Both this article, and the Washington Post article it links to strongly imply that the Arkansas woman's credit was wrecked as a result of incorrect information

Both this article, and the Washington Post article it links to strongly imply that the Arkansas woman's credit was wrecked as a result of incorrect information about a drug conviction, but none of the three main credit bureaus report criminal convictions on credit reports.[0] The author argues for his second reason that data brokers should be regulated because "many of the lists have no business being in the hands of retailers, bosses or banks," yet he fails to make any logical connection between the reason he gives and the regulations he wants. Ignoring for a moment the complete absence of evidence or facts to support his claim, his argument fails the most basic scrutiny -- his reason has nothing to do with regulating data brokers. The segue from personality tests -- an odd digression, to say the least -- into hand wringing over the possibility of employers secretly using lists based on health conditions is just absurd. Enacting regulations to address a problem we have literally never seen happen is the essence of bureaucratic incompetence. It only becomes truly spectacular when you consider that regulating the company that sells the data does nothing to prevent employers from doing it anyway. [0] https://www.privacyrights.org/how-private-my-credit-report https://www.privacyrights.org/how-private-my-credit-report