281–286 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now it's just semantics. Denying the current settlement would inevitably result in a larger settlement, unless everyone appealing to the courts is saying that the $125 repayment is too much.
How is this just semantics? If they have to do things over, they might just reach a different settlement than paying individual people $X. Or heck, there's always a chance they won't agree and will have to battle it out in court. Or maybe something else that I can't think of. It might be likely that they'd come up with a better payment, but it seems far inevitable to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>'VantageScore has four different generations.' What is a "generation" here? I would be curious to hear if people view Kredit Karma as trustworthy. I think I didn't understand their business model prior to reading this. Thanks
A generation is an algorithm change. For example, in VantageScore 3.0 (used by Credit Karma), your utilization percentage doesn't have a "memory" - your score reflects only your current utilization level. In 4.0, utilization has a memory - if you've been running maxed-out cards for a year, and you pay it all off right before applying for more credit, your score doesn't improve as much as in 3.0. There's a pretty good…
I should have qualified my question about the trustworthiness of Kredit Karma better. What I really meant to ask was are they trustworthy enough to hold one's data in exchange for using them as a monitoring service?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a self-fulfilling prophecy with no utility to the people making it.
Whatever it is, it’s just a fact of human behavior, and to understand the world around us, we ought to be honest about such facts and investigate how best to live in a world where such facts are true. For instance, it might suggest that championing a grassroots boycott effort is a waste of time, and that perhaps putting that effort to lobby for laws by which these types of privacy breaches result in automatic prison…
Are we "consumers" now, rather than "victims" or "citizens"? Are we defined by what we buy?
> Are we "consumers" now, rather than "victims" or "citizens"? Are you a child, a parent, a sibling, or a citizen? Or are you all of those things depending on context? I get what you're saying, but you chose a way of expressing it which invites immediate response.