Slashdot Mirror
Equifax Will Offer Free Credit Locks for Life, New CEO Says (bloomberg.com)
Equifax will debut a new service that will permanently give consumers the ability to lock and unlock their credit for free. From a report: The service will be introduced by Jan. 31, Chief Executive Officer Paulino do Rego Barros Jr. wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Wednesday, a day after taking the helm. The company will also extend the sign-up period for TrustedID Premier, the free credit-monitoring service it's offering all U.S. consumers, he said. "The service we are developing will let consumers easily lock and unlock access to their Equifax credit files," Barros wrote. "You will be able to do this at will. It will be reliable, safe and simple. Most significantly, the service will be offered free, for life." Barros was named interim CEO on Tuesday, less than three weeks after Equifax disclosed that hackers accessed sensitive data for 143 million U.S. consumers.
All the details needed are currently available on pastebin for your convinience.
Oh wow, Free!
How can I immediately hand over any more data to Equifax?
This is why we need multi-factor-multi-signature operations. If I have PART of the key required to read/write my own personal data then there's a good chance any stolen data is useless.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
I guess this is an attempt to head off legislation mandating free credit locks and unlocks (among other things). They already offer this for a fee, so I'm wondering why it's going to take them 4 months to lower the price to $0. Sure, it'll take some time to reengineer the site to no longer go through the checkout/charging process, but they could keep that process and lower the price to $1 (or less) within minutes, probably just a database field change. Is it really safe to wait 4 months for it to go free? I have a feeling the people who would lock their credit, will pay the ~$10 to do it now rather than risk keeping it unlocked 4 more months, suggesting this 4 month wait is artificial to make it seem like they're doing something while still profiting from their own incompetence.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Come on! How many attempts from Equifax will we see to bring the situation to their advantage.
-we fired the bad girl first, but then we fired the bad guy also, after we realized this was too big.
-now, we'll give freebees to everybody!
Wait in five years when nobody remembers or forgot to read the fine prints. Instead, they should be held accountable for any damage any consumer might have suffer from because of the breach.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
I appreciate that the comments I make here might be more relevant to EU readers than US ones, but I think the principles should be universal.
When I trade with any company, those transactions are confidential between myself and that company. If I *choose* to perform that transaction with a debit or credit card in order to make the transaction easier or more convenient, that is my choice.
However, the Data Protection Act and associated EU data protection laws basically prohibit the use of information, which may have been collected for one purpose [i.e. to transact a sale] from being used for another purpose [i.e. to provide credit reference information] without the expressed, written consent of the data subject. The reason that Equifax and Experian and all the other credit-reference agencies "get away" with what they do is simply that the terms and conditions - which we are essentially forced to accept if we want a credit/debit card, mortgage, loan or other financial service - are written to allow the creditor to do exactly that. The creditor writes the terms and conditions that way ostensibly to have the ability to cross-check our credit history and so protect themselves from bad debt and from financial crime. Except, as we know, this is now being completely abused.
Governments turn a blind eye to this practice because their elected officials are on the receiving end of so much lobbying money from the companies that do this, it is easy for the industry to "buy off" potentially opposing votes from all parties until the industry can propose a change to laws and buy the result that they want. Unfortunately, this creates a situation in which the government is acting against the best interests of the majority of people that elected them.
I have no problem with a law being passed that legally requires me to declare all pertinent parts of my credit history if I want a loan or a credit card or a bank account. I have no problem with a law that allows for certain forms of credit history - for example, people being declared bankrupt, or having court judgements against them - being "on the record" and visible to lenders.
Where I *do* have a problem is in the use, sale and profit from my personal information, in a manner that is not compatible with the purpose for which I originally agreed to disclose that information, without my knowledge and/or consent.
That is plainly an unacceptable level of scope creep.
Rather than simply push to see Equifax ditch a few of their senior officers, we need to be pushing to have the entire credit-checking, data-sharing-for-profit industry declared illegal and to have these parasitic outfits shut down permanently. All they do is increase the amount of junk mail that comes through my door offering me new credit cards.
No thanks.
They will require you to let them sell your information to "trusted" partners and receive "targeted offers". I guarantee it!
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I appreciate that the comments I make here might be more relevant to EU readers than US ones, but I think the principles should be universal.
When I trade with any company, those transactions are confidential between myself and that company. If I *choose* to perform that transaction with a debit or credit card in order to make the transaction easier or more convenient, that is my choice.
However, the Data Protection Act and associated EU data protection laws basically prohibit the use of information, which may have been collected for one purpose [i.e. to transact a sale] from being used for another purpose [i.e. to provide credit reference information] without the expressed, written consent of the data subject.
I don't know every one of the >30 countries of Europe but here in Germany it's already too late by decades. It's not called Equifax but Schufa, but what they do is exactly the same. Schufa was created 1927.
However they are smaller: ~80 million people in Germany and they have datasets for ~66 million people and 5 million businesses. They have 750 employees and have revenues of approx. 150 million euros.
Every form of credit transaction already has this kind of consent here in Europe too, just like have they have it in the US. Have you read your card legalese?
The difference between Europe and the US is: very few things are bought on credit. Europeans don't buy groceries, clothes with credit cards, they use cash. Alternatively they use their EC cards (which grew out of eurocheques: europe wide usable cheques). EC cards draw the money directly from your banking account and is therefore usually not a form of credit: if you don't have enough cash there, the transaction won't get through.
Fixed the headline for you.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
What does lifetime service do consumers good when the morons at Equifucks have to close shop after they get slammed with the massive verdicts and penalties? For them to claim that any of their service is "safe" is like the dentist telling you that you do not need Septocaine for drilling into half a dozen teeth.
Stopping to use credit cards is not sound advice as it will put you at a disadvantage for large purchases such as a car or a house. Get a card with a reputable banking company, use it for everything, and pay it off in full every month. If you need extra for unexpected expenses or major scheduled repairs get a small loan from the local credit union, they tend to have the lowest interest rates.Not using credit cards will make your FICO score drop because there is nothing to calculate creditworthiness on.
The difference is not between Europe and the US. It's specifically Germany that is quite card-averse. While visiting my friends in DE earlier this year I was amazed how few places accepted VISA. In the next country to the east I paid for my grocery yesterday, my lunch today and even my on-the-go coffee a moment ago with a credit card (even more precisely, with a NFC phone tied to a credit card). Scandinavia is even more card-friendly, you could live a lot of your life not seeing cash at all. In the UK people also use credit cards a lot, although not to that degree. And I have not seen EC cards anywhere but Germany.
Equifax; where ONLY criminals get access to your credit data.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The Netherlands is the same. People here find it very bizarre to use credit cards for everyday shopping.
Permanently and For Life should be in air quotes.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Look at the shiny shiny
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
I agree that Europeans never moved to Credit cards the way they did in the states and that we tend to use debit cards (where the moneyspent using the card is deducted from your account month/bi-monthly/weekly/immediately (depending on the card) but you seem to have missed why Americans prefer credit-cards: In the U.S. your credit rating is needed for loans like for cars & homes.
In the U.S. someone who regularly uses credit from a card and has regularly paid off that debt on time is a known element and will have an easier time with obtaining a loan that someone who has avoided the credit system -- even if the latter has greater purchasing power. Add to that that credit cards add some guarantees against fraud, insurance, etc. Thus it behooves young adults in the U.S to get and use credit cards in order to prepare for the day when that credit history will be needed.
I'm not saying that similar calculations don't happen in Europe when asking for a loan, just that it's less weighted on past use of credit and more on present finances and it's future stability.
The dominant credit/debit systems in the different countries of Europe is not as homogeneous as you asserted. Different countries had different locally grown systems that federated later. Germany had Eurocheques, France had Carte-Bleu, etc. What generally happened is that the local system was integrated into Visa or Mastercard and that it is this which extended it's compatibility beyond it's initial baliwick. Eurocheques: Mastercard. Certe-Bleu: Visa.
There is one point in the article that I (having lived in Europe my entire adulthood) don't understand: Equifax is offering a free credit lock. However, they are not the only actor with the role they hold in the credit market in the U.S. How does that credit lock affect the others?
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
I think the erroneous credit information data is a large problem that doesn't get enough attention.
The customers of credit agencies are lenders, not consumers, and this means that credit agencies have an incentive to report the highest marginal risk of any potential borrower. The utility value to lenders of a credit report is a loan made at the highest possible risk premium, enabling a profitable loan portfolio.
When credit agencies report a potential borrower as a higher risk than they actually are because of erroneous information, the lender gets to charge a higher risk premium -- interest rate -- than the actuarial risk represented by their true borrowing history. This makes the lenders more profitable, basically able to justify an added borrowing cost.
You would think that competition among lenders would mitigate this, with some lenders using the gap between higher reported risk and actuarial risk to charge lower interest rates. But they have no incentive to do this, accurately estimating the nominal and actual risk requires a lot of estimation (and some risk) cost and since nearly all their competitors will use the same credit agency risk data, the will end up charging the same risk premium. Lending thus becomes a price-fixing cartel, with the price fixing to consumers coordinated by a third party, the credit agency.
At the end of the day, the credit agencies have a incentive to leave junk data in credit histories because it allows lenders to inflate risk premiums and thus profits. This goes a long way to explaining why they want to include information not related to borrower repayment history in credit reports (driving records, divorce records, social media information, etc). They want to add extra negative drag on credit scores to raise borrowing costs to consumers and thus further boost their customers', the lenders, profits.
There should be much more stringent rules on removing bad data in credit reports. Credit agencies should have 30 days (or less) to provide material proof of bad credit data or it should be automatically removed. Failure to comply should be a $500 per false data item penalty. Credit reports should only contain borrowing information. Past loan repayment history should be the only gauge of lending risk.
I think in a modern economy you ultimately need credit reporting to lower the transaction cost of lending and to make risk estimation as efficient as possible.
But I do think credit data should be locked by default, and only unlocked by consumers at the time they actually want to borrow money. This should go along with more stringent proof-of-data standards to avoid false information to be reported and with whom and how the information can be shared.
In my opinion, the larger systemic problem with "open" credit reports is that it encourages consumers to engage in excess consumption and excess borrowing through a relentless marketing of credit opportunities.
Debit cards (your EC card equivalent) are offered with most bank accounts created here in the US as well. The transaction do however go the major credit card company systems just like a credit transaction but it checks your account balance. So not much different from your country. Most people here is the US do use debit cards and only use the credit cards for things that they do not have the cash on hand (e.g. traveling). Most use credit cards only to differentiate between personal and business related expenses (note I said most. There are some who abuse).
but you seem to have missed why Americans prefer credit-cards: In the U.S. your credit rating is needed for loans like for cars & homes
Screw the credit history part. The main reason I use a credit card for *everything* is that you can't easily dispute a debit card transaction. The money has already gone from your account and you have much better consumer protections when using a credit card.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I believe what you are seeing more of is actually a debit card (directly tied to a fixed account with pre-deposited money amounts). The transactions go through the credit card companies, but are directly tied to a bank account and not a line of credit.
They just gave up enough information to recreate everyone's identity.
If they're going to make it EASY to lock AND UNLOCK your credit... does anyone else see the problem here?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I pay for absolutely everything using a credit-card for two reasons in the U.S. First, any fraud is immediately suspended from the account without me having to pay for it during the 'investigation' period. Second, I pay off the full balance every month, but get airline miles for every dollar spent. I've had dozens of free flights for simply paying for stuff using my CC with near zero actual cost. (Except TSA segment fees of course).
Credit and debit card info is already protected by law in the U.S. A merchant cannot give or sell it to someone else. They can't even keep a copy of it legally.
Unless you agree to let them. That little checkbox that says "save my credit card info for future purchases"? That's not just for your convenience. That's what grants the merchant permission to store you credit card info in their database.
This right here is the problem with your approach. The info the credit bureaus collect wasn't disclosed by you. It was disclosed to them by the other party in the transaction - the people and companies you did business with. If you paid a bill late, the person (e.g. landlord) or company (e.g. the power utility) reported that to one or more credit bureaus. Likewise if your credit card has a $10k credit limit and use $2k of it on average and you pay it off on time each month, the credit card company reports that to the credit bureaus. So while the info is about you, it's not provided by you. It's provided by others that you interact with financially. Your credit report is basically a collation of Yelp ratings on you by everyone you've interacted with financially.
So why not pass a law prohibiting others from reporting your financial behavior to the credit bureaus? We could, but it won't have the effect most people seem to think it will. There's so much hatred for the credit bureaus, that most people don't understand that the only thing the credit bureaus can do is help you. If you have no credit, that's the same thing as having bad credit. Lenders have to assume the worst case scenario to protect their finances. (The exception is when you're in college - then it's known that you're just starting out and have a good reason for having no credit history, so the eventual credit for college students is slightly better than the average adult.) How willing are you to try out a restaurant with no Yelp reviews? You probably wouldn't risk taking a first date there or holding a family reunion there - you'd minimize the risk by trying it out first alone or with a few friends. Likewise, if a lender knows nothing about you, they're going to assume the worst - that you're highly unlikely to pay back any money they lend you, and charge you a high interest rate accordingly.
Unless a credit bureau vouches for you and reports that you're good about paying your bills, and are low risk. When a lender sees that, they're more willing to lend you money and will charge you a lower interest rate for it because they are confident you are low risk. In other words, the normal state isn't easy loans and the credit bureaus making your life hell when you have poor credit. That hell state is the normal state, and the credit bureaus make your life easier when they say you have good credit.
Prohibiting people and businesses from reporting this info about you to the credit bureaus will make it on average harder and more expensive for you to borrow money, not easier. Which gets us back to that little checkbox for storing your credit card info. Every loan you take out, every credit card you own, every lease you sign, every service you sign up for with a monthly bill will have a similar checkbox requesting you give them permission to report your financial behavior to the credit bureaus. Fail to check that box and you'll just consign yourself to the worst possible credit rating,
I disagree with the "all you can do now" comment. The information is out there now, but the safeguards that you are purposing should be enabled by default. Anytime you apply for credit, it should be inconvenient as possible to ensure that it can not be abused. Otherwise, just live within your means. When an industry (identity theft in the $billions) is created expressly from stealing information, either invalidate the information or make it more difficult to utilize it.
Either way, a vulnerability has been exposed that now put the entire working class of a country in a very bad situation. Me personally, chose to invalidate the means to utilize the information that they obtained and I refuse to use anything that requires it. Is it inconvenient? Sure. But ask your self, do you want to perpetuate the problem? Credit monitoring should not be an expense put onto the consumer, that should be the express liability of the company that is accumulating and utilizing your data.
If Equifax really wants to address the problem, they should purchase a company like LifeLock © and adopt it as standard operating procedure.
Using a debit card for anything other than when you want to withdraw cash is stupid behavior. Don't do it, that is for the uneducated and poor people who can't get a credit limit high enough to get them thru a month!
You have vastly better consumer protection in terms of being able to dispute charges using a CC, rather than a debit. If you pay the entire bill every month there is no interest cost. Even most no-fee cards now offer some kind of points or cash back rewards. Often that can go as high as %2 on a no-fee card! Seriously doing any purchasing you possibly can your CC can mean a nice little payday!
Also keep in mind you are not just leaving money on the table not doing this, you are actually having your pocket picked. Retailers all pay merchant fees to the card processors and issuing banks. That is where those rewards payouts come from; they pass those fees right on back to the customers in terms of higher prices. So effectively anyone not doing CC purchases or using a CC that offers inferior rewards are subsidizing the payouts to everyone else. So your really should take advantage, if only to not be taken advantage of yourself. Yes its stupid and unfair system, and if at some point everyone catches on it would actually stop working and probably come to an end. Do you are part to make it a better world, in this case all you have to do is claim your free money.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
As long as someone is reporting to the credit bureaus: student loans, car loans, or any other company that reports, you will have a credit history and subsequently a credit rating.
But it's ridiculous that one can't have a life in this country without a credit rating. You can't get auto insurance, a lease, a job in some cases and many other things without a credit rating because it's used in background checks. I don't even think you could get a security clearance without one.
I knew a couple that wanted to buy the land next to them. They paid all their debts 20 years ago and as as result didn't have a credit rating. They went to the bank to borrow a little less than half of the purchase price of the land -a 50 plus percent down payment. NO RISK TO THE BANK.
The bank still would NOT lend them the money because they didn't have an entry in any of the credit bureaus. That's how fucked up our system is.
The credit bureaus need to be heavily regulated and be forced to offer free freezes AND thawing of credit.
What that prick CEO didn't mention is that it COSTS money to un-freeze your credit.
... You give up the right to sue Equifax for any reason, and agree to binding arbitration, and agree to give Equifax, your first born, an arm and a leg and your immortal soul.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
In Belgium credits are all collected at the National bank. You can find information yourself with all the loans, credits and debit cards for yourself.
If you are a credit company or a bank you MUST first look if there are no mentioning as late payments (meaning 3 months late payment) as that means you are not allowed to give people a credit.
You MUST put the new loan on it as other banks and credit companies can see it.
All these companies can see is the amount of the loan, monthly max payment and some other essential info to calculate if there is enough to allow a credit or not.
You do not even see the name of the other companies.
Only credit companies and banks will get access to that data. So if you are a landlord: no go. Anybody else? No go!
It is fast and easy and secure. If you give a credit to somebody who should not have gotten one (e.g. he was on the black list) the risk is 100% for the company. If he does not pay for whatever reason, you have no way of getting your money back, except hoping he pays back. If you do that too many times, your license will be gone (after several steps)
But what if I buy a car? Well, if you buy a new car, you either go to a bank or they will have a credit company. Otherwise they can not give you a loan. Second hand car from a small dealer? Go to the bank. Buying a tv on credit for 500EUR in a store? Sure, they will work together with a credit company. Credit is done by the credit company who gives the money to the store, not by the store itself. They will let you sign the paper, but will never see the information why it was refused. They will just see a go or no-go. Give a tv without a go? Well, that comes out of the pocket of the store.
And in Belgium the credit card companies are not even allowed to analyze on how you spend your money, so no "We see you buy things online, we have a special card for that". Credit companies and banks are also not allowed to do checks on the national bank to see if a customer could have a credit increase so they can send an offer. The request has to come from the customer (some specific, non-marketing exceptions exist).
e.g. not: we see it is possible, but if you want we can see if it is possible.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Lemme guess - to activate this service I have to provide the information that was stolen on 150,000,000 accounts?
Imma steal your identity and then lock it. +1 infosecs
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
EC cards are debit cards. In Belgium they are Bank Contact or now called Maestro.
Schufa is BNB in Belgium.
The thing is: who has access to the information and what do they see?
In Belgium it is only the official credit companies and banks. They only see essential information. e.g. not the names of the other companies.
Also when you close a credit, three months later it will be not visible anymore, so no history. Just current info.
Many people buy on credit. Not as bad as in the US, but plenty people do. However it is also pretty normal to just use the credit card as a debit card. i.e. pay it back 100% at the end of the month.
Cash is used a lot more in Germany than in e.g. Belgium or the Nordic countries.
Debit cards in Belgium can be set to let the account go below 0. Standard in Belgium and has to be turned of by request. Also: if you are longer than 3 months below 0 on your account, you will not get a credit for at least a year, even if that amount is something like 15 cents. That would mean you can not buy your house.
Something similar exists in The Netherlands, but not in Luxembourg.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
still exist?
You travel in odd circles then. Or perhaps just young circles. Responsible use of credit cards provides more safety to your financial health. It's like a financial condom for your money.
Yesterday, I received an email from Equifax warning me that my personal data may be at risk on the "Dark Web" and offering to SELL me some sort of monitoring and protection for this. This is quite different from the free credit services publicly announced in the article referenced here. What's going on?
So before the leak, I didn't feel the need to lock and unlock my credit with such diligence. Each change sometimes requires a certified letter or some other cost not collected as a fee. Now they will offer those changes without a fee (but not compensating me for my cost to make changes) and I'm still expected to pay fees and similar costs for that same service to Transunion and Experian. This is a much worse state and a feeless credit lock at Equifax does little to remedy. We need an overhaul of the system in the US.
Where I *do* have a problem is in the use, sale and profit from my personal information, in a manner that is not compatible with the purpose for which I originally agreed to disclose that information, without my knowledge and/or consent.
I also have a problem with the credit bureaus profiting from the use and sale of my personal information.
That being said, would it be feasible to copyright all of my Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and demand payment for the use of my copyrighted material? If they won't pay, then send them a DMCA notice to remove my copyrighted PII from their database and sue them in small claims court for nonpayment.
https://www.aprfinder.com/diff...
my initial reaction too the "Equifax hack" news was that the company will be gone in a year. They are going to be liable for huge penalties under the existing laws, and will simply not be able to stay in business.
MOST important is the fact that their business was "privacy"/security of personally identifiable information . While they probably weren't any worse at protecting their I.T. infrastructure than any other large company (looking at you Sony), the expectations are higher. Equifax's future is probably closer to DigiNotar than Sony
ltheir stock price looks like a dead cat bounce - if you play the market I'd be thinking about shorting (insert massive disclaimers - but if you are taking financial advice from /. --)
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
And that is your problem right there. In the US you need to have credit to get credit. In Belgium they will look at your net income, deduct living money, deduct credits/loans that are already open IF they exist and the rest you can get a loan/credit.
A credit card will be counted as the highest minimal payment per month. e.g. on a 10.000EUR card that would be e.g. 400EUR, so even if you did not use the card or if you use it completely, it will be calculated as 400EUR as that is the POSSIBLE payback you could do.
No credits? That is the best situation.
They will look if you are single or not, children at charge, or not.
Say you earn 1500 per month. Rent is 750, They deduct e.g. 600 for food and clothes. That leave 150 that can be used for credit. Your debit card will be there and that would be probably 50EUR, leaving you 100EUR for credit. That would be a credit card for e.g. 2000. After that, no more credit for you.
And if you are on the blacklist and you make 20.000 per month that you can prove and have 7 homes that are paid in full, you can not get a 500EUR credit card. No credit for you. After a year you will be removed from the blacklist. Go get a pre-paid card and good luck renting a car or booking a hotel.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Thank you for pointing out EXACTLY what I just said. Did you interpret it differently?
The only alternative where companies don't have to hire private detectives in order to give you credit would be for the government to provide an easy way for lenders to check public records to see if people have gone bankrupt or have been sued for failure to pay a debt.
That theoretically might be better as there would have to be due process around what information is provided to prospective lenders, but it could also be even worse than the current system because the government is usually less accountable for its own mistakes due to sovereign immunity.
Besides reporting people's bad debts the other service that these central services provide is a way for lenders to see how much outstanding loans a person has taken out which is a warning to lenders not to lend additional money... again this could be a service the government provides as all loans might have to be registered with the government for them to be valid... as mortgages currently are.
But I think the current system (plus better execution) is probably about as good as it gets. I would like the government to continue policing the credit services and do a better job at it and the courts continuing to arbitrate disputes rather than the government managing the system itself.
Overall though you still need centralized credit reporting otherwise you can't have trade and transactions which involve debt... and that would undermine a lot of people's ability to buy more costly things and the ability to sell more costly things... setting us back to the days of "layaway" where people could lock in a sale price of something and make payments and then receive what they purchased after they had paid off the balance. Basically it would be a big negative to the current economy to reduce the role of credit.
Like it or not, we have a debt based economy.
Bulllshit!. If responsible use of a credit card is like a condom, not using a credit card is akin to abstinence thus providing you MORE protection, just not as enjoyable.
Lots of interesting observations here - thank you...
However, just to take issue with one specific point you make. When you write, "Unless you agree to let them. That little checkbox that says "save my credit card info for future purchases"? That's not just for your convenience. That's what grants the merchant permission to store you credit card info in their database.", you are rather making my point for me.
Even if I *do* agree to let the vendor keep a copy of my card details on file to streamline subsequent purchases , I absolutely do not agree to let them use my purchase history for other purposes. Even more seriously - if the vendor attempted to claim that my agreement with the question you quote as giving them the right to re-use my data, then they would be explicitly breaking the law. That is because, by making an explicit statement of use [for one specific purpose - future purchases] they are explicitly excluding themselves from having my permission ***for any other purpose*** .
In other words, the only reason that vendors "get away with this" at the moment is simply the cost to private individuals for taking one to court to have their practice over-turned, because, even if successful, it would only cover that one vendor. It would be virtually impossible for that one case to set a legal precedent that could be enforced. Well, short of taking the issue to the European Court of Human Rights, perhaps.
But the escape route [for the vendor] that you suggest is absolutely not viable in the context here.
Get a better financial institution? My Credit Union immediately loans me any disputed amount on my debit card. If it's determined that it's fraudulent, the money stays in my account. If it turns out that I was wrong, I have to give it back. That makes using a debit card far less risky. Tied to a "monthly expenses" account, which we automatically fund the first of every month, we've got a limited amount of funds exposed at any time, with the assurances of credit-card like fraud disputes. From a budgetary standpoint, I find this far easier than using a credit card.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Well said. I have a credit union with an extremely friendly debit card fraud process, which returns disputed money immediately. Our debit card is tied to an automatically funded "monthly expenses" account, which limits exposure to the rest of our money. From a budgetary standpoint, this is far superior to just running up a credit card bill every month. It's easy to keep an eye on a balance working it's way down towards 0, far harder to keep an eye on a balance working up to the abstract limit you set for the month. Big ticket items get their own budget, and get paid for on the credit cards.
Like you, I've got stores that give a discount for cash or debit, and one store that is only cash or debit, building that discount into their entire store. Hard to turn that down!
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Just to further back this post up... When you say 2% cash back, it can get better than that. I have two cards that do 5% for different things that change each quarter. These are no fee cards too. For example, the categories are things like gas, restaurants, home improvement stores.
For Christmas season, this last quarter, one card is 5% for Amazon purchases and the other includes 5% back on department stores (like Walmart).
5% cash back adds up pretty quickly to a chunk of money.
Any organization that blunders in THIS proportion should have been eliminated and dissected, its assets sold off to the highest bidder and the revenue used to compensate the damaged parties no later than two weeks ago.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I do not know about your debit card, but mine is my bank issued Visa card (e.g. no fee). So as to consumer protection...... the same.
Technically the protections are the same for a credit and debit card. The difference the GP points out, and he/she is correct, is that you can dispute a fraudulent CC transaction *before* you actually pay that bill whereas with a debit card the money is already gone from your account and you must request that it be returned. These are not the same thing. In addition, (a) you get a float on your money with a CC and (b) a credit card influences your credit history - which is a good thing, if you pay it off - while a debt card does not.
If you have a no-fee CC and pay it off every month, there's absolutely no reason to have/use a debit card.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
That's a presumption.
A more cynical presumption is that the existing system will remain, but one will have to sign up for a new service for the instant free version. Be interesting to see what baggage it includes in the Ts and Cs.
Since the Chipotle EFT breach, I've been using cash for everything I buy in person, withdrawing (typically) $100 from my account at a time, and I'm really beginning to wish I'd done this a long time ago. Not only do I have more privacy with respect to my purchasing habits, but balancing my account every month is so much easier when the total number of transactions every month is cut down to about 10% of what it used to be. Next will be 'closing the gap' with regard to online payments, which I don't have much choice about; I'll either start stuffing money into my one credit card, or get a rechargeable prepaid card and only ever keep on it what I need to spend online immediately. Either one should provide enough of a financial 'air gap' to give me some modicum of protection. Of course because Equifax were a bunch of useless wankers that let shit happen, nothing I do now may be enough to protect me from someone stealing my entire life..
Very much this. They're grasping at straws.
What I actually want is a lock to prevent Equifax from ever handling my information again.
This company does not deserve to survive. Unfortunately, as the memory of the incident fades, so will Congress's desire to do anything about it.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Why don't you use a debit card then? Maybe because (as I stated) "Add to that that credit cards add some guarantees against fraud, insurance, etc."?
Take another look at the difference between debit cards and credit cards and tell us why you use credit cards.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
We in Europe generally dislike the fees added to credit cards (here) and can manage to keep enough money in our checking account to cover our purchases without needing credit.
In Europe, adding a revolving credit to your debit card is a service you pay extra for with very little gain vis a vis our debit cards other than the convenient access to more money than you have in your account without going to see your banker. I added credit to my debit card for a while as it was the cheapest, most convenient way to get a few thousand € for a new motorcycle at a time when my capitol was tied up. As soon as I paid the credit off, I told the bank to remove it to stop paying the supplementary fees for this "service".
Your convenience argument goes both ways: I see no reason to pay more to my bank for Credit I will not use when debit cards are ubiquitous.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Who the hell do they thonk is ever going to trust equifax again after this fiasco?
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Why don't you use a debit card then?
In my case, mainly because with a debit card, the money is already gone. With a credit card, it's in your own pocket. That gives you a much better bargaining position when things go wrong.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"Using a debit card for anything other than when you want to withdraw cash is stupid behavior. ... You have vastly better consumer protection in terms of being able to dispute charge"
Why would I want to be able to dispute a charge? If I am making the transaction, it's not fraud. If I'm buying something like groceries, or a new shirt, there is exactly zero chance that I'm going to involve a credit card company in any dissatisfaction I may have.
And there are two reasons *not* to use a credit card. First, privacy. The credit cards can and do compile and sell your data. Your local bank or credit union, probably not. Second, being nice. Especially if you're buying from a small shop, remember that your credit card convenience costs them 2%-3% gross, which can be a huge part of their actual margin.
Use credit cards for online purchases, where you don't immediately take possession of the goods. Use them for risky purchases, where you really don't trust the seller (but then, why are you buying from them?). For everything else: cash or debit.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
There's three credit services. You need to lock access to your credit files on all *three* of them to stop identity theft.
It's good that Equifax isn't charging for it on their service -- and they can't control what the other services charge -- so it's a place to start, but it doesn't solve the whole problem.
And in the long term, it'd be better to just scrap the current credit/identity tracking and start over with something more secure.
Also, most places I shop, actually REMOVE the 2-4% markup for cash and debit transactions and again obliterates your argument about consumer markup.
As is commonly said around here, an anecdote does not a trend make, and your personal anecdote is in no way indicative of the situation for most people in the US. In fact, I believe there are only 6 states in the US (Maryland, Nevada, Oklahoma, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming) where merchants are free to set different prices based on payment method without fear of facing fines or being sued for breach of contract.
Why is that?
Well, so far as I know, it's still illegal for businesses in all of the big states (e.g. California, New York, Texas, and Florida) as well as a number of other states (about a dozen in total) to add a surcharge for customers who use a credit card. As such, you're guaranteed that the list prices in those states will have the credit card fees baked in. The caveat to that is, as you suggested, that businesses in those states can offer discounts for cash payments, rather than add a surcharge for credit card users. Unfortunately, most businesses shy away from the practice for the simple reason that it's a legal minefield. Depending on the phrases their cashiers use, where their signage is placed, and even when the discount is applied in the payment process, we've seen a number of businesses have their "discounts" classified as unlawful surcharges, resulting in hefty fines.
Moreover, even in states without laws against surcharges, I believe it's generally still the case that contracts with credit card companies have clauses that disallow retailers from offering different prices, thus ensuring that credit card users always receive the same price as everyone else. Only 10 states have laws that render those clauses null and void, but 4 of those 10 also have no-surcharge laws, hence why I said that there are only 6 states where merchants don't need to worry about stepping into a regulatory minefield or running afoul of contract law.
At the end of the day, with the laws varying so much from state to state (I didn't even talk about the state-to-state differences with regards whether debit cards are eligible for surcharges or discounts), it's simply easier for most retailers—particularly regional or national chains—to have a single price that everyone pays.
Oh, and just to quickly provide my own anecdote as a counterpoint to yours, I live in one of the no-surcharge states and I only know of one place in town (a liquor store) that offers a discount for paying in cash. Everything else is full price for everyone.
I am an huge Dave Ramsey fan and therefor haven't had a credit card for many, many years. My credit score for over 800. The only thing holding my credit score at all is my mortgage and the line of credit on my checking account that I never dip into. Either way, at the end of the day, I don't care what my FICO score is because I don't use debt in any way. Sure, I might miss out on some cash back points or frequent flier miles but I don't care. My life it a lot simpler because of it.
Can't wait, it'll be an online service where they store your passwords in cleartext!
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
You don't need credit if you've got cash. My parents have been out of debt for decades and they're fine.
Credit FREEZES are already free, and are far better than Credit Locks. Companies like Equifax cannot sell your information if you request a credit freeze. From Brian Krebs:
Also this from a more recent article:
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
In the E.U., there is no functional difference as the guarantees are the same for credit and debit (as long as your account is sufficiently provisioned).
Methinks you're mistaking a psychological difference for a functional difference especially as in both cases, the bank is managing your account and the money isn't in your pocket.
If you have a functional difference you can point out I'm still interested.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Can't see the forest for the trees, can you? The entire CC system raises prices unnecessarily, in direct proportion to how much credits cards are actually used.
You've got your eyes fixated on your tiny little bathtub, I've got my eyes on the whole ocean.
Ever hear of low aim steering, where you only look at the tail lights directly in front of you? My preference is to look all the way up the road. I basically never use a CC, and I haven't had a single charge on my debit card I've ever needed to dispute. I also tend to shop at smaller, local businesses who appreciate my extra patronage.
I'm rewarded for every debit card purchase with a nicer smile.
Last night I breezed through the whole of Lustig's new book, The Hacking of the American Mind.
Spoiler alert: he's talking about you and your kind in every chapter.
You're on the dopamine-driven consumption treadmill and you're losing your shit over a tiny spiff with strings attached at every level (what these encourage you to further consume, and how often, what this takes away from the productive economy, and what it takes away from responsible society by allowing the CC companies to lawfully and systematically discriminate against cash purchases—VISA vendors get their left hands amputated if caught discounting cash).
I put way more weight on the happy smile than the stupid spiff.
Doubtful Lustig will gain much notice outside the choir, though. I'm choir central so for me this book was 70% review with only smatterings to truly new material.
One thing I will say about the book is that it has an uneven tone. This is finally explained in the acknowledgements section, where Lustig reveals that his pop-culture savvy SME editor provided all the colour, and effectively functioned as a co-author with a distinct prose style.
Also, he could have used a second editor who was subject matter blind. One or two charts are garishly incomprehensible in a way that only true insiders could possibly miss.
SME = subject matter expert
Mod parent up. If you're considered about identity fraud, a credit freeze is the way to go. Plus it's the only way to really get back at the credit bureaus. They hate credit freezes since it directly impacts their income. If you're not in the market for new credit, freeze it instead.
No, it's the same.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I admire your trust in the law, but it's a bit naive.
IF I owe you money, you're going to care a lot more about making the accounts even than if you owe me money. In the case of the debit card (and I'm trying to get the fraud money back), the bank owes me money. In the case of the credit card, I owe the bank money.
In one case, the company will do no more than required by law. Which case is that?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
*that is, for the "life" of Equifax...which is probably measured in weeks at this point.
-Styopa
Why would I want to be able to dispute a charge? If I am making the transaction, it's not fraud. If I'm buying something like groceries, or a new shirt, there is exactly zero chance that I'm going to involve a credit card company in any dissatisfaction I may have.
Right, so there's exactly zero chance that a retailer is going to make a mistake in their advantage and then refuse to fix it?
I know that the system here in Europe is different than the one you are accustomed to but please pay attention and _read_ what I write as I am not & have not been referring to the U.S but to the E.U.:
- The protections for debit cards and credit cards are identical here.
- In both cases the bank has control of the money in your account and will pay it out to a creditor in the exact same fashion.
- Fraud procedures and protections are identical.
- Both debit and credit cards have withdrawal ceilings which have nothing to do with whether they are debit/credit but with how much you pay for the card (Normal/ Gold/Platinum/etc).
With a debit card I must have sufficient funds at he times the card is imputed to the account or I pay overage fees.
With a credit card if I do not have sufficient funds at imputation time, a pre-arranged loan is initiated that covers the overage and initiates reimbursement at predefined levels. In addition to paying the bank extra for the privilege of having this ready capitol available to me, I pay interest on the loan.
As there is no functional difference in the E.U. between the fraud protection the bank offers me and unless I am unable to provide for my expenses there is no sane fiscal or legal reason to use credit cards here.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Of course of course, there is no difference in legal protection.
Now you stop being naive, and say something that shows you at least read what I wrote.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You are correct, however, that is usually just a hold on the amount until reconciliation can be done and in most cases that is not instantaneous. You can still reverse the transaction either way. I have done so many times. Yes, with a debit card after the 24 hours, the money is gone and you have to wait for it to be returned.
I'm an American who uses credit cards for most purchases. The price isn't any higher, I get some protection against fraud, I get an average of a month and a half float, and I get points which I can use to buy things on Amazon. The trick is to pay them off each month, or the late fees and interest will kill you.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In the US, it's very rare to have fees. I don't think the merchant agreements allow them. Some places do offer small cash discounts, but they never advertise them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That has no impact on my personal finances. If I stop using my card everywhere, prices aren't coming down. You could consider it a prisoner's dilemma with a very large number of players, and we're not going to get large numbers of people to forego the personal benefits without assurance that they'll pay lower prices.
Do you always make unfavorable assumptions about people who have different viewpoints than you?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Responsible use of credit cards provides more safety to your financial health.
Ken D or Ken M? :-D
It's like a financial condom for your money.
What about credit card abstinence? I'd think that would be very healthy.
Ezekiel 23:20
Maybe he paid in czechs?
Ezekiel 23:20
Somebody's got to buy new cars and sell them later for a used car market to exist. I wanted the latest safety features, which were available only on new cars. You go buy what you want, and I'm not going to criticize your choices.
Having bought a new car, I've got a 4-year zero interest loan. I normally make a lot more than zero interest on my investments, so paying it off cash would lose me money.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
the one question I keep having and haven't seen an answer for is why is there more than one credit rating organization in the US?
Sorry, as you mentioned merchant agreements I see that I was insufficiently precise: the fees I mentioned for people in the E.U. are not merchant-card but for the card holder-bank so that a pre arranged revolving credit will be attached to the card and one can reimburse in installments. If I arrange for one and set my maximum installment at 500€, using my credit card for 1000€ one month will trigger the loan for 500€. If for the following 11 months I have 500€ of new expenses on the card the loan stays unpayed for a year, accruing interest.
With a debit card, I need only make sure every month that I have sufficient funds to cover that months expenses.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
You think that money in your bank account is ‘‘in your pocket’’ and will be treated differently by the bank when spent using a credit card than using a debit card. Bankers throughout the EU laugh when reading your claim that fraud treatment is different for the two even though you now admit/understand that isn’t the case.
So, try and explain how I’m naive for telling you that for EU banks that there isn’t any difference. Think it through this time, please.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
You think that money in your bank account is ‘‘in your pocket’’ and will be treated differently by the bank when spent using a credit card than using a debit card
I don't know what kind of lousy laws you have in the EU, but in America, credit card companies can't just take money from your account, even if you owe it. Sorry you live in a lousy country where they can do that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You think that there is a difference between how banks in the EU treat creditors (credit card companies, the bank's ATMs, ATMs from other banks, etc) even though you now know that E.U. legislators considered client protection as a whole and not just between credit-card companies and banks.
Now I suspect that there are some federally applied constraints on credit-card companies in the states that gives clients guarantees that aren't necessarily applicable to bank debit cards, but do I get any inkling that from you? Nah, you just intuit that the U.S. deficiency in debit-card customer protection is universal ang go onward from there to "you live in a lousy country".
Naive ain't the word for it. Thoughtful? Nope more the opposite. Parochial seems to apply as do obstinate, chauvinistic and and close-minded.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
In the US, I need sufficient funds to cover last month's expenses, and by doing that I pay precisely nothing for my credit. How much of this discussion is being wasted by having people from two different situations talking past each other?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes