Hacker News Reader

Comment by caymanjim | Hacker News Reader

Your FICO score and detailed credit history already serve this purpose to a large degree. Everyone knows that affects whether or not you can get a loan (and thus purchase a car or home), and on the surface that seems fair enough, but is already fairly discriminatory. But it's far worse than that; if you have a bad credit score, you can't even rent an apartment. And many employers won't hire you. It's not just used to calculate what interest rate you get charged; it's used to judge your value as a human being in general.

View on HN

I think there's a large gap between your credit history and the comments you make online. Or the comments your friends make online.

Pretty much nothing that impacts our rights impacts our credit scores. For example, freedom of speech, press, religion, gun ownership and much more do not impact your credit score.

FICO certainly correlates with some factors you may not want to be included but it seems like a pretty reasonable compromise. If I sublease my apartment to someone, shouldn't I be able to know if they actually pay their debts?

There are lots of problems around the implementation and privacy with FICO but these seem more logistical and implementation than a broken idea in general.

The Chinese social credit seems broken in general. Allowing US companies to check your instagram also feels broken but it's complicated. If you lie to an insurance company and then post that lie online (ie the adventurous sports example from the article), maybe you should face consequences.

A difficult situation is when tech monopolies ban you from using their service. For example, I believe every American should have the right to hear/read every public announcement made by the President. If you get banned from twitter, you may have your rights violated somewhat.

My main gripe about FICO is that they are not transparent about the methodology and the ways in which you could appeal a decision are murky at best and are difficult and take months to fix in many cases. I prefer full transparency as to what the rules are and the algorithms used for the purposes of credit so we as a society can decide rather than private businesses deciding for us what our social credit and other forms of credit is. Why shouldn't I be allowed to improve my credit and why shouldn't that process be completely transparent?

Although I hate Experian on several levels, does this page not address your calculation issues?

https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/infographic-what...

If you want actual points, here’s a great graphic that shows the point values of many different attributes:

https://www.doughroller.net/credit/a-rare-glimpse-inside-the...

I was just shown a compulsory tracking app on a large US multinational's issued cell phone that records and reports detailed usage, location, and driving behaviors, then rates them with a score that just happens to top out around 850.

If you go out of bounds in any category too often, you lose access to company resources and could lose bonuses and other incentives until a retraining course is completed.

When I drew parallels between China's social credit score and their employer's practices, they failed to see the relation because they "always made sure to maintain a good score" so it wasn't a bad thing.

> I was just shown a compulsory tracking app on a large US multinational's issued cell phone that records and reports detailed usage, location, and driving behaviors, then rates them with a score that just happens to top out around 850.

You bring up another tangentially-related point here that represents a form of social scoring: tracking driving. I just got Progressive insurance on my car. They would have knocked about 10% off the rate if I'd agreed to install their app to track my driving. That's a behavioral scoring system.

It's easy to rationalize this by saying that good drivers should pay less than bad drivers, and that it's therefore within their purview. But they're not simply getting a score on how well I drive; they're tracking my every movement 24/7, whether I'm driving or not, with detailed location data.

Right now these systems are voluntary, but it's only a matter of time before we won't even be able to get car insurance without participating in tracking. It's all the same fundamental thing: quantifying our social value.

Can you share the source?

So it’s almost like you’re saying it’s too coarse?

Before FICO you either had to have lots of cash or you had to have people both of you knew vouch for you. FICO enables people to get credit with less hassle than the traditional pre-FICO method.

I’d prefer FICO over s system which tries to manage my daily behavior and may publicly shame me for small transgressions.

With that said, I hope we don’t allow a Chinese style social scoring system and I hope we see push back against this even if it’s not government mandated but a “voluntary choice” with a private entity.

My gripe isn't with credit history being used in the issuance of credit; that makes sense, and has made it a lot easier to borrow money. It also removes the discrimination that existed when bankers would simply refuse to extend credit to minorities.

My point, as it relates to the article, is that what started out as a means of gauging financial creditworthiness is increasingly used as a means to gauge your worth in other aspects of life.

The FICO system isn't technically government-mandated, but it might as well be. If you try to get a security clearance, for instance, your FICO score/credit history is easily the #1 thing they look at.

There's also a ChexSystem that banks use to block people from opening accounts, which is like basically blocking someone from even being able to get started doing anything financially since so much of it is digital now.

FICO scores are definitely worth comparing to this new emerging system, but there are key differences. The input data to FICO scores is broadly public (but not the exact weighting), and they only relate to financial and credit history. They are also regulated by the FCRA, making it so people can see the data that is being held about them and requiring negative information to be removed after a certain amount of time. People can and do receive damages from credit agencies and creditors if they don't correct erroneous information or violate other parts of the law.

It's regrettable that they're are used for things like employment, but on the other hand, you won't be prohibited from using a taxi (Uber), hotel (Airbnb), entering a restaurant (PatronScan), or using a phone or the mail (WhatsApp) because of your FICO score.

Nobody knows what data goes into the reputation systems of tech companies, where it's collected, or who it's shared with. You usually can't look at it. You usually have no recourse as there is no regulatory oversight and no contract to use their services besides "we can kick you off at any time for any reason or no reason at all".

To be honest, I haven't encountered any issues yet and I have quite literally no credit score. Never used a credit card and my history is entirely blank if anyone tries to run a check on me.

I've been lucky enough to never have to participate in a system that I view as being incredibly exploitative. I hope to keep it that way and honestly, I'd like to see further efforts towards curbing the credit score system. It's draconian, a bit orwellian and punishing to the poor and/or unlucky.

>if you have a bad credit score, you can't even rent an apartment. And many employers won't hire you.

I think it's worth noting that you can't rent what the kind of people who care about their FICO score think is a good apartment and employers the kind of people who care about their FICO score want to work for won't hire you. You can still get an apartment, job, etc just fine so long as you're not in bankruptcy.

There's a pretty big chunk of society where basically everyone either has shit credit and/or doesn't use credit. It's just not a chunk of society the chunk that knows their credit comes into much contact with. Those people mostly get along just fine. Access to credit is not a significant thorn in their side.

Oh yeah, a caste system, that's lovely.

I know you don't mean that, but it sure smells like it.

My point is that not everybody lives in upper middle class existence where you need good credit for everything. There's plenty of people out there who will never buy anything other than a house on credit and who never do any of the things you're supposed to do to have a good credit score.

Until, for some reason, one of them wants to, but he can't, he's stuck in his current situation, and that's called "reduced social mobility".

It's used as a metric for the probably that someone will repay their debts; a metric used by those who are making financial decisions based on whether or not someone will do that.

I have bad credit. The only time it is a problem is when renting cars,but even then they allow it after a ridiculous deposit.

This is a VERY good reason why cash or cash-like transactions are good. With China they enforced their crazy system using wepay where even street beggars now have to accept payment that way.

> Your FICO score and detailed credit history already serve this purpose to a large degree.

a) what purpose is that?

b) FICO score doesn't include political outlook or social behaviors. (see also 'a')

FICO score isn't used for employment and I doubt it is used from renting. Employment based credit pulls gives employers a stripped down credit history allowing employers to see total debt, late payments, payment history etc. As for renting, it would be discriminatory against certain religions that forbid debt. If you don't have debt, you can't have a credit score.

Edit: People really need to know the difference between FICO score and credit history. You can't challenge algorithm of a FICO Score number. You can challenge incorrect data on your credit report.

At least in the US, you are wrong on both accounts. Employers regularly check credit history, and every apartment rental agency I've ever dealt with has as well. They might not have an explicit numeric FICO threshhold that they use (or at least admit to using), but that's just semantics. They will pull your credit history, and if they don't like what's on it (or if you simply don't have one), they won't deal with you.

I lived outside the US for years, and even when I'm in the US, I don't participate in the credit market. I'm completely unable to rent apartments in NYC unless I work out an unofficial sublet arrangement (and get treated like a second class tenant at risk of eviction at all times), and even in the suburbs, it severely limits my apartment choices. The only reason it hasn't hurt me with employers (that I know of) is because I have a solid resume and references.

You should be able to do what most people with not to great credit do, prepay some amount of your total lease. Credit is to show that you pay on time. It makes total sense you're not able to rent without some validation that the landlord will get paid.

everybody prepay some amount on the lease, credit score or not.

Alas it's not really like that. The NYC rental market is incredibly tight. Most places already want a deposit plus first and last months' rent, which really just means double the deposit. Even if you have the cash for yet another deposit on top of that, they often won't entertain the idea. It's easier if you can deal directly with a landlord; agencies will generally have nothing to do with you. That and proof of a job/income should be way more than enough proof, but it's still not.

I'm a capitalist and a bit of a left-leaning libertarian, so I'm not saying landlords shouldn't have the right to act like this, or that I think the government needs to step in and regulate it. If I owned a property, I wouldn't want the government telling me whom I can rent to (more than they already do). Just providing examples of the creeping social credit system we have. I don't think it's about financial security once you're already asking for three months' rent just to move in; the financial part is pretty well covered by then.

The government has little to no say in who you rent it to. If I as a landlord want 100% of rental term up front, that's up to me and has no bearing on credit score, that is just a metric that helps me make a decision.

Employers don't only check your credit history, they check your background history using 3rd party verifying services (HireRight, Sterling, etc), which usually include credit checks.

This is a discussion on a social score. Would you argue that what you do on social media is the same as a social score? Difference being semantics.

> As for renting, it would be discriminatory against certain religions that forbid debt. If you don't have debt, you can't have a credit score.

I've had credit-history checks done alongside criminal-background checks done for a number of apartments. One of my landlords told me it was a "negative event check," i.e. do you routinely miss payments, rather than an credit-worthiness check before a loan.

Just like I've occasionally had a startup ask me if I have a wife and kids in an interview, I'm sure there exist landlords that use a credit-check less judiciously.

Okay, so you admit that employers pull FICO scores, but that they then just go "well, we've seen it and now we won't use it in any way to influence any decisions whatsoever"? When why are they pulling it? That doesn't make any sense. It's a very safe assumption that if they're pulling it, they're using it for some reason (either current or future) relating to their decision to continue your employment.

As for renting: Do you have any examples of cases in which "religion" was used in conjunction with credit scores to successfully argue discrimination? Because I believe it's pretty standard to pull credit checks on renters before they sign a lease, and again, I'm going to (not so) boldly assume the landlord is then using that in their decision making.

They don't pull FICA scores. When I worked at financial company. We pulled credit history looking for negatives events as required by regulations dealing with securities/FINRA.

So you're just over here arguing semantics? "FICO" vs "credit history" is the "Kleanex" vs "tissues" debate of the credit world. A FICO score is just a brand name credit history product. The point, that your previous credit events can be used against you in employment and renting, stands the same.

Is your point that it's JUST the detailed credit history and not "the detailed credit history + FICO" score, because that just seems like a pedantic point to make (and also, impossible to prove. There's no reason someone couldn't obtain your FICO score for these reasons)

OP point still stands: your credit history can be used against you in renting and employment. You've not disproved this point.

Thats like saying a social credit score is the same thing as your social media postings.

I'm tapping out here if you're just going to keep going in on semantics my dude. You're not addressing the real point, that your credit score can be used against you in housing and employment, you're building a semantics straw man and attacking that.

I don't care about the relation between FICO score and credit history. It's tangential to this discussion.

I remember they required a check over credit history to decide whether you are eligible for renting.

I don't think there is law to forbid agencies to do this.

Landlords and property management companies absolutely use FICO in the US. It's a strong indicator on whether you'll pay your rent on time, which is the largest payment most people make. From what I've seen, there is almost always a credit check run on people applying for a rental. When my credit wasn't so great, I had to pay several hundred extra for the deposit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com