[HN Gopher] US vendor accused of violating GDPR by reputation-sc...
___________________________________________________________________
US vendor accused of violating GDPR by reputation-scoring EU
citizens
Author : LinuxBender
Score : 162 points
Date : 2023-06-24 16:44 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| cm2012 wrote:
| You realize is you ban this kind of service, fraud rates are
| going to multiply 10x in the EU, and new, very inconvenient
| barriers to fraud will be put in place.
|
| I'd like to see one (1) person harmed by any of the data sharing
| that TeleSign has done here in the history of the company.
| oxfordmale wrote:
| There will be multiple persons that didn't get the loan or
| mortgage they applied for, as their reputation score was deemed
| to low due to data quality issues.
| cm2012 wrote:
| This "reputation score" means: Are you a bot or a human? It's
| not a credit score. And if it was, that kind of credit score
| _improves_ access to credit.
| bckygldstn wrote:
| Only to the extent that the scores are perfect.
| 111111IIIIIII wrote:
| And we can only reason that they are not. As parent
| correctly implies, the purpose is risk reduction. A well
| implemented system will accept false positives, as we saw
| with the recent Amazon doorbell debacle.
| ineedasername wrote:
| Not necessarily:
|
| No Score = higher risk, higher interest.
|
| Incorrect low score = perceived higher risk, higher
| interest rate.
|
| Depending on how the risks of no/low score are weighted,
| and how wrong the inaccurate score is, a person may very
| well be more harmed by no score than by a low score. An
| inaccurate score might have to be massively off the mark
| to make a person worse off than no score at all. In the
| US for example, people with no credit history often get
| interest rates as high or higher than people with a
| relatively low credit score.
|
| Of course from a privacy & data protection standpoint
| this doesn't make silently and secretly profiling
| customers okay. The solution is probably something more
| like a transparent opt-in system that has easy access for
| the customer to review their data and decide which pieces
| of it are included.
|
| In the US, the balance is skewed a bit more towards
| secrecy, and it's not opt-in either. However you can with
| only modest difficulty check your credit score &
| information used to calculate it, and challenge parts of
| it that you think are inaccurate.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| "The end justifies the means"? Come on.
| AndroTux wrote:
| Sorry, but in this case it absolutely does. The alternative
| would be, for example, to request ID verification when
| signing up for a freaking TikTok account. Because that's what
| you're going to get if you prevent fraud prevention.
|
| I totally understand that most people don't realize how big
| of an issue online fraud is, but believe me: it is a MASSIVE
| problem with a lot of unforeseen consequences. There are so
| many angles to fraud in online services that it's baffling to
| see with what new ways scammers and fraudsters come up with
| every day. So yes, this is something that totally justifies
| the means.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| > The alternative would be, for example, to request ID
| verification when signing up for a freaking TikTok account
|
| What's wrong with this? When I buy booze in Germany on
| Amazon for example this is already how it works, you verify
| your age with your national ID (which has support for a
| "eID" schema).
|
| The big advantage is that the dedicated company doing the
| processing is by law required to delete all data after
| verification, so no commercial third party actually ever
| gets or can sell your identification data. That's way more
| secure and private than handing TikTok or other foreign
| companies your means of identification.
|
| We would be living in a _vastly_ more secure world if
| random companies only ever got a yes /no that you initiate
| by a dedicated, audited actor on your soil. And it
| basically eliminates fraud as well.
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| > Sorry, but in this case it absolutely does. The
| alternative would be, for example, to request ID
| verification when signing up for a freaking TikTok account.
| Because that's what you're going to get if you prevent
| fraud prevention.
|
| That sounds wonderful to me. Crack down on the shills and
| charlatans...
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| You're absolutely right. And if companies are not allowed
| to do fraud detection using reputation scores, they'll
| simply treat everyone as a potential fraud, and raise rates
| accordingly.
| Tryk wrote:
| Right, they HAD to break the law otherwise lawlessness would be
| pervasive...
| [deleted]
| johnea wrote:
| Ah yes, "reputation scoring", where have I heard of that before?
| Ekaros wrote:
| Credit score?
| amindeed wrote:
| China, I guess.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| -10 for mentioning China and/or reputation-scoring in a
| relatively negative fashion.
|
| Your credit score has decreased accordingly.
|
| Have a lovey day, citizen, and do better tomorrow!
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| This tongue-in-cheeck dig on China may actually mean
| something if it weren't for the fact that the social credit
| system, as depicted by the media, doesn't actually exist.
| It's wholly an invention of the media to project our own
| fears on. This article goes in-depth about what the actual
| situation is: https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/social-
| credit-system/
|
| The bigger story is why people are so receptive to such
| stories, and why the media keep writing them, even though
| they're false.
| newacct3 wrote:
| The author of that article grew up in China and likely
| has familial ties there, one could argue that those
| factors discourage them from honest criticism
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| So USA is giving me a social credit? Nice.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Social credit administered by private firms in the US for
| Europeans is the _good kind_ of social credit. We 'll rent it
| to European governments.
|
| edit: looks like this is identity unmasking, rather than social
| credit. Would work well in conjunction with social credit.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| Just like them, you don't get to choose.
|
| You're now forced to deal with coming mpanies you never entered
| in an agreement with.
|
| What a great system.
| inetknght wrote:
| US is all about the credit.
|
| But it's not the kind of credit that you usually want.
| raincom wrote:
| Privatize everything: surveillance, background checks, social
| credits, health scores, beauty scores, financial scores, work
| scores, etc. That's the best way to appear democratic, while
| blaming other autocratic, authoritarian regimes for how evil
| the latter are.
| opmelogy wrote:
| I'm surprised speeding tickets haven't been privatized yet.
| Get a device installed in your car that monitors the speeds
| of cars around you. If someone violates the speed limit your
| car reports them to the authorities and then you get a "cut"
| of the ticket. Great way to make some extra cash while
| ignoring the fact that everyone is getting pitted against
| each other as a way to stay distracted from all the crap the
| ruling class does...
| raincom wrote:
| "Many members of the general public assume that the cameras
| are property of the locality in which they are used and
| that the funds received go back into the community. The
| truth is that less than 20 percent goes to the municipality
| while the remaining goes to the service provider." [1]
|
| [1] https://worldjusticeproject.org/news/3-private-
| companies-mak...
| ofslidingfeet wrote:
| At this point, the EU and UK are doing a better job of fighting
| for my constitutional rights in the US than the US is.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Less of the UK, thanks ... we're sliding down the slippery
| chain.
|
| Don't join us.
| gadders wrote:
| [flagged]
| LightBug1 wrote:
| What? I wasn't even referring to Brexit.
|
| I think this is one of those look in the mirror moments for
| you.
| starttoaster wrote:
| > I think this is one of those look in the mirror moments
| for you.
|
| Unfortunately, self-reflection isn't the strong suit of
| most people, and especially so for their alter ego
| internet personas.
| [deleted]
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| What constitutional right do you think this violates?
|
| Constitutional rights generally refer to what the government
| can and cannot do to a person.
|
| In this case it was a private company that broke no US laws as
| far as I can tell. Why would the constitution apply?
| simion314 wrote:
| >Constitutional rights generally refer to what the government
| can and cannot do to a person.
|
| So the constitution only protects your human rights(life,
| privacy, no discrimination) from the government? in USA you
| need other laws to protect your rights from other people and
| companies ?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Yes.
|
| In most other places too. The GDPR law is exactly this. It
| isn't in the founding document of the EU, it's a different
| law to "protect your rights from other people and
| companies". This is a good thing: generally you want a
| government framework document to be relatively static and
| hard to change for stability reasons, and you want laws to
| be much easier to pass, revoke, amend, etc... as situations
| change.
| cycomanic wrote:
| This is not true, many countries have a human rights
| component in their constititution, e g. the first 10
| articles of the German Grundgesetz (but many others). The
| exceptionalism in the US that considers the US
| constititution the pinnacle of lawmaking and superior to
| all other constitutions, is quite baffling. Yes it was
| the first and really it's influence can't be overstated,
| but the thought that more recent ones could not learn and
| improve on it, is puzzling.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| The US constitution touches on human rights as well (it
| prohibits some forms of slavery, for example). I never
| said anything about the US constitution being better or a
| pinnacle. I merely based my comment on constitutions and
| how laws in general work.
|
| As an aside, the Grundgesetz is a strange example since
| it was intentionally drafted NOT to be a constitution,
| but an interim set of laws to be replaced/superseded
| after reunification. It even defines how a constitution
| is to be enacted. To be strictly accurate, Germany
| doesn't have a constitution since a constitution must be
| voted in directly by the German people according to the
| Grundegesetz.
| cannonpalms wrote:
| Precisely.
| l33t233372 wrote:
| The US constitution only describes the powers the
| government has and some restrictions of those powers.
| astura wrote:
| I highly encourage you to read the text of them for
| yourself - Constitutional rights are mostly defined in the
| first 10 amendments to the constitution (all ratified
| together) as well as the 13th -15th (post civil war)
| amendments.
|
| These are the text of them:
|
| Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an
| establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
| thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
| press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
| and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
|
| Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
| the security of a free State, the right of the people to
| keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
|
| Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be
| quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner,
| nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
| law.
|
| Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their
| persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
| searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
| Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
| Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
| to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
|
| Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a
| capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
| presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases
| arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
| when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
| shall any person be subject for the same offence to be
| twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
| compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
| himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
| without due process of law; nor shall private property be
| taken for public use, without just compensation.
|
| Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
| shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
| impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime
| shall have been committed, which district shall have been
| previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the
| nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with
| the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for
| obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
| Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
|
| Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in
| controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial
| by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury,
| shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United
| States, than according to the rules of the common law.
|
| Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor
| excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
| inflicted.
|
| Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of
| certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
| others retained by the people.
|
| Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States
| by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
| are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
|
| AMENDMENT XIII
|
| Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
| except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall
| have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
| States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
|
| Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
| article by appropriate legislation.
|
| AMENDMENT XIV
|
| Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
| States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
| citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
| reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
| abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
| United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
| life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
| deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
| protection of the laws.
|
| Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the
| several States according to their respective numbers,
| counting the whole number of persons in each State,
| excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at
| any election for the choice of electors for President and
| Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in
| Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State,
| or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any
| of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one
| years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any
| way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or
| other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be
| reduced in the proportion which the number of such male
| citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens
| twenty-one years of age in such State.
|
| Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative
| in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or
| hold any office, civil or military, under the United
| States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an
| oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the
| United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or
| as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to
| support the Constitution of the United States, shall have
| engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or
| given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress
| may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such
| disability.
|
| Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United
| States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for
| payment of pensions and bounties for services in
| suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
| questioned. But neither the United States nor any State
| shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid
| of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or
| any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but
| all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held
| illegal and void.
|
| Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by
| appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
|
| *Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
|
| AMENDMENT XV
|
| Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to
| vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States
| or by any State on account of race, color, or previous
| condition of servitude--
|
| Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce
| this article by appropriate legislation.
| simion314 wrote:
| I got so many responses, so i do not want to ask
| everyone, but what defines and guarantees your rights
| (that are not about government) ? Regular by state laws?
|
| In my country Romania the constitution is much larger,
| much more rights and obligations are defined but probably
| because is newer and modern(like it is in the
| constitution that men and women will be paid the same for
| same work)
| falcolas wrote:
| The plain text of the constitution, while interesting, is
| of no use for driving real world behavior without the
| centuries worth of interpretation and precedent set by
| the Supreme Court.
| kube-system wrote:
| Yes, the thing that it refers to constituting is the US
| government. It is a tech spec for the government.
|
| There is a lot of discussion about the amendments to the US
| Constitution, but the original US Constitution doesn't even
| say anything about rights. The amendments are implemented
| as limitations of the powers of the government.
|
| All of the other legal rights that the US congress grants
| are just called "laws". For instance, the legal right to be
| free from racial segregation at a public business is not in
| the Constitution, it is part of the legal code, alongside
| other laws that the people (and businesses) have to follow.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| > All of the other legal rights that the US congress
| grants
|
| The US government doesn't grant any rights. We already
| have all of them at birth. The government may affirm them
| but it isn't a higher authority giving anything to
| anyone.
| simion314 wrote:
| >The US government doesn't grant any rights. We already
| have all of them at birth.
|
| What legal document defines "all of them" or what is not
| a right you have ?
| withinboredom wrote:
| I think you totally missed the point.
|
| You are born with the rights to be President of the US,
| but the constitution takes it away if you aren't born a
| US citizen. Before the constitution did that, literally
| anyone could (all the first presidents of the US weren't
| born US citizens, for example).
|
| Any right you can imagine, you are born with them. Then
| some legal document either affirms them, removes them, or
| ignores them.
| sjtgraham wrote:
| That's wrong. The constitution says any natural born US
| citizen or any person who was a citizen at the time of
| ratification of the Constitution is eligible to be POTUS.
| astura wrote:
| In internet comments people think "Constitutional rights"
| means "Stuff that I want."
| ofslidingfeet wrote:
| If "stuff that I want" means "not having my rights violated
| by the government," yeah. (Compare to federal officials who
| think "Constitutional rights" means "obscure blue laws we
| have to work around.")
|
| But if you really want to get specific, I would like for
| our government to take action based on the recent IG report
| outlining how they use private companies to gather dirt on
| us and subvert our constitutional rights. Perhaps they can
| refer to EU regulations which address similar concerns.
| veave wrote:
| Same about "human rights"
| hfkwer wrote:
| > Constitutional rights generally refer to what the
| government can and cannot do to a person.
|
| ...no? A constitutional right is one established in the
| constitution or inferred from the language of the
| constitution. That's it. Maybe in the US you're focused on
| the rights in respect to your government, but people have
| other rights. For example, in my country, I have the
| constitutional right to go on strike, and my employer is
| forbidden from retaliating. I also have a right to freedom,
| property, security, and freedom from oppression. Again, no
| one, neither the government nor my fellow citizens nor
| corporations can infringe on these rights.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| The US constitution is indeed made to tell the govt. What
| it can or cannot do, not what the people can do. That's why
| the 10th amendment boils down to "If we don't mention it
| here, defer to State laws".
|
| Now, there are indeed federal laws imposed onto the people
| but those are not in the constitution.
| ofslidingfeet wrote:
| It violates the right to due process and to face one's
| evidence and accusers. I don't find it particularly relevant
| that the ruling class hides behind a facade of privatization
| to perform this abuse, and frankly that excuse should be
| wearing very thin these days, especially in light of the
| recent IG report concluding very clearly that the government
| performs exactly the abuse I just described and especially in
| light of the Twitter files.
| dantheman wrote:
| People voluntarily interact and should be able to use
| whatever criteria they want when doing that. As for twitter
| files, the problem is the government involvement and
| coercion.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I didn't actually see anything in the Twitter files to be
| concerned about. It looked like ordinary coordination
| between government and a private service provider.
|
| What in the Twitter files are people supposed to be upset
| about? I think I might be missing the proper rubric to
| fill outraged about it.
| krapp wrote:
| Even Twitter's own lawyers have admitted nothing in the
| Twitter Files shows evidence of government coercion,
| censorship or wrongdoing[0]. Basically Elon Musk is just
| delusional and the people who bought into it lack any
| capacity for critical thinking.
|
| [0]https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-
| court-...
| ofslidingfeet wrote:
| Yeah the rubric is called the Bill of Rights.
| tqi wrote:
| Using that rubric, what violations do you think occurred?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| In what way is this a violation of those rights? The right
| to face your accusers arises from the sixth amendment and
| applies to criminal cases being prosecuted by the
| government. Due process comes from the fifth amendment and,
| again, only applies to actions by the government.
|
| You can be upset that this is happening, and that it is
| legal, but there are no constitutional rights in play here.
| ofslidingfeet wrote:
| Yeah so the government has implemented payola schemes to
| subvert those items. Again, I'm glad that this isn't
| quite so mysterious and difficult to comprehend for
| policymakers in the EU.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I'm not sure what you're talking about with payola
| schemes.
|
| This is a comment on an article about how an
| international company violated EU law. The US government
| (the only organization bound by constitutional law) was
| never involved in any way.
| abtinf wrote:
| "Arises" and "comes from" betray a crucial error. Our
| rights do not come from the constitution; the
| constitution merely recognizes our rights.
| majormajor wrote:
| What is the value in claiming inherent rights - and many
| across the world will quibble on just what items would be
| in that set - when there is no natural mechanism to
| defend those rights anyway?
|
| An appeal to authority will only get you so far in an
| ungoverned state of nature.
|
| And when it comes to non-governmental data collection
| businesses in the US, we are in just that state. There's
| no constitution saying we should have any rights to
| privacy against them. I _think_ we _should_ have that
| right; but it would take a law to actually make them
| respect that.
| gbear605 wrote:
| The GDPR is doing a good job at it, even across an ocean.
| Thank goodness for the EU.
| majormajor wrote:
| But the GDPR, like the Constitution, is a written
| artifact; pre-GDPR "recognition" of any of those rights,
| any "inherent" nature of them was not doing anything.
| [deleted]
| sclarisse wrote:
| Yeah; there's a case for the ninth and tenth, but that's
| about it. And those never really work.
| MereInterest wrote:
| Arguably, the fourth amendment, though this would be a
| rather large departure from its current interpretation.
| The fourth amendment states that "[t]he right of the
| people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
| effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
| shall not be violated..." It does not state from whom
| these violations may not occur, so this clause would not
| be limited to violations being performed by the
| government. Therefore, this could be interpreted just as
| a limitation of the government against violating this
| right, but also the allowance of the government to
| prevent other violations.
| golemotron wrote:
| > It violates the right to due process and to face one's
| evidence and accusers.
|
| Due process is from the government when they accuse you of
| a crime. In this case, the government is not attacking your
| privacy and there are no accusers.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| This is only a right in a court of law. Unfortunately,
| people can accuse you of rape on a college campus and you
| have no right to see the evidence against you even though
| the consequence is being marked as a rapist for life (you
| won't go to prison for a Title IX conviction, but it'll
| show up if you ever reapply to college, it shows up for the
| Bar Association, and on security clearance investigations).
| mcpackieh wrote:
| It's a clear-cut end-run around the constitution,
| particularly so in the case of state schools, but trying
| to address this will have you touching a third rail with
| enough power in it to fry your political aspirations
| forever.
| withinboredom wrote:
| This was some stupid precedent set.
|
| Hopefully someday, someone will successfully argue that
| the government _not_ enforcing the constitutional bill of
| rights in a civil setting is the same as a criminal
| setting.
| [deleted]
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I think the thing that is relevant here is that, as opposed
| to what life was like at the end of the 18th century, there
| are now corporations that are so large and powerful that they
| can control many levers of what it means to participate in
| society in today's age, and thus constitutional freedoms
| should apply to them as well.
|
| For example, much has been written on HN about how credit
| card companies essentially control what is acceptable for
| online content (at least online content that one might pay
| for). It may be correct as to "the letter of the law" that
| these companies shouldn't have to abide by freedom of speech
| or association, but the fact on the ground is that there are
| nearly no other options if the 4 main CC companies decide
| they don't want to allow you to take payment (please don't
| let this devolve into a discussion about crypto...)
|
| The US already recognizes this when it comes to credit
| bureaus - the 3 major bureaus are highly regulated and the
| types of information they are allowed to collect, use and
| share is explicitly detailed. I see no reason why phone
| companies should get a free pass.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| 1. As the other comment mentions, this is a Belgian company
|
| 2. Following the common argument in USA/China/TikTok debates,
| won't EU citizens be safer with their private data in the US
| than in the EU, far away from their own governments?
| surgical_fire wrote:
| No.
| dmix wrote:
| There's a ton of these anti-fraud data collection companies. That
| industry (plus marketing/credit card data) is probably the lowest
| hanging fruit to find privacy violations, much more so than the
| usual GDPR targets you often hear about.
|
| Maybe they can do the location tracking ones too that western
| police regularly buy.
| say_it_as_it_is wrote:
| Does advertising exist anywhere in Europe? What a utopia!
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well they are gradually banning billboards entirely in Poland:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/l0p31m/in_poland_we...
| littlestymaar wrote:
| A city-wide billboard ban also happened in Grenoble (France)
| since 2014.
| metaphor wrote:
| > _When BICS acquired TeleSign in 2017, it began to fall under
| the partial control of BICS ' parent company, Belgian telecom
| giant Proximus. Proximus held a partial stake in BICS, which
| Proximus spun off from its own operations in 1997._
|
| > _In 2021, Proximus bought out BICS ' other shareholders, making
| it the sole owner of both the telecom interchange and TeleSign._
|
| Curious how the article's headline goes out of its way to
| emphasize "US vendor" when the puppet masters in the underlying
| corporate structure are entirely Belgian.
| McDyver wrote:
| Link to noyb's site, with a template to request whether your
| number is processed by TeleSign:
|
| https://noyb.eu/en/telesign-profiles-half-worlds-phone-users
| popcalc wrote:
| What goes in the client number field?
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| I assume it's the customer account number on the invoice with
| your phone provider since you need to attach it.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| The person (no name, no home address, personal id #) who controls
| phone number 555-1234 has a fraud score of X. It's amazing to me
| that this is a GDPR violation. What a poorly designed rule.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| Americans: haha look at those dystopian Chinese and their social
| credit score.
|
| Also Americans: credit score, reputation score, every other
| ranking imaginable performed by non accountable corporations.
| eyphka wrote:
| I'm not sure why it says US when the company owning is Belgian
| I believe.
| manmal wrote:
| TeleSign is based in California.
| eyphka wrote:
| Got it, but the owning parent company was Belgian, isn't
| it?
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Credit score has a regulated scoring system. It's all based on
| your debts, and repayment of said debts. You're not going to
| lose credit score based on your vote.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| It's true that lending is heavily regulated in the US.
| However I know for a fact that there are startups here that
| are designing credit scores for foreign markets in developing
| countries that include all sorts of factors that we would
| consider bad in the US.
| xwdv wrote:
| What exactly is wrong with that? How else would you expect
| to quantify the risk of lending money to some foreign
| individual? Without such a score, the result is simple: you
| don't lend money.
|
| If the score can includes factors that increase the odds of
| positive ROI, that is better for the lender. There is no
| incentive to make a "biased" score as that would create a
| market opportunity for someone else. Scores are built to
| whatever is allowed by regulation or lack thereof.
| withinboredom wrote:
| Or, (how it works here), I show them my employment
| contract and they look at my current debts. If the
| income:debt ratio is too risky for them ... they say no.
| It's a bit more invasive for other forms of income
| (foreign/capital gains/self-employment) in that they want
| to see bank statements for the last three years and take
| the average amount coming in as you income. There are no
| magic scores, or hidden factors. It's just, 'can you
| afford to feed yourself and pay your mortgage if you buy
| this house.'
| dnissley wrote:
| This seems like semantics. Presumably they're taking
| these factors and putting them into some kind of
| calculation which probably outputs something like a...
| score.
|
| Maybe what you are criticizing is a particular input in
| that calculation? I notice you don't mention repayment of
| past debts, for example.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| That score doesn't follow you your whole life. There are
| some files in many countries that list failures to pay
| off debts, but their access is extremely controlled and
| subject to verification.
|
| My "credit score" exists for 30 minutes while my bank
| gets my proof of income and ID, and that's it. In the
| same way, my landlord does not get access to any of these
| files, because it's none of his business. It is illegal
| to keep track of individuals like this. In the US, this
| incentivizes keeping individuals in poverty, and its ease
| of access means that it is easy for any predatory lending
| institution to explicitly target people with low credit
| scores. It creates de facto castes.
| epcoa wrote:
| > That score doesn't follow you your whole life.
|
| Nor does any score in the US - none of the inputs, even
| bankruptcy, last more than several years.
|
| > In the same way, my landlord does not get access to any
| of these files, because it's none of his business
|
| Your reliability in paying definitely seems like it would
| be their business.
|
| > In the US, this incentivizes keeping individuals in
| poverty
|
| This is not supported by the data.
| dnissley wrote:
| What do you make of these findings?
|
| https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-
| notes/are-...
|
| _As shown in the three panels, credit scores are
| distributed over the entire support for all three income
| groups, and, apart from the distribution of the high-
| income group having a larger mass at the high end of the
| distribution support, the shapes of the histograms of
| high- and middle-income groups are broadly consistent.
| Indeed, even among the high-income consumers, a
| significant mass of consumers have credit scores lower
| than 680, commonly known as "nonprime" or "subprime"
| borrowers._
| pton_xd wrote:
| Loan companies could compute a population's exact historical
| credit risk by using every bit of past data available, right?
| But they can't use that calculated credit risk to issue loans
| because it might contain "regulated" attributes like gender,
| race, religion, etc.
|
| What about developing their "clean" model by minimizing
| errors between it and the actual model? The clean model
| wouldn't contain any regulated inputs but will be as close as
| you can get to the real thing.
|
| What's the difference, effectively?
| Mystery-Machine wrote:
| Social score is also not shot put someone's ass. It's
| calculated based on your criminal record and some other
| factors. Seems like, as per Wikipedia, it's mostly focused on
| company social credit scores.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
| Manuel_D wrote:
| "...and some other factors." Nice handwaving. From your own
| link:
|
| > In addition to dishonest and fraudulent financial
| behavior, there has been proposals in some cities to
| officially list several behaviors as negative factors of
| credit ratings, including playing loud music or eating in
| rapid transits,[68] violating traffic rules such as
| jaywalking and red-light violations,[76][83] making
| reservations at restaurants or hotels, but not showing
| up,[86] failing to correctly sort personal
| waste,[96][97][81]
|
| I have no idea why you thought this link would help you
| make your case. Human rights organizations the world over
| criticize the social credit score:
| https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-human-rights-implications-
| of-c...
| bllguo wrote:
| the world over? you mean the US and UK? organizations
| with negligible representation from people who belong to
| non-Anglo cultures?
|
| the social credit myth has been busted plenty of times.
| it's a cursory search away.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| IIUC the parent comment, here's some similar logic:
|
| (a) (some) right-handed people are on diets.
|
| (b) (some) right-handed people are gaining weight.
|
| (c) ergo, right-handed people suck at dieting.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-24 23:01 UTC)