7 ms·

One thing Matt mentions but doesn't go into is how this could (should?) be a government service. In fact, there is the IRS's IVES program: https://www.irs.gov/i

One thing Matt mentions but doesn't go into is how this could (should?) be a government service. In fact, there is the IRS's IVES program: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/income-verification-express-service https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/inco... but it is already fairly antiquated. There's a great opportunity here for the IRS to provide this service (with revenue from charging the requesting entities), with citizens being self-sovereign over what data is shared and who it is shared with. Especially because they could provide verified data in a very narrow scope (for instance only sharing Adjusted Gross Income and nothing else).

mindslight 4y ago
Or rather than further entrenching the idea, we could work towards effective privacy legislation and relegate all of these commercial surveillance databases to the dustbin of history.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Equifax collects data that isn't true and libels its victims by disseminating it to other parties. Having that power enshrined within the government would not be a good thing.
- jasonjayr 4y ago
  Why? Government answers to it's people. Equifax answers to it's shareholders. IRS already has that info. The people have the power to control and influence how that data is handled, and distributed. We have no power to compel Equifax to do anything.
  - fragmede 4y ago
    Government is able to compel Equifax to do things, and is run by we, the people, so it seems like we should be able to something, for sufficiently large and powerful numbers of "we".
    - hoseja 4y ago
      Ah but you see, you're not friends with a senator.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - connor11528 4y ago
      Matt addresses this in the article directly: > Generally speaking, people would get really upset if the IRS shared our tax information for a fee. Effectively, Equifax is doing that, because for most people, employment and income is our tax information. But since it’s a private monopoly, the anti-government types don’t notice or care. ... > It’s perhaps no exaggeration to note that Equifax is a quasi-governmental agency, a monopoly provider of evidence that you work, where you work, and what you make. If there’s an error, or if someone lies about you, too bad. If Equifax itself is paid to harm you, too bad. If a government agency gets the wrong data and denies you assistance or screws up your immigration status, that’s on you, well, you have limited to no rights in this situation. In some ways, you might have more to fear from Equifax than the IRS.
- vuln 4y ago
  Only when you give said company authorization to review your credit worthiness, then they may attempt to pull your credit information. Your information is not broadcasted to all companies in existence only those who you've authorized (or have been authorized on your behalf by a malicious actor / identify thief). This is not udp.
  - thephyber 4y ago
    Your first paragraph is true (to the extent that nobody pretends to have your authorization). Your second paragraph is false, AFAIK. In the USA, credit bureaus are legally allowed to sell lots of your info to debt collectors and financial service companies. (According to DoanLaw.com) this is why you get “prescreening” offers for credit cards, mortgage refis, etc.
    - vuln 4y ago
      I don't disagree that the companies are selling your contact information and most likely some fuzzy information ranges (age, gender, martial status, rent/own, income) that's all that's really needed to snail mail "pre approvals" hint you're not really approved for anything until you sign to allow them to actually pull your credit. Preapproved just means you meet the minimum threshold of potentially making them more money than the cost of a 50 cent envelope/paper/bulk mailing rate.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        Outside of state laws and HIPAA, what national laws in the United States limit information sharing from a private party?
        kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
        Video rental records is it. Everything else is up for sale.
        thephyber 4y ago
        I believe there are a number of siloed categories: - HIPPA is for health care providers and their vendors - Traditional wired telecom has long been protected. And fraud over telecom has a special wire fraud statute. - Mail thru the USPS - COPPA for PII of under 13 data - Federal election law prevents election records used for commercial purposes - basically all of the government classified data system
- tdeck 4y ago
  The government already has the power to do those things. The track record of credit reporting agencies shows it's almost impossible to hold them accountable, so what's the advantage to having these private entities profiting off of us again?
- Teever 4y ago
  That's a pretty disengenous argument. I think you understand that the point of taking this course of action is to prevent/reduce these kinds of abuses from happening. The goal isn't to enshrine abuse of authority in governmental agencies, but to prevent nongovernmental agencies from abusing that authority.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >The goal isn't to enshrine abuse of authority in governmental agencies, but to prevent nongovernmental agencies from abusing that authority. I would much rather just whack the big players with antitrust law than give their power to some government agency. A worthless mission statement of some bureaucracy is just that, worthless. If said bureaucracy is using the same information Equifax is using to provide the same services the abuse potential is right there and it's probably only a matter of time until it starts getting used to screw whoever the outgroup of the minute is.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      Antitrust law isn't a solution here. Many different surveillance companies keeping records on us creates the same problems (if not more) as a few companies. The fundamental problem is that we have no ability to choose which of these companies we want to associate with. What is sorely needed is privacy legislation that says that data about an individual is fundamentally the property of that individual, and that the license for commercially storing/processing an individual's data can be revoked at any time. Having choices is the requisite first step to having competition.
    - Teever 4y ago
      I don't see why a market based solution is needed here. What will having a market of providers for this service do for me that having a crown corporation or federal ministry won't? Let's look at it the other way. Could you imagine privatizing the IRS. Why would I want that?
SamuelAdams 4y ago
This is a good idea, but I’m skeptical if the IRS has enough funding and resources to manage another service. They barely have enough funding for the current backlog of filed tax returns.
- grantc 4y ago
  The IRS can't even provide a simple reliable service to verify a TIN; they're not getting into the IVE game.
refurb 4y ago
There is no free lunch. Limiting credit checks to AGI just means everyone will assumed to have an unknown credit history and will have much higher rates. You ready to get a mortgage at prime plus 5% instead of prime plus 1%? But let me guess, we could create a law about that? Having the government do things doesn’t magically mean market forces don’t apply any more.
- coderintherye 4y ago
  The point is not about limiting it to AGI, the point is setting limits on what data is shared so that you as the consumer always control what a requesting company sees. Don't want your data shared? No problem, you can set to deny all requests. Only want to share AGI but not your entire return, just allow that field, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your response also seems to indicate you don't work in financial services. No company is providing credit based solely on income verification (well, not that I'm aware of maybe some fintech is doing it). Most all credit providers are collating data from various sources to make their decision and it varies more than you might think on what goes into a credit decision. Further, I don't think there's any need at all for laws for this as you suggest, rather just let the IRS offer it as a competing service with private industry. I know many companies that would sign up right away for such a service at the right price point.
  - vuln 4y ago
    People don't understand how credit scores work and you want to give them the power to allow granular permissions? Just like Facebook gave people granular access to their privacy settings? If the general population doesn't read EULAs and speed clicks through 99% of dialogs presented. I highly doubt people won't check the _allow all_ box once and be done with it. Hell Apple gives my significant other the ability to ask apps not to track and they tap to ALLOW the app to track because "I don't mind ads and they'll show me better ads."
    - j33zusjuice 4y ago
      Some percentage of people making bad decisions doesn’t mean all people should be forced to make bad decisions. Yes, it’s a good thing that Facebook and apple allow those controls. Yes, it’s a shame more people don’t care about controlling their data. That doesn’t mean people who do care shouldn’t be able to control it. What point are you trying to make, exactly?
connor11528 4y ago
I could see the IRS offering some service to enter the market and compete with Equifax to bring more competition to the sector. They might have to compel Equifax to give up some data or data sources to the government and their competitors. The government did this in WW2, forcing companies to give trade secrets to their competitors so there would be a more resilient supply chain. Something similar could be done to break up big banking if the US Postal Service allowed people to open up super simple checking and savings accounts.

mindslight 4y ago

Or rather than further entrenching the idea, we could work towards effective privacy legislation and relegate all of these commercial surveillance databases to the dustbin of history.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

Equifax collects data that isn't true and libels its victims by disseminating it to other parties. Having that power enshrined within the government would not be a good thing.

jasonjayr 4y ago
Why? Government answers to it's people. Equifax answers to it's shareholders. IRS already has that info. The people have the power to control and influence how that data is handled, and distributed. We have no power to compel Equifax to do anything.
- fragmede 4y ago
  Government is able to compel Equifax to do things, and is run by we, the people, so it seems like we should be able to something, for sufficiently large and powerful numbers of "we".
  - hoseja 4y ago
    Ah but you see, you're not friends with a senator.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - connor11528 4y ago
    Matt addresses this in the article directly: > Generally speaking, people would get really upset if the IRS shared our tax information for a fee. Effectively, Equifax is doing that, because for most people, employment and income is our tax information. But since it’s a private monopoly, the anti-government types don’t notice or care. ... > It’s perhaps no exaggeration to note that Equifax is a quasi-governmental agency, a monopoly provider of evidence that you work, where you work, and what you make. If there’s an error, or if someone lies about you, too bad. If Equifax itself is paid to harm you, too bad. If a government agency gets the wrong data and denies you assistance or screws up your immigration status, that’s on you, well, you have limited to no rights in this situation. In some ways, you might have more to fear from Equifax than the IRS.
vuln 4y ago
Only when you give said company authorization to review your credit worthiness, then they may attempt to pull your credit information. Your information is not broadcasted to all companies in existence only those who you've authorized (or have been authorized on your behalf by a malicious actor / identify thief). This is not udp.
- thephyber 4y ago
  Your first paragraph is true (to the extent that nobody pretends to have your authorization). Your second paragraph is false, AFAIK. In the USA, credit bureaus are legally allowed to sell lots of your info to debt collectors and financial service companies. (According to DoanLaw.com) this is why you get “prescreening” offers for credit cards, mortgage refis, etc.
  - vuln 4y ago
    I don't disagree that the companies are selling your contact information and most likely some fuzzy information ranges (age, gender, martial status, rent/own, income) that's all that's really needed to snail mail "pre approvals" hint you're not really approved for anything until you sign to allow them to actually pull your credit. Preapproved just means you meet the minimum threshold of potentially making them more money than the cost of a 50 cent envelope/paper/bulk mailing rate.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      Outside of state laws and HIPAA, what national laws in the United States limit information sharing from a private party?
      - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
        Video rental records is it. Everything else is up for sale.
      - thephyber 4y ago
        I believe there are a number of siloed categories: - HIPPA is for health care providers and their vendors - Traditional wired telecom has long been protected. And fraud over telecom has a special wire fraud statute. - Mail thru the USPS - COPPA for PII of under 13 data - Federal election law prevents election records used for commercial purposes - basically all of the government classified data system
tdeck 4y ago
The government already has the power to do those things. The track record of credit reporting agencies shows it's almost impossible to hold them accountable, so what's the advantage to having these private entities profiting off of us again?
Teever 4y ago
That's a pretty disengenous argument. I think you understand that the point of taking this course of action is to prevent/reduce these kinds of abuses from happening. The goal isn't to enshrine abuse of authority in governmental agencies, but to prevent nongovernmental agencies from abusing that authority.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >The goal isn't to enshrine abuse of authority in governmental agencies, but to prevent nongovernmental agencies from abusing that authority. I would much rather just whack the big players with antitrust law than give their power to some government agency. A worthless mission statement of some bureaucracy is just that, worthless. If said bureaucracy is using the same information Equifax is using to provide the same services the abuse potential is right there and it's probably only a matter of time until it starts getting used to screw whoever the outgroup of the minute is.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Antitrust law isn't a solution here. Many different surveillance companies keeping records on us creates the same problems (if not more) as a few companies. The fundamental problem is that we have no ability to choose which of these companies we want to associate with. What is sorely needed is privacy legislation that says that data about an individual is fundamentally the property of that individual, and that the license for commercially storing/processing an individual's data can be revoked at any time. Having choices is the requisite first step to having competition.
  - Teever 4y ago
    I don't see why a market based solution is needed here. What will having a market of providers for this service do for me that having a crown corporation or federal ministry won't? Let's look at it the other way. Could you imagine privatizing the IRS. Why would I want that?

SamuelAdams 4y ago

This is a good idea, but I’m skeptical if the IRS has enough funding and resources to manage another service. They barely have enough funding for the current backlog of filed tax returns.

grantc 4y ago
The IRS can't even provide a simple reliable service to verify a TIN; they're not getting into the IVE game.

refurb 4y ago

There is no free lunch. Limiting credit checks to AGI just means everyone will assumed to have an unknown credit history and will have much higher rates. You ready to get a mortgage at prime plus 5% instead of prime plus 1%? But let me guess, we could create a law about that? Having the government do things doesn’t magically mean market forces don’t apply any more.

coderintherye 4y ago
The point is not about limiting it to AGI, the point is setting limits on what data is shared so that you as the consumer always control what a requesting company sees. Don't want your data shared? No problem, you can set to deny all requests. Only want to share AGI but not your entire return, just allow that field, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your response also seems to indicate you don't work in financial services. No company is providing credit based solely on income verification (well, not that I'm aware of maybe some fintech is doing it). Most all credit providers are collating data from various sources to make their decision and it varies more than you might think on what goes into a credit decision. Further, I don't think there's any need at all for laws for this as you suggest, rather just let the IRS offer it as a competing service with private industry. I know many companies that would sign up right away for such a service at the right price point.
- vuln 4y ago
  People don't understand how credit scores work and you want to give them the power to allow granular permissions? Just like Facebook gave people granular access to their privacy settings? If the general population doesn't read EULAs and speed clicks through 99% of dialogs presented. I highly doubt people won't check the _allow all_ box once and be done with it. Hell Apple gives my significant other the ability to ask apps not to track and they tap to ALLOW the app to track because "I don't mind ads and they'll show me better ads."
  - j33zusjuice 4y ago
    Some percentage of people making bad decisions doesn’t mean all people should be forced to make bad decisions. Yes, it’s a good thing that Facebook and apple allow those controls. Yes, it’s a shame more people don’t care about controlling their data. That doesn’t mean people who do care shouldn’t be able to control it. What point are you trying to make, exactly?

connor11528 4y ago

I could see the IRS offering some service to enter the market and compete with Equifax to bring more competition to the sector. They might have to compel Equifax to give up some data or data sources to the government and their competitors. The government did this in WW2, forcing companies to give trade secrets to their competitors so there would be a more resilient supply chain. Something similar could be done to break up big banking if the US Postal Service allowed people to open up super simple checking and savings accounts.