Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Agency Data-Mining Hundreds of Millions of Credit Card Accounts

Posted by timothy on from the but-frogs-love-warm-water dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the Washington Examiner: "Officials at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are conducting a massive, NSA-esque data-mining project collecting account information on an estimated 991 million American credit card accounts. It was also learned at a Congressional hearing Tuesday that CFPB officials are working with the Federal Housing Finance Agency on a second data-mining effort, this one focused on the 53 million residential mortgages taken out by Americans since 1998. ...Later in the hearing, [Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas] remarked that CFPB 'and NSA are in a contest of who can collect the most information,' ... although the CFPB disagreed with that statement. In previous testimony before Rep. Jeb Hensarling's panel, Antonakes said 'the combined data represents approximately 85-90 percent of outstanding card balances.' The Argus contract specifies that the company must collect 96 'data points' from each of the participating card issuers for each credit card account on a monthly basis. The 96 data points include a unique card-account identification reference number, ZIP code, monthly ending balance, borrower's income, FICO score, credit limit, monthly payment amount, and days past due. 'Would you object to getting permission from consumers, those people who you work for, before you collect and monitor their information?' Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., asked Cordray. 'That would make it impossible to get the data,' Cordray replied."

51 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. I'm somewhat disturbed... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That this appears to state every person in the US, regardless of age, has on average three credit cards.

    Adjusting out the 17 and unders and the elderly who are less likely to be stacking up credit purchases on retirement budgets, this suggests about 5 cards per person.

    Yeek.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by coolsnowmen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think a lot of people have credit cards they no longer use, forgot about, and haven't completly canceled. It wasn't until I got my first house, and so got a long form credit report, that I realized I had a credit card still open that I got in college....for a free t-shirt and CD.

    2. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by CODiNE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It takes that many cards to hold all the debt an average American family has

      http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog...

      O_o
      That's crazy high!

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    3. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by dyingtolive · · Score: 2

      I have three "credit cards". I have a bank debit card, a paypal debit card, and then a credit card that's an actual credit card.

      Technically if you count the cheesy ass HSA debit card that my employer considers "health insurance", then I've got four. Only one of them is a "real" credit card (as in, buying things on money I don't have).

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    4. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heh, in college, I got a Discover card with a 2 liter bottle of Sunkist soda.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by jratcliffe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have about 15 cards. Only use three of them. The rest are ones I got for the signup bonuses, or have stopped using because other cards offered a better deal (points, cashback, etc.). Unless there's an annual fee, there's no good reason to close them, so they sit in the safe.

    6. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by John.Banister · · Score: 2

      I have several credit cards. None of them charge me to have an account, and they all have a zero balance. They're useful when renting a car, as car rental companies don't like debit cards, and they also came in useful when my credit union froze my debit card until I convinced them that donating to the neoN900 project wasn't suspicious activity. Having credit cards isn't necessarily identical to having debt.

    7. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Pretty much this. Everytime I walk into a Sear or Target or anything else they want me to pay with their store credit card and offer from 15 to 25% off my purchase to apply for one.

      At the moment, I have one CC I use for almost everything. My wife uses a spousal card so we accumulate rewards on one card. She has her own card as well so she has credit in her own name...

      But sure, last time I bought a home, I closed a few pointless credit accounts that I'd opened over the years for various signing benefits as part of "cleaning up my credit". I had a department store card I'd signed up for to get a 25% discount off my couch some years ago and never used again, and another visa that was attached to a gas station that at the time i signed up had a promo that gave me 15 cents a liter off the pump price, and i stopped using it after the promo ended... etc.

    8. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      somebody who doesn't want to bother wasting a perfectly good tshirt, and needs something to wear when cleaning out gutters or painting a house.

    9. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by Delarth799 · · Score: 3, Funny

      There is a British company named Wonga who's APR is just a tad over 5850%

    10. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      About 9 years back I received a pre-approved offer for a credit card (Visa, IIRC) with a limit of $100,000. I tore that sucker up into teensy-weensy bits.

      I've got a couple like that.

      I use them regularly, and (hopefully) annoy the CC company by paying my bill, in full, every single month.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by blackest_k · · Score: 2

      There is an American company with a British subsiduary named wonga with a apr of that sort of figure apr.
      There was an interesting documentary about bank of dave a small bank set up by a businessman called dave. In this documentary he looked into the payday loan companies and actually went round to the uk offices of many of these companies all of which were just mail forwarding addresses and all pretty much run by American companies. Some offices were just empty buildings.

      Britain does have a problem having a government unwilling to regulate in anyway. There is even an industry body for these payday loan companies and they will not even contemplate a figure for an apr which would be considered excessive.

      Dave actually did put money into giving loans at reasonable rates and he was getting the payments back. As these high risk clients were more than willing to pay for loans at reasonable rates.

       

      --
      Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
    12. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by chipschap · · Score: 2

      I always pay in full every month, and it caused me to be refused a higher line of credit. Bank of America told me that I didn't have a record of monthly payments (which I did, as I paid in full every month on every credit card, but I guess that doesn't count as they weren't installment payments or loan payments) and therefore didn't qualify for more credit. Then they said that they ran a credit check, and my credit score was 820 (850 is the max you can have), and appended tips for improving my credit rating!

      Of course Bank of America is one of the more evil players (they too highlight the minimum balance and have no "auto-pay full balance" option), but then again most of the players are evil to some degree.

    13. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unless there's an annual fee, there's no good reason to close them, so they sit in the safe.

      In fact, depending on your financial situation, it may actually hurt your credit scores to close them.

      Nobody knows the exact details of how the FICO algorithm works, but one significant component is your "debt-to-credit ratio." To take a simple example -- if, say, you have $4,000 in credit card debt, but a $10,000 limit, you have a credit utilization of 40%.

      Technically, they do this with installment loans too (like car payments, mortgages, etc.), but as long as you don't have late payments on them, there's little chance that it will hurt you even if you still owe quite a bit.

      So, the discussion is usually mostly around revolving credit, which for most people is credit cards. From people who have tried to figure out the FICO algorithm (as much as possible), it seems clear that it's generally a bad idea to hold more than 25 to 30% of the credit limit on any given credit card.

      But this also applies to your collective available credit limit as well, which is where those extra cards can come in. Keep in mind that even if you pay off your balances every month, the statement balances still generally show up on your credit report -- so if you charge $5,000 every month but pay it off, it still looks like you're carrying roughly a $5,000 balance.

      And if you only have $10,000 in revolving credit, that looks bad (50% credit utilization). But if you have a few other cards laying around that you never use, and your total limit is more like $50,000 or $100,000, that looks very good.

      Important points: (1) This isn't going to make or break your credit score for most people, but if the debt-to-credit ratio is really off, it could hurt it by 50 points or more. So, (2) Think twice before cancelling any high-limit cards, if you don't have a lot of credit in general. There's no good reason to hold onto a store card with a $500 limit for most people, but getting rid of that $25,000 limit card you never use could actually make a dent in your credit score, depending on the rest of your finances.

    14. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

      I've known for a long time that Bank of America is vastly evil. I wasn't aware they were comically evil. That tale would be funnier if it wasn't so symptomatic of everything that's wrong with the banking industry.

    15. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by mjwx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People get TV's and what not on these 24 month intrest free deals but dont read the fine print that states it also signs them up for a credit card with that same company. I'm fairly certain that wont be the worst abuse hidden in the fine print either.

      Its not sneaky, you are opening a revolving credit account and charging the purchase to it with special repayment terms. Its commonplace in the US to the point that it is now impossible to get a traditional installment loan on any financed purchase outside of a car loan.

      Actually it is sneaky because you're not opening a credit account at all, you're opening a secured loan.

      What they are doing is paperclipping a second revolving credit account onto that which is not attached to the asset/object being purchased on the loan. If they attached it to the loan (which they aren't permitted to in Oz) they'd be forced to close the account when final payment is received.

      Its commonplace in the US to the point that it is now impossible to get a traditional installment loan on any financed purchase outside of a car loan.

      You've just pointed out the way the US deals with credit is fundamentally broken.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    16. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by dcollins117 · · Score: 2

      I think a lot of people have credit cards they no longer use, forgot about, and haven't completly canceled.

      If you carry a balance, which I suspect most people do, then cancelling a credit account hurts your credit score as the ratio of total credit vs. your balance is used in calculating the score. Of course the same institutions that provide credit are the ones most concerned with your score, so it's likely the system was designed that way for a reason. Hint: not to benefit you, the average consumer.

    17. Re:I'm somewhat disturbed... by the_arrow · · Score: 2

      The same kind of tool that wears a polo shirt with an alligator image on it

      I do that sometimes. But then it was my wife who bought the shirt so I kind of have wear it sometimes. So I'm not a tool of the brand, I'm a tool of my wife!

      --
      / The Arrow
      "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
  2. Different from the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you conduct a financial transaction in the USA it is not private in any way. This includes information on your account balances and your income, which the IRS is already required to know about. The FICO score and other credit information is interesting though: this is the first time the government has ever bothered to look at the private credit market's practices in a substantial manner beyond giving people the right to know what their FICO score is.

    1. Re:Different from the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      > your account balances and your income, which the IRS is already required to know about.

      The part about account balances is not correct. Your 1099-INT does not contain your account balances. I've worked in a bank for nearly twenty years, and other than when we get court orders, I've never heard of someone giving an account balance to the IRS. I know for a fact there's no automated way for them to get that information since I'm the only person here that could write that code. The interest is reported because you pay taxes on it, but they do not receive the balance.

      > people the right to know what their FICO score is.

      You're wrong again. You do not have the right to know your FICO score. Fair, Isaac, and Company has no legal requirement to tell you their score. You do have the right to a copy of your credit report, but the FICO score is something else entirely.

    2. Re:Different from the NSA by Cryacin · · Score: 2

      If interest is reported, then there is an easy calculation to get the balance.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    3. Re:Different from the NSA by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

      If interest is reported, then there is an easy calculation to get the balance.

      No, there's really not. If my 1099 reports $100 in interest, I could have (using the rates on accounts I actually have) anywhere from $4k in the account (if it's my 2.5% checking account) to $111k (if it's my 0.1% checking account).

      In addition, even if you did know the rate on the account, you'd only know the average balance through the year - that $100 in interest could mean that I had $111k in my checking account all year, or $5 million for a week.

    4. Re:Different from the NSA by lgw · · Score: 2

      It's amazing how, whenever anyone objects to some portion of what the government does, there's always some totalitarian-lover who will reply and say "ooh, so you must be against roads and law enforcement, you evil man". Keep dry-humping that strawman long enough and it will ignite!

      The government does many, many things. I object to many of them being done by the federal government. Some can be done just as well by state or local governments (why do tax dollars flow through the federal government in order to come back to the states for road building?) Some could be done just as well with quite minimal government involvement: same social safety net, no money flowing through government hands and getting skimmed.

      But somehow any suggestion that maybe the federal government could be just a teeny bit smaller, that maybe we should oppose totalitarian government and instead treat government as an optimization exercise (how to solve each problem with the least of it), provokes this sort of nonsense post.

      Unless you really want a totalitarian government as an end in itself, how can you object to solving problems with less of that?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Different from the NSA by gumbi+west · · Score: 2

      Uh, if the company doesn't track your financial records, how will they send you the bill?

  3. Biased Much? by rabtech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In order to regulate credit card companies and banks, the CFPB needs to know what is happening with these financial products.

    It would appear that the banks' astroturf campaign is in full swing trying to get people riled up.

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
    1. Re:Biased Much? by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      Right, so regulating banks requires abject surrender of all financial privacy.

      I'll keep that in mind the next time someone argues that defending against terrorists doesn't require PRISM and the TSA.

      Or maybe I'll just chalk up your silly shit to the double standards you indulge on behalf of your world view.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:Biased Much? by sandytaru · · Score: 3, Informative

      Making a comment about how having a "unique identifier" for a data set is required to do anything with the data - that is, Database 101 - is blowing smoke? I can think of 96 data points pretty easily, none of which will require the person's name, SSN, or credit card number. Zip code, age, income level, interest rate, card level, total outstanding debt, number of other credit cards, years on credit history, credit card max, number of credit card increases, number of credit history inquiries, education level, total number of purchases, interest rate changes, total number of late payments, total amount of later fees, annual fees, bonus points available, bonus points earned, total number of cards issue, total number of fraud inquiries, total number of document fraud reimbursements amount of fraud reimbursements, total purchases, average number of purchases a month - and then break each of those things that are variables down by the last five years per card. Bam, you're at well over a hundred.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  4. Fucking Feds. by anagama · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone you know, everywhere you go, everything you say, everything you buy.

    Data like this is not about protecting us from terrorism, it is about setting up the US Federal Gov't as the largest terrorist organization in the world today, directly softly at its own citizens ... for the present.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    1. Re:Fucking Feds. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      because that is the ONLY USE FOR THE DATA EVER. seriously guy, are you naive enough to think that a) the scope of the data usage won't change B) other government agencies won't have access to said data C) that once this level of data collection is swallowed without outrage, it won't either remain perpetually as the standard, or be expanded farther? (or is this a huge 'woosh'?)

    2. Re:Fucking Feds. by ls671 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Everyone you know, everywhere you go, everything you say, everything you buy.

      Sounds to me just like:

      Every breath you take
      And every move you make
      Every bond you break
      Every step you take
      I'll be watching you

      http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/s...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  5. All that information that they are collecting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All that information that they are going to collect has been collected without our permission for decades by the credit bureaus. ChoicePoint and the other background check companies (private spy agencies) accumulate even more data.

    We are also having to put more information on the web - like LinkedIN - in order to get employment. (I was told by several companies that they do ALL their recruitment via LinkedIN. )

    Do you really think when you apply for that job online via the outsourced web/HR firm that your data is kept confidential?!

    Aside from protecting myself from petty criminals (like publishing my SSN and DOB), I have pretty resided that my information is freely available to government and corporate interests and there is not a goddamn thing I can do about it.

    It's big business to pimp our data so that they configure out how to sell us more shit and how much they can charge for their shit.

    My only hope is that the CFPB will use this data wisely and find bank mistakes in our favor and order them to correct it.

    1. Re:All that information that they are collecting. by Kasar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference between private companies gathering data to create files and profiles on people is that they lack the legal standing of government. They can't arrest anyone based on a suspicion of anything, even if that a person is a deadbeat, while the government doesn't need a warrant or any specific law violation under the NDAA to incarcerate a person indefinitely.

      Alternatively, tie the financial with the capture and collection of all electronic communications and interactions, and finding dirt on anyone who becomes a political opponent or a valuable blackmail target becomes easier for those with access.

      /tinfoil hat off

      --
      vi? Who's that?
  6. Want privacy? by tsprig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... become Amish.

    1. Re:Want privacy? by hebertrich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      man .. the americans are so fu**** coming and going it's a wonder they do not take arms and revolt.
      sheep . little tiny babies with no balls to end this .they simply roll over and ask for more.

      pathetic
      America is pathetic beyond belief.

    2. Re:Want privacy? by Dr.+Zim · · Score: 2

      Says the AC :) At least Doofus had the balls to post with a name.

      --
      (name withheld by request)
  7. It's not private... by laird · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it's creepy, in the US your credit card transaction is not private - it's collected by credit card companies and massively data mined (and has been for decades) for direct marketing, credit scoring, etc., used by companies to sell products to consumers and to drive them as deeply as possible into debt.

    The only "news" here is that the government is data mining to benefit consumers rather than to exploit them. That's clearly crossing the line.

    --
    Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
    1. Re:It's not private... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The only "news" here is that the government is data mining to benefit consumers rather than to exploit them. That's clearly crossing the line.

      Right; because as we all know, if the US government says they're doing something for Reason X, we should totally take their word for it. It's not like they have whole departments convinced that their job is to lie to the American People, right?

      Reminds me of the only thing Reagan said I ever agreed with: "The most frightening words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:It's not private... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes because when the government collects census data it's for evil!

      So.. do you not know the difference between "voluntary" and "compulsory"?

      Surely you're not so dense as to fail to recognize the difference between voluntary trade with a company that can't harm your liberty, and compulsory data-mining from a government that can?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:It's not private... by PraiseBob · · Score: 2

      That's it exactly. Not only is this data not private, it has never been private. It has always been sold between companies, and is the entire basis for a multi-billion dollar industry. The CFPB is simply purchasing this information at the market price, just like hundreds of other companies do on a routine basis. As the joke goes, capitalists will sell the rope to hang themselves.

      You can bet the NSA collects this exact same information. The NSA collects this information to conduct drone strikes, and find citizens to murder. The CFBP wants to use this information to regulate banks. Yet, this congressman doesn't talk about the NSA. Does it surprise anyone at all, that banking & finance sectors contribute heavily to his wallet? http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...

      This is another politican who has been bought and paid for, and is fighting against the best interests of the people he supposedly represents.

    4. Re:It's not private... by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      There is a reason that Reagan won by complete landslides in both elections, and it wasnt his geriatric charisma. Its because people knew that his straight talk was true.

      However, back then television channels like PBS were running programs like Milton Friedmans "Free to Choose" which showcased some of the disasters of progressivism (such as federal housing projects, aka "concentrated poverty") as well as some of the shining successes of capitalism (such as Hong Kong.) The only place you will find that sort of freedom coverage now is on the Internet.

      For the record, in 1980 Reagan took 489 out of 538 electoral votes and carried 44 of the 50 States. Then in 1984 Reagan took 525 out of 538 electoral votes and carried 49 of the 50 States. Unlike recent presidents, Reagan grew in popularity as time went on.

      I doubt we will ever see another president like Reagan in my lifetime.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  8. Give me a break by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These two things are nothing alike. This sounds like a Republican attempt to induce some guilt by association for the CFPB, which they hate so much.

    First, there's the fact that we're hearing about this in a Congressional hearing directly from agency personnel, with numerous details. As opposed to having agency personnel lie directly to Congress, and that only after a leak.

    Second, why do we think the CFPB is collecting this information? Um, probably to see if credit card and mortgage companies are engaging in predatory lending practices, or abiding by regulations, or to better understand consumer financial behavior in the U.S. You know, things within their mandate. As opposed to the NSA, which has no business dealing with domestic intelligence.

    Now there are legitimate concerns about the quality of anonymization, why they can't use a sampling technique, who the contractor is, and what federal agencies should have access to the data. Note that these are everyday issues that the U.S. Census Bureau and the IRS deal with all the time.

    Not surprising to see this coming from the Washington Examiner, which if you don't know, is DC's right-leaning daily.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  9. Do my taxes for me, then by Kevoco · · Score: 2

    If the govt insists on crawling up my ass with a microscope, then they should have the common decency to emerge with a completed IRS Form 1040

    1. Re:Do my taxes for me, then by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

      They would. The IRS would like to shift to a model where they send you your return (based on the info they have), and you either say "cool," or "nope, not right, here's my tax return." For a very large portion of Americans, who just generate wage and interest income, and don't itemize deductions, it would be much less hassle, reduce errors, etc.

      BUT...Intuit and H&R Block have lobbied against it tooth and nail, for obvious reasons.

  10. Alternate Headline by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    "Pro-Capital GOP uses NSA Leaks as New Excuse to Attack Consumer Protection Agency They Never Liked."

  11. The Basic Problem Is by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

    That YOU HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY when you disclose data to third parties.

    It's a basic characteristic of the current legal system. It lets the post office accumulate files of the outside of every envelope that passes through their system, it allows the NSA to search metadata associated with every phone call and tcp/ip packet that passes over the internet, and it allows collection of this sort of information without any oversight from the courts.

    It's called the Third Party Doctrine.

    Since modern systems never forget, it means technology has handed government vastly greater surveillance powers.

    The only way to change it is to get laws changed. In some cases, like health care records there are laws that prohibit this. BUT not in general.

  12. Define "not private" by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it's creepy, in the US your credit card transaction is not private

    Are you saying, given a name I could arbitrarily pull up credit transactions for that person?

    I do not think so. The fact that I cannot means that data is private.

    Now credit card company can share that data with whoever it likes - in private - so long as I agree to that, which we all do in credit card agreements. But just because there is a subset of people who can see it, does not mean it is not private...

    Nor does it mean that a federal agency should be able to see transaction by transaction history for every single person in the U.S. They could do the job they need to with a much broader and filtered overview of data.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Define "not private" by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are you saying, given a name I could arbitrarily pull up credit transactions for that person?

      How do you think credit reporting bureaus get their information? Have you never gotten a "pre-approved" offer of credit?

      I do not think so. The fact that I cannot means that data is private.

      It's not private, it's profitable. The only laughable privacy Americans have with respect to credit cards is what little Congress has granted to shut up the few Americans who've noticed.

      Why do you think the credit card issuers themselves are collecting and storing all this information to begin with?

      Now credit card company can share that data with whoever it likes - in private - so long as I agree to that, which we all do in credit card agreements. But just because there is a subset of people who can see it, does not mean it is not private...

      If you care to read that agreement carefully, you'll note that your bank has exclusive say over who it can or won't share that information with, and can change the terms (if they were to ever get in the way) with little or no notice to you. It's nothing but "We promise to sell everything only to the highest bidder."

      And what are you going to do if they even do violate their own terms? Press your case in the mandatory individual arbitration you "agreed" to?

      They could do the job they need to with a much broader and filtered overview of data.

      And who sets up the filters, the very banks the CFPB is supposed to be policing?

  13. Conservative Trolls Are Taking Over Slashdot by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

    The first two stories on the front page of Slashdot are based on articles from conservative troll publications, the Washington Examiner and the Daily Mail.

    It's really getting ridiculous around here.

  14. Emo Philips by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

    'Would you object to getting permission from consumers, those people who you work for, before you collect and monitor their information?' Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., asked Cordray. 'That would make it impossible to get the data,' Cordray replied."

    He could have quoted Emo Philips...

    "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."

  15. Another reason to fire up the shredder by schivvers · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You are not required to carry a credit card. I am currently working on achieving a FICO score of 0. Life can and will go on without debt for me. Yes, I can get a mortgage without a FICO score...it requires manual underwriting, go to a smallish bank and you can do it. meh...another reason do remove myself from that plastic run economy.

    --
    Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally wo
  16. Re:No. You give *me* a break by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

    I don't think you know what "statist" means - if you believe the government should be involved in any single one of having fire and police departments, building roads, health inspections, or anything else a government does that's widely considered an acceptable action for government, you can be called a "statist". Statist is an extraordinarily broad term, which you seem to not comprehend.