Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Credit Industry Opposes Anti-ID Theft Method

Posted by kdawson on Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:52 PM
from the frozen-out dept.
athloi alerts us to an opinion piece running in USA Today on the backlash against an effective tool to fight identity theft. The big three credit bureaus don't like the numerous state laws that have been passed requiring them to give consumers a simple way to freeze their credit. Watch for a push at the federal level to get a watered-down statute that pre-empts state laws. "Lawmakers across the country — pushed by consumer advocacy groups — ... have passed laws that allow consumers to freeze their credit, a surefire way to prevent thieves from opening new accounts or obtaining a mortgage in a consumer's name. Under a freeze, a consumer cuts off all access to his credit report and score, even his own. All lenders require that information, so no one can borrow money in the consumer's name until he or she lifts the freeze. It's simple, and it works. So, of course, it's under threat from the Consumer Data Industry Association, which represents the Big Three credit bureaus. They make millions gathering and selling consumer data. Freezes cut into that business."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Applekid (993327) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @12:54PM (#19733223)
    Another happy side-effect of freezing your credit: No snail-mail spam about preapproved credit offers. It's saved me much over the last year in time devoted to shredding.
    • by j.sanchez1 (1030764) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @12:59PM (#19733299)
      According to this [consumersunion.org], the following states have this Credit Freeze option open to their residents. Use it while you can.

      Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

      It also lists fees and such.
      • by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:26PM (#19733701) Homepage
        The good news is that I'm in one of those states. The bad news is that there are fees involved. I don't care if the fee is even $1. These credit people have fashioned an industry for themselves based on the [abuse of the] social security number and my personal information. They make a LOT of money from my information and while some laws move to help balance the situation, the benefit is still all theirs. They shouldn't require that I pay them ANYTHING to access, sell or otherwise make my information available to anyone.

        That said, I plan to get my credit locked up anyway. Not that I'm at risk for anything at the moment... I'm not rich, my credit's not great and after I paid off my last car, I don't deal much in debt financing any longer. After going mostly cash-only, I find myself rather free and I've got more money in the bank than I've ever had. (I think between a savings account and a credit account, I think most people will agree which is more better in the long run.) Perhaps I'll stop getting all those damned credit card offers in the mail as well!
        • by hazem (472289) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @02:20PM (#19734377) Journal
          The bad news is that there are fees involved. I don't care if the fee is even $1

          Well, you know, if you say had an attache case in your car that had a copy of your taxes. Then suddenly you had to go inside the house for a minute. Then you come back out and the bag is gone, voila, you're a victim of identity theft. All you need is a police report that describes said events.

          Of course, I'm not advocating filing a false police report because that is a crime.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            If you are a victim of identity theft you will have a flag on your credit possibly forever. It is best to just avoid it and pay the fee, you would otherwise end up paying more if you ever want a loan.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        An alternative method to effectively freezing your credit is to max out all of your 8 credit cards. It generally works in all states, though your mileage may vary.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It is interesting that in a few of the states listed, only identity theft victims (with a police report) can get this.
        • It is interesting that in a few of the states listed, only identity theft victims (with a police report) can get this.
          What's scary is that, in the states not listed, you can't get a credit freeze even if you *are* the victim of identity theft with a police report!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:00PM (#19733305)
      I still don't understand why this is even necessary.

      How about this: Any lender that opens a line of credit must PROVE that the person they say they opened it for actually opened it.

      That doesn't mean you can just say, "Well, I have this social security number, date of birth, and a name - that's enough right?"

      I'm talking "You want credit? Let me get you to fill out this application and have it notarized. Otherwise, no credit for you."

      Anyone lender who can't PROVE they have the persons permission CAN NOT LEGALLY post any negative credit information anywhere and can not try to collect on any debts supposedly owed.

      Does anyone really think it is ok to just allow lenders to defame the name and credit history of anyone unlucky enough to have their SSN stolen?

      The blame for stolen identities falls SQUARELY in the hands of those who allow those stolen identities to be used.
      • by Shakrai (717556) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:05PM (#19733367) Journal

        Does anyone really think it is ok to just allow lenders to defame the name and credit history of anyone unlucky enough to have their SSN stolen?

        More to the point, our credit heavy soceity has allowed less then honest companies to blackmail consumers that have legitimate business disputes by threatening to sour your credit report. In the old days if you had an honest dispute with a company and refused to pay them they could sue you and both sides would get their day in court. Now they can just insert an item into your credit file, wait until you are denied employment/that mortgage/security clearance/etc/etc and know that you will pay up because they basically have you by the balls.

        No due process of law and the burden of proof is on the consumer to prove that the derogatory information is false -- not on the company to prove that it's true.

          • Re:Credit BS = Karma (Score:5, Informative)

            by Shakrai (717556) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:30PM (#19733761) Journal

            Obviously you've never had to deal with the fallout from a bad credit file. Yes, on the surface it appears that the law is written in the consumers favor. Go read some credit repair boards and see how well that works out in practice. See how the data providers(credit card companies) just "verify" any dispute that comes down without doing actual research. See how the credit reporting agencies outright refuse to follow the law (try getting them to do a proper procedures request).

            The entire industry is set up in favor of their customers (the data providers and creditors), not the consumers whose lives they ruin. The existing laws are either too weak or are just ignored outright.

            • Re:Credit BS = Karma (Score:4, Interesting)

              by LordKronos (470910) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:58PM (#19734123) Homepage
              The you must be reading the wrong credit boards, because the people that know what they are doing are just waiting on the edge of their seat for companies to not follow proper procedure for debt validation and verification. If proper procedures aren't followed, there's easy money to be had.

              The problem isn't that consumers don't have appropriate protections and recourse, its that consumers aren't aware of the laws they are protected by, and then when everyone around them starts saying "your screwed...theres nothing you can do", they tend to just assume everyone is right and then they suck it up and live with the consequences.
          • by Schmendr1ck (658453) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:51PM (#19734025)

            Incorrect.

            I work for a DoD contractor and possess a security clearance. One of my coworkers lost a clearance based solely on filing for personal bankruptcy protection. It had nothing to do with a "pattern of abuse"; legitimate personal circumstances forced this person to make that decision.

            Security clearances are denied or revoked based on risk to the government. Poor credit puts you in a high-risk group because (so the theory goes), you are more vulnerable to take money in exchange for classified information. And individual situations are rarely taken into account - if your credit report fits the profile for vulnerability, you don't get a clearance.

            A credit report doesn't just affect your ability to get a loan. In some fields, bad credit (valid or not) can severely limit your employment options. Yet another reason to rebalance the laws in favor of the consumers.

                • by lgw (121541) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @03:23PM (#19735237) Journal
                  Live responsibly within your means and these are not critical problems. Live a lifestyle that is only sustainable through borrowed money and just about everything is a crisis. It doesn't take vast riches to live without borrowing money, it just takes an attitude adjustment, and the earlier you make it the easier it is.

                  Make the accumulation of wealth a priority and abandon status symbols entirely and it won't take too many years before credit doesn't matter much. Worked for me, and I was sadly in

                  Not to disagree of course with the original point that the burden of proof of identity belongs with the lender.
                  • by Shakrai (717556) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @04:25PM (#19736035) Journal

                    Live responsibly within your means and these are not critical problems

                    You can live entirely within your means, never using (or using and paying in full) a credit card for anything and still wind up with a shitty credit score/report. All it takes is one major illness while having crappy or no medical insurance. Medical problems are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States. Other things (natural disasters, unemployment, divorce, bad investments, etc, etc) can also cause your financial situation to become untenable without ever trying to live beyond your means.

                    And while it's illegal for an employer to fire you because of a past bankruptcy, it's not illegal for them to fire you based upon derogatory information (i.e: missed payments) on your credit report. Nice catch-22 there, isn't it? Name one person that has filed bankruptcy who doesn't have other derogatory information on their credit report....

                    Make the accumulation of wealth a priority and abandon status symbols entirely and it won't take too many years before credit doesn't matter much

                    That's good advice for anybody. But it's a myth that most people are driven to financial ruin by trying to live beyond their means.

                    • by Anon-Admin (443764) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @04:35PM (#19736183) Journal
                      Wow, I did not know I was on easy street!

                      Here is the problem with your argument; I have ALWAYS lived in my means! From the first job to my current job. When I was making $3.35 an hour and working 80 hours a week to now. If you live in your means you do not need credit. I did not say it was easy. You will have to make sacrifices and give up some stuff, but in the long run you will be better for it.

                      The first thing is to get a place to live that costs no more that 1/4 your wage! Can't afford an apartment by your self, get a room mate! Cut out the extras, going to the movies, eating out, beer, etc. Make a budget and stick with it!

                      Here is a good piece of advice, buy an older used car and pay cash for it. Then take $100 or $200 a month that you would spend on a car payment and put it in a savings account. In 2 to 3 years when the car dies you'll have $2400 to $3600 to buy another used car. Around here that will get you a car that is in GREAT shape. Now you are not paying the interest for the loan, the bank is paying you interest while you save the money for a car!

                      Am I on easy street? You tell me, For the last several years I have made $39,000 a year and managed to provide for a family of 4! House, cars (2), food, etc. I am the only provider, my wife does not work outside the home (meaning she tends to the house and does not add to the income) I have done all this with out living out side my means and with out gaining any real debt. I have a CC that I put $1000 on and did not pay. This is the only outstanding debt and was because the credit reporting agencies would not lock by account and the company I worked for put my info on the public internet. Make the report look bad and I am not a target for ID theft.
                      You just need to learn to manage money and be froogle with what you have.

                      I still have money to spend, invest, or do what I want with. If I am on easy street it is only because I worked my A** of getting here!
                    • The only way to get "bad" credit is to be fiscally irresponsible.

                      That's false. As far back as 1890 it was known, per census, that average household debt was nearly double average household income. As of 1998 average debt was still $200 less than average income. This isn't a fiscally irresponsible problem--this is a system of debt which has been deliberately allowed to continue.

                      Unless you would like to suggest that it's human nature, across a national population, and across over 100 years (documented) to be "fiscally irresponsible" at which point then it again becomes

                    • This is because if he looked at ALL the facts,

                      You mean the facts that show that the US government has been $73 million in debt since its inception and hasn't been out of debt once since? How about the fact that the debt does nothing but increase over the years? No. We couldn't have that fact. It's too obvious.

                      Classical conspiracy-theorist fact-finding

                      Such as the fact that the easiest money ever made is interest paid on a $73 million dollar debt over the course of 200 years?

                      Look. In 1890 the average household was in debt twice what they made. 870/475 (about 400 dollars short) or somethi

    • by Shakrai (717556) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:00PM (#19733307) Journal

      No snail-mail spam about preapproved credit offers. It's saved me much over the last year in time devoted to shredding.

      Actually, most freeze laws (at least the one in New York, which I'm most familiar with) do not stop the pre-approval offers that are clogging your mailbox. The most effective way to do this is to "opt-out" with all four CRAs. You can do that here [optoutprescreen.com]. A five year opt-out is completely online. For a permanent one you need to sign a letter and mail it back to them. This is what I did.

      Regardless of whether or not you freeze your credit (not everybody can) everybody should do this. Opt-out with all four agencies and follow up with them a few months later to make sure they actually did it. Three (Trans Union, Equifax, Innovis) processed it properly for me but Experian never did until I followed up with them.

        • by Shakrai (717556) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @03:16PM (#19735159) Journal

          What a great idea! put all your personal information into a form linked from slashdot.

          This got an insightful mod? Give me a fucking break. Yes, I've been on /. for four years, have over 2,000 posts and good karma but I'm trying to provide a link so I can scam people's personal information! That must be it!

          You don't trust the site I linked? Go look at this one [ftc.gov] from the FTC then. It gives you a number (888-5-OPTOUT) to call if you'd rather do that then fill out the online form. It also links to a website [optoutprescreen.com], which is (surprise, surprise) the same one that I provided.

          Unless you think the FTC is providing you with a link to a phishing site I really don't see what the problem is.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Google around for the opt-out. There is certainly a real one, and it may even be the one the poster linked. I did this online and all pre-approved offers stopped within a couple of months.
    • Useless Freeze? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Knave75 (894961) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:16PM (#19733565)
      Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation, but I have a question. Presumably, the idea behind the credit freeze is to stop those who have stolen your identity from doing naughty things with it. However, if the would-be thief has the wherewithal to abscond with thousands of dollars under your name, would this same thief not also have the ability to remove the freeze?

      Thief: I would like to borrow $100,000 from Knave's account please.
      Clueless Customer Rep: Sorry sir, Knave has put a freeze on the account.
      Thief: I see...

      (4 minutes later, with a different clueless customer rep)

      Thief: Knave here, I would like to remove the freeze on my account, I'm buying myself a sweet car.
      Clueless Customer Rep: Very good sir, freeze ovah.
      Thief: Thanks!

      What am I missing?
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            require a PIN for any transaction that was sensitive or that was over x dollars?
            But then how would the credit agency make their money off of fraudsters?! If they couldn't collect their $x every time an identity thief opens an account that requires a credit check, they'd go broke!
          • by flonker (526111) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @10:05PM (#19739279)
            But it'd be so annoying to come up with a new pin for everyone. Let's reuse an existing number that everyone already has. I know! Let's use their SSN!
  • since credit cards have absolutely no profit in preventing credit card fraud / id theft (remember, it's the merchants who get screwed), of course they're against this sort of thing.
    • Re:naturally... (Score:5, Informative)

      by truthsearch (249536) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:16PM (#19733567) Homepage Journal
      MasterCard and most banks spend a lot of money each year on preventing and detecting fraud. I used to work for MasterCard and can tell you they do see profit in preventing credit card fraud, and to a lesser extent id theft. If consumers lose trust in the brand name they'll hurt very bad. They track their own reported fraud rate very carefully and set a performance threshold for the department to maintain. MasterCard works closely with all of their member banks to aggregate fraud statistics and raise flags when any banks see a spike.
  • stolen identity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by donaggie03 (769758) <.moc.liamtoh. .ta. .reyemso_d.> on Tuesday July 03 2007, @12:56PM (#19733253)
    If someone stole your identity, what is to stop them from pretending to be you in order to disable the freeze on your credit?
    • The freeze laws require that the credit card agencies setup a secret password that only you know. The password is never to be revealed to anyone.
  • It's cheaper (Score:4, Insightful)

    by snowgirl (978879) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @12:57PM (#19733259) Journal
    I heard that it was actually just easier for them to pay off credit card fraud in general, than to prevent it.

    Which is why they usually don't do anything to prevent it.

    Remember the guy who tore up his credit card entry form like they said to, then taped it back together, put in an old address, and a different phone number, and still got a credit card in his name?

    Yeah, the companies know how to prevent all this stuff, just it would cost more money than they lose by just eating the costs.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Credit reporting agencies, when functioning as intended, allow individual risk to be borne by the risky individual. Without them, the interest rate has to reflect the overall risk that banks must take by loaning to individuals.

          In other words, if you have good credit, you really don't want to get rid of the idea entirely, if it can be made to function as it's supposed to.

          Similarly, insurance companies must average over all of their customers. Evaluating the risk allows them to charge more appropriate rates
  • How, exactly, do freezes legitimately cut into their business? No one is supposed to be able to get a credit report on you without your explicit authorization anyway. Any credit reports requested on you without your explicit authorization is a violation of federal law.

    The bottom line is that the Big Three credit reporting agencies are sleezebags. If they had their way, they'd have it so that anyone can put anything in your credit file they like, and anyone can request any info they like any time. They don't want you to have any control over what's in your credit file, because ultimately that is the source of their power!

    Screw this. I'm gonna go live off the grid somewhere.
    • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:20PM (#19733621)
      How, exactly, do freezes legitimately cut into their business? No one is supposed to be able to get a credit report on you without your explicit authorization anyway.

      They sell solicitation mailing lists to credit card companies who specify the parameters of the consumer they're most trying to reach (i.e. Visa might want to market to current AmEx card holders with household incomes above $75,000, no late payments in the last year, and living on the eastern seaboard). That's a major source of additional income for them.

    • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @02:16PM (#19734321)
      I do not think that is correct.

      I got my credit report yesterday actually (from the real site: Annualcreditreport.com NOT the scam site: freecreditreport.com)

      My credit report shows 12 promotional inquiries by businesses wishing to extend me pre-approved cards between january and may. I'm sure they paid a fee to the credit agency each time. Freezing my credit might turnoff that revenue stream.
  • Some states required that credit bureaus give consumers a four-digit number they can use to quickly unfreeze an account.

    So all that's needed is a 4 digit number to bypass the freeze ?
  • by Shambly (1075137) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:04PM (#19733351)
    I would be happy to have a credit freeze on all my accounts. Borrowing money is a horrible system. It works for starting a business or a mortage on a house but all the little scams like car loans and furniture store and such only encourage people to live beyond their means. Paying cash for those kinds of things is so much cheaper. Debt is a form of slavery, your no longer working for money your working so they won't take your things away. It makes it so the credit card company owns you. Sure you can be good with a credit card but they do everything in their power to make you fall in that trap so that they can milk as much money from you as possible.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Paying cash for those kinds of things is so much cheaper.

      eh? my car loan is at something like 2.9%. the return on my investments is about 13%. i only buy stuff on credit that i can afford. that is, pay off tomorrow. so i could either earn 13% compounding interest on what i would have paid outright for my car, or pay cash for the car and save the 2.9% in interest on the price of the car and lose out on the 13% interest on investing that money instead? make sense? your statement makes little sense.

      now, if s

      • Amen. When we started our business 2 years ago, money from banks was impossible. We ended borrowing a lot less from a couple of friends, which ended up as a blessing in disguise, as we paid them both off within 9 months and thus made the business free and clear something like 18 months ahead of when it would have been had we been paying the vig to the bank. Best part is that it really helped instill a real hardcore no frills attitude which just made us successful that much faster.
  • Credit Reporters (Score:4, Informative)

    by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:11PM (#19733485)
    I was the victim of identity theft several years ago and had a "credit lock" put on my accounts with all three credit reporting agencies. What this supposedly does is makes it so that the three agencies will contact me first before a line of credit is opened in my name. This is supposed to be in effect for seven years from the time I established it. However, since then, I have opened two lines of credit and never once been contacted them as they claimed they would. These guys feel no obligation to follow their own guidelines. Why would they follow someone else's?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Then I suggest you start looking into lawsuit options.

      There's no escape from the credit system, you should be entitled to quite a big payout, and I think it needs to happen.
    • Re:Credit Reporters (Score:5, Informative)

      by infinite9 (319274) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @03:31PM (#19735333)
      These guys feel no obligation to follow their own guidelines. Why would they follow someone else's?

      I had a near miss with identity theft about six years ago. The mortgage broker that sold us our house (we knew it was him, just could find him or prove it) stole our file along with a bunch of files from other people. We would check out mail to find credit card bills that were torn open, rearranged, then haphazardly stuffed back into the envelopes. We finally figured out what was happening when we got a rejection letter for a small business loan for $18,000 that was declined for a technical reason. He put my birthday down as something like 1905 for some reason. All the other info was dead on. When I called the bank, they apologized for turning me down and asked me to come in and fix the problem to get the loan.

      He must have been a novice because he made a number of other failed attempts. We ended up putting this fraud alert on our credit credit reports. Our experience has been hit or miss. For example, my wife walked into a target and spent several hundred dollars. The offered a 10% discount for applying for a credit card. She told them it would automatically deny us because if the fraud alert, but they told her she would get the discount anyway. The result: $10,000 limit on the spot with a little note that would allow her to max the card there in the store that day. Home depot gave me a little trouble though. The person behind the counter abruptly handed me the phone. The person on the phone said, "Do you know why I'm talking to you?" I told her about the fraud alert. Result: $5000 limit on the spot. At least it wasn't as bad as target. We bought a car no questions asked. Getting a cell phone contract from sprint was hell however. They kept canceling the order. The third attempt worked and they did as they should have.
  • by schwaang (667808) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:14PM (#19733531)
    As the summary said, the Consumer Data Industry Association "represents the Big Three credit bureaus". According to their membership information [cdiaonline.org], CDIA member companies are engaged in credit reporting, tenant screening, employment reporting, etc. Companies that are not eligible for membership include:
            * Commercial Banks
            * Retail Stores
            * Bankcard Issuers
            * Retail Credit Card Issuers
            * Credit Unions
            * Mortgage Brokers
            * Real Estate Agencies
            * Nonbank Banks [wtf?]
            * Savings and Loan Institutions

    So CDIA is the credit reporting agencies, plus (most likely) ChoicePoint and Axciom and other datamining privacy haters. But not credit card companies or lenders, or anyone who loses money when identities are stolen.
  • Expect the Usual (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:16PM (#19733569)
    Expect these big three troublemakers to lobby for a weaker federal law that preempts all state regulation in the process. After all, that's the American way these days.
  • by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:17PM (#19733577) Journal
    If you can't get additional credit then you can't get yourself further into debt, which means that credit lenders and credit checking agencies can't make more money out of you for the duration of the freeze.

    Helping people get more into debt is what these guys do. Why would they be remotely in favour of a measure that (along with helping to reduce the likelyhood of credit-related fraud) would allow you to stop yourself from spending money that you don't have and thus digging yourself further into the hole that they want you to live your life in.

    Remember, when these guys say credit they mean debt.
  • B-b-b-but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer (890720) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:18PM (#19733597) Journal
    I thought information wants to be free?

    Oh, not personal information, you say? Just the ones and zeroes that we want access to, not the ones and zeroes that they want access to?

    The information age is a double-edged sword. Just as we can make better purchasing decisions based on easily aggregated information, companies can make better lending/purchasing decisions based on easily aggregated information. Is there a correlation between credit scores and suitabilty as borrowers or tenants? Sure. Why should we fault the companies that operate more efficiently because they take that into consideration? And FWIW, your credit history (aside from bankruptcies) can be rebuilt in less than seven years.

    And no, it's not impossible to live without credit, you just need to make some sacrifices. It's a question of how much you value the privacy of information you choose to make public.
  • What Torques Me.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:23PM (#19733663)
    What torques me about the credit reporting bureaus is the useless information they supply.

    True case in point: My sister worked for a bank that did mortgage and consumer lending. When they pulled an applicant's credit record, that record includes everyone else who has also accessed that credit record. Although it should be illegal, they would use any reason possible to turn down someone who had recent hits on their credit reports because they didn't want to deal with customers who might be "shopping around for the best credit deal." In this circumstance, totally irrelevant credit data -- i.e. who else had accessed your credit record recently -- was used against you.

    These bastards have to go down!

  • by linuxwrangler (582055) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @02:16PM (#19734319)
    I bet these 2.3 million people [sfgate.com] don't want the law weakened.
  • by Intrinsic (74189) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @02:25PM (#19734479) Homepage
    I'm an avid believer in minimizing my credit use. I think obtaining credit for certain things like buying a car or a house is fine, but I think credit cards give us a false sense of security. In that, it causes us to to devalue what things are worth. When you buy something with cash in hand you feel a sense of empowerment because you have the means to accomplish what you set out to do NOW. With credit you are operating at a deficiency (if you use credit cards to pay for things with money that you don't plan on having in the early future) You don't have worth to give you to the means to accomplish what you want, so you resort to sacrificing your financial future for a short term gain that isn't always quantifiable. This causes you to accumulate debt that you didn't think you would have. Now im not blaming people for this, its just the way it is and I understand that people feel like they need to obtain credit to buy in times of need, im just not sure how far you should go.

    Secondly, I think that credit report system is flawed, having lenders use it for lending purposes are certainly understandable. The problem is I don't think its a good idea to use it as an end all solution to determine if someone is legit. People change, mistakes are made and are possibly corrected. Also the big thing i have a problem is with is that it is used by non-lenders. Paying bills such as utilities and rent should not even be factored into the use of credit reports. The largest problem of all, you don't have much control over what goes on your record. Basically you are putting someone else in power of determining your creditability and that is not something you want to do.

    I'm interested in knowing if anyone would be interested in joining a grass roots effort to limit the scope of credit bureau influence.

    I'm going to setup a website put something together, please email me if you are interested
    trinsic@in-trinsic.net
  • Hop on over to GreenDimes and sign up. For $36/yr (at least that's what it cost when I signed up a few months ago), they purge your name from all these mailing-lists AND plant one tree a month in your name. So you can reduce the flow of junk (which saves trees) and have trees planted. It gets you that much closer to carbon neutrality.

    FWIW, before I signed up, I used to have my box stuffed with junk on a daily basis. Now only the occasional piece trickles in, and that's only from companies who haven't scrubbed their lists yet.

    • by Skreems (598317) on Tuesday July 03 2007, @01:18PM (#19733603)
      Bullshit. The states should be more powerful than they are. There's nothing worse than a federal government dictating one-size-fits-all laws that don't really work for 49% of the population.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Of course, the corollary to that is if the minimum set of laws that are provided aren't to your liking, there's proportionally less you can do about it. Which is the argument for the strongest governance being at the smallest level. If your city council screws you on whether you're allowed to put solar panels on your roof or a windmill in your back yard (because they're eyesores), you can directly agitate for rule change and represent an almost-significant number of votes. Failing that, you can move outside