Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement • Hacker News Board

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#51

Post by ocdtrekkie » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 8:40 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #44

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you should have one from one of the many previous breaches. Also, arguably your credit card or mortgage company may be providing you enough monitoring to claim you have it. For those who suffered under TurboTax, Intuit offers a free credit monitoring service as well. Credit monitoring, like antivirus, is something you should have, but should not be paying for.

It's 2019. "Credit monitoring", like antivirus, is something you simply should not have. Rather, you should take steps to avoid being beholden to broken systems in the first place. For "credit monitoring" specifically, individuals should not be doing the surveillance bureau's work for them . If lenders don't think it is necessary to do diligence when issuing credit, then why should I make up for it by half-policing […

Well, I have a mortgage, so not being beholden to them isn't really an option.

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#52

Post by rapind » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 8:45 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #50

rapind wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately the system has been so perverted that it's the consumer who inevitably suffers. Here's a pretty entertaining peek (by Micheal Lewis) into what happens because of fraud that the consumer had literally nothing to do with and how the lender (bank) is able to put the onus on him to fix. It's not life or death, at least in this example, but it really shows how obviously unf…

>I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately the system has been so perverted that it's the consumer who inevitably suffers. Isn't that just the fault of the system, not the individual participant being defrauded?

Yup, the bank is defrauded and yet is able to push the consequences to the consumer.

Since they aren't lifting a finger to remedy the issue, we can assume that either the consequences are insignificant to them or they're just bad at business.

It seems to defy logic unless you look at the system as a whole.

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#53

Post by Andreavaxncal » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 10:35 PM UTC

I’ve always been having bad experience trying to fix one major thing in my life which is my terrible credit score of 412 for about a year now but always have to go through online scammers one way or the other, I couldn’t get a loan, Business associate were avoiding doing business with me anymore due to my low credit score neither could I get a new home and also Four (4) Credit cards debit including mortgage bills . Until a friend of mine (Sandra) referred me to a credit specialist who changed her life GREG REPAIR, I had a heavy thought inside me and not trying to fall victim anymore. I contacted him at GREGREPAIR @ techie Dot Com or + 1 424-800-3201 we spoke for couple minutes, he requested for my information which I gave, he told me within 6 working days everything will be fixed. I made part payment for the job which was so affordable. Now I own the business of my choice, I’m into Fashion designing , I’m now a house owner , Companies want to associate and bringing up business , all card debits cleared I’m living happily all thanks to GREG, what would I have done without him. You’re in this State GREG is a perfect Solution... Smiles

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#54

Post by u801e » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 10:55 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #48

u801e wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> then the consumer can sue them > For what? For sending a bad report about the consumer they claim to have entered into a contract with to the credit bureaus. > The consumer isn’t responsible anyway if the lender gets defrauded. That's true, but the lender is responsible for what they report to the credit bureaus. > Is the fraud in itself not enough of a punishment for the lender? If they don't involve the actual c…

While you're right from basic legal principles, I've had it pointed out to me that the FCRA actually shields the surveillance bureaus from charges of libel/slander. So that kind of direct action has already been regulatory-captured away.

> FCRA actually shields the surveillance bureaus from charges of libel/slander.

That's true, but I was proposing holding the creditor/lender liable for filing a bad report with the credit bureaus, not the bureaus themselves.

The basic problem is that lenders/creditors are not exercising due diligence when extending credit or loaning money to an individual. While this is currently referred to as "identity theft", it's really a problem with the lender/creditor and they should be held accountable if they cause harm to the actual consumer by filing a bad report with the bureaus.

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#55

Post by mindslight » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 12:29 AM UTC

u801e wrote: post #54

mindslight wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you're right from basic legal principles, I've had it pointed out to me that the FCRA actually shields the surveillance bureaus from charges of libel/slander. So that kind of direct action has already been regulatory-captured away.

> FCRA actually shields the surveillance bureaus from charges of libel/slander. That's true, but I was proposing holding the creditor/lender liable for filing a bad report with the credit bureaus, not the bureaus themselves. The basic problem is that lenders/creditors are not exercising due diligence when extending credit or loaning money to an individual. While this is currently referred to as "identity theft", it's…

Nope, they have been excused from legal liability as well. The regulatory capture runs deep.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681h (e).

I wouldn't be surprised if this immunity were the primary cause of the current situation. Getting immunity from negligence means it makes sense to take advantage of being negligent.

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#56

Post by mindslight » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 12:33 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #51

mindslight wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 2019. "Credit monitoring", like antivirus, is something you simply should not have. Rather, you should take steps to avoid being beholden to broken systems in the first place. For "credit monitoring" specifically, individuals should not be doing the surveillance bureau's work for them . If lenders don't think it is necessary to do diligence when issuing credit, then why should I make up for it by half-policing […

Well, I have a mortgage, so not being beholden to them isn't really an option.

It seems that already having a mortgage means you're much less beholden than someone who intends to apply for one in the future...

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#57

Post by u801e » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 3:12 AM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #55

u801e wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FCRA actually shields the surveillance bureaus from charges of libel/slander. That's true, but I was proposing holding the creditor/lender liable for filing a bad report with the credit bureaus, not the bureaus themselves. The basic problem is that lenders/creditors are not exercising due diligence when extending credit or loaning money to an individual. While this is currently referred to as "identity theft", it's…

Nope, they have been excused from legal liability as well. The regulatory capture runs deep. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681h (e). I wouldn't be surprised if this immunity were the primary cause of the current situation. Getting immunity from negligence means it makes sense to take advantage of being negligent.

That is unfortunate. I wonder how long has this been the case.

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#58

Post by ryanlol » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 8:12 AM UTC

rapind wrote: post #52

ryanlol wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately the system has been so perverted that it's the consumer who inevitably suffers. Isn't that just the fault of the system, not the individual participant being defrauded?

Yup, the bank is defrauded and yet is able to push the consequences to the consumer. Since they aren't lifting a finger to remedy the issue, we can assume that either the consequences are insignificant to them or they're just bad at business. It seems to defy logic unless you look at the system as a whole.

>yet is able to push the consequences to the consumer.

The bank creates a separate set of consequences for the consumer, but does not transfer any consequences. The bank still suffers the costs of the fraud, the consumer suffers the costs of an inaccurate report.

>we can assume that either the consequences are insignificant to them or they're just bad at business.

It is just not possible for the banks to solve this problem. What do you think they could do?

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#59

Post by georgeProtmars » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

It couldn’t be this worst for me trying to deal with a Bad credit score so low as 367, Including 3 credit cards debts; mortgage loan, late payments and one thefts criminal record from 2017 reported on Experian, rent was due for Eviction couldn’t get any help. I search on how I could increase my Credit score then I came across GREG REPAIR I decided to contact him at GREGREPAIR @ techie dot com or +1 4248003201, he responded and said the process will take 5 working days. To cut the story short all late payment cleared, credit card debit all gone, score raised to 812 I feel like it’s all a movie, all thanks to GREG REPAIR.

Re: Yahoo Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Settlement

#60

Post by rapind » Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #58

rapind wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, the bank is defrauded and yet is able to push the consequences to the consumer. Since they aren't lifting a finger to remedy the issue, we can assume that either the consequences are insignificant to them or they're just bad at business. It seems to defy logic unless you look at the system as a whole.

>yet is able to push the consequences to the consumer. The bank creates a separate set of consequences for the consumer, but does not transfer any consequences. The bank still suffers the costs of the fraud, the consumer suffers the costs of an inaccurate report. >we can assume that either the consequences are insignificant to them or they're just bad at business. It is just not possible for the banks to solve this p…

Demand more from the credit bureaus. Work with authorities to chase down fraud instead of punishing the consumer. If the incentive (or consequences) were significant enough they'd already be doing this. The current situation is most likely caused by it being easier for the bank to punish the consumer, at least in the short term.

It's just a pita and an interesting story for Micheal Lewis, but this can have a pretty extreme impact on completely innocent law abiding working class families who depend on their credit for housing, groceries, etc. There's a real infuriating injustice to it.