3 ms·

> is this something that actually happened, or something theoretical? It doesn't matter. Even the theoretical possibility is bad. If you're going to be denied

> is this something that actually happened, or something theoretical? It doesn't matter. Even the theoretical possibility is bad. If you're going to be denied medical care because of a score generated by a third-party you should be allowed to see the score, know how it is generated, and be allowed to fix errors. What Experian is doing — controlling your ability to get a job, buy a house or even get medical care through their opaque and non-appealable scoring system — is worse than China's purported Social Credit System [1]. We look down on China's system, but our own system is just as bad if not worse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

gruez 4y ago
>It doesn't matter. Even the theoretical possibility is bad. So you're saying that we should get rid of reputation systems because they can theoretically be used to deny people services? >If you're going to be denied medical care because of a score generated by a third-party you should be allowed to see the score, know how it is generated, and be allowed to fix errors. You can already see your report and fix any errors. I'm not sure how "you should be allowed to see the score, know how it is generated" helps though. If your Experian Medical Score™ is 500, and all the details (eg. past medical bankruptcies are correct), what are you going to do? Argue that you merely warrant a score of 600? Or more realistically, since the scores map to a default probability, try to convince them that you merely have a 4% risk of default rather than 10%? >What Experian is doing — controlling your ability to get a job, buy a house or even get medical care through their opaque and non-appealable scoring system — is worse than China's purported Social Credit System [1]. We look down on China's system, but our own system is just as bad if not worse. The difference here is that the social credit system is used as a tool by the state to punish dissidents and other unwarranted behavior and participation is mandatory (ie. you don't get the choice between not serving a patron with a bad social credit score or not), whereas various credit rating agencies are providing information and businesses are choosing to make use of that information. The latter case is more acceptable because there's a legitimate interest by people/businesses that want to screen their counterparties (eg. employers who don't want flakey workers, and banks/hospitals who don't want deadbeat creditors).
- petilon 4y ago
  > So you're saying that we should get rid of reputation systems because they can theoretically be used to deny people services? If you read my message again you'll see I was complaining about the opaqueness and non-appealable nature. > You can already see your report and fix any errors. Clearly you have not gone through that process. It is nearly impossible. > If your Experian Medical Score™ is 500, and all the details (eg. past medical bankruptcies are correct) The concern is about the case where it is incorrect.

gruez 4y ago

>It doesn't matter. Even the theoretical possibility is bad. So you're saying that we should get rid of reputation systems because they can theoretically be used to deny people services? >If you're going to be denied medical care because of a score generated by a third-party you should be allowed to see the score, know how it is generated, and be allowed to fix errors. You can already see your report and fix any errors. I'm not sure how "you should be allowed to see the score, know how it is generated" helps though. If your Experian Medical Score™ is 500, and all the details (eg. past medical bankruptcies are correct), what are you going to do? Argue that you merely warrant a score of 600? Or more realistically, since the scores map to a default probability, try to convince them that you merely have a 4% risk of default rather than 10%? >What Experian is doing — controlling your ability to get a job, buy a house or even get medical care through their opaque and non-appealable scoring system — is worse than China's purported Social Credit System [1]. We look down on China's system, but our own system is just as bad if not worse. The difference here is that the social credit system is used as a tool by the state to punish dissidents and other unwarranted behavior and participation is mandatory (ie. you don't get the choice between not serving a patron with a bad social credit score or not), whereas various credit rating agencies are providing information and businesses are choosing to make use of that information. The latter case is more acceptable because there's a legitimate interest by people/businesses that want to screen their counterparties (eg. employers who don't want flakey workers, and banks/hospitals who don't want deadbeat creditors).

petilon 4y ago
> So you're saying that we should get rid of reputation systems because they can theoretically be used to deny people services? If you read my message again you'll see I was complaining about the opaqueness and non-appealable nature. > You can already see your report and fix any errors. Clearly you have not gone through that process. It is nearly impossible. > If your Experian Medical Score™ is 500, and all the details (eg. past medical bankruptcies are correct) The concern is about the case where it is incorrect.