4 ms·

> The "Obtaining Authorization" heading. Did you notice the list of things you need to "obtain authorization" for doesn't include salary? > what makes you thi

> The "Obtaining Authorization" heading. Did you notice the list of things you need to "obtain authorization" for doesn't include salary? > what makes you think you have exclusive control over the piece of information in question Access to courts. If my previous employer prevents me from getting a job, then (depending on circumstances) I may be able to collect damages from them. For that reason, former employers are usually reticent about what they say. Now if a third-party provides that information and I don't even know about it, then that's an even greater encroachment on my rights.

gruez 4y ago
>Did you notice the list of things you need to "obtain authorization" for doesn't include salary? Did you notice that in the "Employment Verification" section, it literally says "Salary amount, if allowed"? It's pretty obvious what's happening here is that "verifying the employment" refers to validating every piece of information mentioned above, including salary. Moreover, your alternative interpretation (ie. they require authorization to tell a company that you worked for Acme corp but don't require authorization to tell people that you made $80k last year) doesn't really make sense. Finally, if you're going to allege something shady is going on, you should really find better sources than trying to read between the lines of a blog post. Something explicit from experian or a trusted source would be preferred.
- petilon 4y ago
  > "Salary amount, if allowed"? That's pretty vague, isn't it? Allowed by whom? That could easily mean "if you have paid Experian for the extra information". They could have used the words "with consent" instead of "if allowed", and to me that is telling. > Finally, if you're going to allege something shady is going on... I have provided a link for something worse... information provided by Experian can be used to deny you medical care! See the link below. That isn't shady enough for you? https://thetoolsweneed.com/poorly-secured-medical-credit-score-could-deny-you-care/ https://thetoolsweneed.com/poorly-secured-medical-credit-sco...
  - gruez 4y ago
    >I have provided a link for something worse... information provided by Experian can be used to deny you medical care! See the link below. That isn't shady enough for you? Rage inducing headline aside, I'm really not seeing what's shady here after reading the article. What basically seems to be happening here is that Experian is telling hospitals your credit worthiness, and as a result people with bad credit are being denied credit by hospitals and therefore have to pre-pay for their medical care. If they don't have the money, they can't get medical care. I'm not saying this is a good situation, but I'm not sure how Experian's role here is "shady".
    - petilon 4y ago
      > people with bad credit are being denied credit by hospitals and therefore have to pre-pay for their medical care. That article doesn't say that at all. There is no mention of pre-pay that I could find. In fact, this may not be about credit worthiness at all. As it says in the article: "The central issue is that we don't have any actual transparency on what's in the record," says Reede. "I can't see what this is being evaluated on."
      - gruez 4y ago
        >That article doesn't say that at all Yeah, because it's intentionally being vague to elicit rage. What's actually happening (ie. people with poor credit being denied access to cerdit) isn't as rage inducing as some vague implication that Experian is running death panels. However, there are snippets that imply hospitals are basically doing a credit worthiness assessment. >Under these heightened circumstances, you now have to wait to see if a company thinks you're a good customer for them. >While Reede says this is likely not an issue for larger hospitals that have less financial pressure (although Kaiser Permanente uses this system), it's definitely appealing for smaller hospitals that will notice a hit to their finances if a patient defaults. Besides, what plausible reasons do hospitals have for refusing care based on information from experian? Do you think hospital administrators despise people with under 800 credit score and want them to die of illness?

gruez 4y ago

>Did you notice the list of things you need to "obtain authorization" for doesn't include salary? Did you notice that in the "Employment Verification" section, it literally says "Salary amount, if allowed"? It's pretty obvious what's happening here is that "verifying the employment" refers to validating every piece of information mentioned above, including salary. Moreover, your alternative interpretation (ie. they require authorization to tell a company that you worked for Acme corp but don't require authorization to tell people that you made $80k last year) doesn't really make sense. Finally, if you're going to allege something shady is going on, you should really find better sources than trying to read between the lines of a blog post. Something explicit from experian or a trusted source would be preferred.

petilon 4y ago
> "Salary amount, if allowed"? That's pretty vague, isn't it? Allowed by whom? That could easily mean "if you have paid Experian for the extra information". They could have used the words "with consent" instead of "if allowed", and to me that is telling. > Finally, if you're going to allege something shady is going on... I have provided a link for something worse... information provided by Experian can be used to deny you medical care! See the link below. That isn't shady enough for you? https://thetoolsweneed.com/poorly-secured-medical-credit-score-could-deny-you-care/ https://thetoolsweneed.com/poorly-secured-medical-credit-sco...
- gruez 4y ago
  >I have provided a link for something worse... information provided by Experian can be used to deny you medical care! See the link below. That isn't shady enough for you? Rage inducing headline aside, I'm really not seeing what's shady here after reading the article. What basically seems to be happening here is that Experian is telling hospitals your credit worthiness, and as a result people with bad credit are being denied credit by hospitals and therefore have to pre-pay for their medical care. If they don't have the money, they can't get medical care. I'm not saying this is a good situation, but I'm not sure how Experian's role here is "shady".
  - petilon 4y ago
    > people with bad credit are being denied credit by hospitals and therefore have to pre-pay for their medical care. That article doesn't say that at all. There is no mention of pre-pay that I could find. In fact, this may not be about credit worthiness at all. As it says in the article: "The central issue is that we don't have any actual transparency on what's in the record," says Reede. "I can't see what this is being evaluated on."
    - gruez 4y ago
      >That article doesn't say that at all Yeah, because it's intentionally being vague to elicit rage. What's actually happening (ie. people with poor credit being denied access to cerdit) isn't as rage inducing as some vague implication that Experian is running death panels. However, there are snippets that imply hospitals are basically doing a credit worthiness assessment. >Under these heightened circumstances, you now have to wait to see if a company thinks you're a good customer for them. >While Reede says this is likely not an issue for larger hospitals that have less financial pressure (although Kaiser Permanente uses this system), it's definitely appealing for smaller hospitals that will notice a hit to their finances if a patient defaults. Besides, what plausible reasons do hospitals have for refusing care based on information from experian? Do you think hospital administrators despise people with under 800 credit score and want them to die of illness?