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

241–250 of 286 posts

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

#241

Post by Rebelgecko »

dwild wrote: post #129
amalcon wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's doubly painful, because the "free credit monitoring" on offer is provided by Equifax -- the exact company whose competence we don't trust anymore. The compensation for being affected by Equifax's security failure is a gratis security offering from that same company. For crying out loud, they could have at least paid Experian or TransUnion to do the monitoring: while they are just as shady, we don't have immediat…

> It's doubly painful, because the "free credit monitoring" on offer is provided by Equifax -- the exact company whose competence we don't trust anymore. The free credit monitoring is provided by Experian, not Equifax. [1] [1] https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/

Of the 10 years of "free" credit monitoring, the first 4 years is from Experian but the remainder is from Equifax.

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

#242

Post by SkyBelow »

socalnate1 wrote: post #196
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.

Why is Hacker news so obsessed with sending people to jail? Literally every time any sort of corporation get's fined (for nearly anything), there is a loud call to send people to prison. It's like there is this undercurrent of bloodthirstiness and hatred for large companies and their leaders that get's brought to the surface.

>Why is Hacker news so obsessed with sending people to jail? Literally every time any sort of corporation get's fined (for nearly anything), there is a loud call to send people to prison.

Because that is the default response to poor people, yet corporations don't have the same threat. They effectively become immune to the law as long as they are willing to pay the extra tax.

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

#243

Post by pfranz »

harryh wrote: post #238
pfranz wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I just put more responsibility on Equifax itself even if these actions were through an intermediary of theirs. This makes me think of the Tylenol tampering in the early 80's [1]. Johnson & Johnson's response wasn't court mandated (what doesn't seem to be mentioned is that it wasn't just a targeted recall, but a wide recall encompassing unaffected product in order to regain trust with consumers) Equifax chose…

even if these actions were through an intermediary of theirs The Equifax Data Breach Settlement Administrator is not an intermediary of Equifax. It's a court appointed representative of the plaintiffs. Someone chose this representation that's creating additional hoops. Indeed, and that someone is the plaintiffs. Not the defendants.

I understand Equifax did not hire the Settlement Administrator. I still see Settlement Administrator as an intermediary for the Equifax legal case. Like you are saying, the parties here are the plaintiffs, defendants, and the legal system. I feel like focusing the Settlement Administrator just diffuses blame (for all we know they are just following the terms of the agreement). I think the article appropriately focuses on Equifax and how poorly the legal resolution is playing out.

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

#244

Post by kls »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #159
kls wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just wanted to make the distinction that we are not the customer therefore, expectation to be treated as a customer are not going to be met. I was highlighting the frame of thinking and context that one should be using when thinking about their relationship with such entities. I could have delved deeper and specified that it is actually aggregate data, about us that is the actual product. My main point (which granted I could have been more clear on), was to emphasis that expectations will not be met if one thinks of themselves as a customer to a credit reporting agency. That is unless they work as an agent of an entity extending credit to consumers.

It was not my intention to be rhetorical nor to cast moral judgment, rather just to highlight that the relationship is different than that of a customer/business relationship.

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

#245

Post by ulkesh »

Fishkins wrote: post #239
ulkesh wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I received no such email and I signed up fairly quickly for the $125. I've checked my spam folder as well as everywhere else, they simply haven't sent me such an email.

Neither did I. Does anyone know what to do in this case? I have my Equifax claim code.

Unfortunately I have no such claim code. I also don't remember receiving one and there was never a confirmation email sent. If there was one on the screen, I regret not saving it. It's sad and frustrating the lengths they are going to, to make sure they pay so very little for screwing so many people.

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

#246

Post by ptero »

bdamm wrote: post #204
the_watcher wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very, very imperfect method of figuring out the key question here ("Would Equifax just file for bankruptcy?"), but their enterprise value is ~$20B, and paying out $125 per person would cost over $18B, so it seems pretty clear you'd need to reduce the per person payout. It would take more work than I can put in right now to decide what it should be, but finger in the wind halving it seems like the right star…

Bankruptcy seems quite appropriate. They not only failed to maintain the security of the data, they also provided no identity theft protection to the public (unless you asked for it), and as a company appeared to have no plan for this event. Given that they were entrusted with the identity data for basically all Americans, that is inexcusable.

> Bankruptcy seems quite appropriate.

Hmm... Would not they just file for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, restructure their debts (i.e., write those pesky $125 payments off), then emerge in a better shape than they were?

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

#247

Post by cactus2093 »

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.

Post-breach, both TransUnion and Equifax now work with CreditKarma to let you view your score and whether or not your report is locked, and they both let you create an online account with them as well to view your score or easily lock/unlock your credit report whenever you need to. Experian refuses to work with CreditKarma and only lets you "freeze" and unfreeze your account in the legally required way, which requires filling out a big form and resubmitting your Name, address and SSN every time you do it. To create a similar online account with them to manage lock/unlock status and view your score they charge an absurd fee of $20/month.

The problem with boycotting Equifax is I also want to boycott Experian. And in the future, maybe TransUnion will have a major issue, who knows.

Is the bank going to be cool with me boycotting the 2 biggest of them, or even all 3? Obviously not, so let's not pretend that consumer choice is a real way out of this mess.

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

#250

Post by mattkrause »

the_watcher wrote: post #211
journalctl wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would bankruptcy be so bad? “Sorry, Equifax. Due to some recent financial irresponsibility, we’ve unfortunately had to lower your score. To zero.”

Clarified above, but I was thinking about likelihood of receiving the settlement, not fairness to Equifax. A settlement number so punitive it would put them out of business would substantially reduce the chances of those impacted receiving more than a token amount.

On the other hand, driving the value of their stock to zero would be a very effective deterrent against future bad behavior.
Post reply on HN