Slashdot Mirror
The Tightening Net: Part One
JD got a letter in the mail just before Christmas, telling him his student loan application had been denied because an independent credit search agency had uncovered a $120 debt he'd allegedly incurred four years ago -- when he would have been a teenager. The bank said it wasn't responsible for the credit information, and the collection agency that listed his debt wasn't responsible for the loan denial.
With his University of Minnesota tuition money held up, he couldn't register for classes, access his grades or eat at the cafeteria. When he called the bank loan officer (it took three days to reach her), she told him a computer credit agency in Arkansas had red-flagged his loan. All she could tell JD was that the debt had showed up in an online collection agency's files; she didn't know the details. "We don't really have anything to do with it," he remembers her telling him in an odd farewell. If the bank didn't have any responsibility, he wondered, who did?
When JD called the number for the credit firm listed on his loan rejection form, he got a recording: the firm didn't take telephone calls about credit information, supposedly for security reasons (but probably to evade enraged callers.)
The message instructed those people questioning their credit problems (JD had no debts, so far as he knew; he was too young at the time of the alleged problem to have credit cards) to write registered letters, then submit the overdue payments by mail. In the meantime, there was no way he could learn the details of the alleged delinquency, or even how to pay up.
JD wrote the letter -- his tuition payment was past due by this point, and desperation was setting in -- only to get a form saying he owed the $120 for music ordered by mail. He could challenge or appeal the debt, but that would take at least another 30 days, by which time, he'd be suspended, a "ghost" student, allowed to stay in his dorm and attend classes, but not to register or get grades.
I've gotten a number of e-mails like this in recent months, raising serious questions about growing databases, the way financial firms share personal information and use tracking software, and the impact these factors have on privacy, personal dignity and consumer's rights.
We've heard some public discussion about "identity theft," and about credit ratings damaged by thieves and crackers, but there may be an more widespread problem: privacy invasions of people who have minor legal or financial problems -- all now collected and instantly reported by credit and collection agencies using high-powered tracking software -- and institutions' often disproportionate responses. Sophisticated software and growing computer networks and databases mean that no transgressions of any sort are private, or truly past. Rack up a debt or commit a crime, no matter how minor or long ago, and you're tagged for years, perhaps for life.
Suddenly, we all seem to live at the mercy of credit-tracking companies. Companies and organizations -- especially those, like insurance firms, that rely on stats and formulas -- are no longer able to make sensible or humane judgements about what these agencies uncover. Instead, software seems to be making the calls on consumers' reliability and integrity.
For instance, JP56 at earthlink writes that she was denied a teaching job because of a drunk driving arrest that occurred a few weeks after she'd turned eighteen (she's now twenty-eight). She had gotten drunk at a high school graduation party, and drove afterward. Dumb behavior, for sure, but she says she isn't a regular drinker, has had no other violations, and that her penalty was a 60-day license suspension.
Dan was denied car insurance after he hit two deer in Pennsylvania within a six-month period. "Because of mild winters, there are tons of deer around," he wrote me. "I was doing a lot of driving -- I was working two jobs to pay for school -- late at night. One time a deer ran into the side of the car, another I hit it straight on. Then I moved to San Francisco. Three years later, I get a letter from my insurance company referring me to this credit tracking company. My insurance is denied, says the insurance company. It was years ago, and it wasn't my fault. But there wasn't anything I could do. I had to get into this state pool and pay three times the going rate. And I've never had a traffic ticket in my life."
Peter agreed to buy some vintage comic books from a phone-order firm on a monthly payment plan. He says he didn't realize how elaborate a procedure was required to stop getting the comics. He went off to college, not realizing the bills were still piling up (plus his family had moved), until he applied for a car loan and got turned down because a collection agency had red-flagged him in a computer database. No car. "First off, this comic place took advantage of kids like me. I did order the comics, but didn't understand the complexity of the arrangement. Then I moved and didn't get any more bills or comics. I had no idea this was building up, and no way of straightening it out that wouldn't cost a fortune and take months and months. Now my name is in some computer and I owe a lot of money. And the original company has changed hands a dozen times. Nobody there wants to hear about this. It's a nightmare."
AndyP wrote two months ago that he'd been arrested for vandalism after one Halloween mischief night when he was sixteen. An online tracking agency dug up the arrest -- even though it was a misdeanor offense, was supposed to be kept sealed, and had happened a decade earlier. "I was turned down because my company was working on a government project and we all needed a moderate security clearance. I never got it sorted out, because it was technically true. But jeez, it was a spray-painting incident. I guess in certain quarters, I'm unemployable for the rest of my life."
My e-mailers complain that even though appeals and application procedures exist, there are few checks on these agencies devoted to rummaging through people's pasts. Most of us have messed up a bit at one point or another, and now those incidents can be dredged up and used against us without much in the way of due process. Some are in blatant defiance of supposed federal consumer-protection laws, laws which seem porous, to say the least. Do people have the right to own the details of their own lives?
Students in particular have sent me a stream of stories like JD's, but the issue is getting much broader than student loans. Credit and collection companies run down past traffic tickets, immigration problems, child support payment histories, arrests and debts, all being fed into rapidly expanding databases as records are digitalized. Banks, insurers, employers and government agencies can hire these companies to run credit and security checks, then claim they have nothing to do with the resulting decisions. For the people trapped in this tightening net, it's a procedural nightmare.
Under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, consumers have the right to contact these companies and get some details of their supposed crimes or debts. But since almost any financial agency can enter information into these growing and increasingly-linked data banks, it can take weeks or months to figure out exactly what the alleged problems are.
You might be surprised to know what your credit "rights" are under the U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act, especially considering how often they seem to be ignored. You can find the complete text of the FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681-1681u at the Federal Trade Commission's web site. Among the protections provided to you by law:
- You can dispute inaccurate information with the consumer reporting agency (CRA) involved. Anyone who uses information from a CRA to take action against you -- denying an application for credit, insurance or employment -- must give you the name, address and phone number of the CRA.
- Inaccurate information must be corrected or deleted, assuming you can prove it's inaccurate and the CRA agrees it's inaccurate, but the CRA is not required to remove accurate data from your file unless it is outdated.
- You can dispute inaccurate items with the source of the information (if you can reach them).
- Outdated information may not be reported. In most, but not all cases, a CRA may not report negative information that is more than seven years old; ten years for bankruptices. (My e-mail suggests this is wantonly ignored. Some institutions don't always have to say precisely why they took an action, and in many cases, you'll never know).
- Your consent is required for reports that are provided to employers, or reports that contain medical information. And you may choose to exclude your name from CRA lists for unsolicted credit and insurance offers, assuming you know where the CRA is and what it's doing and can reach them.
(Note: Credit rights are also covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; thanks to reader William Lockwood for the reminder.)
It doesn't sound half bad, but trying reaching a CRA for yourself to test how easy it is or how responsive they are. Notice also that there are no restrictions on selling information or passing it along to agencies the CRA deems appropriate.
And where there are disputes, people often have no recourse but time-consuming and expensive legal action. Even then, there are no clear guidelines for resolving disputes. Simply because a consumer says he never incurred that debt, banks and other institutions aren't required to accept his word. There are no uniform national laws requiring credit companies to respond in a particular way. Although I have no hard statistics, many of the people e-mailing me said they paid these debts rather than fight or challenge them, simply because they couldn't afford not to and were afraid of a time-consuming process. "It's an unconscious kind of extortion," write Jan, a student from the University of Florida. "They don't threaten you, but they don't have to. How can you prove you didn't owe $100 bucks five years ago, and can you afford to have your loan held up in the meantime? Not me."
There's scant protection for people who might have been victims of theft or simple error, or who made a minor mistake earlier in their lives, or who need issues resolved quickly. Only perfect people, it appears, are safe.
Next: Technology is eroding some rights, as the reasons for collecting data on citizens grows. Is privacy worth keeping in the country that invented the idea? Some other countries think so.
Dignity and privacy are not being eroded by technology. They're being eroded by people. The technology is simply "how" they're doing it. Take the technology away, and as long as the people are still determined to violate each other, they will find a way to do it.
So you're describing a dysfunctional organization of disconnected entities that claim no responsibility for the system as a whole, and make no sense together...
:)
...much like the latest Katz article. Is this deconstructionism? Katz, are you getting literate on us?
Seriously, though, I'm not surprised; this is the logical extension of bureaucracy and outsourcing, two horrible recent trends. Not only does everyone give you the runaround, but since they're all independent companies, they all claim no responsibility for their actions, and give you no customer service.
In fact, it sounds like there should be a niche market for people who know what the procedure is here, and help you cut through red tape for a fee. That would help a lot more than, say, home equity loans...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It seems to me as if Katz's ranting is misplaced. He argues about the evils of collected information, showing why the collection is a bad thing by showing what is done with the information. Can't information be used in good ways?
My point is that information isn't necessarily bad; what's bad is how it's put to use. Katz complaines about how the information is used; instead of ranting against the information itself, why not criticize those who misuse information?
"Feel a glory in so rolling / on the human heart a stone" --E. A. Poe, "The Bells"
I have two friends who work for collection agencies. You should hear the other side of the story, the millions of people who accumulate debt and try to run away from it.
Ironically some of the people who seem to bitch the most about privacy seem to be the same ones listing every detail about themselves on their personal web page.
There's no way around it - you have no privacy, deal with it.
These stories are all sad and all, but it is part of the dual-edged sword of technology. If people want the convenience of getting a nice email telling them the new CD from ... is out, and you get a 10% discount because our records show you bought 10 CDs in the last 12 months, then those people are also subjected to the risk that the system will get screwed up, and you'll get emails about some other artist, or no discount. This is really just one tiny part of the larger problem, that technology is being introduced for the sake of it, without thought to the social and privacy implications. I mean if these credit checks worked perfectly and it was easy to find out who originally collected the information and say "but I paid that on the right date, here's my receipt" and get the loan etc. approved, are the credit checks still a bad thing? Are they a better of two evils as opposed to having to walk into a bank manager's office and conjure up paperwork of the last few years to prove you are a good credit risk?
--
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Hell, read Database Nation for a much better overview of these types of problems.
Best Slashdot Co
Trouble is, I wonder how they can show that even accurate information ten years ago leads to a bad customer today. They seem to be going overboard, where the risk vs reward calculation is falling out of their favor.
Sure, if someone did something two or three years ago, they might not have learned much, and may be liable to do it again.... but I find it hard to believe that actions that haven't been repeated in the past ten years (like the would-be teachers drunk driving conviction) show any correlation to the likeliness of them doing it today.
In the meantime, my fellow young people, keep your nose clean. incidentally, does Katz get paid by the word?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
In the UK I had great credit, I had a credit card with a limit of 2000 quid (about 1/3 of my annual pay).
Now I moved to the US, earning 10 times as much and I have to *plead* with my bank to get a measily 700$ limit card.The cards are both Visa cards, you'd think that this web of knowledge would show me up as having a good record in the UK... But no they only want to use this extra research when it benefits them.
As for this particular kid's problem... what the hell was he doing signing up for classes before his loans cleared? How would he have handled it if the loan was rejected for a legitimate reason?
A credit card of mine was stolen during a break-in once, and clearing the charges on the stolen card took me almost a year... so I know how frustrating the stituation can be, but a lot of people make things worse by actually relying on credit. Every financial advisor in the world will tell you the same thing: Live within your means. You should not carry an ongoing balance on your cards, and should only borrow long-term for a house, education, and maybe your car. As spiffy as the new Apple G4 may be, you should try to get along with your P133 Linux box unless you have the cash to buy something new.
If people did not overextend themselves on credit, debtor errors would be less of a personal tragedy, and more of a mere inconvenience.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I am about to begin looking to buy a townhouse, and started doing some research, and all of the books point out that you should check your credit reports for mistakes (obviously). I filed to get copies from the 3 major companies (Trans Union Credit, Experian, and Equifax) and discovered that 2 of the 3 had "minor" mistakes on them. One had an old drivers license number, and another had my last name mispelled AND had that I still owed $30 on a student loan (paid off 2 years ago, but the $30 would not have been due for probably another 5+ years) but it still was a mistake. Even these minor problems could possibly cause problems when applying for a mortgage. Anway, people should check their credit reports from ALL 3 of these major credit report agenceies to verify mistakes. I know that Mass residents are entitled to one free copy/year from each, as well as a few other states, but even if you are not, it is probably worth spending the $8/report on all three of these at least one time, and probably keep up every so often as well.
I'm completely unable to get a credit card, even the ones that you pay $500 for to get $500 in credit. I own a successful business, I have employees, I pay my vendors. I pay all of my monthly bills: telephone, health insurance, cable, bank loan, etc., etc. Yet I'm always turned down for credit, because I have no credit. A catch-22.
Out of curiousity, I ordered a copy of my credit report about a year ago. It reported that I still owe on a house that I bought when I was 12, a car when I was 14, and some rather-pricey jewelry that I got when I was 15. I must have been one hell of a precocious youth.
Of course, I called the credit agency. They told me that it was a "computer error," and removed all of those from my record. At least that part was easy. What I want to know is how many of those credit checks brought up the same result. And if this information has propagated to other databases.
Credit baffles me. I hate it.
-Waldo
Bad information is all that's propagated - when I was living in the UK I had a VISA card with a 2000 pound limit, about 1/3 of my annoula pay. Now I move out to california all my credit dissapears, I had to plead with the company to get a debit card with a lousy 700$ limit - despite that fact that It's also a VISA card and my salary is 10 times what I was getting in my PhD. You'd think that VISA would be able to base my application on my UK history... but that doesn't count...
These databases only deal in bad news.
Being followed around for life by a minor misdeed from years ago is a bit too much; the punishment should fit the crime. At some point, one has paid one's debt to society and should be free to move on.
Another problem with the system is that there are three major credit reporting agencies. So, you may have a clean slate at one, but the other has red flags all over the place. So you might get your credit checked through one agency and discover everything is fine, but the same check through another agency could turn up problems. In theory the agencies share info but not always.
Personally I recommend that everybody make a point of getting a copy of their credit report on a routine basis. If there is a problem it is much better to see it early on rather than get an unpleasant surprise when you are trying to buy a house, a car, or an education. There's several services out there that offer credit monitoring services that will report problems and give you quarterly updates of your information.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
This is a very important point that he didn't mention at all. The result of all these databases being joined together has been, at least topically, a great convenience to consumers. Credit reports can be had almost instantaneously, etc.
Whether we (personally) feel that this is an invasion of privacy doesn't matter. The consumer (as a whole) has accepted the tradeoff of convenience versus privacy.
I'd like to see some hard statistics (not anecdotal evidence from emails that Katz gets) about how often there are mistakes in credit files like this. I know about five years ago there was a big push to make it easier for consumers to get access and change their personal information.
It's a simple fact that when you have a system that supports several hundred million consumers, there are going to be errors. Should we throw the whole thing out and go back to doing everything with paper and pencil? I don't think anyone would want that.
LL
"If you are falling, dive." -Joseph Campbell
The Credit Reporting Agency("CRA") is blaming it on the reporter. The company that refuses a loan/job/rental blames it on the CRA, but not the particular item on the report. But, they ask for an explaination of everything.
A lawsuit for libel is impossible here. Not that you can show that it's libel, but how do you show damages? That you didn't get the loan/rental/job? They will argue that it's not just their report.
Fight Spammers!
I used to work for a small consumer finance agency, where I'd review credit applications, look at credit bureau reports, and did telephone collections. Unless things have changed, and they either have for the case of student loans, these kids dont' know all their rights or options.
"They don't threaten you, but they don't have to. How can you prove you didn't owe $100 bucks five years ago, and can you afford to have your loan held up in the meantime? Not me."
You don't have to prove you didn't owe $100 five years ago, they should prove it. At the very least they need to provide a signed piece of paper (promissary note) saying "I owe you $xxx.xx" If they can't produce this, or some other evidence then you don't owe them anything. But in your case you probably don't have much time for all this fighting. All I can suggest is contact your state banking commission and file a complaint.
If you've ever been turned down for credit, you're entitled to a free credit report. Two credit reporting agencies are Equifax and Experian Contact them, and get a copy of your report. Its kind of tricky to read if you've never seen one, but they include instructions and everyone should check their credit report once a year.
If something doesn't look right on your credit report, challenge it. The lending institution has to respond within a certain amount of time (30-45 days?), or it will be wiped out of your credit report. That is, unless the law about this has changed since I've worked in the collections field.
That means, you do go out and get a copy of your credit report every year, right? (Depending on which state you live, it might be even free.)
Make sure everything inside of it is what you expect. If not, call them up can fix it. Fix possible problems before they become real ones. You will need to do this before you buy a house, or car, so learn now while everything is still okay.
You won't believe what you see: my wife had credit charges from her mother, just because their names are similar (not even the same!). We had to call up and have these removed.
Additionally, you will see lots of bottom-feeding banks pinging your report for "pre-approved" offers. There were literally hundreds of credit checks by people that had no fucking business looking in there. Thankfully, you can call 1-888-5OPTOUT to stop this insanity. Do it now. They will mail you a form which you need to sign, but do it! Watch your "pre-approved" credit card snailmail spam drop to zero.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
Credit bureaus play the same game with credit scores (which, incidentally, the FCRA does not require be disclosed to the consumer). They know that creditors use a cutoff score, but they maintain the pleasant fiction in their written documents that this isn't done, skirting the harsher government regulation they so richly deserve. Until regulations tighten, this wink-wink, nudge-nudge arrangement will only get worse.
It's called filing for bankruptcy.
Since we're talking about an actual debt here, and not just a "debt to society", the people in question should make a good-faith effort to pay that debt. Then they can start building credit.
I mean, really, what happens when you steal money normally? Of course we're not going to give you more money to steal if we can absolutely help it!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
There are some poeple who could make it their mission to work against these credit agencies, some are hackers, some are more extreme.
One small thing everyone can do to create change is take those pre-paid envelopes that regularly come in junk snailmail, stuff them with blank forms or paper, and return them to the junk mailer.
This causes the junkmailer to pay twice for their junk, once to send it, and once to get it back. Plus all the time it takes for their staff to open and discard the blank returns. It not much more than a raised middle finger, but at least it is something, and it hits them where it hurts, the bottom line.
To the Moon!
http://www.beefjerky.com
Inaccurate information must be corrected or deleted, assuming you can prove it's inaccurate and the CRA agrees it's inaccurate, but the CRA is not required to remove accurate data from your file unless it is outdated.
Nice Law, Guilty until proven innocent. Every person is a criminal if accused by some Corporate accuser - niiiiceeee.
Here in the Netherlands (and more generally in the whole of Europe) these things are much beter controlled. There are very strict rules about what information a company is allowed to keep about you and what they are allowed to do with it. They are obligated to tell you on request what information they have about you and they must ask your permission to give the information to anyone else.
Also, there is exactly _one_ credit history agency in the Netherlands. They only know how much you owed and when, but not to whom or what for. Records of debts are destroyed after five years, so after five years there is no way anyone can know you ever had any debts unless you tell them about it.
Sure - people SHOULD be responsible for their actions (and it seems more and more people feel they shouldn't - witness silly lawsuits after accidents because people always feel "it's never my fault, it's someone elses fault") but there has to be limits. Being denied for a job ten or fifteen years after a minor misdemeanour you made as a teenager is hardly just. Most teenagers exhibit horrible judgement - it's the nature of being one. I'd wager that most people out of their teenage years who don't have a record for some kind of minor misdemeanour or offense do so only because they weren't caught.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Yet, when we went to get a car loan from our Credit Union, we were told we couldn't get the "A" rate because our credit wasn't good enough. Those "scores" that pop up on bankers' screens really, really baffle me. I asked for an explanation for why the score was what it was, and the standard reply was "You must have something bad in your report, but the Computer figures out your score and I have no clue how it does it." I knew that our reports were clean...
Morons! I would have pushed the issue and figured out exactly how that score got computed, but I shopped around and got a great rate from the dealer, and promptly forgot about the whole affair until now.
Lessons learned:
Get all your credit reports BEFORE getting loans on your own.
If that's not possible, definitely ask for more information if you get declined for a loan and get your report then!
If you know your credit is good, shop around!
It has been a long time since I was a student and I wasn't too clear on these things even back then, however: my impression is that situations like that are common, and forced by various deadlines -- usually the schools' deadlines, but for international students, it can be their visas. All sorts of wierd-ass catch-22 situations result from policies like "you must be a registered student to qualify (for this thing you need to register)".
I went to a private institution (not a state school, where they don't seem to give a rats ass) and I have heard many horror stories from the nice Financial Aid people about what various students have had to go through (generally in the context of the nice FinAid people trying desperately to rescue some kid's education). There are only several thousand ways to be fucked over (wrt paying tuition); a fluke credit report is only one of them, and not necessarily any less just than some of the other reasons you can be turned down for a loan or grant.
Your best strategy is always to keep on Being A Student to the extent you can, right up to the moment they throw you out. If you can't register officially, talk to the profs and sit in the classes anyways so that when/if the money clears up, you won't be behind in your studies. Stay on campus if at all possible -- going home (unless home is very nearby) makes it damn hard to walk into the FinAid office and fill out forms. Etc.
You're kidding right? Is that actually true? Most kids don't have credit, right? If you're under 18, you basically can't have credit in your name, because (unless an emancipated minor) your signature is legally worthless.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
I was the victim of an inaccurate background check. Five years ago, I was hired for a job in NYC for which a background check was required. I had to give my notice to my old company before the check could be begun. I did so. Two weeks later, after my last day at my old company and as I was about to leave Chicago with my stuff packed up in my car, I got a phone call that there was a problem with the background check -- there was a bench warrent for my arrest for failure to appear to answer a drug charge. This was a Thursday and I was scheduled to begin work on Monday.
Now I've never been arrested and I've never failed to appear before a judge when summoned. The company was going to check into it further, but they wanted me to bring proof that there *wasn't* a warrant out for my address.
I called the local police who said "Come on down and we'll work it out." I wasn't stupid enough for that one. I called the office of the State's Attorney and asked them to look up the warrant. At first they said that they couldn't tell me anything. After explaining my story the guy said he shouldn't tell me this, but there were no warrents out for my arrest.
I felt more confident, but still had nothing to show my new employer. I went to the local police station and they took my ID and ran a warrant check. They said there were no warrants, but they couldn't give me anything in writing.
I left the next morning and called the company from the halfway point. They said that Equifax (a credit reporting company) had to send someone to the courthouse. Don't bother reporting for work on Monday.
I drove the rest of the way to New York not having a job. In the end it worked out alright. The warrant was for someone with the same name but different address and date of birth. I started the new job on Wednesday (and was paid for the two days that I didn't work while they were checking out the report.)
But it could have been much worse. Equifax sent me a copy of the report listing the warrant for my address, but it had disclaimers all over it that they are not responsible for the accuracy of the information. If I had lost that job because of a slanderous background check, would I have had any recourse?
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
These things are usually tracked by SS number.
Illegal aliens and identity shifters just pull
a number out of thin air (perhaps yours) for
their purposes.
Some employers now check your credit report
for employment. Now it is mainly to root out
thieves. but is the job market softens in a
recession, they may use any anomaly as an excuse
not to hire.
Everything seems to have worked out fine, except that it inexplicably took over a month to get 3 of the bills forwarded, at which point some nasty letters had been sent. Consumers Energy sent my name to a collections agency (I'm still less than 2 months overdue, here), and the next time I applied for a credit card I got rejected for "excessive debt" and "failure to pay" some bills.
Excessive? The bill was $109. And I was making $48,000 per year at the time. AND the whole reason I didn't pay on time was because I was busy moving and the mail forwarded so slowly.
Not to sound like a complete shit, but what about those of us who DIDN'T vandalize somebody else's property?
If there are enough people who didn't do such a thing when they were young to pick from, why take even a minimal risk with somebody who did? I spent my teenage years quietly doing what I was supposed to do, obeying my parents, trying to work hard, and learning everything I could. Why SHOULDN'T I be preffered over somebody who spray painted "SuX0R my B4LLz" on the side of a building?
Now, the point that he was a minor and the record should have been sealed is a different matter. (of course, it could depend on the state as to whether the record is sealed or not, or to the amount of damage the vandalism caused) If that is the case, then the guy shouldn't have any problems, and should count himself lucky for that fact.
But to wave the "wild and crazy youth" flag and expect everybody to salute it is poor thinking. There are enough people who were mature enough at 16 to understand that other people's property is to be respected, not trashed. And they SHOULD be preffered over a reformed hooligan.
Course, that's just my opinion
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Credit and driving record databases are now being
used to screen car rentals at some locations.
Since it costs a couple dollars each check,
you don't find out at reservation time, but at
a rental counter in an alien city. The rental
companies have decided its worth screwing a few
precent of their customers at savings of the
bad apples.
Driving record databases are sold by states mainly
for insurance company purposes. But now their is
a secondary market in car rental screening and
general credit screening.
I don't have any credit cards yet, but one thing that i do with my ATM card and Debit card is to sign the back like your supposed too. I always leave enough room on that writing strip so that i can write "See Drivers License" (yes it can be done. you can fit two lines of writing on that strip) This makes it so that when you are in a store, when they check your signature, they will usually ask for your ID, and you can show them your picture.
While this doesn't help any for online transactions, it does help if your card gets stolen. Anyway most cards have a policy of non liability for fraudulent transactions.
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
I somewhat disagree:
A few years ago, I had a collection agent hounding me for a SprintPCS bill that was past due. (I did have an account with them, and it was current. The account they had in question was absolutely not mine.)
Even though I patently stated that the account was not mine, and the account I actually had was current and paid, and had been for the 6 months I had it. It did not matter to them. I eventually got it sorted out, but it took sending alot of paperwork back and fourth, and sending a notarized letter both to Sprint and the collection company to get it cleaned up. Thanfully, none of the reporting agents had it yet.
I strongly believe that things like this, left unchecked, can get very much out of control.
On mistakes made in the past as a teenager:
Why should this haunt you for the rest of your life? I understand accountability, and personal responsibility, but-- how is something you did when you were 18 and just out of highschool a reflection on the kind of person you are when you are almost 30? I certainly don't thing something you did 10 years ago should cost you your job when you have demonstrated that it was just simply youthful recklessness ...
---
The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout
And therein lies the problem -- according to the laws which are supposed to apply to everybody, a disclaimer is not a magic shield against a slander action. (That is, you can't just assert any old thing and CYA by inserting weasel words like "alleged".)
Apparently, credit agencies have gotten themselves a special loophole based on the rationalization that they'd otherwise be unable to risk reporting any negative information. This is nonsense -- they can buy liability insurance just like anyone else in a similarly exposed position, and have the cost thereof rise and fall with their error rate -- presented as a fig leaf to cover a political special favor.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
One day, I had invented the thing which we will refer to as IT... the greatest revolution of our time, greater than the Internet, sliced bread, and Larry Ellison combined. So I took a stroll down to the local bank so I could get financing to create prototypes of IT, so I could pitch IT to filthy rich computer billionaires, so I could have a book written about IT, so I could get on the cover of Wired and Time Magazine, knocking off that loser boy Shawn Fanning...
But then I went down there and found out I once had an unlicensed copy of Windows 3.1 on my old 486 in the closet, and I owed Microsoft $350 or else I wouldn't get the loan to create IT.
The funny thing is, I installed Slackware on that box years ago!
Unfortunately, Microsoft themselves didn't remember me owing them $350... when I sent them the money, they thought it was for something else, and send me pictures back of a hot naked sweaty Steve Ballmer. As such I'm scarred for life, and all the proceeds from IT now must go toward my therapy.
Reportedly I'll be seeing the same shrink as that kook Jeff "Hemos" Bates.
I'm in the habit of making up random SS numbers when people ask for them -- so much easier than the old 'Do I *have* to supply it?' routine.
//
Anyway, I'm in the process of getting an AT&T cell, and they ask for the last 4 digits, which I promply made up. You know what? The sales droid told me "Sorry sir, that's not what I have here in the computer". WTF?
Of course, I went straight to the head-droid-in-charge and asked what the deal was. She told me that they bought my SS# from a credit agency, which didn't make me too pleased.
Anyway, when I told her that I made up SS numbers all the time, she got real upset. Told me I could screw up my credit reports, etc.
I was happy to remind her that it's a credit world, I don't need credit, I don't want credit, and I've got people lining up begging me to take it. The only thing I might screw up was the AT&T database, and that really didn't keep me up at night.
We went round & round for almost 10 minutes -- it was a *lot* of fun.
call att.tweek("garbage keys")
The problem isn't so much that these agencies are stockpiling information; it's that they are *not* careful about ensuring that it's correct, and that they hide behind layers of subcontractors and bureaucracy to make it impossible to determine what the facts are, and how to correct them.
To give a personal example: 11 years ago, when I was an undergraduate at Rutgers University, I worked for the university as a programmer. The university made an error my first month on the job, and overpayed me by $500. Next month, they deducted the overpayment from my paychecks, and I assumed everything was straightened out.
Two years later, the University sent me a bill demanding repayment of the overpayment. I argued with them, including producing the pay stubs showing this, and they "cleared" the record.
One year after that, they came after me again. I again showed them the pay stubs, and this time they refused to even look at them, and sent it to a collection agency. At this point, I gave in, and repayed them - again.
Now, 10 years later, I'm supposed to get a refund from my NJ income taxes. I don't get it, because a different office at the University noticed the overpayment at some time in the last ten years, and filed it with the state as a delinquency.
It's over 10 years later. I no longer have the pay stubs, or the cancelled checks to show that I've payed this stuff *twice*. I need to pay it *again*, and I've got a delinquency on my credit record.
Who's responsible? I *can't* find out. It's all carefully hidden behind an elaborate web of agencies and offices, all of which deny both responsibility and authority to correct it. There is simply *no way* that I can get this straightened out, except by paying it *again*, and in all likelyhood, even if I pay it again, it will reappear a few years from now.
That's the problem: the tangled web of information providers, none of whom take any responsibility, none of whom can correct an error. Any time you try to correct an error, it gets deleted from one source - and almost instantly reappears in that source because they exchange information with all of the others.
Is it fair for a man who rapes a 13 year old girl walking home from school to get 1.5 years in prison, while some guy caught with cocaine for personal use gets 5 or more? Or a pot grower with a room full of bud to get 40 years no parole?
No, the laws in this country are fucked, so before you go whining about just punishment, take a look around at the major discrepancies occuring.
Identity theft -- theres almost no way to protect against it ...
And then theres totally weird shit... my brother was arrested for hit and run for an accident he was never in because some scam artist decided he looked like a good mark that day ... (Person gets you arrested for felony hit and run and says, -- um, -- if you pay us, 1000$ we won't file these charges against you (in CA they have the option sometimes) ... you can probably prove you weren't there but then you have to go to criminal court, hire a lawyer ... ).
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
1-888-5OPT-OUT
. asp
Call them, then listen to the options:
"Press 1 to be removed from marketing lists for 2 years"
(forgot what 2 was)
"Press 3 to be removed from marketing lists *permanently*"
Isn't it funny how they hide the "permanent" option?
From http://www.transunion.com/General/MarketingOptOut
"If you want your name and address removed from all mailing lists offered by the
main consumer credit reporting agencies: Trans Union, Experian, Equifax and
Innovis, call 888-5OPTOUT (888-567-8688), or write to the following address:
Trans Union LLC's Name Removal Option
P.O. Box 97328
Jackson, MS 39288-7328
Requests should include the following information:
First, middle, and last names (including Jr., Sr., III)
Current address
Previous address (if you've moved in the last six months)
Social Security Number
Date of birth
Signature
If you opt-out, you will no longer appear on direct marketing lists offered by
these four credit reporting agencies. However, you may continue to receive
commercial mailings based on lists from other sources. "
The problem is that these credit reporting agencies have NO accountability. If they lie about you, YOU have to prove them wrong. You are guilty until proven innocent.
Corporation is the idea that you can treat a company like a person in the eyes of the law, but unfortunately there is no accountability that goes with this. If a PERSON slanders you, they owe you damages. If a PERSON murders someone, they go to prison. If a Credit Reporting Agency screws you, they aren't taken to task on it.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Background: I worked as a programmer on the Royal Bank of Scotland's credit system for 3 years
In the UK we have the Data Protection Act. It allows anyone to request any company to give them a copy of ALL data held about them for a nominal fee (under US$20).
The best bit, however, is that you can legally demand that they correct any inaccuracies- be they factually incorrect, or merely misleading.
Once you track down the company giving you a dodgy credit rating, you do a DPA request on them and if they're telling porkies, demand that they correct it.
If they company can prove that their data is correct they can continue supplying it, but in that case you have the option of demanding that they supply a short written statement prepared by you every time they supply the data you believe to be misleading (eg. mitigating circumstances).
I actually had to code a program that would display "bad" creditors' prepared statements- the bank was legally obliged to display these statements on-screen to whoever requested credit data about such people.
Okay so it doesn't solve every problem but it definitely does help.
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
This is true, and I have my own story to prove it:
About 2 years ago I applied to rent an apartment. They ran a credit check, and said my credit wasn't "perfect" and therefore I could not move in. It was the only apartment available in the area and I HAD to move immediately. The leasing office wouldn't give me a copy of the report, but told me about it. I got a copy from the agency, Equifax.
Stated at the top: Birthdate - xx/xx/1975
One credit item stated:
Creditor: Macy's
Amount: $xxx.xx
Date issued: xx/xx/1968
Apparently I was issued a credit card before I was born, and since I used to work for MasterCard, I know that this was before credit cards were even invented! I called Equifax, they wouldn't remove it even though it's impossible. After a dozen phone calls to Macy's, someone there sent a letter to Equifax and they removed it.
Point being: the CRA was able to publisize my "bad" credit when the supposed credit problem isn't even feasable! Infuriated doesn't express how I felt. This one had nothing to do with technology; only lack of compassion, lack of caring, and hunger for money.
Developers: We can use your help.
The burden of proof should be on the credit reporting agency, and it isn't.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Why, oh why, can't the credit reporting agencies be sued for slander?
They will continue the current practice for as long as it is profitable to do so. Their system now is to take whatever information companies pay them to take and dump it into a database. Proof and error checking be damned. They just say, "We're not responsible."
Well, if I go around spreading lies, I am responsible, doubly so if I do it without even attempting to verify any facts.
Unfortunately, those denied credit are generally those who can't afford to launch a legal attack against a well funded opponent.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The system, as is, works fairly well. Yes, there are problems, and I'll address those. First, I'll deal with the Katzian whining:
Everyone knows that mail-order CD/comic warehouses try to rip you off. If you were stupid or greedy enough to think you could get 12 CDs for $1 or whatever and never be obligated for more, you deserve the hassle (especially since artists generally don't get royalties for CDs sold at a discount like that).
The deer guy? I lived somewhere with shitloads of deer, too (there were 19 on my lawn once), and I never hit any. To some degree, it's luck, but it's also a test of reflexes. The insurance company sees two claims in six months, and figures that either a) you suck at driving, b) you like hitting deer, or c) you drive at risky times in risky places. Consequently, you end up having to pay more for insurance. You still got insurance, it just cost more.
All the other people are being nailed for offenses they actually did commit. Drunk driving, and she only got a 60-day suspension? What the fuck? She could easily have killed someone. I wasn't that stupid when I was 16 or 18. Personally, I don't think she should be allowed to drive until she's 30. Getting turned down for a job seems like a small price to pay. Funny how everyone went nuts over Bush's DWI conviction, but it's somehow OK if you're just Joe Citizen.
The real problem here is not that these agencies exist and do what they do, but that it isn't easy enough for people to check and correct their own records. People should be notified whenever an "incident" is added to their record, and given the opportunity to dispute it. Jon Katz should be complaining about the errors, not the actual collection of the data. If you fuck up, there are consequences. Learn that, and everyone will be better off.
You can get it here, although I haven't checked it out myself. I'm too afraid of the massive credit problems associated with my name and don't want to tip them to the fact that I'm not dead as I have claimed.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
Your attitude amounts to "The system is perfect, it's the people who screwed up even if they were not personally to blame." But people made the system, how can it be perfect? How can anything that needs a registered letter to get any information about a so-called bad debt be called anything but deliberately obstructive?
You need an attitude adjustment.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
A close relative of the CRA's is an agency called ChexSystems. ChexSystems is supposed to keep information on people who have defrauded banks, but often all it takes to get on their list is one bounced check, or forgetting to move an automatic debit to your new account after closing the old one. A ChexSystems record is the KISS OF DEATH financially speaking.
I was reported to them for a car payment which was auto-debitted from my checking account. After cancelling my old account, I informed my bank that I wanted the payments to come from the new checking account. They didn't do it for three months (during which time I was calling them regularly to try to get the auto-debit moved), and the ensuing confusion was cause enough for this bank to report me to ChexSystems. Not that I knew anything about it at the time. It was only a year later, when I moved to another city and attempted to start a checking account there, that I found out what had happened. After looking all around town for a bank that did not use ChexSystems (and in a town like Dallas, there are a lot of banks to look at), I finally concluded that the only way for me to get a checking account would be to get rid of the ChexSystems record.
After some research, I determined that a ChexSystems entry stays on file for FIVE YEARS, and that it is almost impossible to either get the record removed before then (whether or not the information is valid) or to get an account with any institution despite the entry. After a week or so of trying to contact ChexSystems, it became obvious that if I was going to get anything done, it would be through the bank, not through them. ChexSystems said that the only way they would update their information would be at the request of the bank who reported me. Fine. I called the bank and it wasn't hard to get them to fax documentation to ChexSystems saying that all amounts were paid in full and that no outstanding debt existed. Thinking I had the problem taken care of, I attempted again to open a checking account.
No luck. It turns out that even if all amounts are paid, the mere presence of a ChexSystems record of the event is enough to be denied for any sort of account. I had to climb the bank's chain of command all the way to the director for the southwest region before getting any action. After spending a half hour of her (no doubt very expensive) time explaining what had happened to me, I was able to convince her to request that ChexSystems remove the record entirely. She told me that this essentially is never done, and that it was an enormous exception to their policies. I don't doubt it.
I consider myself very lucky. That was a year ago. The incident in question was a year before that. If I had not been able to convince this woman to purge my record, It would still be three years from now before I could have any hope of getting a basic checking account. During the time while I was sorting this stuff out, I was paying my apartment rent with money orders, cashing my paychecks at the local branch of the bank my company uses, and paying cash for everything I bought. No check card. No credit cards at that time. Can you imagine living that way for five years, because of either a screwup that wasn't your fault, or for one small mistake? It's appalling.
Here's an article that gives a fairly objective overview of the situation. And here's a site that takes a move combative stance.
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
Since About the 30's there has been a viscious trend in corprate america, that they want all the rights and privileges americans have but don't want to pay for it. Since the roughly after the great depression corparations in America have slowly been paying less and less taxes, thus making citizens pay more in place of thier greed. You Can Make All The New Tax Laws But all corparations are gonna do is just pass the bill and the buck always stops at consumer. Or if they decide somehow not to pass the buck on they will move to some 3rd world contry and get slave labor to do thier deeds and still keep extremely high prices.
Corpratations are doing nothing really but accelerating thier own end. Eventually the way things are going now, the world is gonna be off balance a few rich business men who control everything and have no accountability for thier actions and the majority just will snap and when someone decides to snap and convinces the majoprity of people that he is right, they are wrong, and that then leads to a revolution is at hand. This should be of no surprise history repeats itself end of story.
With All That Said, Personally i think the American Goverment is pussy whipped by American Corparations, by a combination of greed, ignorance, and fear. because they are doing nothing to protect the civil liberites and privacies that are being threatened now. The End Result is alot of people are going suffer.
It would be way too much of a coincidence to typo "%0D" at the end of an URL more than once.
Here is the right link.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
(Person gets you arrested for felony hit and run and says, -- um, -- if you pay us, 1000$ we won't file these charges against you (in CA they have the option sometimes)
Now THAT is criminal!!
If the police were about upholding the law then this would not be an option. Fuck with a system like that the cops would be making their own money. "Um yeah we'll just write up this guy. That takes care of our Christmas party!"
1. Everybody here agrees, I'm sure, that something needs to be done to prevent errors in this type of database. Credit agencies need to be doing redundant cross checking on their data, rather than just entering it and forgeting it.
2. There needs to be some kind of coherent scheme to decide what kind of information credit agencies should have access to. If I'm 55, a vandalism conviction from my teens clearly shouldn't prevent me from getting a home improvement loan. In fact, the agency probably shouldn't even have that data. However, there has to be some sort of resource to allow reasonable background checks. Banks need to know if their customers have declared bankruptcy in the past before they are approved for a new loan, for example.
3. Once rules have been created to decide what information is allowable, there needs to be a system in place to enforce these rules. If a juvenile conviction should be sealed, it's out. If the information is more than seven years old, it's out. And so on. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening.
4. Lastly, banks, employers, and others who use to data from the credit agencies need to use that information responsibly. They shouldn't be able to reject you out of hand as soon as some blip shows up on your record. First, the users of the data need to check the information for accuracy. Second, the information should be used fairly, and only when rationally acceptable.
In summary, banks, employers, and insurance providers have to right to rationally reject an applicant based on their past. They should have some access to information and should be able to turn you down based on appropriate criteria. However, some information shouldn't be available at all, and the information that is available should be examined by a real person who can make a reasonable decision about the importance of that information.
Imagine that you could get your employer to pay you "under the table" in cash - they wouldn't have to take out taxes (and thus, you wouldn't have to file - but if you have been filing all along, continue to file as a "below the poverty line" type deal, then slowly stop filing - because if you don't make any [reported] money, you don't have to file). Then, figure out a way to fake your own death - and become a "non-person".
True - it would be tough living this way (very tough) - but legally, you wouldn't exist anymore as a person! And in today's society, this is rapidly becoming something worth pursuing...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
So much of the "populism" of the recent era - including the knee-jerk hostility to remedy by litigation (which has spawned a whole slow of legislation meant to restrict litigation, which has generally made it harder for the poor to sue) is so in the corporate interest that it is difficult to see it as anything except constructed.
Equifax is the big one, me thinks.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
> if you're working in the US, you DO have a social security number.
FALSE.
You _CAN_ work, live, without a social slave number.
There is _NO_ law that requires a person to have one.
All right.
When I was a teenager, I slipped a disk in my spine after practice (because I lifted my 50 lb. plus bookbag the wrong way) and had to see a doctor. I filled the forms and thought my insurance would pay for the procedure needed to jolt my disk back into place.
Boy, was I wrong.
The insurer started a credit file on me with all the agencies and, when I wanted credit at 18, I got no,no,no,no,no,no,NO!
I requested my files and saw this item.
I got in touch with the dispute resolution and told them that it was simply impossible for me to owe money before the age of majority. I mailed them a notarized affidavit with a xerographic copy of my passport and a few weeks later, it's gone.
Now, tips...
1. Very few people ever need your SSN. Basically, your employer, your bank (if you have an interest-bearing account), and your brokerage need it for tax purposes. Now, IANAL, but restricting access provides a level of protection.
1a. You don't need to give your SSN to a doctor, school, testing firm, grocery store, or anyone else who wants it for "identification." If they demand a 9-digit number, you can create an instant null SSN by replacing one 'field' of the number with 9's or 0's. (Eg: 999-00-9999: The 3,2,4 are the 'fields.')
2. You can pull your credit file from each of the major credit agencies at least once annually. They all have toll-free numbers for this use. Also, if you are declined you can request another personal pull.
NOTE: The 'gimme' pull they provide is much less detailed than a proper credit report given to a firm. Some firms will be able to give you a full pull, for a fee.
NOTE: It's worth mentioning that the number of pulls within 30 days, six months, and two years are factors in credit approval/denial. The more pulls, the more likely that you've been denied.
3. If you are denied for something which happened before the age of majority in your state, be it 18, 19, or 21, (check with a lawyer if you're not sure) you've got every right to contest until hell freezes over. As in my case, persistance pays off.
4. Check when you DON'T need it. Time is your friend; the more time you have, the more you can fix and rescind.
Later, when I'm less sleep-deprived, I'll follow up with phone numbers.
Joy.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
No, when that class of people is composed of people who joined that class by their willful actions (e.g. vandalism, not paying debts, committing felonies), what we have isn't a negation of the democratic ideal, it is accountability.
Okay, in order:
Crikey, how do you parse that from what I wrote? Let me try to put it another way:
Regarding only-child/tattletale, you really ought to not make assumptions because you run a real risk of coming out looking like a blockhead. I have 3 siblings. Tattletales don't last long in my family. You stand up for your siblings or you'll find your GI Joes without arms and legs come Monday morning.
So, since we're making snap judgements, I guess you're a pedophile in hiding, trying to avoid a palimony suit from your sister while finger-banging your grandmother, and you want everybody to "accept you as you are".
Geezum crow, where did that come from? I guess we're still stuck on "expecting a reward". I expect neither the government or my parents to reward me for what is decent and proper behavior. Does that satisfy you? I expect NOTHING from NOBODY -- I get what I can earn, and nothing more.
If I'm hiring somebody to be a cashier, I damn well SHOULD know if they are a repeat-offender thief! Should I then be able to take out a full-page ad telling everybody in the world "Hey! Joe Smith is a THIEF!"? No!
If you have a daughter (if($daughter) {ereg_replace("if", "when", $rant)}), will you still think that "what happens is between the person and the law" when you go looking for a day-care center? Or will you just hope that they haven't hired any pedophiles?
I don't think I made myself clear here (mea culpa). I was trying to separate the two issues for a hypothetical situation. I didn't do a very good job of it.
Let's assume, however, that this guy does live in a state where misdemeanors committed as a minor are sealed, except for certain cases where damage was done that ammounted to more than $2000, and his spray-painting cost $3000 to repair/clean up. If the employer doesn't like the fact that this guy did this, it's his choice to not hire him, and he has cause -- his employees reflect upon his business.
Conformist? I don't want conformity! Where in the hell do I say I want conformity! I want respect for property -- is that too much to ask?
For the record, I'm a die-hard, voting, volunteering Libertarian. Do I do drugs? No! If drugs become legal, will I do them? No! Do I want a nanny state? NO!
Should a criminal record be public? No, but they should be accessible in certain circumstances. Who decides what circumstances? Depends on the record -- federal crimes are dictated by federal authorities, state by state authorities, local by local authorities. If I am able to access a person's record, do I have the right to blab it? No! If I do so, it should be punishable.
I answer most of this above -- I got further afield than I intended to. Do not put words into my mouth. My premise was simple enough, you expanded it to mean things that I never said, never intended, never implied.
You apparently think that I pry into the doings of my employees -- an assertion that I can wholeheartedly deny, mostly because my employees are people that I've know for years. At this point, we don't even have an employment application!
Read my original post again, and try to see it without your pre-formed opinions of what you THINK I said. Then we can talk again.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
--
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
The examples given here:
1) JD, who (at least claimed to) knew of no debts that he owed (the information may or may not have been in error).
2) Someone ordered comics by mail, thought he had stopped ordering them, moved, went off to college, had no reason to believe that he was still being billed.
These don't sound like profiles of people who "rip off" other people to me.
Not that I encourage such anarchistic methods of revenge
Well I sure do. How's about a nice return-envelope full of dog poo ? If we can't kill spammers, we can at least make them eat $&!+.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
You may wish to consider that some people have, unlike yourself, not been born to always make the correct choices, but have sometimes had to make serious mistakes first. From these mistakes they must have the opportunity to make their lives right.
Sure, but that does not mean that we should all forget that anything happened. Which is exactly what you want apparently.
Sorry, but it doesnt work that way.
If my past mistakes will continue to penalize me, then I have no incentive to make the diffcult choice to right my path.
Yes, you do. Because if you continue making bad choices, you will incur further consequences, and make yourself even more miserable.
Doing things the 'right' way, allows you time to rebuild your credit, or history. It will never be a clean slate, because you DID FUCK UP, but it can always be better.
If I am arrested for a DWI, why should I make the decision to correct my behavior, when I will be unable to find employment 10 years later regardless?
Because the next time your in jail for a lot longer. The third or fourth, you may actually kill some little girl crossing the street. Then you get many many years. Oops.
If I am a foolish tennager who undertakes a bad debt, why should I even bother applying to college, knowing the debt will deny me the possibility of financial aid?
Then study your ass of and get a scholarship. Work your ass off and save and pay for it yourself. No one MUST HAVE credit. It is nice to have, but certainly not a requirement. Get a grip.
Well, the doctor didn't lube my enema this morning, so I'm a bit cranky.
Nothing like tearing sphincter to start your day.
Accountability isn't forever.
When you die, everyone will say you did nothing but good things at your funeral. They will forgive you, and wish you a peacefull slumber in the dirt through eternity.
Make it a felony to deny employment or credit for something that does not reasonable bear on the worthyness of the applicant or the prudentness of extending a loan, employment, or a security clearance.
People will get their hands on data, but if the penalty of misusing it to discriminate is strong enough, it won't be as much of a problem.
For example, denying employment or a loan for anything done before the age of 18 should be a felony.
If we don't trust 18 year olds to vote because they aren't responsible for their actions, then we shouldn't deny them benefits later on in life for actions committed at that age. Either a 17 year old is responsible for their actions (then let them vote) or is not (then don't discriminate on them later in life for actions committed at that age).
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Amongst other things, this led to a friend having to sue a court because a clerk accidentally hit the wrong button and marked a lawsuit against him as "resolved" (i.e. he owed the debt and had to be sued before he'd pay it) rather than as "dismissed" (i.e., he didn't owe the debt in the first place). This despite a letter from the apartment complex manager to the CRA saying that the lawsuit against the friend had been a case of mistaken identity. The CRA replied that they could not remove the information because it had been provided by the court, rather than by the apartment complex. The court said they had no record of such a lawsuit (it'd been dismissed, after all) and could not provide any documentation to the CRA. The CRA thus refused to remove the information. Thus the need to sue the court in order to get it to issue a letter to the CRA -- not exactly the most pleasant of things to do.
See http://badtux.org/eric/grumblings/eviltwin.html for my own experience with deadbeats who have the name "Eric Green" and getting contacted by debt collectors... Note that every time this happens, I have to send the morons a certified letter demanding that they either provide proof of debt or cease and desist as required by the Fair Debt Collections Act. So far I haven't had to go to the next step (where my attorney sends them a cease and desist -- I have a kick-ass attorney for that kind of stuff).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I recently bought a car. I spent three months cleaning up my credit report beforehand. There were debts on there that had been discharged years ago. There were accounts marked as "open" with available balances (bad credit score!) that had been closed years ago. I dutifully sent the letters to the credit reporting agencies, which then picked up the phone, called XYZ Corps, and asked "does Eric Green, SSN 666-66-6666, have an open account 123-456-78?". This usually resolved it, but there was one credit card company that had been sold off by its dying parent bank and they had no records showing that I'd paid my bill. So I had to contact that credit card company directly. Two certified letters and a threatened lawsuit later (after I demanded proof of indebtedness, along with providing a copy of the check) and they finally sent me a letter saying that all derogatory information was being removed from my credit record. [Luckily I *NEVER* throw away old bank statements or cancelled checks... too bad banks have stopped providing cancelled checks...]
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Do note that you have to make a payment every month in order for it to enter your credit record as something that looks good. In months that you have no payments, no info gets reported.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Note that if I had ever seen one of these credit card agreements, I would not be allowed to tell you about it (they may or may not be stamped with legalese saying that all contents are proprietary information, but I haven't seen one, right, so I couldn't tell you that! :-).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
If you want incorrect information removed, and the source of the information says "yeah, that information is correct" when the CRA calls, then the CRA has no liability. You must then contact and possibly sue the source of the information, not the credit reporting agency. Only once the source (or a court) says that the information is incorrect, is the CRA liable -- meaning, if they *STILL* refuse to remove the info after the source (or court) says it's incorrect, then and *ONLY* then can you sue the CRA (and for a laughably small amount... $50,000 max, if I recall, or maybe that's the Fair Debt Collections Act, it's been a few months since I looked all this up).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
There seems to be a lot of myths floating around about what counts and doesn't count. Basically, there's four things that count: 1) Number of credit requests, 2) payment history (do you have a history of paying your bills on time, or do you have late payments?), 3) number of accounts and current balances on your outstanding debts, and 4) available credit on your credit cards and lines of credit. All the other things I've seen appear to be mythical. They certainly haven't shown up on the credit reports that I, my bank, or my landlord have obtained.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
That is not to say that age discrimination, discrimination against sloppy dressers, etc. do not exist here in the United States. Just that it costs corporations more money to practice it, because U.S. law outlaws hiring practices that are common in Europe.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
The only difference is that the company towns have gotten bigger, sometimes encompassing entire nations. But the same elements of vigilante justice ("Death to those who bounced a check due to our own incompetence!") and sheer disregard for human life, still apply.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Amen to that. Every single one of the items that Katz mentions would be illegal (in some cases to the point of criminality) in the UK and, as regards the Data Protection points, across the European Union.
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
Yes, the US has a number of special quirks in the law on this point (I'm not qualified to practice anywhere in the US, but I know enough to comment. If you need specific advice, see someone local to you, eh?).
For a start, it's virtually impossible to sue for libel in the US: falsehood is treated as an element of the tort rather than, as elsewhere, truth being a defence. This means that the plaintiff has to prove a negative rather than the defendant having to give evidence of his assertion. The protestations of First-Amendment supporters to the contrary, this is Wrong (and the First Amendement doesn't even require it to be so).
Second, and this one's common across most of the common-law world, it's quite easy to claim qualified privilege (technical term, look it up if you're interested enough) in respect of credit reports, which means that the plaintiff has to prove malice, which is what it sounds like - you'd have to show that the CRA was out to get you personally.
Third, and here I stray off what I know personally, I hear reports that the CRAs have lobbied for legislative protection that keeps their customers from suing them.
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
Sure, I've reviewed plenty of facts. Simply because my personal beliefs differ from yours is no basis to assume I'm not an intelligent person. I don't like either candidate but personally I wat a tax cut (like the one promised by Clinton when he was elected, I'm exempt from Gore's cut) and I want to ensure that my freedoms are not taken away. Gore is anti-self defense (I own guns), anti-property rights (I own property), and has a record of illegal campaign donations and lies. I just don't trust someone like that. I also have friends in the army and navy who hate the Clinton admin and fear they will die thankless in some third world civil war thanks to all the Clinton/Gore bungling. Looking at the whole picture I relunctently voted for Bush.
Just out of curiousity, what right wing facist views are you referring to?
That's the kind of self-important, superior, condesending attitude I was waiting for someone to use. Thanks, you made me laugh.
Finkployd
Graphology and polygraph tests are also prohibited for most job applicants (polygraph tests are only allowed for certain jobs that affect national security).
Every company here in the United States knows that if they request these things, the next thing that will be waiting for them will be a subpoena to appear as a defendent in a lawsuit. There are lawyers salivating over the opportunity to stick it to some moron who blatantly violates the law. So companies don't do this stuff. Score one for the lawyers.
The lawyer thing works well for blatant "yes or no" things like "did they request a photo". It of course does not work well for less blatant violations of the laws against race and age descrimination. If they get you in for an interveiew, see that you're black, and say "I'm sorry, but after more review we see that you're not qualified for this position", it's quite hard to prove racial discrimination. The famous study where identical resumes were sent out to Fortune 1000 companies, half with a stereotypically black name and half with a stereotypically white name, shows that racial bias definitely still exists in hiring in the United States (for those who have poor memory -- the resume with the stereotypically white name got significantly more callbacks, even though it was completely and absolutely otherwise identical to the other one). So the lack of photos does not make it impossible to racially discriminate based on one's resume (curriculum vitae). But at least it's not as blatant and up-front an indicator of racial or age bias as a request for a photograph.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I really hope agencies look at our social security numbers, or at the leat our middle names... (or even middle initials!).
The reason for using addresses is that changing names is a technique fraudsters can use. As for (ab)using SSN's not only were they never intended as identity numbers they are hardly secure enough to be usable in this way.
Reason I'm ranting now because when I moved in, my cousin (who also lived there), signed me over to the phone bill (which my dad pays) because my dad has been tagged for terrible credit and he's not allow to be in charge of payments (or some shit like that). This past December, a collection agency sent me a letter about not paying my phone bill. Sure, my dad said he sorted everything out...
The point here is that it should not have been possible to "sign you over" in the first place.
apply for a loan you know you won't get. Whoever denies your loan is required by law to inform you of the CRA they used to deny the loan and that CRA is required by law to provide you with their records of you.
This will only work if the failed loan applications do not wind up in the CRA's records though. But it's just as possible that a "subject access" will get in there too.
There isn't much BUT propaganda out there. Both have, and probably will continue to lie. I mean, they both had big plans for a huge budget surplus that doesn't exist yet (it's a projected surplus, not money currently in the bank). Gore hasn't said much about guns, what he has said he has been very careful about. He supports the rights of hunters, great but I own a handun for self defense and a semi automatic rifle for competition (which has been deemed an assult weapon for some reason). The Clinton/Gore record on the second amendment has been horrible, and recently they supported a justice department decision that the second amendment does not apply to the citizens, it applies to the government (making it the only such amendment in the bill of rights). Gore may not want to take all guns away, he he has time and again by virtue of the bills he supported taken away that freedom. I'm not looking at NRA propaganda, I'm looking at the facts, as you put it. Gore is no friend of the second amendment. However, I don't think Bush is a friend of the first so how does one chose?
As for property rights, one need only look at the Clinton/Gore record on the enviornment. They turned more land into "protected" land than any other administration in history. Sure, that sounds great on the surface, but many people have been screwed over because of this. I suggest you read Gore's book "Earth in the Balance" for his prespectives on property rights and how important he thinks they are. I'm all for the enviornment, but now if you find an endangered species on your lawn, your best bet it to kill it and tell no one, least you lose you land (I can point you to plenty of documented cases if need be). Reader's Digest actually does stories on this occationally.
How can I possibly trust a Bush, based on family members? How can anyone trust a Kennedy? How can anyone trust Daley? How can anyone trust the Clintons after the pattern of lies and illegal actions? The answer to you question is I don't. I don't trust Bush, but I certainly don't trust Gore either. Given that, I have to align with the one that most lines up with my personal beliefs. I'm for less government spending, lower taxes, and I'd like to see some kind of campaign finance reform. Which candidate do you think best aligns with these views? Arguably neither will want to reform campaign finance, but I'd like to trust the one that hasn't already violated campaign finance laws several times to have the best shot at it.
Both candidated are in favor of freedom, the huge difference is what they consider to be freedom.
Believe me, nearly all of my friends voted for Gore (or Nadar), they aren't influencing me a bit.
Lastly, as for the quotes, yes they are taken out of context. ALL quotes are taken out of context, that's what makes them quotes. However, the documented source is there if you want to find the context to most of them. The main point of the quotes is to show the Bill Clinton running for president, and the Bill Clinton after being elected. He broke more promises than George "Read my lips" ever did, yet people didn't seem to mind. Gore's platform seemed vaguely familiar to the one they ran on eight years ago, with many of the same goals. Goals and promises that many of us were still waiting for.
Finkployd