Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. senators ask consumer watchdog head for details on Equifax probe

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: U.S. senators ask consumer watchdog head for details on Equifax probe

#21

Post by arca_vorago »

cat199 wrote: post #11
guelo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like it is inevitable because the current crop of right wing politicians are hard core ideologues. Pragmatism is not in their vocabulary.

absolutely, uuuge contrast to the fair, non-partisan and balanced pragmatism of say, HRC, Feinstein, etc.

People just need to realize the corruption is bipartisan. This tribalism bullshit is going to eat us from the inside out.

I swore an oath to the constitution, not to a fucking party, so stop trying to tell me your tribe is better, it isn't, and fuck off with the bullshit claims of "but false equivalence"!

The people downvoting you just don't that like you flipped the exact statement of the gp. You are both right.

Re: U.S. senators ask consumer watchdog head for details on Equifax probe

#22

Post by djrogers »

rectang wrote: post #2

Was it inevitable that the Equifax situation became partisan? I'm a market constructivist, and I'd prefer the simplest possible solution which regulates Equifax and its immense externalities out of existence. But isn't there also a libertarian case to be made that the credit authorities are a cartel and should be deregulated out of existence? And if that's the case, can't at least some of us find common ground?

> Was it inevitable that the Equifax situation became partisan?

I'm not so sure it's the Equifax situation here, but rather the CFPB that's the target of partisan lashings. The CFPB has been criticized by both the left and right at various times for overspending, lack of oversight, lack of results, and especially it's fundamental structure - in fact it was even ruled unconstitutional by a DC circuit court. The ruling has since been upheld in an en-banc hearing.

Some of the comments from the judge in the initial ruling are rather surprising:

"The Director enjoys significantly more unilateral power than any single member of any other independent agency. By “unilateral power,” we mean power that is not checked by the President or by other colleagues. Indeed, other than the President, the Director of the CFPB is the single most powerful official in the entire United States Government, at least when measured in terms of unilateral power."

[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/court-r...

[2]https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B7623651...

Re: U.S. senators ask consumer watchdog head for details on Equifax probe

#23

Post by sp332 »

rectang wrote: post #13
sp332 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the Equifax breach hurt tons of constituents on both sides of the aisle. The parties had every reason to come together on this. Especially the Republicans, because the lack of trust will be bad for business. But it seems the ones elected at the moment are beholden to specific donors and not accountable to the people they're supposed to represent. I'm not clear on how deregulation would hurt Equifax and the other…

I realize this isn't immediately realistic, but please brainstorm with me: 1. Change privacy laws so that consumers own their own data. (Something like Germany's BDSG?) 2. Repeal the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The idea is that once consumers have the weapons and wherewithal to sue irresponsible credit rating authorities out of existence, perhaps fewer "regulations" will be needed.

Equifax already has 23 class-action lawsuits pending. But it would be better for consumers if a breach of this type were a crime investigated by the government, so individuals don't have to proactively go to court themselves.

By default, incumbents and big players have the advantage in the market, so without regulation I doubt anyone could unseat the Big Three agencies. They can afford to have a some inaccuracies and even a breach here and there and still be hard to beat. Remember the people whose data they lost are not their customers. Using the government to force companies to protect that data could level the playing field and increase competition.

As for 1. that is of course regulation.

Re: U.S. senators ask consumer watchdog head for details on Equifax probe

#24

Post by protomyth »

tptacek wrote: post #20
protomyth wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The letter, which was dated Feb. 7, was led by Hawaii's Democratic Senator Brian Schatz and signed by 29 Democrats, including all those on the Senate Banking Committee, and two independents. per Reuters, but no actual letter text.

Right, but the two I's caucus with the Democrats. There's an argument to be made that the Democrats (who I'm a stalwart supporter of) have happily polarized this issue, rather than doing something more quiet while collecting bipartisan support. That what they're doing looks helpful but really isn't.

Well, yeah. In the 90's or early 00's, it would have been both parties with a joint press conference. Now we have 24 hour news and don't need cooperation to get press. At this point working with the other party is just not done. The congressional leadership of both parties has set a course and its going to be this way for a while. In some ways, its just a shift from incumbent protection to trying to gain back seats. Equifax is pretty far down the list politically anyway, so it probably didn't actually do any harm, but it certainly didn't do any good either.

I find it amusing that the polling that has failed for multiple years is being seen as valid this time around.

Re: U.S. senators ask consumer watchdog head for details on Equifax probe

#25

Post by maxxxxx »

rectang wrote: post #7
maxxxxx wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The libertarians I know would probably say that it's the government's fault that this situation arose. I don't think they would have an answer how to deal with the current situation.

If they think it's the government's fault, that's not necessarily a barrier to agreement on a course of action. If there's a law that can pass that libertarians can call "deregulation" I could potentially get behind it so long as it has the desired effect. For instance, it's my understanding that laws exist which protect the big three credit authorities. What are those laws, and what the prospects for changing them?

Don't expect anything. Libertarians have no real answer for health care and they have no real answer for dealing with the credit agencies.

Re: U.S. senators ask consumer watchdog head for details on Equifax probe

#26

Post by majormajor »

creaghpatr wrote: post #8
linsomniac wrote: post #6

A previous HN discussion, possibly on Equifax now that I think about it, had a comment recommending the book "The Chickenshit Club", about why the justice department doesn't prosecute. I just finished in it a discussion of Enron and their auditors, Arthur Andersen. The justice department prosecuted Andersen (one of the "big 5" accounting firms at the time), and there was a lot of backlash about the Justice Dept "kill…

Second the recommendation for Chickenshit Club (also helps interpret the speed and proceedings of other DOJ cases in play). Equifax is largely embedded in our business/credit infrastructure and there would be collateral consequences for all of the businesses who would have to change as a result of their punishment/demise. This in no way absolves them from responsibility but DOJ pragmatism towards corporations is they…

The bigger danger here just sounds like size in general.

If AWS maliciously screwed people over in a blatant way and was only 3% of the market, there's a lot less incentive to let them keep on keeping on than if they're 50% of the market.

I think a lot of ills of the current system could be avoided if you had tax penalties or such that scaled aggressively with company size and revenue. Intentionally give up some economies of scale in exchange for flexibility, competitive pressures, and resiliency.

Re: U.S. senators ask consumer watchdog head for details on Equifax probe

#27

Post by mulmen »

sp332 wrote: post #5
rectang wrote: post #2

Was it inevitable that the Equifax situation became partisan? I'm a market constructivist, and I'd prefer the simplest possible solution which regulates Equifax and its immense externalities out of existence. But isn't there also a libertarian case to be made that the credit authorities are a cartel and should be deregulated out of existence? And if that's the case, can't at least some of us find common ground?

No, the Equifax breach hurt tons of constituents on both sides of the aisle. The parties had every reason to come together on this. Especially the Republicans, because the lack of trust will be bad for business. But it seems the ones elected at the moment are beholden to specific donors and not accountable to the people they're supposed to represent. I'm not clear on how deregulation would hurt Equifax and the other…

You seem to have conflated the concepts of representation and protection.

Congress represents constituents, it does not protect them. If constituents do not demand action here congress will not pursue further action.

The CFPB is supposed to be protecting consumers, not congress.

Re: U.S. senators ask consumer watchdog head for details on Equifax probe

#28

Post by sp332 »

mulmen wrote: post #27
sp332 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the Equifax breach hurt tons of constituents on both sides of the aisle. The parties had every reason to come together on this. Especially the Republicans, because the lack of trust will be bad for business. But it seems the ones elected at the moment are beholden to specific donors and not accountable to the people they're supposed to represent. I'm not clear on how deregulation would hurt Equifax and the other…

You seem to have conflated the concepts of representation and protection. Congress represents constituents, it does not protect them. If constituents do not demand action here congress will not pursue further action. The CFPB is supposed to be protecting consumers, not congress.

That's a good point. But rectang was asking about protection becoming partisan, which is playing out in the Senate.

Re: U.S. senators ask consumer watchdog head for details on Equifax probe

#29

Post by creeble »

djrogers wrote: post #22
rectang wrote: post #2

Was it inevitable that the Equifax situation became partisan? I'm a market constructivist, and I'd prefer the simplest possible solution which regulates Equifax and its immense externalities out of existence. But isn't there also a libertarian case to be made that the credit authorities are a cartel and should be deregulated out of existence? And if that's the case, can't at least some of us find common ground?

> Was it inevitable that the Equifax situation became partisan? I'm not so sure it's the Equifax situation here, but rather the CFPB that's the target of partisan lashings. The CFPB has been criticized by both the left and right at various times for overspending, lack of oversight, lack of results, and especially it's fundamental structure - in fact it was even ruled unconstitutional by a DC circuit court. The ruling…

Someone needs to pull rank and take over or start an investigation outside of the CFPB. They clearly aren’t doing their job, and now it has become stupid to simply ask them to start doing it.

Re: U.S. senators ask consumer watchdog head for details on Equifax probe

#30

Post by IntronExon »

arca_vorago wrote: post #14
cat199 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1775 USA: If we don't like the king, we shouldn't get rid of the monarchy - think of the impacts to the wider society! 2018 USA: If we don't like the executive, we shouldn't get rid of foocorp - think of the impacts to the wider society! systemic/structural answers to specific problems are rarely the solution, but they sure do help you avoid the cost of dealing with the specific problem..

"We need to look forward, not behind"... I hate that attitude so much.

Anyone who tries to convince you to not study history is not looking out for your best interests.
Post reply on HN