Just a friendly reminder that due process is a thing in the US. Let's allow some time for the texts, emails, testimony, etc. to come out.
Everyone seems to have reached conclusions about this on very suspicious circumstances, but almost zero facts.
Everyone seems to have reached conclusions about this on very suspicious circumstances, but almost zero facts.
I realize this may seem like mob-mentality or mob-rule but there's some nuance here. When you see such gross negligence do you wait until hearings and court judgements which can easily take years before voting with your wallet?
I'm already trying to figure out how to push locally for dropping SSNs from processes, no matter how Sisyphean it feels.
The way to "opt-out" is to never use credit.
In most of the US it's against code to live in an apartment without electricity. In order to get electricity, you have to open an account with a utility, who opts-in to submit all your data to Equifax.
Their Workforce Solutions division does the same thing with employment data-- so simply by applying for a job from a participating employer, you're consenting to ultimately let the employer report that you work for them, what your current salary is, your SSN and all the rest of the juicy PII.
Fall on hard times? Need some government assistance? Applying for food stamps will also result in your state agency making an inquiry with Equifax to confirm your location of residence and last reported income. If you didn't have a profile before, you do now.
There is no way to opt out unless you work for yourself, live in a home you paid cash for, generate your own power/gas, and never use credit. So basically Unabomber life.
For me personally, the trading issue is a related but separate incident; one hasn't crossed the same threshold of clear evidence.
Prejudging their guilt isn't favorable and we should avoid doing it as a commitment to our legal system but people would have to ignore their eyes to come to the conclusion that this isn't what it looks like.
A few years back, it seemed that a huge number of people were willing to give President Obama, and even Lois Lerner, a pass on illegal actions of the IRS based on exactly this theory: it's the responsibility of the manager to know what their underlings are doing.
And I don't mean to pick on just Obama. Ronald Reagan, patron saint of the GOP, skated on just such a thing with Iran-Contra. They got Oliver North to be a scapegoat and insulate Reagan and Bush.
So if you're wanting blood from the Equifax execs, think about who you've given a free pass to before.
Constructive knowledge really only holds in corporations (and I'm not an attorney but I think it holds in organized crime organizations as well). And it was enhanced with Sarbanes Oxley which was passed in the early-2000s.
Also, I'm under the impression that federal prosecutors appear very reluctant to actually use it in court and where they do use it, they usually have more direct evidence of wrong doing. However, I get the sense that prosecutors know it exists and the Justice Department under Obama did use it to extract those massive fines from banks (albeit with no admission of wrong doing, a get out of jail free card for the criminals in the firm, and the firms that retained Eric Holder's law firm seemed to get more favorable settlements).
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that we have n-1 facts? (or n-3, one for each person)