281–290 of 459 posts
This underlines how small the settlement actually was in comparison to the actual economic damage people experienced. Normally nobody shows up to make these claims because they don't actually feel significantly personally affected.
From the FAQ: > Free credit monitoring provides a much better value No, no it does not.
> No, no it does not. You would really pick a check for under $1 over credit monitoring?
As it is, I'm less worried about fraud than the hassle of thawing the reports in case I want to access easy credit in the future. Equifax is still on the hook for actual damages, if any.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The math behind credit scores is quite good. They're very effective at predicting credit risk.
This statement, which is currently greyed out, is an objective statement of engineering fact about one of the most important technologies introduced in the last one hundred years. I hope I have bought enough street cred to say the following by ghostwriting hundreds of letters to the credit reporting agencies to fix their problems, which are numerous and essentially inevitable given their model and present operations.…
It’s time to put the fear of god in these assholes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the New York Times: "Almost half the settlement — $300 million — will go toward American consumers who were harmed by the breach, according to settlement documents filed in federal court in Atlanta. The company also agreed to pay $275 million in fines to end investigations by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission and 48 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Ric…
> If all 147 million victims of the breach were to take part, the monitoring services would cost Equifax more than $2 billion. The amount it costs to buy credit monitoring isn't how much it costs Equifax to actually do credit monitoring.
> The public response to the settlement has been overwhelming. Millions of people have visited this site in just the first week. Because the total amount available for these alternative payments is $31 million, each person who takes the money option is going to get a very small amount. Nowhere near the $125 they could have gotten if there hadn’t been such an enormous number of claims filed. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/en…
Does the DOJ need to investigate the FTC? What on earth are they doing? Do they realize we can see them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We" don't. You're not the customer, the credit providing company is. And they use it because there hasn't historically been a better alternative.
Why don't we have the government keep track of credit history?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The math behind credit scores is quite good. They're very effective at predicting credit risk.
This statement, which is currently greyed out, is an objective statement of engineering fact about one of the most important technologies introduced in the last one hundred years. I hope I have bought enough street cred to say the following by ghostwriting hundreds of letters to the credit reporting agencies to fix their problems, which are numerous and essentially inevitable given their model and present operations.…
[1] More than happy to be corrected here with sources, I just have not ever heard about Equifax-like company in Europe
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is a Standard Car Dealership or Mortgage Lender going to support you redlining an agreement, crossing out the sections you don't like (which include oversharing every and all morsel of data they can fetch from you)? No. The salesperson/CSR is going to be confused, and not even know how to proceed. In none of these cases did I opt in. And I decidedly couldn't opt-out.
Yes, if you want to borrow money, the person loaning you money is generally going to insist that you opt into the system that helps them understand if you are a good credit risk or not. That's not an unfair request on their part. Don't want to participate? Then don't ask for a loan.
Translation: Don't participate in the economy unless you're independently wealthy.
Conveniently left out: Don't ever apply to rent a house or an apartment. Instead, buy a home. In cash, of course, because you're independently wealthy.
Oh, and also: Don't apply for a job. Because, you know, independently wealthy and all that.
The idea that non-participation in the credit racket is anything but an exercise in extreme economic privilege is laughable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But making it the customer’s responsibility is cool? In any case, I read this as the notice that payment was required is what got lost, not the payment itself.
Ah, you may be right, but even that still makes the report valid. Let me tell you what I hear as a business person if you tell me my letter to you was misdelivered: "My mail delivery is unreliable so it's your problem." Well, no, you didn't tell me it was unreliable, so I couldn't adjust my risk perception or take special precautions. And if you ever want to do business with me again, you're going to come in and exec…