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.

13 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. It's very easy to use. by fennec · · Score: 5, Funny

    All the details needed are currently available on pastebin for your convinience.

  2. Maybe a way forward? by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.
  3. Why So Long? by mentil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Why So Long? by Talderas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seven states already entitle you to zero cost credit freezes. This includes Colorado, Indiana, Maine, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and South Carolina. They may be trying to get ahead of state legislation but my guess is that they're going through damage control with regard to their customers (entities that give credit) not with regard to their data (the people with SSNs). After all, if Equifax is the only one of the big three to make it easy and free for credit freezes to be places, lifted, and removed, then the credit granting entities have reason to use Equifax over TU or Experian as it reduces the risks that they are complicit in identity fraud and give credit to people who are never going to repay.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    2. Re:Why So Long? by dmiller1984 · · Score: 4, Informative

      What you signed up for two weeks ago was to give up your right to sue Equifax and agreed to binding arbitration. That is all. They were not planning to do anything with respect to credit freeze. Even now they want four months of damage control and get as many people to give up the rights as possible.

      I didn't sign up for their credit check service on that shady Equifax Security 2017 website. I actually signed up for a credit freeze and I did so with the other two agencies as well. I used the site below. Equifax Security Freeze

  4. The Law Should Not Allow Equifax To Exist. Period. by ytene · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:The Law Should Not Allow Equifax To Exist. Peri by klingens · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Goodnesc by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Can we fix the erroneous data problem? by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:The Law Should Not Allow Equifax To Exist. Peri by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?
  9. Wait a second... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.'"
  10. Re:The Law Should Not Allow Equifax To Exist. Peri by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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,

  11. Re:The Law Should Not Allow Equifax To Exist. Peri by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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