Question 4: Where does the money from the fines go?
Her main regulatory creation was a whole new agency that is completely unaccountable to the people it was supposed to serve. She's the last politician I trust with these sorts of things.
Her main regulatory creation was a whole new agency that is completely unaccountable to the people it was supposed to serve. She's the last politician I trust with these sorts of things.
I don't think Ms. Warren really understands most of the issues in finance she's often cited as a champion for, and dislike much about the CFPB, but this new effort to put dedicated personnel around setting minimum security standards and imposing civil penalties isn't too bad, as long as it doesn't indemnify the bad actors for victims seeking individual damages.
[0]https://www.scribd.com/document/368838846/Data-Breach-Preven...
Wow, so Consumer Finance Protection Bureau 2.0. Unbelievable.
Of course I would prefer legislative action so that the regulatory environment doesn't change at the whim of the executive, but when basic harm prevention seems to be a partisan issue, I see little chance of legislative action being successful.
That's a gross misunderstanding of how CRAs function. You explicitly give permission for whatever businesses you interact with to forward your credit info to a CRA, and you explicitly give permission for them to reference the data held by CRAs.
Additionally, other actors that collect information about me without my permission are advertisement and social media companies.
> other actors that collect information about me without my permission are advertisement and social media companies.
So those notices from web sites about cookie tracking, or the Terms of Use from social media companies, aren't enough to warn you about information collection? They can't collect it if you don't visit their (or affiliate) sites.
It may have been true in the past, but nowadays pretty much any reputable company has explicit terms and policies related to collection and use of personal data, and you have agreed to those policies by using their services. And non-reputable companies wouldn't care what you wanted one way or another.
This is true, but the CRA is the beneficiary of this behavior and I would be surprised if they don't encourage it. But yes, the CRAs are not solely responsible. They just benefit from the widespread practice of making housing availability contingent on credit score.
>So those notices from web sites about cookie tracking, or the Terms of Use from social media companies, aren't enough to warn you about information collection? They can't collect it if you don't visit their (or affiliate) sites.
I don't use social media (aside from here and Reddit). That doesn't stop Facebook et al from placing tracking beacons all around the web and building shadow profiles on people. Regarding the cookie notices, by the time one has been displayed you've already landed on the site that uses them so it's presumably too late to avoid.
I go to great lengths to not be tracked. I generally browse without js enabled, I block ads and third party tracking requests. I do my best to not consent to bring surveiled. But should not these things be opt-in rather than "desperately struggle and still probably fail to opt out"?
All done through agreements with the sites you do visit and which spell it out in their ToS.
> I go to great lengths to not be tracked. I generally browse without js enabled, I block ads and third party tracking requests. I do my best to not consent to bring surveiled.
So do I. I have 3 ad blockers on my browser and use a custom hosts file to deny as much of this stuff at the network level as possible.
> But should not these things be opt-in rather than "desperately struggle and still probably fail to opt out"?
I agree with this 100%.
>All done through agreements with the sites you do visit and which spell it out in their ToS.
By the time I visit their ToS, more often than not I've landed on the page with tracking beacons and the damage is done.
That last is why you need an office in the first place: for problems which are important enough to care, you need experts who are familiar with the field and aren’t working for a party with an interest in the outcome. Experts like having health insurance, paying their mortgages, etc. so you need to be able to offer them jobs, somewhere for them to sit, funding to support research and analysis, etc.
In terms more familiar to HN, your question is like asking why your company needs an IT department when you can hire consultants. I mean, yes, you could just let Gartner and Oracle tell the CEO what to do but it wouldn’t be cheaper.
No, it's not. That's how it looks to everyone who has ever been on the receiving end of a bureaucratic nightmare. I believe part of the reason the Democrats have done so poorly in the last few years is because middle class America wound up on the wrong side of Obamacare and it woke them up.
> In terms more familiar to HN, your question is like asking why your company needs an IT department when you can hire consultants.
No, it's like your company hiring an whole new, separate IT department, with minimal oversight, every time they hire a new contractor, instead of training up the existing IT team.
What's interesting to me is that the ACA never had majority favorability until repeal was legitimately on the table. And then all of a sudden people "woke...up" as you put it to the idea that their 20-something year old children could lose health insurance, or a person who had cancer years ago could be denied coverage, or that an underemployed person in Kentucky could lose their Medicaid-based health insurance.
Let's be clear: the ACA has a lot of problems. Some of these, like spiking premiums this year, are due to the actions of the current Congress and President. Some of these are due to a lack of real competition, which may have been addressed if the law had included a public option buy-in[2]. Some of these, like shitty exchange websites, are a real problem.
[1] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_dem...
[2] Blame Joe Lieberman for this: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/02/16/16766/elimination...
Here's the page where they show all the polls used to collect this "summary"[0]. Interesting that the vast majority of them show "against" strongly winning.
The PPD poll giving +18 for ACA shows that 49% want to impeach Trump, but conspicuously doesn't ask party affiliation. That's a huge red flag of a stacked poll.
[0] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_dem...
Also, best of luck with your poll unskewing. I had thought that the legitimacy of that ship had sailed all the way back in 2012. Guess not.
For one, it's the latest poll, and you're fixated on a recent change in opinion on ACA.
Secondly, an aggregate of what? Once you have bad data in the mix, especially one that skews +18 in one direction, your aggregate is skewed as well. And that aggregate has half a dozen PDP polls in it alone.
Have a nice day.
Have a good one.
Honest question: Is that her fault? She was just chosen to run it, but she wasn't responsible for the legislation that created it and its lack of accountability, or is that wrong?