From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Credit report
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:33:13 GMT

In article <87647@netnews.upenn.edu> kaplan@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu (Peter Kaplan -Yodh) writes:
>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.

Correct -- and the annual free peek (now also offered by the two other
big agencies) was part of the settlement.

>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.

Also correct.  Isn't it amazing that it took the courts to convince 
them that accurate info would be in their favor?  The people who buy
it have long complained about quality...

>>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?

Probably their legal dept. had something to say about it.  The threat
of *another* suit -- now, THAT gets 'em, if not in their hearts, then
somewhere else.

>Was it for security purposes or was it because by tricking consumers
>into validating their database their database becomes more valuable?

I'm not sure what your point is.  Keeping your entry correct is in
*your* interest, far more than theirs; one error more or less won't
break them, but it could louse up your mortgage search bigtime.  The
application to look at one's report is practically an announcement
that one wishes to correct any errors.  Where's the trick? 

>Frankly, I think that they should be willing to send reports to addresses
>which are already in their records. 

Frankly, I hope they don't.  It can take several months for a move to
show up in the records; in my own situation, where I moved to another
apartment in the same building, the new occupant could have gotten 
my report if he so chose, as soon as he knew my name.

> 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.

Again, updates take time, and often they have 2 or 3 addresses.

>They should send alert notices any time they become confused about
>someone's address.

That would be continuously for some people, especially those who
maintain two or more residences.  Better to leave that one alone;
besides, who's going to pay for such notices?

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

So you fixed it.  Aren't you glad all those other folks didn't get 
letters about you?

>>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. 

Au contraire, Pierre!  It's *your* problem.  They do what's cost-effective.
You're the one who benefits most from clean info.  As long as they
can show in court that they're not systematically screwing up, they
have no obligation to meet any standard of accuracy.  

> 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?

What's happened is dependency on credit.  Besides, it's not a personal
responsibility; just a good idea to keep the things one's explicitly
released to the agencies in good shape.

>>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.

Their legitimacy was established by you, when you signed up for that 
loan/credit card/whatever.  The rest of their info is from the public
record.

>>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.

This is not strictly correct.  There are *very* tight restrictions on
pre-screening:
--the client must furnish the credit bureau with a screen
--the bureau applies the screen to the database and releases
  only the names of those that pass it, not those that fail; 
  nor is individual information from the reports released, only
  the fact that the individual passed the screen.
--all names on the pass list must be offered credit.

Nobody who is not going to offer your credit can do this; so it's 
not "anyone with the bucks to pay for it."  In theory, nobody who's
not interested in offering you credit may obtain your report.  (some
people do, e.g., investigators, car dealers, etc.  Do what you can
to protect yourself from these unscrupulous people; don't reveal
your name when you enter a car showroom, no matter how seductively
the salesperson asks.)

>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.

Good luck.  As long as the bureau has your name, you're stuck.  The 
only way I can think of is to declare bankruptcy, or go really far
delinquent on a card.  But, between you and me, I don't think it's worth
it.  8-)

>>(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.

Correct -- but going to the source may be quicker.  And when it's mortgage
time, time is of the essence.  

I just got my report 2 months ago.  Two errors: a bankcard I'd
never opened, and a loan I'd never co-signed, both listed.  My bank
is local, and the credit card has an 800 number.  If you want a job
done right, do it yurself (and take names as you go); a phone call
to the 800 number and an extra moment at the bank on my next visit
got me results in the form of letters of apology/correction.

>I'm not laughing anymore  ;-)

Don't.  But remember to balance your rights against your needs.  TRW
*should* do these things, but you *need* to get on with your life without
a messy credit report.  Credit reports aren;t going to go away, and 
as long as they're collating info from a thousand different sources
(which is what makes them valuable), there are going to be errors.  Just
put your annual credit report applications on your list of things to do 
around your birthday, along with the physical and the dental checkups.

Roger

Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house