to design a new system, great, have at it. I don't have an opinion about that, other than that you probably should try to solve the same problems.