From: kaplan@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu (Peter Kaplan -Yodh)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Credit report
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:08:46 GMT
Followup-To: misc.consumers.house
Distribution: na
Organization: Laboratory for Research on the Structure of Matter, University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Sep1.143132.9181@ms.uky.edu> kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>msingh@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (The Supreme Commander) writes:
>

 [  Info on how to get a credit report, followed by a question about
    weather it's a good idea to give slimy credit agencies that kind
    of information, deleted ]

>
>>If you want to obtain a report, your full name and social security
>>number is all you need. USA today seems to be encouraging one to
>>contact TRW and make it easy for TRW to "create" or "update" your
>>report at the same time. Only a fool would make a copy of their
>>driver's license or some sort of bill. If they want proof of address,
>>send them the envelope someone sent you.
>
>You're forgetting one thing:  TRW is doing this out of the goodness of
>their hearts.  There is (unfortunately) no law forcing them to give out
>free credit reports except after a credit denial so unless you've just
>been denied credit they can attach whatever conditions they like to the
>free report.

Actually, I believe that TRW was taken to court by the Attorney Generals
of several states.  The case claimed that TRW has systematically innacurate
records, and that they make little or no effort to ensure the accuracy of
their records.

TRW's free credit report program is part of the settlement of this case.
It may not be a law, but they are hardly doing this out of the goodness
of their silicon hearts.

>
>Did you consider the security implications if they accepted "full name,
>social security number, and any old envelope" as enough to send out a
>report?  ANYONE could obtain your report just by taking time to fake an
>envelope first.  Or are they supposed to magically know where you
>really live, despite the fact they "have no right" to keep a lot of
>information about you and you're not going to help them figure it out?
>

Well, hey, they sent me a report with just my name and address.  The
security implications of this bugged me too.  My question is, why
did they start getting picky about proof connecting names to addresses?
Was it for security purposes or was it because by tricking consumers
into validating their database their database becomes more valuable?

Frankly, I think that they should be willing to send reports to addresses
which are already in their records.  When their records don't match
the request, they should send an alert notice to the address in their
records and a letter asking for proof of address to the requesting address.
They should send alert notices any time they become confused about
someone's address.

On my report it looked like I had 3 addresses at once.  They included
former residences and an incomplete/ambiguous work address.

>Last but not least, if they have a credit report on you in the first
>place, "only a fool" thinks they don't already have most the
>information they're asking for.  The only purposes these requirements
>serve are:
>
>	1)	Make your records more accurate, and
>	2)	Authenticate a request for a report
>
>both of which are quite reasonable goals, assuming they'll be keeping
>a record on you in the first place.

        Sure, accuracy is reasonable, but please don't ask me to help!
If they can't keep good records without requiring unpaid labor
from every credit card holder in the country, then that's their
problem.  It means that their database is garbage, which is ultimately
what I want, since thier database is not secure.  What's happened
to our country when each and every one of us has the personal
responsibility to contact a number of big companies in order to
avoid being slandered by them?

>
>And of course it's unlikely there's anything substantial in TRW's
>records which you didn't previously give some company permission to
>divulge.

Apart from the flagrently false stuff I found in my report.  I have
trouble buying the argument that the small print waves anybody's
responsibility to consider the moral (including privacy) implications of 
their actions.  The small print doesn't void any argument against the
legitamacy of the credit agencies.

>
>Credit agencies are part and parcel of obtaining credit.  Either get
>used to it or stop using credit, but let's please be a little less
>knee-jerk, huh?

If these agencies were restricted to releasing information about you
only with your authorization, only to businesses you had already decided
to do business with, they might be less offensive.
In fact, they run pre-screening programs which release information about
you to anyone with the bucks to pay for it, with or without permission.

I've been trying to get off of these lists for almost a year now, but the
stream of pre-approved credit keeps on coming.
>
>(Geez, imagine--me sticking up for USA Today... :-)

One more thing about the original post:  It's TRW's responsibility to
verify and remove information that you challenge.  It is not your
responsibility to coerce the source of innaccurate information into
cleaning your record for you.


I'm not laughing anymore  ;-)

--Peter (kaplan@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu)