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

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

#251

Post by jjeaff » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:23 PM UTC

situational87 wrote: post #80

exabrial wrote: post #76

Everyone needs to realize that the whole "fine" was just an inside deal. Who do you think provides credit monitoring services? That's right, credit bureaus. That's why the they're pushing everyone to take the "free credit monitoring", so they recover the loss from the fine. If they were to pay all 140 million people $125, the sum would be $17b or so, which is an appropriate fine.

You're right, $17B (or more, or dissolving the company) would start to actually spark off some real change in attitudes towards infosec among executives, instead of just continuing the status quo with this non-enforcement action. The strangest part of this ordeal was when that guy from the FTC was encouraging consumers to take the monitoring on Equifax's request. They're not even pretending to be regulated anymore, t…

I actually don't think taking the monitoring is a bad idea. The $125 will not amount to much and he knew that. The monitoring does include some type of identity theft insurance I believe which could actually end up costing Equifax a lot more.

Since the settlement amount was fixed, I don't see any reason the the ftc to encourage not taking it for the wrong reasons.

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

#252

Post by reaperducer » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:26 PM UTC

belenos46 wrote: post #125

pas wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Automated underwriting is a computer program that takes your vital statistics as input (age, income, probably some illegal things like race and physical location of the house you're trying to buy [in RE lending, this is called "red-lining" and is illegal.]) and outputs a yes-or-no answer, sometimes with hints about what need to be changed to get a yes. Manual underwriting is the same thing, only it's a person doing t…

Strange. I've been assured hundreds of times on HN that computer algorithms are perfect and flawless, and that people are the problem.

Heck, Google built a billion-dollar business on making sure interfacing with wetware is a write-only process.

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

#253

Post by FireBeyond » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:27 PM UTC

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.

> provided no identity theft protection to the public (unless you asked for it)

And unless you're _exceedingly_ careful and diligent, after a short period of time, you will be paying them to continue it.

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

#254

Post by FireBeyond » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

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.

Because many times, the default "punishment" is a fine that is often times a _small percentage_ of the _profit_ from the illegal/negligent act.

That is not a punishment, or even a deterrent. And therefore, corporate leaders continue, unabated, doing things like this. Because there is effectively zero incentive to do so.

If you are a corporate officer, directing and / or approving policies that are illegal, tell me why you should -not- go to prison?

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

#255

Post by TheHypnotist » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:35 PM UTC

cactus2093 wrote: post #247

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 require…

Transunion, in my opinion, does it right. It's not a huge burden to get approved for anything because I have all my reports locked. However, transunion makes it very simple to lock/unlock.

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

#256

Post by mannanj » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:37 PM 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.

Might not be a bad time for disruption by a blockchain https://bloom.co/

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

#257

Post by notyourday » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #252

belenos46 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automated underwriting is a computer program that takes your vital statistics as input (age, income, probably some illegal things like race and physical location of the house you're trying to buy [in RE lending, this is called "red-lining" and is illegal.]) and outputs a yes-or-no answer, sometimes with hints about what need to be changed to get a yes. Manual underwriting is the same thing, only it's a person doing t…

Strange. I've been assured hundreds of times on HN that computer algorithms are perfect and flawless, and that people are the problem. Heck, Google built a billion-dollar business on making sure interfacing with wetware is a write-only process.

Using manual underwriting the poster above basically "lied" hence jeopardizing the portfolio. It worked for him but it was detrimental to the stability of the system.

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

#258

Post by Oblouk » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:42 PM UTC

mannanj wrote: post #256

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.

Might not be a bad time for disruption by a blockchain https://bloom.co/

Wow, this is actually a great use case for blockchain

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

#259

Post by tathougies » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #254

socalnate1 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because many times, the default "punishment" is a fine that is often times a _small percentage_ of the _profit_ from the illegal/negligent act. That is not a punishment, or even a deterrent. And therefore, corporate leaders continue, unabated, doing things like this. Because there is effectively zero incentive to do so. If you are a corporate officer, directing and / or approving policies that are illegal, tell me wh…

> If you are a corporate officer, directing and / or approving policies that are illegal, tell me why you should -not- go to prison?

You should and the law allows for this. Certain crimes will get corporate executives locked up. It's a matter of making stricter liabilities and sentences for these white collar crimes, which really should have happened yesterday.

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

#260

Post by yardie » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 8:29 PM UTC

scarejunba wrote: post #225

pimmen wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Equifax cannot afford to pay $125 to each member of the potential class. That’s not the victims’ problem. Even if Equifax has to be completely liquidated to cover the compensation, the government should fight to make an example of such a terrible company and give the victims some sense of justice. Hopefully the board and the executives would rethink their lives and careers, maybe even change.

It becomes the victims' problem when Equifax declares bankruptcy and escapes paying.

The upside is their competitors sees what happens to that guy and never make the same mistake.

A company the size of Equifax going bust due to negligence would show Experian, Lexis-Nexis, and Transunion that these records aren't assets but large liabilities to be handled with extreme diligence.