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

Equifax doesn't want consumers to get their $125

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 286 posts

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

#151

Post by kls »

99052882514569 wrote: post #114
argd678 wrote: post #104

It seems like companies only get the message when there’s jail time involved. None of the companies would freeze my credit since their web sites said some unspecified value couldn’t be verified for me, despite confirming my data was indeed lost. Pretty sure, like other regulations that include jail time, this wouldn’t have happened or their website to freeze my credit would have worked.

I agree. Until someone's ass is on the line, and I mean in terms of prison time and not merely their job, the rational thing to do for a shitty company that never cared for its customers is to continue with that approach.

Of note, you and I are not the customers of Equifax, we are the product they are selling.

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

#152

Post by aloknnikhil »

harryh wrote: post #140
aloknnikhil wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, the FTC says otherwise. > For consumers impacted by the Equifax breach, today’s settlement will make available up to $425 million for time and money they spent to protect themselves from potential threats of identity theft or addressing incidents of identity theft as a result of the breach. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/07/equif... That consumer fund of $425 million was "supposed" to also co…

That FTC statement says exactly what I said: There is a 425 million pool. It's to be used for: 1) "time and money they spent to protect themselves from potential threats of identity theft" (the 31 million part) OR 2) "addressing incidents of identity theft as a result of the breach" (the 394 million part) And yes, at some point both pools can be exhausted at which case there will be no more money for future claims. T…

Your original comment, before you edited it, did not call that out. You specified the 425 million as only for people affected by the breach. And that's not what it was for. Anyhow, how do you know there have been exactly 0 incidents? Where do you even begin to trace any incident back to this breach as the cause? Claiming it as non-existent is a bit naive. The damage has been done. Your information is out there. Again, slice it anyway you want. Let's assume NO ONE has been ACTUALLY impacted. Let's go with identify theft protection. As a consumer, I don't trust Equifax anymore. Since they mishandled my data, it's perfectly valid for me to reject them and opt for another monitoring service I trust, which let's say I have to pay for. I am in the situation covering my bases because of Equifax. So, I expect them to compensate me for this service. Oh wait, there's no money left. Use our credit monitoring service or get wrecked. And this is ok? So, based on your statement, we're literally relying on a vast majority of people either opting for the credit monitoring from Equifax or not claiming any damages for the rest to receive any compensation? If that's OK, then I guess I'll stop engaging here.

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

#153

Post by theferalrobot »

propogandist wrote: post #65
sokoloff wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creditkarma is free. Several credit cards/banks also offer free/bundled credit monitoring.

CreditKarma is a data mining operation that should not be trusted with your data.

Source? What data would they mining? Isn't credit data already available to the public?

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

#154

Post by harryh »

aloknnikhil wrote: post #152
harryh wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That FTC statement says exactly what I said: There is a 425 million pool. It's to be used for: 1) "time and money they spent to protect themselves from potential threats of identity theft" (the 31 million part) OR 2) "addressing incidents of identity theft as a result of the breach" (the 394 million part) And yes, at some point both pools can be exhausted at which case there will be no more money for future claims. T…

Your original comment, before you edited it, did not call that out. You specified the 425 million as only for people affected by the breach. And that's not what it was for. Anyhow, how do you know there have been exactly 0 incidents? Where do you even begin to trace any incident back to this breach as the cause? Claiming it as non-existent is a bit naive. The damage has been done. Your information is out there. Again…

There are numerous credit monitoring services you can use for free. There is no need for you to get any money to use one.

I personally like CreditKarma.com

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

#156

Post by cameronbrown »

asdfman123 wrote: post #72
iliketosleep wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is the way the corporate world has always worked. The problem is when this world collides with software, where actually knowing what the hell you're doing matters.

Knowing what you're doing always mattered, but you don't need to be a qualified engineer to deploy software, unlike say, a building. I maintain that we need the title of 'software engineer' to really mean something, and for someone in a position like Chief Security Officer to be qualified as such. If a bridge collapsed due to the person responsible being a music teacher then you can bet there'd be jail time.

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

#157

Post by notyourday »

pas wrote: post #55
notyourday wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could someone explain what non-automated underwriting means? And what does confirming mean in this sense? I get that they win compared to those who use more labor, but still some details would be nice :)

> I get that they win compared to those who use more labor, but still some details would be nice :)

Mortgage portfolio performs best when its different portions match the exact specs of the models used to model the portfolio.

That basically means "plug in the numbers and receive an answer". That's automated underwriting. It is done pretty much exclusively for conforming loans: specific LTV, specific DTI of the borrowers, specific ranges of credit scores, specific amounts, specific points.

Manual underwriting is "In a view of a loan officer this mortgage should be ok".

People think that when they go to get a loan in a bank and sit down with a manager or a loan officer, they are getting manual underwriting. It is rarely the case -- most of the people on the other side just type in the answers into the software and it spits out the answer. That's what the likes of quickenloans and lending tree optimize and market.

Manual underwriting can be something like engineer #10 of WeWork shows up at a bank today and say "So, I want to buy that house for $5 million, and when We goes public I am going to be worth about 80mil, plus I still make my $250k a year". Most of the banks cannot handle this even though anyone with a brain should say 'Hmm... if he pledges all of the shares he currently owns plus all of his options and if he can get us in writing company's agreement that he can do that then we should totally loan him the money because his current holdings are worth $10m, he is borrowing $5m, and there are options that he should be able to exercise and he only has $80k in debt and his credit score is 675, so it seems he is ok. He is definitely a safer bet than that guy putting 25% down who will have only 10k in assets left after the first payment on a $2m loan we are giving. So if we are going to give a loan to the $2m guy, we should definitely give a loan to the WeWork engineer if he pledges his shares"

So there's an entire industry that exists which charges money for this "underwriting" when in reality it just sends the applications to a few banks that do it. But lots of people think that a mortgage broker can get them a better than deal a primary lender bank because of all the marketing. Those are the people that "won't pull Equifax because you asked"

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

#158

Post by jxramos »

ScoJoh wrote: post #131

Don't know if anyone posted this before, but if you scroll down to #25 here: https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/faq You can send a letter to the Courts and let them know why you do or don't think this is a sufficient and decent settlement. Share it, let's get people writing in, because this lets Equifax keep really everything and in the end little real effect from their failure to take care of the information th…

You'll be asked what may be a bunch of superficially dismissing questions. They're in fact optional...

""" Option 1, Credit Monitoring: Free Service or Cash Payment

Option 2, Cash Payment: I want a cash payment of up to $125. I certify that I have credit monitoring and will have it for at least 6 months from today.

Current Credit Monitoring Service: Self

Cash Payment: Time Spent No spent time

Cash Payment: Money You Lost or Spent No money lost or spent

Supporting Documents No documents selected

How Would You Like to Receive Your Cash Payment Check """

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

#159

Post by fennecfoxen »

kls wrote: post #151
99052882514569 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Until someone's ass is on the line, and I mean in terms of prison time and not merely their job, the rational thing to do for a shitty company that never cared for its customers is to continue with that approach.

Of note, you and I are not the customers of Equifax, we are the product they are selling.

Too rhetorical, and not informative.

Forecasts of whether you'll make good on a promise to pay money are the product they're selling.

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

#160

Post by PretzelFisch »

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.

You assume they still don't get paid when a credit report is run without asking for that burro. I don't see any evidence that this is how the fee structure works.
Post reply on HN