Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

If they do this, it has to be like the FED. Absolutely independent from any political interference. Not allowed to sell data and be rigorous about user data. Also, find an alternative to SSNs for base ID for people.

On the other hand, it must not transform into what the CCP is doing. It has to stay true to being a proxy for credit worthiness —that is all. No handicapping either or dings for "unapproved" ideas, behavior, purchases, etc.

View on HN

You know it absolutely would be used to target political opponents from both sides.

The performance of the IRS is a strong counterargument to this.

The IRS has done this exact thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

"In January 2014, James Comey, who at the time was the FBI director, told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued. On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges would be filed. On September 8, 2017, the Trump Justice Department declined to reopen the criminal investigation into Lois Lerner, a central figure in the controversy."

By this standard, Jeffrey Epstein is innocent since he died before any trial started and Nixon was innocent since he wasn’t removed from office.

Actually, no, it isn't. Many conservative organizations were targeted by the IRS under the previous administration.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-...

Is it possible that it was due to warranted concerns that these groups were misusing the tax-exempt status?

It seems possible until you realize that the IRS publicly apologized for targeting them and paid a settlement to 427 of the organizations. Four hundred twenty-seven is far beyond any random accident or mistake.

No, I mean sure, if you think a conservative administration settling with conservative groups is a valid admission of guilt, go for it! But for many of us, it just seems like Trump trying to define truth unilaterally to pander to his base. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

Spoiler: both liberal and conservative groups were subject to extra scrutiny via keyword triggers, but only conservative groups got a settlement for whatever reason only Trump knows. Trump was smart enough not to let it go to court (lest any facts get argued for real).

> No, I mean sure, if you think a conservative administration settling with conservative groups is a valid admission of guilt,

For the actions committed under the previous liberal administration.

Trump campaign: the IRS under Obama is corrupt!

Trump becomes president: see, I told you, the IRS under Obama was corrupt! Let’s settle everything and withdraw all criminal charges (because you can’t just say people are guilty) so a judge/jury doesn’t actually determine anything.

But maybe this is valid under Trump supporter logic, I guess.

So totally non-political?

Maybe or maybe not. But a political decision to admit guilt does not really decide anything.

Without knowing how many groups applied, there is no way that you can tell if 427 is an unreasonable number. There are about 1.5 million non-profits in the US. If we assume an average lifetime of a non-profit is 25 years, then we expect about 60000 new non-profits per year. How many of those were conservative groups that did not get targeted?

When was the last time the OPM and it’s data corpus was weaponized politically (data breach incompetence aside)?

Trump revoking security clearances for nakedly partisan purposes. That isn’t a use of the OPM data, but what it enables. It is easy to imagine a future administration blacklisting political opponents from obtaining mortgages.

This can already be done with voting and party affiliation records and mortgage guidelines administered by FHFA (Fannie/Freddie/HUD), but isn’t.

Government is accountable to an electorate, private businesses are not (see: Equifax).

If government is so accountable, why are there only three credit rating agencies? Why does equifax still exist? Government created this oligopoly and won’t let any new players into the market.

Anyone can start a CRA, there is no legislation or regulation stopping competitors from popping up, although I agree it’s government’s fault there is no legislation to provide a corporate death sentence for egregious data breaches.

Yep. Just like the FDIC was against the gun industry.

It will transform into what the CCP is doing. There is nothing else that can come out of such a move.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com