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

I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 341 posts

Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score

#201

Post by dheera »

papln wrote: post #188
gorgoiler wrote: post #184

Having your drivers license fall into the hands of a bad actor must be a complete nightmare. Uploading a photo of government ID is also the backdoor to all sorts of things. The one that worries me is my Facebook account, including all my private messages. A better idea: the data collectors should ask me for a notarized letter confirming my identity (the notary has seen my government ID) which references a unique supp…

Notarization essentially puts a $30-$100 price tag on the operation, which meets with a lot of resistance.

Considering how many people are notaries and how easy it is to become a notary, I don't think it's any form of security. It's just an artificially created market for people to make quick bucks signing documents.

Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score

#203

Post by cortesoft »

yowlingcat wrote: post #129
earthboundkid wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CRAs are a scam from top to bottom. A bank makes a lot of money, but in theory, it's doing an important job which benefits society. That job is independently assessing creditworthiness. Of course, it's hard to assess creditworthiness if you don't know if someone is making a lot of loans at different places. So, there needs to be a system for credit monitoring . But credit monitoring is not credit rating . Credit rati…

Agreed. The whole idea of "identity theft" stinks of PR lubrication. Your identity cannot be stolen, but "identity theft" is a clever, cynical sleight of hand that obscures what really happened: credit fraud, specifically fraud that is the responsibility of the party issuing credit and the criminal propagating it.

I agree with this idea in principle, but I am unsure of how it would work in practice.

Say you open a credit card, then try to say it wasn't you..... what would a bank need to do to prove it was you? The things they would provide are already the things they have... your signature, your information, etc. What EXTRA bit would they start collecting that would prevent fraud?

Currently, banks ARE on the hook for fraud.... if you dispute fraudulent credit opened on your behalf, they have to eat the cost.

I don't quite see what the difference would be in this alternative world... currently, someone applies for credit, the credit issuer decides it is legit, and issues the credit. That would still be the same. Say it was fraudulent; the fraudster doesn't pay it off, so the issuer tries to collect... at that point, you say "hey, I didn't open this credit!"

Well, the issuer is going to say "yes you did, here is the information I have saying it was you"... how would that be different in your alternative world? Maybe you would require more verification steps... but what? Picture of you holding a sign saying you signed up for the credit? Video? What could you possibly provide that couldn't be faked for fraud? What could the issuer require?

At this point, things are no different than now. The issuer says it was you, you say it wasn't, and then someone has to arbitrate and decide who was correct.

I guess I just don't see how we can do it better (although I would LOVE to do it better!)

Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score

#204

Post by freen »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #176
prats226 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To get this personal information, asking for government-issued ID gives them one more data point on you and reinforcement of identity. So a win for them as well I guess?

This might be entirely legit, and legally mandated. https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersbd-persinfohtm.html It sounds like "KYC", i.e., know your customer.

KYC is only to prevent banking fraud, i.e. money laundering. The SEC is the Securities and Exchange Comission, who govern banking, the trade of financial securities (stocks, bonds), etc.

These data brokers do not handle your money, and therefore do not need to "know their customers", i.e. have no legally mandated right to ask for your identification, at least according to this statute.

For one, I think it's super weird that they need a government issued document to know who I am, but are perfectly happy to sell my data, marketed as accurate, to third parties.

Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score

#205

Post by newnewpdro »

ENOTTY wrote: post #66
Simulacra wrote: post #56

Two points: First, the very act of requesting your data is in a way confirming and verifying the accuracy of the data. Second: Every prescription you've ever filled with insurance - and even some without - is recorded by companies like Milliman.[0] When you want to buy life insurance, health insurance, etc. they can request to see what medications you're on, have been on, etc. [0]. https://clark.com/insurance/how-to-…

> First, the very act of requesting your data is in a way confirming and verifying the accuracy of the data. Could you explain what you mean by that? And also hypothesize some implications of 'confirming and verifying the accuracy of the data'?

It's obviously contributing more data with a high probability of being all signal and zero noise. Some government IDs even include social security #s, but you're adding a photograph.

In the sense of confirming the data, it seems likely to at least attest to the identity being a genuine one associated with that data. Rather than something like a burner phone setup with a bunch of random stuff. Of course people can also have a fake photo ID, but it seems unlikely someone using a totally fabricated existence would be querying for this information and exposing them potentially to closer scrutiny.

Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score

#206

Post by cortesoft »

lisper wrote: post #181
Symmetry wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how the fact that the process of becoming a bank is strictly regulated means that it's corrupt?

It doesn't. What makes it corrupt is that banks are not in fact strictly regulated, it only appears that way. But there is no way I can prove that to you in an HN comment. I would have to write a book. I can point you to a lot of circumstantial evidence but there is nothing probative in the public record (see below). The only definitive evidence I have of the corruption in the system is my personal experience, some a…

I think this might come down to how you define corruption.

Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score

#207

Post by hinkley »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #154
progval wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that the data is being sold to third-parties (e.g., Sift) by their collectors (e.g., Airbnb) is troubling. It looks like Airbnb & co paid Sift instead, in addition to sending it their data: "Sift has this data because the company has been hired by Airbnb, Yelp, and Coinbase"

My guess is that Airbnb will stop using Sift after this article is published, because of bad press Sift generated for Airbnb by giving Airbnb messages back to the original user (the author of that article).

But the data is already out there and no longer working with the company that has it doesn't make it go away. If Sift goes out of business, this data won't go away.

I'm starting to feel like these PII databases are the superfund sites of the electronic world. Even after the company goes out of business, we're dealing with the damage decades later.

Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score

#209

Post by brycesbeard »

aedocw wrote: post #171
hirundo wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it has value, both to the advertiser and to the target, compared to un-targeted advertising. Advertising is an attempt to transfer information. Targeted ads means that the information is more likely to be relevant, whatever its other downsides. Let's not throw out that baby with the bath water.

"Advertising is an attempt to transfer information" is deeply misguided unless you adjust that to say "transfer very biased information". Advertising is an attempt to influence one party to give their money to another party, generally through manipulation and guile. Targeted advertising is like the difference between spam and spear phising. The person being advertised to rarely (if ever) benefits.

They benefit when they use valuable services for free, which is paid by targeted ads.

Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score

#210

Post by skyyler »

dheera wrote: post #201
papln wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notarization essentially puts a $30-$100 price tag on the operation, which meets with a lot of resistance.

Considering how many people are notaries and how easy it is to become a notary, I don't think it's any form of security. It's just an artificially created market for people to make quick bucks signing documents.

Notaries typically cannot notarize their own documents.
Post reply on HN