Comment by vundercind

Comment by vundercind 9 hours ago

39 replies

Behind the ball by 15 years to start taking this seriously and beginning to think about pushing back, but better late than never.

Next please reign in the CRAs.

flycaliguy 9 hours ago

I think Snowden was bang on when in 2013 he warned us of a last chance to fight for some basic digital privacy rights. I think there was a cultural window there which has now closed.

  • orthecreedence 8 hours ago

    Snowden pointed and everyone looked at his finger. It was a huge shame, but a cultural sign that the US is descending into a surveillance hell hole and people are ok with that. As someone who was (and still is) vehemently against PRISM and NSLs and all that, it was hard to come to terms with. I'm going to keep building things that circumvent the "empire" and hope people start caring eventually.

    • digging 7 hours ago

      > and people are ok with that

      I've seen no evidence of this. People mostly either don't understand it for feel powerless against it.

      • dylan604 6 hours ago

        There's also a vast amount of people that were just too young to be aware of Snowden's revelations. These people are now primarily on TikTok what not, and I doubt there's much in those feeds to bring them to light while directly feeding the beast of data hoarding.

      • davisr 6 hours ago

        > I've seen no evidence of this

        Over 99% of Americans point a camera at themselves while they take a shit.

      • immibis 7 hours ago

        I've seen no evidence people aren't ok with that. Most people around me didn't care about the Snowden revelations. It was only tech people who tightened up security.

      • ajsnigrutin 6 hours ago

        But won't you think of the children!

        (EU is trying to implement chat control again...)

        We need more real-world analogies... "see, this is like having a microphone recording everything you say in this bar"... "see, this is like someone ID-ing you infront of every store and recording what store you've visited, and then following you inside to see what products you look at. See, this is like someone looking at your clothes and then pasting on higer price tags on products. ..."

    • Clubber 8 hours ago

      >and people are ok with that.

      All the propagandists said he was a Russian asset, as if even if that were true, it somehow negated the fact that we were now living under a surveillance state.

      >Snowden pointed and everyone looked at his finger.

      This is a great way of putting it.

devonbleak 9 hours ago

It makes me irrationally angry that I suddenly started getting spam emails from Experian. Like motherfucker I never consented for you to have my data, then you leak it all, now you're sending me unsolicited junk email? It's just such bullshit that I'm literally forced to have a relationship with these companies to freeze my credit or else I'm at the mercy of whoever they decide to release my information to without my authorization.

  • nicholasjarnold 9 hours ago

    Yep. It sucks. Zero consequences of any import for those companies as far as I'm aware too. Tiny fines end up being "cost of doing business". Then they get to externalize their failures onto us by using terms like "Identity Theft", which indicates something was stolen from ME and is now MY problem.

    In actuality some not-well-maintained systems owned by <corp> were hacked or exposed or someone perpetrated fraud on a financial institution and happened to use information that identifies me. It's really backwards.

    PSA: If you haven't already, go freeze your credit at Experian, TransUnion, Equifax and Innovis. It will make the perpetration of this type of fraud much more difficult for adversaries.

    • singleshot_ 8 hours ago

      PSA pro tip: they will try to steer you toward “locking” your account. Don’t fall for it. Freeze your account.

  • twoodfin 9 hours ago

    My pet solution has been to make the credit reporters liable for transmitting false information to the CRAs.

    Chase tells Experian I opened a new line of credit with them, but it later is demonstrated that it was a scammer with my SSN? Congratulations, $5,000 fine.

    Of course this all gets priced in to the cost and availability of consumer credit. Good! Now the lenders have an incentive to drive those costs down (cheaper, better identity verification) to compete.

    • trinsic2 7 hours ago

      Can you describe how you make them liable in this arrangement?

      • twoodfin 6 hours ago

        You can challenge entries your credit report today. Win the challenge, whoever reported the entry is liable to the Feds. Maybe add a modest bounty for the injured taxpayer.

    • lotsofpulp 8 hours ago

      The solution is much simpler. Put all of the consequences of being defrauded by a borrower onto the lender.

      If a lender wants to be repaid, then they need to show the borrower all the evidence they have for proof that the borrower entered into the contract.

      If all a lender has is the fact that a 9 digit number, date of birth, name, and address were entered online, then the borrower simply has to say “I did not enter that information”, and the lender can go pound sand.

      Guarantee all the lenders will tighten up their operations very quickly, and consequently, so will the loans that appear on one’s credit report.

      • ryandrake 7 hours ago

        Right. This is a problem between the lenders and the people who stole from the lenders. The person whose name/number was used shouldn't even be part of the transaction or part of the problem.

        They call it "Identity Theft" instead of what it should be called: Bank fraud. The term "Identity Theft" 1. needlessly pulls an otherwise uninvolved person into the mix, suddenly making it their problem too, and 2. downplays the bank's negligence.

        If someone uses my name to take out a loan, and the bank stupidly lets them, this shouldn't even remotely be my problem. I shouldn't even have to know about it. This is the bank's problem from their own stupidity.

      • sib 5 hours ago

        "Put all of the consequences of being defrauded by a borrower onto the lender" - that seems a bit strange.

        Imagine saying "put all of the consequences of getting robbed onto the bank, not the robber"

        • lotsofpulp 4 hours ago

          Who bears the consequences of their home being robbed? Or mugged on the street? Or a contractor taking payment for services and then disappearing?

          Why are we subsidizing lenders’ by putting this ridiculous burden on people who have nothing to do with the lender’s business?

          The lender can pay to appropriately verify their borrower’s identity, or go to court and sue for damages like everyone else has to.

      • twoodfin 6 hours ago

        Lenders hand over bad loans to collection agencies (“accept the consequences”) all the time. Cost of doing business. That an innocent person’s credit is destroyed is just collateral damage from their perspective.