4 ms·

Wait, you mean the data that any random company can access when I apply for a credit card or job is also available to other people with money but don't care if

Wait, you mean the data that any random company can access when I apply for a credit card or job is also available to other people with money but don't care if I agree to it first?

Eisenstein 3y ago
The article says that people pretend to be private investigators and the data companies don't confirm except 'remotely'.
- alasdair_ 3y ago
  Why should private investigators be allowed this information at all? As the name implies they are private individuals.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    From the article... TU (and the other credit bureaus) decided your PII can be sold without much regulation. Despite laws that require credit reports to have tighter controls. They just say "it's not a credit report; it's just PII" and poof they're magically in the clear.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Because PIs are nominally regulated. It's a popular career with ex-cops who have investigative skills but are over the physical danger aspect of dealing with crime.
    - technick 3y ago
      Anyone can become a PI in Colorado with just some business cards.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    File a complaint with the FTC and CFPB. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/remarks-of-cfpb-director-rohit-chopra-at-white-house-roundtable-on-protecting-americans-from-harmful-data-broker-practices/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/remarks-of... https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-consumer-financial-protection-6180401/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-consumer-financial-pro... https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/we-are-extending-the-deadline-for-comments-about-data-brokers/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/we-are-extendi...
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    How else are credit bureaus going to make money other than selling this data?
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      Please tell me this is sarcasm
      - sidewndr46 3y ago
        No, it is a real question. There is a consistent thread of bureaus selling to criminals. It's part of their revenue stream at this point. Doing anything that involved cutting back on this would threaten their profits.
- godelski 3y ago
  I'm pretty confident that the parent is using sarcasm and fake surprise to illustrate how the point should be rather obvious that just any old person can get a credit report on another person because in reality the credit companies wouldn't have the capacity to validate the credentials of someone requesting the data without creating other significant disturbances such as making it nearly impossible to start a company. But this feels like a lot more words and doesn't actually convey as much as what you get when you have to internalize the rhetoric. Honest question, is sarcasm dead?
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    In text sarcasm generally works best when it is either appropriate for the setting or it is blatantly obvious. If one employs it otherwise then being treated seriously should be expected. When in doubt many will opt to treat it as genuine since reacting to a serious comment as if it were sarcasm comes across as condescending.
    - godelski 3y ago
      > or it is blatantly obvious It falls under this case. First, we notice the comment isn't an actual question, as there is nothing to actually be answered. This is a clear indication that its usage is therefore that of rhetoric. This is likely why they didn't respond, as there was nothing informative you could say unless you are significantly updating the premise which is being mocked. Second, the diction and pattern of the sentence matches a commonly user sarcastic pattern of "wait, you're saying x but y?!" and the only thing missing is a surprised pikachu gif. It even does this at an abstracted level as it emphasizes the arbitrariness of the entity requesting the information. The pattern is up there with "I have a modest proposal" and I am having difficulties in even coming up with a more prominent pattern. There are several prominent memes built off of this. Third, it involves additional flare to indicate a mocking of the obviousness of the claim made by the article which is summed by the parent. The comment is quite pejorative, with a clear disdain for the lack of accountability of the credit agencies. As far as sarcastic comments go, this is about as blatant as one can get. Even my sarcastic addendum ("Is sarcasm dead?") is less obvious than the comment. Similarly the sarcasm you are employing is far less obvious. But none necessitate vocal inflections. I think your detector is defunct and you may wish to take it in for repairs or an upgrade. I also disagree with your interpretation of when sarcasm works and I would suggest a different strategy. Your strategy will have a high false positive rate and teach you to misidentify sarcasm rather than learn to identify it. If a comment appears reactionary and condescending without a abundantly clear question to answer, either assume sarcasm or bad faith. In the latter case, one should not engage as you're only encouraging hostility. Simply downvote and move on. If you are wrong, you have just downvoted a sarcastic comment (which may not be adding too much to the conversation, as is the case here), which also sends a signal to the user that they need to work on their sarcasm or save it for other forums. You can take a middle case and hedge by saying "I think this is sarcasm, but if not..." This also goes with a different strategy of not responding if you don't have much to contribute. If you don't have a clear question to answer then the only reasonable responses are to ignore or ask for clarification, least you just create more noise. Internet conversations are well known to degrade easily and quickly. We also should mention satire, as it is often employed. Satire's foundation is that of an alternative interpretation. The simple metric here is "would a reasonable person state this?" If there is any doubt to this, I suggest reading this document which describes the definition of satire while also making heavy use of it[0]. I mention that my addendum employs sarcasm, through exaggeration, but there is some real question to it, as lately I have seen severe identification even with the use of "modest proposals." Language itself is compression and if one is to take a literal interpretation of everything then you will be unable to accurately communicate and are likely to frequently enrage and annoy others. Due to the compressive nature, you will always be required to "read between the lines" otherwise even this sentence would be uninterpretable. [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
  As a European citizen, I love GDPR.

Wait, you mean the data that any random company can access when I apply for a credit card or job is also available to other people with money but don't care if I agree to it first?

Eisenstein 3y ago

The article says that people pretend to be private investigators and the data companies don't confirm except 'remotely'.

alasdair_ 3y ago
Why should private investigators be allowed this information at all? As the name implies they are private individuals.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  From the article... TU (and the other credit bureaus) decided your PII can be sold without much regulation. Despite laws that require credit reports to have tighter controls. They just say "it's not a credit report; it's just PII" and poof they're magically in the clear.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Because PIs are nominally regulated. It's a popular career with ex-cops who have investigative skills but are over the physical danger aspect of dealing with crime.
  - technick 3y ago
    Anyone can become a PI in Colorado with just some business cards.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  File a complaint with the FTC and CFPB. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/remarks-of-cfpb-director-rohit-chopra-at-white-house-roundtable-on-protecting-americans-from-harmful-data-broker-practices/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/remarks-of... https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-consumer-financial-protection-6180401/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-consumer-financial-pro... https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/we-are-extending-the-deadline-for-comments-about-data-brokers/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/we-are-extendi...
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  How else are credit bureaus going to make money other than selling this data?
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Please tell me this is sarcasm
    - sidewndr46 3y ago
      No, it is a real question. There is a consistent thread of bureaus selling to criminals. It's part of their revenue stream at this point. Doing anything that involved cutting back on this would threaten their profits.
godelski 3y ago
I'm pretty confident that the parent is using sarcasm and fake surprise to illustrate how the point should be rather obvious that just any old person can get a credit report on another person because in reality the credit companies wouldn't have the capacity to validate the credentials of someone requesting the data without creating other significant disturbances such as making it nearly impossible to start a company. But this feels like a lot more words and doesn't actually convey as much as what you get when you have to internalize the rhetoric. Honest question, is sarcasm dead?
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  In text sarcasm generally works best when it is either appropriate for the setting or it is blatantly obvious. If one employs it otherwise then being treated seriously should be expected. When in doubt many will opt to treat it as genuine since reacting to a serious comment as if it were sarcasm comes across as condescending.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > or it is blatantly obvious It falls under this case. First, we notice the comment isn't an actual question, as there is nothing to actually be answered. This is a clear indication that its usage is therefore that of rhetoric. This is likely why they didn't respond, as there was nothing informative you could say unless you are significantly updating the premise which is being mocked. Second, the diction and pattern of the sentence matches a commonly user sarcastic pattern of "wait, you're saying x but y?!" and the only thing missing is a surprised pikachu gif. It even does this at an abstracted level as it emphasizes the arbitrariness of the entity requesting the information. The pattern is up there with "I have a modest proposal" and I am having difficulties in even coming up with a more prominent pattern. There are several prominent memes built off of this. Third, it involves additional flare to indicate a mocking of the obviousness of the claim made by the article which is summed by the parent. The comment is quite pejorative, with a clear disdain for the lack of accountability of the credit agencies. As far as sarcastic comments go, this is about as blatant as one can get. Even my sarcastic addendum ("Is sarcasm dead?") is less obvious than the comment. Similarly the sarcasm you are employing is far less obvious. But none necessitate vocal inflections. I think your detector is defunct and you may wish to take it in for repairs or an upgrade. I also disagree with your interpretation of when sarcasm works and I would suggest a different strategy. Your strategy will have a high false positive rate and teach you to misidentify sarcasm rather than learn to identify it. If a comment appears reactionary and condescending without a abundantly clear question to answer, either assume sarcasm or bad faith. In the latter case, one should not engage as you're only encouraging hostility. Simply downvote and move on. If you are wrong, you have just downvoted a sarcastic comment (which may not be adding too much to the conversation, as is the case here), which also sends a signal to the user that they need to work on their sarcasm or save it for other forums. You can take a middle case and hedge by saying "I think this is sarcasm, but if not..." This also goes with a different strategy of not responding if you don't have much to contribute. If you don't have a clear question to answer then the only reasonable responses are to ignore or ask for clarification, least you just create more noise. Internet conversations are well known to degrade easily and quickly. We also should mention satire, as it is often employed. Satire's foundation is that of an alternative interpretation. The simple metric here is "would a reasonable person state this?" If there is any doubt to this, I suggest reading this document which describes the definition of satire while also making heavy use of it[0]. I mention that my addendum employs sarcasm, through exaggeration, but there is some real question to it, as lately I have seen severe identification even with the use of "modest proposals." Language itself is compression and if one is to take a literal interpretation of everything then you will be unable to accurately communicate and are likely to frequently enrage and annoy others. Due to the compressive nature, you will always be required to "read between the lines" otherwise even this sentence would be uninterpretable. [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
As a European citizen, I love GDPR.