61–70 of 286 posts
The terms of the settlement have been set. Equifax's financial outlay is fixed. All of the post settlement divvying up of the funds is being administered by the government bodies who negotiated the settlement, not Equifax.
Equifax's desires about how the money gets divvied up at this point are irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, instead of getting my lender to give me a better interest rate or a discount on fees, I'm going to instead use my negotiating leverage to make sure Equifax makes $20 less revenue.
Might as well not even vote. Your one votes can't turn the tide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were incredibly negligent and nepotistic. Their head of security, Susan Mauldin, had zero security or computer skills - she was a music teacher. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/equifax-ceo-hired-a-music-...
It appears that the higher you go up the corporate ladder, the more it is about connections rather than actual knowledge, to the point that knowledge carries almost zero weight and connections are everything. A lot of companies are like this, and most of them (including Equifax) are still going strong. Meritocracy at the bottom and nepotism at the top seems to be the deal. Anyway, the last line of the article sums it…
There's a sense in which they have control of entire industry sectors, some higher learning or extended experience should really be required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They made the conscious decision to monetize personal data belonging to more than a hundred million people. That means they should take every measure available to make sure something that sensitive is not released. If this was the US Airforce who lost an armed nuclear ICBM the commanding officer who was ok with this ”whoopsie” would have to explain him or herself to quite a few officials.
> They made the conscious decision to monetize personal data belonging to more than a hundred million people. That means they should take every measure available I disagree. I think it means they owe a hundred million people (a) an offer to opt-in to their service and (b) a share of their profits for doing so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point. There is no hack. You can claim, but in order to claim you need to provide evidence you have credit monitoring. So in order to get 31 cents from equifax you need to prove that you're using an expensive useless service that is either provided by equifax or one of their equally useless competitors. The hacking was done in court.
Creditkarma is free. Several credit cards/banks also offer free/bundled credit monitoring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean, they insist you have to use Equifax, lose the deal, then then wonder what’s for lunch in the cafeteria today. Or most likely of all, every lender insists you have to use Equifax, and the people you interact with have no authority to even run your request up a management chain, let alone actually honor it.
reasons for losing sales get put in a database, and people pay attention when the same reason shows up repeatedly.
You can log reasons for bad business outcomes all day long, millions and millions, and it won’t change corporate behavior.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creditkarma is free. Several credit cards/banks also offer free/bundled credit monitoring.
Lenders don't look at credit karma, so they are useless, can show you any number you like.
Credit Karma buys the data for their free product from Equifax. So if lenders look at Equifax (and they do) then that's the exact same data.
You might wonder, "But if their product is free and they spend money buying the data for it, how can that make financial sense?" and that's the thing most consumers don't understand. What's better than selling advertising? Selling actual _customers_. Nobody (to a first approximation) is looking at credit scoring because they're bored, they are looking because they want to borrow money - they are potential customers for a lender. So you sign into Credit Karma and it says you're doing well, and they suggest you could get this MegaBank Gold Card. In fact, they've checked and you'll definitely qualify, no risk. You sign up, and MegaBank give Credit Karma a bunch of money for _finding them a new customer_.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might as well not even vote. Your one votes can't turn the tide.
The next election is going to be decided by about 5% of the country that’s contested. Everyone else might as well not even bother filling in the box for president