Hacker News Reader

Comment by bitsoda | Hacker News Reader

On the topic of credit checks, it would be oh so nice to have two-step verification whenever a hard inquiry is made. As a recent credit fraud victim, it's been a nightmare spending hours on the phone with the credit bureaus. Some let you dispute inquiries online, while others require a phone call. I ended up just freezing my accounts (for a fee of course, and another fee to unfreeze), and am gonna wait it out until two years pass.

All of this could have been easily prevented if I were required to reply via a text message sent from the credit bureaus when an inquiry was made.

Credit cards already have two-step, why not apply it to potentially life-ruining inquiries? Is there too much money in mafia-like companies who will keep the bad guys away if you just pay them a monthly fee like LifeLock?

The credit system infuriates me to no end.

View on HN

If you're a victim of identity fraud, you're supposed to be able to freeze the accounts for free.

Edit: see https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0497-credit-freeze-faq... and https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0279-extended-fraud-al...

It's not free in all states:

>The cost to place and lift a freeze, and how long the freeze lasts, depend on state law: In many states, identity theft victims can place a freeze for free, but in others, victims must pay a fee, which is usually about $10.

Although an alert is free, and lasts for 7 years.

I think the problem is that this is a retrospective step. If you don't know you've been the victim of identity theft, then the first time you might find out about it is when you're trying to make a large/important decision, which may well be the most inconvenient time for it to occur).

Then you've got to sort it all out, and _then_ do the thing you first thought of.

To be fair, the tools exist for anyone regardless of income to monitor their credit on at least a yearly basis at no cost to them. Going 5+ years without checking your own credit just because you're not in the market for a house or a new car is pretty high on the list of things most responsible adults don't do.

And both my credit cards show real time credit score numbers from the one of the services. It's not perfect, but if the number radically changes that should be a red flag.

Should it not be frozen by default? This all sounds like a protection racket. Pay us and we will prevent these sort of things in future.

Most people would rather have an easier time opening credit cards, and never have a need for greater security.

Then feel free to unfreeze it. Your convenience shouldn't be my problem.

Why should the minorities' desires determine the default?

I consider opt-out to be an anti-pattern. You should have to give consent for someone to keep data on you.

Not sure the relevance. You agree to data being collected every time you apply for a card, open a bank account, rent an apartment, etc. If you don't do any of those things, you won't have a credit file, as far as I know, or if you do it will be based on public data (like your birth, perhaps).

Freezing is not opting out of data collection, it's a control over who can get that data.

If you pay, you can place the freeze online. If you want to do it free because you qualify as a (potential) victim of ID theft (e.g. in any data breach), you have to do it by mail. And you must include proof. If they were serious about people being able to do this for free, they'd let you upload data breach documentation online, and get your freeze placed for free.

Nice for whom? You're not the customer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com