Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Sanders wants to replace credit reporting companies with public credit registry (vox.com)
140 points by vanderburgt 25 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 189 comments



Awful idea. Having the government giving you a rating, even just for loans is way too far. Politics shouldn't impact my ability to pay but it certainly will. Look at the games Republicans play to suppress minority voters. You want to give those same people power over your credit scores?

This is just trying to solve a symptom with a deeper problem. The real problem is that our judicial system is absolutely cowardly towards corporation prosecution. If you actually just sent the responsible people to jail or actually bankrupted the worst actors, the situation would improve. This impacts everything from the financial industry to oil & gas to credit to privacy rights on the internet.

All of these companies get away with anything they want because we don't send the execs to jail and we rarely fine them more than the profits they made from doing the bad thing.


But would just the 3 US credit report companies would go bankrupt if the judicial system was doing its job ?

I agree that the government should not rate credit worthiness.

But we need a trusted third party that tracks your credit history (just the data of what/when you got credits, and missed payments). Something that the banks and loan shop could consult and compute their own risk assessment.

In some European countries, the central bank is the notary authority that keeps track of bad actors (missed payments, bounced checks, etc.) and private banks or loan shop can consult the registry and make their own decision if you are not credit worthy.


There’s no reason the the government would be any better at keeping data safe, but at least it would reduce the points of failure from 3 to 1... and I guess the government already knows your SSN!


Blockchain would probably work.


Oh HN, never change!


A credit score is different from simply a registry. A registry is just a record.

A score is opaque based on proprietary models, and scores can still be derived by private companies.


To be clear, though, his plan does give you a number that represents your creditworthiness, whether you want to call it a “score” or not. From the article: “a public, transparent algorithm to determine creditworthiness that eliminates racial biases in credit scores.”

It doesn’t say whether the bill will ban “private” credit score providers, but I’m not sure how it will put those companies out of business if not.


There’s no reason it would put them out of business unless they outcompete them.


What information is the registry supposed to contain? What if I don't want to put my information there?

The last time I checked my credit report, it was a (false) list of ex-employers and ex-addresses.

The credit agencies use "undisclosed" methods to verify their data. What would the government do instead?


> Politics shouldn't impact my ability to pay but it certainly will. Look at the games Republicans play to suppress minority voters. You want to give those same people power over your credit scores?

Or the Obama-era IRS supposedly targeting conservative groups. [1]

Without going down the rabbit's hole of which claims were true and by how much....it's certainly the sort of thing you would rather remove as far as possible from politics.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy


> Republicans play to suppress minority voters.

What are they doing to suppress minorities?


Here are a few examples: https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-voter-suppre...

It is more than just requiring proper ID when voting. Turns out that you have to be on a list of pre-approved voters. There can be many reasons why you didn't end up on that list and many ways to bump you off.

Its not like you show up on voting day, scan your ID, and the system magically determines your eligibility to vote based on your current address, criminal record, age etc.. retrieved from a federal database that no one can question. No, the lists are prepared and very easy to game.


I dont know why people show up I usually vote by mail. Never had any issues doing so.


Many states, especially the Republican controlled ones, don't allow that unless you have a reason on a short list of pre-approved reasons.


That’s really surprising. I lived in a super Republican state and mail in ballots were allowed for anyone.

This recent article shows the growth in absentee ballots [0].

Most states allow no excuse absentee ballots but some states still require a reason. Some are republican states like Texas and West Virginia and South Carolina, but also includes most of New England- New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island all super blue.

[0] https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voting-mail-and-absente...


Could you provide a citation that’s a little more reliable than a quora post?


They want to require people to show government-issued photo IDs when voting to prove they have the right to vote.


I'm a progressive liberal, but I believe this is hogwash. Many countries have a government issued national card for citizens. It's not a huge deal. Activists have made it seem like it's a way to suppress voters but I think that's largely BS.

We could start a campaign now, or just after the next election in 2020, and get people to sign up for cards by 2028, and enforce that then. We have census every 10 years, it's something the country can easily coordinate.


>I'm a progressive liberal, but I believe this is hogwash. Many countries have a government issued national card for citizens. It's not a huge deal. Activists have made it seem like it's a way to suppress voters but I think that's largely BS.

Have you tried educating yourself on the matter? For "some" reason, there are large swaths of land where people have to travel 25+ miles and pay with their already taxed income just for the displeasure of standing in line at the DMV/etc.

Tell me how much of a priority this is to someone who might not be able to drive their own car, or take time out of their job for.

I don't understand why someone would front their statement with "I'm a progressive liberal" while remaining intentionally obtuse, unless they're arguing in bad faith to begin with.


Your comment could be much better if you could please remove the ad hominem and tone down the snark.

Particularly on a political thread.


Sure, if you had a free and convenient citizen ID card, requiring ID to vote might be just fine.

As it is currently, it's absolutely a way to suppress the vote of low-income (and minority) people. In many areas of many states getting photo ID is non-trivial, especially if you're in a shitty job.


Hence why I said start the program today, with the same level of canvassing as a census, and then enforce it some time in the future.


You also have to work out some way of dealing with those who fear The Mark of the Beast.


There is a ton of literature on this. Many elected state and local governments, especially in the South, work actively against the voting interests of large swaths of their populations. Whether through gerrymandering, or processes that improperly remove registrations, or that remove polling places, or that place improper obstacles like fees or clean civic record requirements in the ways of voters, or any of literally hundreds of techniques. Requiring government-issued IDs is just the rhetorical cover for these far more restrictive and extremely pervasive techniques.


The basic argument is that requiring an ID to vote is racially motivated as a tool of suppression and an avenue by which to violate basic civil rights. If this the case, then is requiring a government issued ID to travel, either by auto or air, put in place to prevent minorities from freely traveling around the United States?

Are government mandated requirements to produce an ID when purchasing a firearm an effort to prevent black ownership of legal firearms?

Once you get beyond the arguments around voting, it wildly begins to fall apart, and either shows a complete lack of logical consistency in standing up for minority rights, or an ulterior motive is at play.


> Are government mandated requirements to produce an ID when purchasing a firearm an effort to prevent black ownership of legal firearms?

The registration/license requirement which was introduced with the gun control act (with NRA backing) was pretty much introduced as a response to Black Panthers publically/legally carrying guns. So, in a way, yes.


Republicans also conveniently oppose national ID cards and programs to provide hassle-free state IDs.


> hassle-free state IDs

What hassle? Nearly everyone has them already for driving and they're valid for 6+ years. Might take an hour or two of your time every 6 or so years.


Only 62% of 18 year olds have a drivers license[1]. That's not nearly enough to rely on it as a national ID.

[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/18682/percentage-of-the-us-po...


> Nearly everyone has them already for driving

No, not nearly every eligible voters has one, and the distribution is significantly skewed by race and a number of other demographic factors.

And more than one of the politicians pushing voter ID has been recorded in what seemed to be politically safe venues pointing to those biases as motivating factors.


Or you can just send every eligible voter their voting license when they turn 18 and cut out the middleman.


Sounds like a good idea to me, for those without driver's license it'd provide a way to vote without the hassle of getting a non-drivers ID card.

Only issues I could think of are: 1. No central registry of addresses, so how would the government know where to send the IDs. 2. Where would the photograph for the ID come from? 3. Possible fraud/abuse from stolen mail


Other countries were able to figure it out, so can we. Voting license proponents never seem to want to send eligible voters their free voting licenses, though.


> Other countries were able to figure it out, so can we

I mean the solution to #1 is obvious: forced registration. I think you'll have a hard time getting people on board with passing a law for that.

It just seems like an hour at the DMV would solve all 3 problems at once: provide address, current photo, and reduce fraud/abuse. Seems like a good system to me.

Can you give me an example of what other country(-ies) system you're thinking about? I'm curious how it's handled elsewhere as well without the need to appear in person to get an ID.


Sorry could you clarify... why would you need Voting Card? I mean normal state ID must be enough no? Like everyone has to have one so they can prove their age and citizenship and where they live no?


IDs are not mandatory at either the State or Federal level in the USA.

The most common type of identification is a State driver's license, but there are also alternative non-driver license ID cards available. None of these IDs are mandatory, but are nearly required to live in modern society (open a bank account, drive a car, vote, etc).


Oh right - they're still pretending to not like a strong federal government on some issues.


There are a lot of things in modern society that you need a government ID to do. If adding voting to that list is the defining feature that forces the government to make it economical for every adult to have an ID, then that is a win.

Everyone should have an ID because of how important they are for accessing government benefits, freedom of mobility, employment, etc.

If that means that getting an ID should pay you $100 instead of cost you $100 then I’m totally for that.

Again, to reiterate, I believe that getting an ID should be economically neutral at worst (which means you should be paid at least a few dollars for going through the trouble to get one) regardless of whether IDs are required to vote, but if a voting requirement is what it would take to make that happen it’s a perfect win/win.


No one opposing mandatory voter ID opposes this. But it's not what's going to happen.


I'm surprised there's nothing like that in the US already. Here in Mexico, the national ID is a voter ID card (IFE) and is carried by everyone.


Much of U.S. does require voter ID. Thirty-five states require it; 17 of those in form of a photo. [2] It gets contested a lot in the courts though.

Globally, it is pretty typical. Not just Mexico and the U.S., but France, Germany, Netherlands, Iceland, Canada, Brazil, India, Israel. [1]

[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws


In Fiji we don't have a national ID but we can normally use one of either a voter ID card, drivers license, or tax ID card.


The same people that want voters to provide ID when voting are very against free national ID cards. There are plenty of games that you can play at the state level in discouraging or somehow confusing the ID issue (does the address have to up to date on your DL, or even the right state for college students?), which doesn’t apply when a national ID is considered (none of that info is on your passport, but it costs $100+ to get that).


Which is non trivial.

We require ID in almost every kind of daily transaction imaginable, from healthcare to banking, employment, travel, alcohol, cigarettes, all other government services, and so on. But go apoplectic when we try to use it for one transaction every two years and act as if over half the population lacks the ability to participate in daily basic society.

Black people are intelligent enough to get ID's, as are women and any other minority in this country. The constant denigration as if they lack the faculties or intelligence to get an ID is pretty insulting.

Let's get real.


So basically they're not trying to suppress minority voters?


It is a numbers game (no puns intended).

Let's say we have 100k people that live in a few poor counties where not everyone has government ID and they can't afford to spend time / money to go very far. Now, if 40k of those people need an ID to vote, reducing the hours that the nearest DMV operates will reduce the number of people that get an ID.

Now, you might say, "but why can't they just go to the DMV in the next county?" or "why can't they get their IDs well ahead of time?", and you'd have a valid question! But when you have 100k people.. creating what looks like a minor inconvenience will definitely translate to fewer voters in the end. Now, lets create a bunch of minor inconveniences and the numbers really start to shrink.


What are better suggestions to prevent voter fraud? We know from history that voting fraud is a thing, in the 1800s it was known that political parties would pay fresh immigrants to vote (like the scene in Upton Sinclaire's "The Jungle"), or to even kidnap people and force them into voting [1]. So we can't rely on good faith.

I'm under the impression that to vote you must register in a voting district, surely that registration requires something like a birth certificate or a SSN, which I believe is the only requirement for a government issued ID... Operating on the idea that the requirement for government IDs may in fact be a good faith measure to prevent voter fraud, would perhaps an optimal solution be to bring a web camera to that voting registration area and simultaneously issue IDs there?

To be honest, I thought it was a non-issue since my voter registration is also my draft registration, so I assume I provided some form of citizenship proof when I registered. It was a while ago though so I don't recall the details.

[1] https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/election-fraud-in-the-...


The common solution when little documentation exists is to apply ink at voting booths. Something that comes off in a few days, but otherwise bonds to the top layer of people’s skin. That’s plenty for one person one vote. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_ink

As to having non residents vote, vastly more eligible voters don’t vote than people ineligible to vote. Honestly, as much hoopla as this gets it’s clear from recent elections it’s a non issue. Look for actual examples of this happening and your coming up empty.


A paranoid individual might claim that this ink could be tampered with or replaced with washable ink.

Can the same argument not be made for requiring voter IDs? youeseh I'm replying to says it's "few numbers" adding up. Another thread from sverige in this tree links vox and nyt saying that requiring ID has small numbers effect of turnout. So saying that their concern of voter fraud is a small numbers thing kind of lacks heft as an argument.

If these are both the case, then why not go with the requirement (and possibly make the requirement "easier" by issuing IDs at the same time/place) so there's no possibility of contesting the election results with regard to this particular issue?


In person voter fraud requires a large base of conspirators who are never caught, committing a federal crime on behalf of a political actor who also needs to somehow incentivize them to do so without being caught.

Whereas suppressing turn out just requires making it difficult for someone to have a bunch of ID they normally don't need on them in any part of their lives.

These laws are never just "photo ID" - they're always a box truck of weird edge rules about the type of ID.


My state lets me get a state ID even if I don't have a driver's license. The ID has my current address on it and my face too. I think that's plenty of proof.

Also, the DMV offices, where I can get my state ID has plenty of locations and they're open often enough and long enough every day that it doesn't prevent people from getting their ID.

Between those two, I think we're doing a pretty good job of keeping enough people honest that voter suppression or voting fraud aren't big enough issues here.


>I'm under the impression that to vote you must register in a voting district, surely that registration requires something like a birth certificate or a SSN

In California, at least, you can just use your state ID number and last four digits of your SSN [1]. California gives IDs to illegal aliens and SSNs are available to many non-citizens. These might have been checked for citizenship or might not. I suspect that they are not since the SSA itself wants you to bring the naturalization certificate if you want to change your non-citizen SSN card to a citizen's one. California never asked me for proof of citizenship so either it has an access to the citizenship data unavailable to the SSA or it just registers anyone with an SSN and a state ID.

1. https://registertovote.ca.gov/


CA has also sent voter registration cards to those known to not be citizens in the Real 8D era.


We know from history that voter fraud is, very generally, something that can possibly happen.

However, the available evidence suggests that at present, voter fraud in the US (at least of the type that voter ID would prevent) is extraordinarily rare. [1] It's so rare that any measure that even slightly decreases turnout rates will likely cost at least an order of magnitude (if not multiple) more legitimate votes than illegitimate ones, meaning that the overall accuracy of the voting results will be reduced.

There's plenty of time to change course if and when there's an actual uptick in voter fraud, as opposed to an uptick in evidence-free allegations from politicians.

[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/B...


In Argentina everyone has a national identity card. It cost about US$5, and you can ask for an exception if you don't have the money. And I swear this is not the more organized and efficient country in the word.

To get one, you have to ask for a date about 2 or 3 weeks in advance, and you go to one of the official buildings. The process takes like 15 minutes and they send the ID to your home 2 or 3 weeks later.

Sometimes the government puts a truck with a mobile office in some parks. Sometimes you can get one also in some big shopping malls without a previous date. And if you wish, you can pay more to get the ID in the next day. Also, you can make your passport in the same office.

If we can, you can.


I heard this fraud implemented in Texas forces low income people without vehicles to travel 400+ miles by bus to the nearest DMV to get the correct replacement voting documentation (many seniors/disabled).

When conservatives (racists) attack voters using economics (in this case a voter tax), they know precisely which non-white voters they are targeting.


Poor people don't have IDs because they don't drive and don't have driver's licenses, and they don't have the work flexibility or the luxury to go to the DMV, afaik



Hey, I watched the video and found it interesting that the guy interviewed people in Berkeley and New York - places where voter suppression is not an issue.

Some counterpoints: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto


Wow this thread reeks of classism.

You can't imagine an American that cannot afford $50-100 for a government I.D.? You can imagine (& possibly smell) the feces on the street but not the poor people who excrete it?

We know most Americans can't come up with $400 for an emergency, are you going to act like this won't impact voting?

This thread is why people are forcing diversity quotas even when it seems unnecessary, income diversity should be next.


You need a government ID to apply for food stamps or welfare or medicaid/social security, and to apply for unemployment or a job. It would seem like a poor person would utilize those services.

Also, you need an ID to have a bank account, buy a cellphone, buy alcohol or cigarettes.


> Also, you need an ID to have a bank account, buy a cellphone, buy alcohol or cigarettes.

Incorrect on all three accounts in the U.S.

Some states might have a law requiring ID for alcohol or cigarettes, but at least one definitely does not. Some stores actually violate their state's law with their store's ID policies.

I've done all three without ID (alcohol, not cigarettes though). Yes, it is possible to have a bank account without ID.


> Yes, it is possible to have a bank account without ID.

Where do you get that from? It seems incorrect: "You’ll need to provide a valid, government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport, or a state ID card from the Department of Motor Vehicles." [1]

> Some states might have a law requiring ID for alcohol or cigarettes, but at least one definitely does not. Some stores actually violate their state's law with their store's ID policies.

All states require you to be 21 to buy alcohol. Which states do not require you to provide ID for that?

Seems like we might be splitting hairs here due to laws such as Indianas that "Indiana has a photo identification requirement for all off-premises transactions to anyone who is or reasonably appears to be less than forty (40) years of age." [3]

So yes, some liquor seller might be lax on enforcement or judge you to look over 40. However, that doesn't change the laws.

[1] https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/banking/how-to-open-a-bank-a... [2] https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0388-alcohol-laws-stat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alcohol_laws_of_the_Un...


> Where do you get that from? It seems incorrect

Personal experience. I've opened bank accounts online with credit unions. Never had to show them my ID, even when I went in person to withdraw cash.

If I was a third party reading these comments, I wouldn't trust a *.com website, but instead some law, or official govt website.

There's a lot of things in this word that "seem wrong" but are perfectly legal.


"To open a checking or savings account, the bank or credit union will need to verify your name, date of birth, address, and ID number. An ID number can be a social security number or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). To get an ITIN, you will need to fill out a form with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) .

If you don’t have a U.S. government-issued SSN or ITIN, some banks and credit unions will accept a passport number and country of issuance, an alien identification card number, or other government-issued ID number." [1]

[1] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/can-i-get-a-checkin...


Sounds good. So technically an ID is not needed.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, we are equating "ID" to a physical identification card, right? Since I think that's what this conversation stemmed from.

I bet those credit unions were just running my Social Security Number against a database to make sure it matched with the name, DOB, etc I provided.

I wonder if there is a legal definition of "verify" when it comes to banks and customers. Verifying could just be asking the customer, what their name is.


Since they need to verify your address as well I presume IDing with social security card also require providing a piece of mail.

Getting someone’s social security card is hard so this plus a piece of mail or government picture IDs seem fair for an election. Basically, the banking bar.


And they definitely don't buy alcohol.


What do you think is the cost of making an additional ID? Probably 1/2 hour of work (if that), printing and mailing.

So, like, a 24-pack of expensive hipster brew? $50?

It costs $31 to get an ID in California, and $9 if you can't afford $31.

They can afford their booze and still get an ID here, and hopefully in other states too.


Voter ID laws to start. It’s a modern day poll tax to require ID to vote which prevents a crime barely anyone is even committing that doesn’t scale easily to sway most elections.

I haven’t seen Republicans calling for easy access to IDs though and their efforts to suppress voting from people who side with the left are notorious.

Their gerrymandered maps are being struck down in places like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and N. Carolina.

They conveniently close polling locations in minority neighborhoods.

They oppose election security bills. (McConnell until recently).

They oppose informing the public about election interference (McConnell).

Their PACs refuse to disclose donor information.

They’re pro dark money in elections.

Trump just tried to pressure the Ukranian leader for dirt on Biden.

The electoral college heavily favors Republicans and has given them at two Presidents in the last twenty years alone who lost the popular vote.

When Democrats are elected they’ll obstruct their Supreme Court nominations until they can put in their own.

The Senate heavily favors rural populations with the Dakota’s receiving four Senators with a population just over one million while California gets two with just under forty million people.

McConnell won’t even bring bills passed by the House to the floor of the Senate and has referred to himself as the Grim Reaper.

Republicans do not support making election days national holidays.

Republicans consistently try to scale back poll hours and early access voting.

Republicans are anti-democracy and a grave danger to our free nation at this point and it’s terrifying. They use every trick in the book to undermine the populace’s ability to elect leaders that do not serve the rich and the rich only. They stand for absolutely nothing except tax cuts, profits, unbridled corruption, and the selling off of America’s resources wholesale to the highest bidder.


As a non-citizen I think it is fair to expect enforcement of only one vote per citizen and to verify that the right person votes.

Your assertion on how common voter fraud is contradic former NYC Democratic Commissioner of the Board of Elections Alan Schulkin which says it is prevalent in New York City, and he thinks there is a need for Voter ID laws: https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/117511800314022297...

This is a whole thread on how common fraud is: https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/11/13/elections-fraud-20...


Trump set up an entire committee to investigate voter fraud in the 2016 election and apparently found so little they were disbanded and never released their findings.

And I’m not basing much of my world view on that guys unsubstantiated claims or three video clips posted on Project Veritas (a Conservative non-profit which receives funding from the Koch brothers).

There’s a tweet from Governor Abbot talking about investigating this issue from 2018. I conveniently see zero follow up as to the results of that investigation.


How do you even distinguish voter fraud from a regular vote after the fact? This seems impossible because the vote is anonymous and there is no ID requirement, so no wonder putting a number on it after the fact is hard.

The source doesn't change the content of what they discovered, people caught red handed, or the statements made by officials such as NYC Democratic Commisioner Alan Schulkin.


For a non American you seem very invested in this.

I see no proof of people being caught redhanded and that’d be pretty easy to verify since voter fraud is a felony and they’d have a court cases.

It would take thousands of cases to sway most elections, so you’d need hundreds and hundreds of people to commit multiple felonies.

And yet somehow none of this giant conspiracy to manipulate voter fraud is leaking out? Seems implausible.

And they’d all need to assume identities of people already on the voter registration rolls.

So those hundreds of felons would have to somehow not take the vote of someone who would vote later that day, or someone who’d already voted.

This is a lot of work and a really grand conspiracy to keep under wraps.

It’s almost certainly easier, cheaper, and more effective to spread false narratives such as “voter fraud is a big issue and only Republicans care about the sacredness of _your_ vote” than it is to actually somehow find and organize enough people to make it worthwhile.


Not OP, not American either. The voter ID laws in India helps enormously in reducing fraud, if India can implement a system like that, Surely US should be able to as well ?


As I’ve explained, it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t need solving.

Maybe it is a different situation in India, but here the people proposing voter identification laws are doing so in bad faith.

They’re trying to make it harder to vote so elections are less fair, as opposed to making elections more fair by guaranteeing the sanctity of the individuals vote which is the position they’re pretending to be standing on.


To make it harder a significant number of people need to have no ID. Banking require and id [1] and 93.5% of the population is banked. Most of the remainder probably has an ID for Government services that need them such as applying for food stamps, medicare, medicaid, having a job, unemployment support and social security.

In Norway, my home country, it has never been an issue in our 200 years as an independent country for anyone to get an ID to vote. And we used to be mostly dirt poor fishers and farmers that often lived in fairly isolated places.


Forgot link of evidence that banking require ID https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/can-i-get-a-checkin...


Generally that 6.5% of unbanked persons tend not to vote for less healthcare and more tax breaks for the rich.

Instituting the voter ID law makes it harder for 6.5% of people that rarely vote for Republicans to vote to prevent 0.000X% of votes cast fraudulently each election.

Do you get it now?


As I stated the unbanked are likely to be very old or poor so that use government services that require an ID. For instance, they rely on food stamps or Medicaid or social security. A large part of this 6.5% and the cohort you talk about therefor has an ID.

The reason why I think so is that people that are not poor can not lead their lives without a bank account due to the essentials for a non poor life requiring a bank account.


This is my last comment. The Republicans would much prefer to prevent or make it harder to vote for 2%, 1%, whatever.

They don’t care about voter fraud. At all.

They care about adding enough shit together that they can win elections.

That is all they care about.

It is not in good faith. It is not about protecting the sanctity of elections.

It is about the opposite. They’ve never been able to show that voter fraud has ever affected an election.

They’re in it because even shaving a percentage of people from voting Democrat is worth it for them.

That is it. That’s the only reason.

Goodbye.


[flagged]


Like gun ownership and free speech, you have the right to vote in America.

So, if the government wanted to make it harder for the bad guys to own a gun... why should the good guys have to suffer for it?

Similarly, just because the government wants to prevent bad guys from voting, then why should the good guys have to suffer the consequences?


96% of Americans have a cellphone and that require an ID: https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/

Also, good guys have IDs to do one of the many things I listed that require IDs including poor people that need an ID for food stamps or medicare or social security.

It is actually quite hard to buy a gun as this journalist that thought it was easy found out when trying to buy one: https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-gun-buying-review-vi...


Assuming that you're right that 96% have an ID, then what problem are we solving by forcing the other 4% into getting an ID? Is it even a problem? Do you have data to show that it is a real problem?

Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto

Btw, you shouldn't mix up Walmart with the government. They aren't. Walmart can structure their customer experience any way they want as long as they aren't breaking the law.


With the intersection between 96% with cellphones that need an ID and all the other places where an ID is needed the percentage without an ID will be much less than 4%.

For instance, it seem fair to assume someone without a cell phone is poor or very old. Such a person would utilize government services that require an ID such as foodstamps, medicaid or medicare or social security.


>96% of Americans have a cellphone and that require an ID

Citation that cellphones need an id?


They don’t. Maybe OP is thinking about postpaid plans?


Looking into it seems like only postpaid need ID, and it is hard to come by statistics on post vs pre paid. However, bank accounts require an ID [1] and only 6.5% of the US population was unbanked in 2017 which demonstrates the same point.

"If you don’t have a U.S. government-issued SSN or ITIN, some banks and credit unions will accept a passport number and country of issuance, an alien identification card number, or other government-issued ID number."

[1] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/can-i-get-a-checkin... [2] https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/


I'm pretty sure that you need an ID in order to buy a gun.


Here in Florida they run a background check if you want to get any kind of gun. Depending on the gun you have a 3 day wait period. Handguns have a 3 day wait period. Rifles and shotguns do not but they will do a background check regardless.


No one said that you have the right to buy one. You have the right to OWN a gun. You have the right to vote.


That doesn't make sense. Does that mean it's okay if we just throw away the votes of people who don't have ids? After all, they have a right to vote but not to have that vote count.


Not at gun shows or other common purchasing avenues.


If the seller is in the business of dealing with firearms, they do as a matter of federal law.


Please keep Veritas/O’Keefe/political BS off of here. They’re well-known to be serial fraudsters (with his latest attempt consisting of trying to plant false rape allegations during the Kavanaugh confirmation affair).


That doesn't make sense to say when talking about videos. Investigative journalists in all ages have received this charge.


Votrts want favorite politicians to have power over them, forgetting that the next politician in charge may very well be someone they hate.

Anyways, ordinary business and our lives shouldn't be the concern of federal government. It is a different matter if a state went ahead with it.


Our elections are really a choice between communism and authoritarianism.


Communism is authoritarian...


Credit reporting agencies don’t give a “rating”. They keep a record of whether or not you pay debts in a timely manner or not.


They absolutely do provide a rating. Equifax, Transunion, and others provide a FICO score (or similar) based on the data they have.


Credit reports are not the same as credit scores. They are typically provided by different companies.


I meant as their primary purpose, if the government were to offer a similar service. They all started selling scores recently, but lenders don’t necessarily use that, they look at the details themselves and come up with a decision on whether or not to lend.


That's not accurate. I just finished my home refinance two weeks ago.

First, my score qualified me into a certain set of options (rates, points, etc) then they asked about specific details of the report after. But the score is the first pass/qualification.


The fair Isaac corporation issue the FICO score and each credit bureau has their own competing score. The Equifax one is call the "Equifax Credit Score"


If the algorithm is and remains transparent and open to revision I don't see the harm.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.



"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.


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


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.


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


It's interesting seeing the American perspective on this. The perpetual mistrust of government would, I think, be warranted were that government not elected by the populace. As it is, I am a little confused why the same skepticism is not directed at the for-profit entities now operating the credit scoring system.


The government is elected by about a quarter of the populace, and even the winning quarter is often dissatisfied at the lack of control it exerts over its representatives.

Democratic representation is one of the leakiest abstractions ever devised.


Remember that half the population loves the government, half hates it, and they think both one another are evil incarnate. Logic breaks down a bit when that kind of irrational vitriol enters the equation.


The main goal of restricting a governments power isn’t to stop corruption, but to prevent tyranny of the majority [1]. A government elected by the populace is little comfort to minorities.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority


> As it is, I am a little confused why the same skepticism is not directed at the for-profit entities now operating the credit scoring system.

Effective PR?


It's also interesting seeing the American perspective arguing about who is allowed to do credit ratings and who isn't, and why.

Why not do away with the whole concept of credit rating entirely? In Europe we have government (or government adjacent entities) run credit report systems but the only data they get and you get out of them is if you've ever been delinquent (thanks to the GDPR - before that they shared more info.) And even then you have to be a registered financial institution to even be able to ask for the info. There's no scoring or rating based on how well you've performed as a consumer with your credit cards or whatnot, just a red flag in case you're a serious risk of nonpayment.


It's not really surprising considering how many people dislike the current administration.

People don't trust credit industries or the government. But with the stories popping around ICE, with the history of government registries like the no-fly list and the terrorism watch list that just got declared unconstitutional after over a decade...

Right or wrong, I think some people believe that government corruption is more dangerous than industry corruption. You have to put all of Bernie's policies into the context of, "Trump probably wasn't an aberration, and we probably will get another administration like this at some point in the future, even if it's a decade from now." American politics are pretty predictable over the long run: we have regular party swaps, and occasionally they line up so one party controls both the presidency and Congress. The wild card there is the Supreme Court, but (packing debates aside) that's likely going to remain Republican-controlled for a reasonably long time.

So odds are pretty good that anything we build now is something that Trump v2 will some day get to control.

With that in mind, remember that we've pretty recently had debates about whether or not the census was going to include a citizenship question, and whether or not the trademark office could ask for green cards. For all of Equifax's (many) faults, it's not as trivial for an administration to get to start actively disenfranchising immigrants.

People do want the credit industry to be regulated, and they want the ability to opt-out of at least some credit reporting. But they're also nervous about building a system where the people who decide the rules are the same people who run the system. The ability to apply for credit is so ridiculously important for so many people. It would give Trump v2 a lot of additional power to target unpopular groups.


If you look to Bernie's wonderworld, Norway (where I'm from), all that is taken care of privately. However the credit and debt registry companies are obliged by law to inform customers when a check-up is done on them. It's quite painless, and it's a service completely paid for by the finance industry, instead of being a poorly run and corruption prone state owned and agency financed by tax money. The debt registry can perhaps become a nuiscance to a small subset of bank customers, but only those who take on added risk by loading up on big loans and credit lines at many different institutions.


Why aren't private corporations corruption prone? They're the ones DOING the corrupting! But somehow we feel they're better than government? Every 'appropriately funded' govt service I've used has been miles away better than the equivalent private service. Schools, hospitals, research facilities, police, student loan management company etc etc


>Every 'appropriately funded' govt service I've used has been miles away better than the equivalent private service...

Strange because my experience has been the exact opposite in every case, with the exception of police - and that's only because I don't have an immediate proxy. That private industry provides alternatives to these public goods and does them better is an indictment of the competence of our government, and shouldn't be viewed as an endorsement or evidence in favor of free markets for everything. These markets emerge because of government incompetence, not because of corruption or because the market is inherently "better".


I disagree with 100% of what you've said here.


Great. I also think that Houston will win the World Series again (sorry, LA).


Oh, they are, of course, like anyone else. But they have directly paying clients to please, and thus they have a much more important reputation to keep. If any foul play is caught, they stand to lose business, and thus money, while political slights might only cause the odd head or two to roll. And so, barring the bad apple or two, it tends to happen less often as long as the conditions for competition are fair.

On the other hand, a state-owned agency is often very bureaucratic, and thus it has built-in deficiensies and resource hungry regulatives that slow things down to a crawl. All that does is to incentivice paying for speed, which would of course be corruption.

On top of that, private companies aren't subject to change every time Government changes, and leadership change within the private sector tend to be efficiency / profit centered, while Government change is much more complex, and often based on quaint special interests that need to be politically pleased. Or the bar is set higher for it to happen, because politically changing the policies of private companies would involves actual laws that need to be voted in, rather than departmentally set regulatives.


Thanks, but I'd rather the government not collect all this sensitive, personal information. In fact, I'd rather nobody collect it. It's kind of shocking in the first place that our banks and lenders are allowed to release such personal information to a credit bureau without our opt-in. I'd rather Sanders focus on legislating a right to privacy, rather than for the government to take over a role that shouldn't exist.


Credit reporting was a big tool for equality. Before credit reporting, you basically had loans limited to people that were known personally - if you didn't know someone with money that had a high opinion of you, you were SOL.

Now, creditworthiness is judged on more objective measures, which makes it easier to buy a house, start a business, etc. I think we should hold credit organizations meaningfully responsible for data breaches - but at the same time, let's not get rid of the benefits by tossing credit reporting out entirely.


>Now, creditworthiness is judged on more objective measures

Except it isn't. In the current system, you could be signed on to your parents credit card in high school and get a far better credit rating than someone who got their first credit card after college. Building credit is pretty easy to do and easy to game.

An objective system would be if the bank just saw your income and expenses and debts to determine whether or not you're worthy of a loan, not that you've had that capital one card in your sock drawer for five years and use your amex for your netflix subscription.

My little credit reporting anecdote is that of a good friend who came from Germany to practice medicine. Getting a home loan was a pain in the ass because he had zero credit history, despite his hourly rate being multiples of whatever the branch manager of that bank was making.


> without our opt-in

You do opt-in when you sign credit agreements and the like.

Since all creditors require it your options are to opt-in to credit reporting or opt-out of borrowing.


Right, that's what I'm saying should be legislated to be optional. I don't think citizens should be forced to make that choice. Frankly, I think it might even be best to forbid a third party from collecting a borrower's personal information as a condition of a lender providing a personal financial product.

I will in advance disagree with the objection that this would make it impossible for the lending industry to operate. I have run a lending business before, and in the industry FICO score is much less valuable than a lot of other information available to lenders (demographic, income, assets). For asset-based lending (car loans, mortgages, etc), FICO is even more irrelevant compared to factors like loan-to-value.


demographic

I don't think it's a good idea to go back to the bad old days before credit reporting where whether you could get a loan or not was based on your demographics (color of your skin) rather than on the objective criterion in a credit report.


How about just looking at inflow and outflow? "Gee he's got 50k in high interest student loans and makes 30k a year, but boy he had that amex for 5 years! Let's give him a 5k limit to toy around with." Raising your credit rating is literally a game. There are even subreddits devoted to the topic filled with pages and pages of strategy that looks deranged on the outset.


Your home address, age and marital status are absolutely used by lenders in a data-driven analysis of whether you are a creditworthy borrower. I don't think that's a necessarily malevolent analysis, but it's also not true that we live in a society where your demographics are irrelevant to your ability to access credit.


Your home address, age and marital status are absolutely used by lenders

Oh I know. The world isn't perfect in this respect, but it's a hell of a lot better than it used to be thanks to credit reporting. It has been an incredibly powerful tool for social justice. Outlawing it as a tool would be a very large step backwards.


I honestly think it would be overall better for us. Like I said, FICO is a very weak signal that isn't given much weight in the adjudication process; and your lenders are using these other signals I listed anyway, so the negative social effects you speak of are already happening. So, the only net outcome of automatic, forced credit reporting is that third party companies exist that collect, misuse and profit off of citizens' personal data.

Anyway, rather than a draconian approach of outlawing credit bureaus, I think a law making third-party credit reporting optional rather than required is the right thing to push for, and more realistic than a nonstarter suggestion like nationalizing the credit bureaus.


> when you sign credit agreement

if.

So I'm not tracked if I've never taken a loan or credit card?


That is correct, sort of. If you have never had a credit card or taken out an auto loan (or student loan, or mortgage,etc...) then there are no data points on your credit report. You are still "tracked" though - you would simply have a low credit score because there is no data to determine your credit worthiness.


The system firs lubricate money. Otherwise things would be like medical records where you have ask for a transfer, but it’d be worse. Unless you didn’t need credit (loans of any type).


Your government is collecting that information anyway. Would you rather they also give it to companies like Equifax as well?


> Under this proposal, Americans would be able to receive credit scores for free

I have never paid to see my credit score, so I'm not sure how this is novel?

Also, are things not going well at Vox? 900px (height!) of ads at the top of the page along with Outbrain trash and numerous right-rail ads and inside-the-content ads (on desktop) do not give the impression of a thriving publication.


Re: the ads - Facebook & Google are playing games and playing them dirtier than ever before: https://thechive.com/2019/09/19/facebook-and-google-are-curr...


Google really has been pushing the limits of their customers tolerance for their advertising recently. Has there been some management change or is this just another stock boosting attempt to mask the plateauing which happens to every business?

I guess they've given up the constraint and minimalism that helped them get to #1 in the first place. Once again the obsession with never ending growth is compromising the utility of the top players and pressures the regulators to do something.

Google should be happy there are ad blockers, otherwise there'd be a lot more outcry and pushback from the influential tech community.


If you are using a "free" e.g. credit karma, Mint, credit monitoring service, you are paying via giving away your information, its not free.

You're the product being sold.


I'm not sure that this is wholly superior, but given the apparent need for credit agencies and the zero liability for them misreporting information, the extortion, and the functionally zero cost to them when they leak information on more or less every American maybe this is the best option?

OTOH Governments have a tendency to pass laws the make suing them very hard even when they do screw up, so who knows what the ideal solution is?


I think a lot of people miss that federalizing things creates a monopoly, and it's less different from a private monopoly than we might like to think.

It is a democratic monopoly, but democracy among 300+ million people is a big hammer. Do you really, actually think that this will be a well-run service where mistakes are quickly corrected?

No. It will just be an extra layer of protection for any mistakes that are made. At least private companies have to fear the government at some level... who does the federal government fear when it does somethihn unfair? The voter? Hah.


Federalizing means all Americans are voting shareholders but the goal isn't to make a profit.

There are lots of situations where I think that is preferred, but people won't look at it this way because of socialism/communism scare.


Re: "a public, transparent algorithm to determine creditworthiness that eliminates racial biases in credit scores.”

Eliminating racial bias is admirable, but is not a thing that we have any idea how to do in any computationally rigorous way, certainly not as assumed in that language.

Modern credit scoring for anything that matters involves lender and context specific analytics. It's a much richer process than the imagined single monolithic FICO score.

In this world, giving a single entity a monopoly in generating these bespoke scores is, simply for mechanical reasons, a complete non-starter.

The way to deal with profit-oriented lenders making what seem to be unfair credit decisions is to have a credit process that solves for fairness, not profit. That amounts to starting from a place of making capital grants, something the government is very good at, and which would be a better angle for Bernie to be taking.

Andrew Yang's UBI proposal could be tweaked to optionally, at the receivers request, treat the grants in part as low interest rate loans, allowing receivers to create a credit history if they so desire.


Name one program the government has been In charge of where there isn’t some form of widespread corruption or bogged down by red tape. You want the government to give us a number like China? No thank you. I like my free will. It may be limited digitally, financially, and geographically, but I’m still happy with the government not assigning me a number.


What's a SSN in your view, then?


Sounds a lot like the creepy Black Mirror shit China is doing.


Companies like Equifax are already selling your credit data and handling it irresponsibly. I'd rather have my credit data be held by the government than the idiots at Equifax.


I’m not thrilled with Equifax, but I have a hard time believing bureaucrats are the solution.


Why are credit scores “racist” (as claimed by Sanders and Vox)? The outcomes being distributed differently among races does not make the methodology “racist”. The input factors into credit scores do not include race. Correlation to race, even if strong, is not causation.


If you're interested in this topic, you should look at "Weapons of Math Destruction."

It's a question of if the outcomes are distributed differently among races because the races represent truly different probabilities, or because the inputs to the model were already tainted against some race. For example, let's say you judge creditworthiness based on membership in a particular honors society, but that honors society doesn't exist at historically black colleges.


In the latter case, the solution is racism. If the non racial signals are biased against group X, then, when used in the context of those other signals, membership in group X becomes a positive signal, regardless of its independent signal. I believe there was a time when the military did precisly this for black SAT (or simmilar) score, because they found the same score tender to be smarter when it was a black person.


Having known lots of people in the lending industry not a single one of them believes that the current credit rating system (with many I’ve talked to pointing out FICO in particularly) had any real net positive impact on the average person not so they seem to believe that banks or other lending institutions have derived any other even fit than a loophole for setting interest rates high for as many people as possible.

I think we should just go back to what we did before credit ratings, which was basically best due diligence and requiring just a little bit more documentation for a loan application

I also think in lieu of this the government can be a net positive here. In the EU this is the norm from what I understand


Having worked as an apartment manager, I can say that credit ratings were the single best factor for selecting a good tenant. I gave three tenants with bad credit a shot (single mom I felt bad for, blue color couple who seemed really nice and hardworking at screening and a couple who moved from abroad and had no credit at all) and I got burned by all of them ending up missing rent and needing to evict, sob stories and late rent, or causing other problems and fighting with their neighbors. After those experiences I basically only selected people above 750 to for our units and it always seemed like the higher the credit score yielded us responsible tenants who paid on time, didn't cause headaches at the building and left their units in good condition when they moved out.

As an aside, one interesting thing I noticed over the years fielding applications for open units, EVERY single person in the world who has bad credit or subpar credit apparently has the same psycho ex. It was rather amusing hearing that story over and over again. If you have poor credit and you're trying to rent a place- own up to it and be honest about why it's bad!


Makes sense since those with that kind of rate tend to be people with their lives a little more out together.

Not to dismiss the point though, but it’s also extremely anecdotal. I don’t know that it would actually hold true statistically that this would be the majority case.

Escpially given I myself have been under 750 and I have never had these issues


a loophole for setting interest rates high for as many people as possible.

This makes no sense. Banks can set whatever interest rate they want. It's in their best interest to give trustworthy people as low as interest rate as they can.


Actually the rate was capped until the supreme ruled otherwise https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/marquette-inter...

Traditionally there were hard ceilings on acceptable interest rates in most circumstances.

After the Supreme Court ruling however this was no longer the case as companies could setup shop in a friendly state that had high interest rate ceilings. This is the reason so many lending outfits are based in South Dakota (on paper at least) as they were the first state that took advantage of this.

Now when FICO became a thing in 1989 it’s one expressive goal was to maximize this opportunity to give lenders an optimal (e.g highest) rates they could charge customers for their loans. It doesn’t help the consumer at all in this regard.


I love the idea of disrupting the for profit credit reporting industry. I don’t know that the government would do any better, but knocking the other guys off the map is a great start. It’s been decades since the FCRA was passed (specifically to reign in Equifax which operated more or less like the everyman’s TMZ at the time and would even pay for people to go through neighbors garbage) and it has had little impact. The big three credit bureaus are constantly sued and reprimanded and they just ignore it. Let’s try something else.


I think people would somewhat rightfully make comparisons to China’s social credit rating system.

I like the idea of killing off the existing credit rating industry, though. I would prefer it just be heavily regulated as a utility and run by an entity outside the gov.


The terrorist watch list is a good example of how the government runs and rates "risks" within its clear jurisdictional areas: https://www.thetrace.org/2016/06/fbi-terrorist-watch-list-gu...

Here's the key quote:

> "Last year, the The Intercept published a government document that spelled out the process for putting suspects in the terrorist database. The guidelines say agencies can nominate candidates for the list if there is “reasonable suspicion” to believe they are a “known or suspected terrorist.” That’s a relatively low bar, and the guidelines even make clear that agencies don’t need “concrete facts” or “irrefutable evidence” to back up their assertions. The guidelines also give a single White House official unilateral authority to place entire categories of people on the no-fly list."

We can only guess whether the public credit registry will be run with the same, better, or worse level of care and due diligence.

And before you say "omg Trump!!11" note that this article is from June 2016 and the leaked guidelines are from March 2013.


Leave them private but make legally liable for leaks and for the bad info. That mistake cost you dearly so make the registries pay.


How long until they also replace background check agencies with a public social credit registry :-)


In a way they do (minus the "public"). The Global Entry program uses opaque trustworthiness criteria to decide who should get less screening at airports.


Huge support of Sanders.. I love and hate this idea...

Love the idea of a totally open credit bureau that values privacy and does not use medical loans against us. And has full transparency....

I do however not trust the government as we've seen w/ Trump it could easily swing from leftist egalitarianism to rightist fascism in 1-2 election cycles. Then they could use credit scores as a weapon.

I think instead the government should create a regulation platform for credit agencies where they must follow certain principles to be allowed to operate as such including:

* No medical debt.

* Full transparency on how credit scores are scored -- perhaps even being required to use a government sanctioned algorithm.

* Free credit reports to consumers and other tooling.

* Must provide free counselling and support to consumers.

* May make profit from government grants + charging businesses for report access.

* Must offer ways to notify consumers when their reports have been accessed, by who, and when, and allow consumer to revoke and remove access at will.

* Must be protect privacy EVEN from government agencies, to ensure highest level of security for consumers.

Edit: a nice addition would be if they did have more integrations with government programs though, so say every citizen in the credit system is an automatically registered voter in their most recent locale.


Is there any reason someone couldn't just make a nonprofit credit bureau today?


Social credit score? You mean like china?....


Sounds too much like a social credit system.


Communism!!!


Ah. The China model. Piecewise. Shocking /s.


With how awful credit scoring is in the US, this is probably the only option going forward to actually fix it. Right now there's nothing stopping credit scores from being heavily politicized anyways, it's just a few bribes and favors away. Allowing private companies to control this information hasn't fixed anything at all and just left our information even more vulnerable to leaks or being sold.

The rest of his plan involves shrinking the usage of credit scores so that it doesn't affect employment, housing or insurance so I imagine this would lead (ideally) to the general phasing out of the ubiquitous credit scoring nonsense we have to deal with.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: