Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125 • Hacker News Board

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#31

Post by rolltiide » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 9:32 AM UTC

cwkoss wrote: post #6

If anyone is getting a mortgage or refinancing soon, ask your lender to 'drop' equifax without running your score with them - just take the score from the other two. Equifax is an unnecessary security and privacy risk. They are a horrible company that needs to go out of business. Make their customers feel embarrassed to be doing business with them.

I get benefits from my Equifax score and have made zero changes to my credit behavior, am aware of items on my credit report and am just as vulnerable to identity theft as all of you.

Its an objective acceptance of reality.

Typically I like to know which lenders check which score, so that I can strategically drop a hard inquiry on a particular reporting agency’s score, I use the multiple scores as a currency for maximum amounts of hard inquiries, as a hard inquiry temporarily lowers the score decreasing chances of approval or favorable lending terms. Once I hit two or three on Equifax, I will only apply with lenders that hit Transunion scores, etc. When the approvals go through my unutilized credit has increased so much that it has raised my scores more than the inquiries dropped them. When I actually go to apply for a mortgage I would be considered the most credit worthy borrower and save hundreds of thousands in interest payments.

I really don’t care about this crusade.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#32

Post by Joakal » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 9:34 AM UTC

cwkoss wrote: post #11

noodlesUK wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this actually work? Do bank employees have any control of the credit check process?

My lender always drops the lowest of the three scores, so I was able to just say "I'm going to keep looking at other lenders if you contact Equifax on my behalf. Can you agree to not use Equifax on this deal if I agree move forward today?" and it wasn't a problem. Some of the larger lenders may not have this flexibility.

Wasn't a problem? What do you think is more likely:

1) They didn't follow company procedure of which big banks insist employees follow otherwise the employees risk 'liability for not picking the 3 credit agencies'. Or

2) They lied and followed company procedure, and not tell you the outcome from them.

3) Your lender probably passed the request and got 1) or 2) later in the chain.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#33

Post by SuoDuanDao » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 9:42 AM UTC

Joakal wrote: post #32

cwkoss wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My lender always drops the lowest of the three scores, so I was able to just say "I'm going to keep looking at other lenders if you contact Equifax on my behalf. Can you agree to not use Equifax on this deal if I agree move forward today?" and it wasn't a problem. Some of the larger lenders may not have this flexibility.

Wasn't a problem? What do you think is more likely: 1) They didn't follow company procedure of which big banks insist employees follow otherwise the employees risk 'liability for not picking the 3 credit agencies'. Or 2) They lied and followed company procedure, and not tell you the outcome from them. 3) Your lender probably passed the request and got 1) or 2) later in the chain.

You're missing the most important outcome:

4) They insist they have to use Equifax, lose the deal, and note why in their records.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#34

Post by notyourday » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 10:25 AM UTC

cwkoss wrote: post #13

dheera wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried this when signing up for a Chase credit card and they said that it was their policy to use Equifax. (I had a credit freeze in place with Equifax at the time.)

You have to be willing to walk away if they say no, works best if the company cares about losing the deal - credit card signups might not be lucrative enough for a human to get involved and care.

Primary lenders ( the ones that actually lend their own money and at the end have the best rates -- arrived at adding the total expected cost of the APR plus add junk fees ) do not use non-automated underwriting for conforming loans. They win over the lenders that do not use automatic underwriting by tens of thousands of dollars.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#35

Post by goatinaboat » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 10:25 AM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #9

tracer4201 wrote: post #5

Is Equifax actually liable or responsible for anything? No jail time or other penalties for executives. Okay so how are they held accountable?

Jail time for executives seems a little excessive for some employee merely failing to apply a security patch... On the other hand, this settlement shouldn't have been capped at such a ridiculously low amount.

some employee

It’s not “some employee”. It’s an entire management hierarchy that failed to prioritise and budget for and create a culture around security best practices.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#36

Post by deaps » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 10:38 AM UTC

hamilyon2 wrote: post #16

I don't understand it. Here is hn, where everyone knows that cybersecurity is 100% offence 0% defence. It is basically our job to secure systems and we all agree it is pretty much impossible, unless you airgap every computer in building and glue every USB port. Then, knowing that, we blame equifax for data breach. Equifax is fat target and it was matter of time data would be stolen.

The fact remains that when not following 'best practices' - you leave yourself (and those that you horde data on) at risk.

I think that the upsetting part is that most don't volunteer their data to these guys. They simply get spoon-fed our data, profit greatly from our data, and then grossly mishandle that data, failing to follow even simple security best practices throughout.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#37

Post by y4mi » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 10:40 AM UTC

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #33

Joakal wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't a problem? What do you think is more likely: 1) They didn't follow company procedure of which big banks insist employees follow otherwise the employees risk 'liability for not picking the 3 credit agencies'. Or 2) They lied and followed company procedure, and not tell you the outcome from them. 3) Your lender probably passed the request and got 1) or 2) later in the chain.

You're missing the most important outcome: 4) They insist they have to use Equifax, lose the deal, and note why in their records.

> and it wasn't a problem.

That outcome is academic, as the parent specifically said it wasn't an issue.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#38

Post by amelius » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 10:50 AM UTC

rundmc wrote: post #20

In an ideal world, a white-hat would write a script that uses all of the hacked data to apply for the settlement on behalf of the hacked users so that the affected users don't have to individually work out how to hack Equifax's claims process.

In an ideal world, a government agency would fine Equifax the full amount, and customers could claim their money from them instead.

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#39

Post by callmejonas » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 10:58 AM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #9

tracer4201 wrote: post #5

Is Equifax actually liable or responsible for anything? No jail time or other penalties for executives. Okay so how are they held accountable?

Jail time for executives seems a little excessive for some employee merely failing to apply a security patch... On the other hand, this settlement shouldn't have been capped at such a ridiculously low amount.

If you have not read the Equifax Data Breach Report put out by the US Congress, I highly recommend it. The security issues at Equifax went far beyond "failing to apply a security patch."

https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2...

Re: Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

#40

Post by raesene9 » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 11:07 AM UTC

hamilyon2 wrote: post #16

I don't understand it. Here is hn, where everyone knows that cybersecurity is 100% offence 0% defence. It is basically our job to secure systems and we all agree it is pretty much impossible, unless you airgap every computer in building and glue every USB port. Then, knowing that, we blame equifax for data breach. Equifax is fat target and it was matter of time data would be stolen.

Security is not binary. It's possible to do a good job on preventative measures, and implement detective and reactive controls to help if/when a breach occurs.

It's just expensive, so companies who haven't been breached yet often don't prioritize that kind of work.