Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Monday, June 19, 2000 - 09:01 pm  Well, it's probably a little late for most to listen live, but you might want to download the archive. A VERY INTERESTING show on privacy, or the lack of it, and information brokering. The CRAs are the largest PI firms in the nation. They OWN the data they collect on us because they collect it. Interesting concept, wonder if I should start collecting what's in the Walmart cash registers ... Many Americans, whether rich or retired on SS, are opting out, i.e. they move out of the country and live VERY well, on as little as $1,000/month. Maybe next winter I'll finally make it to Belize.
|
| | Wednesday, June 21, 2000 - 06:52 am There's a flipside to the lack of privacy, though. Personally I like the idea of companies matching me to their ideal customer profile and mailing me offers they think I'm likely to accept, especially in the case of credit because a "preapproved" offer removes the risk from me of applying for something I'm not going to get and thereby getting a useless inquiry line on my file. I'm pretty sanguine about what people know about me. So somebody at a CRA can pull my entire purchasing history and learn that I prefer Bud to Coors, that I quit drinking coffee a few months ago, and that I own a dog. *shrug* I opted *in* to this style of life; privacy is much better protected back home, but I don't feel that I've lost anything major.
|
| | Wednesday, June 21, 2000 - 12:00 pm Good for you. I'm all FOR being allowed to publish and make available private and personal affairs. We have people broadcasting to the world via web cams their bedroom activities 24/7. Heck, whatever suits you! But *I* would like to be able to protect MY privacy and I can NOT. Here are the direct links to the 06/19/2000 show with host Mike Siegel and guest Edmund Pankau. For Real Audio: http://pdxwfile.ies.intelonline.com/viewweb/PremiereArch.asp?show=CCAM3006202000 Windows Media Player: http://pdxwfile.ies.intelonline.com/viewweb/PremiereArch.asp?type=wmt&show=CCAM3006202000 At times it was quite funny, Mike Siegel doesn't know much about credit and towards the end of the show stated that the I and R ratings identify the various CRAs. This really was an interesting show about identity changes, privacy, taxes, hiding assets off-shore, retiring outside the States, etc. During "open lines" callers asked questions I've seen here before.
|
| | Wednesday, June 21, 2000 - 01:17 pm Oh, don't forget HEALTH CARE outside the US. Cheaper, better, friendlier ... The last half year I asked nearly everybody I met about Mexican dentists. Nobody reported a bad experience, and in AZ a lot of people go across the border for their dental work. When I finally went a couple weeks ago, I was VERY happy with the prompt courteous service. The dentist was a very short block from the border, I had parked free within 500 ft of the border and walked across. In 3 hours I got the cavities filled, a hair cut, and bought as much as I could carry including tequila. I only had a couple of cavities, not really what you go to Mexico for. But implants and entire "mouths" are well worth flying down here for a few days. One guy got all implants for $3,000 last year. I have a friend in SF who spent $2,500 on ONE root canal. This has nothing to do with credit, but sure can save you thousands fast. I was surprised when they gave me my dental records including the x-rays. That sure was a first. I remember having to go through hoops to get my contact lens prescriptions from the doctors here. They don't want you to buy the lenses elsewhere. And on the subject of privacy, I'm very reluctant to go to a doctor here at all anymore. They own and sell the medical records which I'm not even allowed to see. Years ago Kaiser wouldn't accept me due to a VERY minor problem I had previously seen a doctor for, so I learned my lessons the hard way. This entire privacy issue is way beyond whether you have a dog or a cat. It's about being able to get insurance, employment, credit and health care, to name a few.
|
| | Thursday, June 22, 2000 - 02:39 am Anyone who is in an HMO needs to become aware that the records are legally the HMO's not the patient's. If you ever need to see a psychiatrist, it is on your record and there is no privacy. All that information, from disease or whatever, could be used to preclude another firm from hiring you--just like declaring bankruptcy. Welcome to Amerika.
|
| | Thursday, June 22, 2000 - 04:47 am Before I start this message, let me state for the record: I respect your desire for privacy, and I'm not, strictly speaking, siding with the huge database market in the USA. However, given the way this information is collected, the only way you could achieve tight privacy is by having an "opt-in" system whereby your saleable information is only collected if you identify yourself every time you make a transaction and your name appears on a "please market to me" list. An analogous situation happened in Australia with caller ID, which was introduced in 1998. They originally planned to have the system "opt-in", whereby anyone who didn't specifically state they wanted to send CLI-CND info would show up as "private" on other people's CLI boxes. The expected opt-in rate was only about 20%, which would make the feature useless, so they changed to an opt-out system, which is much more sensible. If you were wondering, Australia's privacy laws lie somewhere in the middle ground between the EU's and the USA's. For example, you cannot obtain someone's credit report without proof of identity and a signature. A credit file also contains a LOT less information than a US file; it contains inquiries (not categorized into much detail) and open accounts, but no balance information and no payment history except the latest delinquency and current state, eg 'has been 90 days overdue, now current'). There is also only one major CRA in Australia, called CRAA. However the laws regulating management and sale of databases are a lot thinner than those in the EU. It's really impossible to predict, of course, but I do think that there are tangible benefits to the lax privacy laws in the US, and that if they were tightened, not all the changes you'd see would be for the better. Not that I think this issue will ever be tested: consumers aren't organized enough or rich enough to push against the multibillion dollar corporate lobby and get the law changed.
|
| | Thursday, June 22, 2000 - 02:21 pm Can you give me an example of a "tangible benefit" to lax privacy laws? I personally know a lot of Europeans, not ONE of them ever expressed a desire for less privacy. Appreciate your description of the Australian credit reporting system, that's interesting. In the US it's not an issue of opt-in vs. opt-out. I can NOT opt out of the credit reporting system and I can NOT opt out of having my medical records sold. The US is really a lot like the old communist countries: You can NOT opt out of the constantly ongoing surveillance and personal data collection The only difference is that instead of the government doing most of the snooping and spying and collecting personal data in huge data bases, it's the corporations, with the support of the American government. Many US residents are as worried about incorrect damaging credit reporting as any East German ever was about getting caught watching West German TV. Many Americans decide to pay a fraudulent bill rather than to dispute it, in fear of credit damage. On second thought, we do have ONE way to opt out: Quit working, close all credit and bank accounts, start living in on the road and have absolutely no services and accounts. Pay ONLY cash and accept only cash. I meet people like that occasionally. It's a harsh life style unless you got lots of $$$.
|
| | Thursday, June 22, 2000 - 03:45 pm The boilerplate argument goes like this: Because there's a lot of information available on consumers in the USA, database vendors can create lists of people who will *more likely than a random sample* buy a particular product or service. As a result, a business can buy such a targeted list and solicit customers. They will get better results than if they had less information to work with. Averaged over the whole business spectrum of the country, there is a large economic benefit. (More business = more profits = more jobs = more wealth). Without the help provided by database cross-referencing, businesses would spend a lot more on advertising for much less profit. Using data mining techniques to discover new customers is potentially very profitable. I think the argument has merit. I can clearly see, however, that it doesn't provide enough impetus to break through a strong privacy lobby to destroy existing privacy laws, and that is why the EU's existing privacy laws are unlikely to be overturned. Again, I'm not God and I don't know all, but I do believe it is unlikely that the database industry will be restricted to any significant degree in the USA. To non-USAians like me, the whole idea of life history being available for sale is almost an American cliche, like guns and baseball. I agree consumers live in terror of bad credit. I'm one of them; I would definitely rather overpay a bill to protect my credit (if I can) and argue later. I'd much rather deal with the CRAs than the Stasi, though (Staatsicherheitsdienst; former East German security police). I'm sure you've heard these lines from your dealings with CRAs, but the detailed histories in the credit reports allow you access to an array of instant credit facilities that you simply don't get in, say, Australia. Potential creditors can say "yea" or "nay" in a few seconds and even though the methodology behind those decisions may be flawed, it's all very nice when things go the right way for you. (Incidentally, I feel certain that the FICO and other risk scoring models are updated constantly. They are based on statistical analysis trying to find correlations between two or more data for individual creditors, and every single day the CRAs collect more data points that could be used to refine those models). I think it likely that Australia will move towards the US model of doing things; we're a very Americanized society. As for the EU, I doubt it if only for the reason that the bureacracy is that much bigger and harder to move than Australia's. I won't be opting out any time soon. I'm a child of the '90s  (Well, I was born in the 70s, but people still say I'm a child today). It doesn't hurt me to get some extra junkmail and the few offers I occasionally receive that I actually accept are most useful. In short, I understand the sentiment you express, but I politely disagree. (And of course, I don't work for a CRA or anything of the sort. I design electronic appliances for a living, and I write the software that runs them).
|
| | Thursday, June 22, 2000 - 04:09 pm I certainly respect your opinion. You're young and you're doing great yourself. So what reason could you possibly have to care about another person's misery? Have you read http://www.bayhouse.com/transamerica.html ?
|
| | Thursday, June 22, 2000 - 04:41 pm Also, I totally agree with you that nothing will change for the better in the US. Better meaning more privacy. It'll get worse and worse, and sooner or later there will be no places to "hide." The purpose of this topic really is to point out that there still ARE alternatives in other countries. That's by no means a secret to the wealthy, many have been moving their assets out of the US for many years. Back in the 70s Costa Rica already had a large American community and the entire region has been thriving. With the stabilization of Central America, more and more Americans will head South. I see more and more seniors hit the road, travel, and eventually leave the US for good. That SS check goes a lot further in many other countries. What do you think of New Zealand? There are supposed to be some nice islands. Also, with all the international mergers I doubt that the EU can continue to protect their citizens' privacy much longer. Unfortunately, what America has today, Europe will have in about 10 years, give or take a few. And that's really my biggest problem with all this, knowing that the rest of the world will soon be assimilated.
|
| | Thursday, June 22, 2000 - 07:13 pm Well, firstly please note that I am not some kind of spoiled rich kid. I earn a decent salary, but I had to move 11,000 miles to get it and I work hard for it. There are many people my age doing much better. I pay my (few) bills. I can reasonably expect to be wealthy in 3-4 years due to the business I'm in now, but that's all a future promise and contingent on me being able to keep the new features rolling in and wowing people in the stores so they buy our luxury electronic gizmos. Anyway, I read the story you linked to above; while it's very unfortunate and somewhat frightening, I don't believe it's directly relevant to the original topic of discussion, which is privacy. This person seems to have been the victim of erroneous bookkeeping and lack of accountability. Certainly I can appreciate this person's pain, perhaps better than you would believe (when my father died, my mother and I were delivering newspapers to eat for a while, until my mother got a job; she'd been out of the workforce for years. You haven't lived until you've lived with the knowledge that a $20 check from a newspaper company is the difference between eating all week or going hungry a few days. Even today I have a kind of psychological barrier that prevents me from answering the door if I'm not expecting someone, because it might be a collector). Banks do a lot of risky/dumb things and hope they never come to light. For example, when my father died, my mother was contacted by a panicked bank manager. Apparently my mother was listed as co-signatory on the mortgage and yet she had never signed the paperwork; her husband's signature was the only real signature there. The bank manager wanted her to come in to sign the document to bind her into paying off the mortgage; she did, which was unfortunate in retrospect since if she hadn't, she could have kept the house and not been bound to pay off the balance remaining. But the cojones of this bank manager to allow a "joint" mortgage with only one signature on it... If she'd reported it to his superiors, he would surely have been fired. (Oh, one other thing about a credit file in Australia - every adult has his or her own, there is no linkage between a husband and wife credit-wise except on an account-by-account basis if they choose to open some particular account jointly). Now, I never suggested that lack of accountability was a good thing. Also I don't suggest that there is any positive benefit from allowing anybody - CRAs, lenders or debtors - to break any laws, which appears to have been done in the case to which you linked. I'm sure that almost all the reasonably old credit files in the USA have errors. Even MINE does, and it's only about 13 months thick. Those errors ought to be corrected. There are numerous reports of them not being corrected. The CRAs go unpunished for this. This is bad, I agree. However it's very difficult to design a workable system with sufficient safeguards in it. If you make it too easy to get information changed in files, then people will be editing their credit histories at the slightest whim. If you make it too hard, then people's credit histories will be full of nonsense entries from mistakes that can't be corrected. I don't have an answer to that dilemma. Likewise I'm positive that every American who has a bank account has endured one or more mistakes. I've had enough already to convince me of that fact. Again, I agree that these mistakes shouldn't happen, and there should be some way of double-checking against the bank. But again, I don't see a way of doing it that will work, and yet again it isn't directly a privacy issue. I repeat: I'm aware of a strong negative attitude towards data collection and mining, but I can't bring myself to get het up about it, and for me at least, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
|
| | Thursday, June 22, 2000 - 07:22 pm A PS: I've only been to NZ a couple of times; once I was very small, and the other time was a brief layover in Auckland on my way back from my job interview in NY. NZ is a less Americanized version of Australia; it's remote and low-tech, just like we are, but its government and citizens have a fairly strong anti-American sentiment. They're much more British than we are. I feel about NZ exactly the same way I do about my homeland: it's a great place to retire, because you can live on a fairly small amount of money and a lot is government-subsidized, but it's not a great place for me to live because the industry I work in is dominated by American, then Japanese, then European players, in descending order of importance. The USA is a wonderful country for me; I love this place. Hard to explain the exact feeling of moving to the US to someone who's lived here all their life, though. As an Australian citizen, I can take my pick: we can live and work in NZ without any special permit. For a long time, in fact, you didn't even need a passport to move between the two countries.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |