10 ms·

I don't want money. I don't want free service. I don't want any compensation. I want Equifax as a company to be dissolved for incompetency with private data, a

I don't want money. I don't want free service. I don't want any compensation. I want Equifax as a company to be dissolved for incompetency with private data, and I want a way to legally opt out of other such companies collecting and aggregating private data about me.

scottydelta 7y ago
> I want a way to legally opt out of other such companies collecting and aggregating private data about me. this is what I want too at the end of the day.
kd5bjo 7y ago
Move to Europe and then send them a GDPR request?
git-pull 7y ago
> I want a way to legally opt out of other such companies collecting and aggregating private data about me. Compare a desire to legally opt out (after checking a box, agreeing to a privacy policy you never read, having your data from 10 years ago - with a chain of custody/dispersal that's probably untenable, if not impossible, to map by now - synthesized by a third party) to GDPR's concept of consent: "The key point is that all consent must be opt-in consent, ie a positive action or indication – there is no such thing as ‘opt-out consent’. Failure to opt out is not consent as it does not involve a clear affirmative act. You may not rely on silence, inactivity, default settings, pre-ticked boxes or your general terms and conditions, or seek to take advantage of inertia, inattention or default bias in any other way. All of these methods also involve ambiguity – and for consent to be valid it must be both unambiguous and affirmative. It must be clear that the individual deliberately and actively chose to consent." Source: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/consent/what-is-valid-consent/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...
- reificator 7y ago
  Yes opt in is obviously better for the end user[0], but don't let perfect be the enemy of good here. We don't have opt out yet. [0]: Until opt in becomes mandatory for use of critical services like having a bank account or paying your power bill.
  - mikekchar 7y ago
    GDPR also has a concept of "objection". Even if you opt in, you can later "object" which will allow you to remove your consent. Although, in general, I really like GDPR, we've actually had a bit of a problem with this because it's quite unclear what you should do if someone opts in, then objects and then opts in again. For example, we have an opt in for us contacting the customer by email (which we do for marketing purposes). The customer can easily "object" and we'll remove them from the list. However, people frequently want to resubscribe. They thought they didn't want the marketing information and later changed their minds. It's not clear to us if it's legal for us to resubscribe them. I've actually thought that it's better for us to offer a separate service for marketing and get people to subscribe to that service under contract basis just to avoid this problem. That way they can terminate the contract and if they want to resubscribe, it's a new contract. I'm rambling here, but one of the things that really surprised me is that we have this horrible popup asking users to subscribe to our newsletter. I always opposed it because it's super annoying. However we were looking at analytics and it appears that a very large proportion of our customer base only go to the website to sign up to the newsletter (we're unusual in that most of our business comes through our call centre). So the newsletter really is a service that our customers want... It's a weird world ;-)
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  As reificator says, the idea is making headway. Politics require compromise. Ideally it would be opt-in, with strict regulations and severe penalties still in place.
- harryh 7y ago
  Equifax tracking is opt-in. It's a term on any loan or credit card you take out.
swalsh 7y ago
"I want a way to legally opt out of other such companies collecting and aggregating private data about me." The problem is this also means you will be completely opting out of the credit system. No more morgtgages, no more credit cards, no more car loans. I'm afraid it's kind of a necessary evil.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- bittercynic 7y ago
  Maybe not - If a substantial number of potential borrowers are able to opt out, then lenders might start to find it worthwhile to find a way to accommodate them.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    You can already opt out of that system, but you have to pay for that privilege. There is already a good number of lending options available to the many (millions?) of people disenfranchised from the traditional banking system. Usually that means offering strong collateral. But the terms of those options aren’t too great because trustworthiness and risk have a strong negative correlation. And those who can prove their trustworthiness almost always prefer to do that rather than pay extra.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  I understand and embrace this.
- Spellman 7y ago
  Technically you can still get loans and credit. It's just a lot harder and requires more underwriting and proof instead of having a single, handy Credit Score number attached to you from various agencies.
  - thedanbob 7y ago
    I wonder. When I bought my first house it was a very simple process because my finances were very simple. For the second, which I’m still in the process of finalizing, it’s been an absolute nightmare. Both my wife and I have credit scores above 800, but add just a few unusual financial elements to the mix and the underwriters start having aneurysms. Take away those nice shiny credit scores and I imagine many banks would flat out refuse to touch us.
simonebrunozzi 7y ago
+1, but also: I don't want their CEO to walk away free, and with a $20M severance and healthcare for life.
u801e 7y ago
> I want Equifax as a company to be dissolved for incompetency with private data I want the system to be changed such that the burden of proof is on the lender that they actually interacted with the person they claimed they did. That is, if someone who is not you uses your information to get a credit card, then the bank loses their money for not following due diligence.
- jrockway 7y ago
  > That is, if someone who is not you uses your information to get a credit card, then the bank loses their money for not following due diligence. That's pretty much how credit card issuing goes, but the risk is not in someone stealing from a bank under your name, but rather your file now looking so bad that you can't legitimately get credit if you want it. I think what we want here is "the bank has to pay you money if they reject your credit card application / home loan because someone else hacked Equifax." I doubt that will ever happen.
  - u801e 7y ago
    > but rather your file now looking so bad that you can't legitimately get credit if you want it. Yes, but under the new system, the bank can't just tell a credit reporting agency that a person they never interacted with failed to make a timely payment. If the bank can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually entered a contract with you, then they can't affect the actual person's credit rating.

scottydelta 7y ago

> I want a way to legally opt out of other such companies collecting and aggregating private data about me. this is what I want too at the end of the day.

kd5bjo 7y ago

Move to Europe and then send them a GDPR request?

git-pull 7y ago

> I want a way to legally opt out of other such companies collecting and aggregating private data about me. Compare a desire to legally opt out (after checking a box, agreeing to a privacy policy you never read, having your data from 10 years ago - with a chain of custody/dispersal that's probably untenable, if not impossible, to map by now - synthesized by a third party) to GDPR's concept of consent: "The key point is that all consent must be opt-in consent, ie a positive action or indication – there is no such thing as ‘opt-out consent’. Failure to opt out is not consent as it does not involve a clear affirmative act. You may not rely on silence, inactivity, default settings, pre-ticked boxes or your general terms and conditions, or seek to take advantage of inertia, inattention or default bias in any other way. All of these methods also involve ambiguity – and for consent to be valid it must be both unambiguous and affirmative. It must be clear that the individual deliberately and actively chose to consent." Source: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/consent/what-is-valid-consent/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...

reificator 7y ago
Yes opt in is obviously better for the end user[0], but don't let perfect be the enemy of good here. We don't have opt out yet. [0]: Until opt in becomes mandatory for use of critical services like having a bank account or paying your power bill.
- mikekchar 7y ago
  GDPR also has a concept of "objection". Even if you opt in, you can later "object" which will allow you to remove your consent. Although, in general, I really like GDPR, we've actually had a bit of a problem with this because it's quite unclear what you should do if someone opts in, then objects and then opts in again. For example, we have an opt in for us contacting the customer by email (which we do for marketing purposes). The customer can easily "object" and we'll remove them from the list. However, people frequently want to resubscribe. They thought they didn't want the marketing information and later changed their minds. It's not clear to us if it's legal for us to resubscribe them. I've actually thought that it's better for us to offer a separate service for marketing and get people to subscribe to that service under contract basis just to avoid this problem. That way they can terminate the contract and if they want to resubscribe, it's a new contract. I'm rambling here, but one of the things that really surprised me is that we have this horrible popup asking users to subscribe to our newsletter. I always opposed it because it's super annoying. However we were looking at analytics and it appears that a very large proportion of our customer base only go to the website to sign up to the newsletter (we're unusual in that most of our business comes through our call centre). So the newsletter really is a service that our customers want... It's a weird world ;-)
soulofmischief 7y ago
As reificator says, the idea is making headway. Politics require compromise. Ideally it would be opt-in, with strict regulations and severe penalties still in place.
harryh 7y ago
Equifax tracking is opt-in. It's a term on any loan or credit card you take out.

swalsh 7y ago

"I want a way to legally opt out of other such companies collecting and aggregating private data about me." The problem is this also means you will be completely opting out of the credit system. No more morgtgages, no more credit cards, no more car loans. I'm afraid it's kind of a necessary evil.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bittercynic 7y ago
Maybe not - If a substantial number of potential borrowers are able to opt out, then lenders might start to find it worthwhile to find a way to accommodate them.
- kube-system 7y ago
  You can already opt out of that system, but you have to pay for that privilege. There is already a good number of lending options available to the many (millions?) of people disenfranchised from the traditional banking system. Usually that means offering strong collateral. But the terms of those options aren’t too great because trustworthiness and risk have a strong negative correlation. And those who can prove their trustworthiness almost always prefer to do that rather than pay extra.
soulofmischief 7y ago
I understand and embrace this.
Spellman 7y ago
Technically you can still get loans and credit. It's just a lot harder and requires more underwriting and proof instead of having a single, handy Credit Score number attached to you from various agencies.
- thedanbob 7y ago
  I wonder. When I bought my first house it was a very simple process because my finances were very simple. For the second, which I’m still in the process of finalizing, it’s been an absolute nightmare. Both my wife and I have credit scores above 800, but add just a few unusual financial elements to the mix and the underwriters start having aneurysms. Take away those nice shiny credit scores and I imagine many banks would flat out refuse to touch us.

simonebrunozzi 7y ago

+1, but also: I don't want their CEO to walk away free, and with a $20M severance and healthcare for life.

u801e 7y ago

> I want Equifax as a company to be dissolved for incompetency with private data I want the system to be changed such that the burden of proof is on the lender that they actually interacted with the person they claimed they did. That is, if someone who is not you uses your information to get a credit card, then the bank loses their money for not following due diligence.

jrockway 7y ago
> That is, if someone who is not you uses your information to get a credit card, then the bank loses their money for not following due diligence. That's pretty much how credit card issuing goes, but the risk is not in someone stealing from a bank under your name, but rather your file now looking so bad that you can't legitimately get credit if you want it. I think what we want here is "the bank has to pay you money if they reject your credit card application / home loan because someone else hacked Equifax." I doubt that will ever happen.
- u801e 7y ago
  > but rather your file now looking so bad that you can't legitimately get credit if you want it. Yes, but under the new system, the bank can't just tell a credit reporting agency that a person they never interacted with failed to make a timely payment. If the bank can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually entered a contract with you, then they can't affect the actual person's credit rating.