5 ms·

> credit checks (the credit checks were just dumb). Credit checks are extremely smart. People who are financially vulnerable are high risk.

duxup 8y ago
I wonder how accurate that is. There's plenty of evidence of folks who are desperate doing desperate things... but also plenty of people doing bad things simply for "more" money. As far as financal status goes I'm not sure how good an indicator this is, for say a support role where you may or may not interact with a bank.
- radicalbyte 8y ago
  Take the case of this American politician: https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/wsj-kushner-failed-to-disclose-more-than-1-billion-of-debt-on-his-security-clearance-form-E5gngtokPUa-0njyM7kBQg/ https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/wsj-kushn... The guy's family has a massive debt. He was denied security clearance because that debt makes him a big risk. His party somehow push it through (politicians, sigh) and now he has been bailed out by the Saudi regime (iirc he's foreign secretary to Saudi Arabia or something - the top politician responsible for that country). In potentially sensitive or powerful positions it's only prudent to look at how susceptible someone is to being influenced. The news is full of stories of people committing fraud to pay for gambling debts. Treason isn't exactly far off of that..
  - duxup 8y ago
    Wouldn't think counter point be all the wealthy political folks who do the same thing?
    - Fnoord 8y ago
      It appears to be indeed a bias towards the poor, in favor of the rich.
- chrismeller 8y ago
  Why are we acting like the two are mutually exclusive? There are two vulnerability groups here: 1) People with financial difficulties who would be more prone to take small amounts on a regular basis to "round out" their income difficulties. 2) People who, even though financially secure or well off, if given the opportunity for a large score, would be tempted to take it. There are different approaches for dealing with both, with some overlap. Limiting the possibility for any fraud by limiting access, requiring multiple approvals, etc. helps negate both groups' potential for fraud. Credit checks help to eliminate only the first group's potential.
morpheuskafka 8y ago
A credit check is basically relevant to any job. If you can't be trusted to pay back your loans on time as promised how can you be trusted to do your job as promised?
- duxup 8y ago
  That sounds like it would produce pretty vicious cycle. Bad credit, can't get job... can't get job, can't improve credit...
- smt88 8y ago
  This would be hard to argue against if credit scores were accurate. They're not exactly pseudoscience, but they're still far from perfect. When I was buying my house, I was building up and paying off ~$500 across 4 credit cards (one for Home Depot, one for Uber, etc.) I paid them down to $0 every month. I'd consider that behavior to be financially smart. I got discounts of 5% on all those purchases because of the perks of the cards. I was shocked by the score the bank had given me, since I do monitor my credit. They told me I had to stop using all those cards. I did, and my score went up 100 points instantly.
  - dahdum 8y ago
    You didn't mention what that utilization rate was, but it makes perfect sense to me. Using those cards so much gave the impression that you "needed" the credit line, even if you paid it off by the end of the month. If you have a $50k limit and spend $2k/month, paying off in full, it doesn't really impact your score much at all. If you have $1k limit and spend $500/month it's a big risk. You can usually make additional payments during the cycle so it doesn't impact your utilization. Whenever I make a larger purchase I just login and pay it off in full right away so it doesn't ding me.
    - smt88 8y ago
      The utilization rate was ~1%.
    - sjg007 8y ago
sidlls 8y ago
This is something people in security sensitive fields like to claim, but the fact is narcissism drives acts of betrayal much more often than desperation for cash. The thrill of "getting away with something" or having the sense of being smarter than peers and overseers has certainly caused much more betrayal than something as mundane as money.
- Cherian_Abraham 8y ago
  Any data to backup that claim? What you are saying maybe true for very high profile breaches - but for most firms, the "has a high degree of debt to income ratio" is a decent signal to decide if that person may have reasons to be vulnerable to bribery.

duxup 8y ago

I wonder how accurate that is. There's plenty of evidence of folks who are desperate doing desperate things... but also plenty of people doing bad things simply for "more" money. As far as financal status goes I'm not sure how good an indicator this is, for say a support role where you may or may not interact with a bank.

radicalbyte 8y ago
Take the case of this American politician: https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/wsj-kushner-failed-to-disclose-more-than-1-billion-of-debt-on-his-security-clearance-form-E5gngtokPUa-0njyM7kBQg/ https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/wsj-kushn... The guy's family has a massive debt. He was denied security clearance because that debt makes him a big risk. His party somehow push it through (politicians, sigh) and now he has been bailed out by the Saudi regime (iirc he's foreign secretary to Saudi Arabia or something - the top politician responsible for that country). In potentially sensitive or powerful positions it's only prudent to look at how susceptible someone is to being influenced. The news is full of stories of people committing fraud to pay for gambling debts. Treason isn't exactly far off of that..
- duxup 8y ago
  Wouldn't think counter point be all the wealthy political folks who do the same thing?
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    It appears to be indeed a bias towards the poor, in favor of the rich.
chrismeller 8y ago
Why are we acting like the two are mutually exclusive? There are two vulnerability groups here: 1) People with financial difficulties who would be more prone to take small amounts on a regular basis to "round out" their income difficulties. 2) People who, even though financially secure or well off, if given the opportunity for a large score, would be tempted to take it. There are different approaches for dealing with both, with some overlap. Limiting the possibility for any fraud by limiting access, requiring multiple approvals, etc. helps negate both groups' potential for fraud. Credit checks help to eliminate only the first group's potential.

morpheuskafka 8y ago

A credit check is basically relevant to any job. If you can't be trusted to pay back your loans on time as promised how can you be trusted to do your job as promised?

duxup 8y ago
That sounds like it would produce pretty vicious cycle. Bad credit, can't get job... can't get job, can't improve credit...
smt88 8y ago
This would be hard to argue against if credit scores were accurate. They're not exactly pseudoscience, but they're still far from perfect. When I was buying my house, I was building up and paying off ~$500 across 4 credit cards (one for Home Depot, one for Uber, etc.) I paid them down to $0 every month. I'd consider that behavior to be financially smart. I got discounts of 5% on all those purchases because of the perks of the cards. I was shocked by the score the bank had given me, since I do monitor my credit. They told me I had to stop using all those cards. I did, and my score went up 100 points instantly.
- dahdum 8y ago
  You didn't mention what that utilization rate was, but it makes perfect sense to me. Using those cards so much gave the impression that you "needed" the credit line, even if you paid it off by the end of the month. If you have a $50k limit and spend $2k/month, paying off in full, it doesn't really impact your score much at all. If you have $1k limit and spend $500/month it's a big risk. You can usually make additional payments during the cycle so it doesn't impact your utilization. Whenever I make a larger purchase I just login and pay it off in full right away so it doesn't ding me.
  - smt88 8y ago
    The utilization rate was ~1%.
  - sjg007 8y ago

sidlls 8y ago

This is something people in security sensitive fields like to claim, but the fact is narcissism drives acts of betrayal much more often than desperation for cash. The thrill of "getting away with something" or having the sense of being smarter than peers and overseers has certainly caused much more betrayal than something as mundane as money.

Cherian_Abraham 8y ago
Any data to backup that claim? What you are saying maybe true for very high profile breaches - but for most firms, the "has a high degree of debt to income ratio" is a decent signal to decide if that person may have reasons to be vulnerable to bribery.