If Mint can get all my financial data in one place, why can't I update my address from one tool? I checked Yodlee, but they seem to only provide APIs for transactional data, not account address.
Am I missing something?
When you fill out a change of address card, it goes into the National Change of Address (NCOA) database. Many companies, from "junk mail" all the way up to your mortgage company, subscribe to services that routinely update their databases with NCOA data.
It can take two to six months for the NCOA stuff to filter all the way through the system, though, so even if you do fill out a change of address card, be sure to contact any company or organization whose correspondence you must get in a timely manner (e.g. mortgage, rent, bills, etc).
Still, for the truly lazy who don't mind a late fee or two, they will find you (for the most part).
Unfortunately, the current standards efforts for such things are extremely fragmented. I think the best option out there is webfinger and something simple speaking PuSH-JSON
It sounds like a classic chicken-and-egg problem - companies won't integrate with an address-changing tool if no one's using it and no one will use an address-changing tool that doesn't integrate with many companies.
That's aside from the 'how does this service profitably sustain itself' issue and the privacy concerns already mentioned here.
This wouldn't support an entire company but could generate a healthy income for an individual or a small dev group.
But if you are paying them, that's good incentive for real privacy.
Well, try thinking a bit more deeply. Imagine a system where you only have to visit one site, log in, and change all your personal connections with a few keystrokes -- billing, bank accounts, credit cards, address, personal identity. Very convenient!
Now what happens if someone guesses (or steals) your login and password? They would have total control over your life -- they would in essence become you, but without your wish to live a long, peaceful life without being robbed of everything, even your name.
> Am I missing something?
Yes, you are -- you're missing the wisdom that comes with experience.
Did you know that the U.S. government has three branches? Many people know this, but far fewer know the reason why -- it's to make it more difficult for someone to concentrate too much power in their hands. This is actually the reason, crafted by the founding fathers, to protect against a system where the exercise of power becomes too easy.
It's the same here -- the fact that you have to visit a dozen sites and spend hours making petty editorial changes, protects you against identity thieves.
I'm willing to take the risk of having all my information in one place for the convenience that I receive in return. There can be safeguards put in place to prevent the nuclear scenario you present. I can think of several:
1. two-step verification 2. limits on the amount of accounts that can be auto-updated at once 3. notifications of account updates
What is? The three branches of government, and the true reason? That's not a copout, it results from some rather deep thinking by those who suffered under alternative forms of government.
> I'm willing to take the risk of having all my information in one place for the convenience that I receive in return.
Yes, however the topic is not your personal preferences, but which choice has the greatest risk.
> There can be safeguards put in place to prevent the nuclear scenario you present.
"Prevent"? No. They can only decrease the risk.
> 1. two-step verification
> 2. limits on the amount of accounts that can be auto-updated at once
> 3. notifications of account updates
These all fall before a keylogger or a social-engineering attack.
My only reason for posting was because the OP didn't understand why the present seemingly inefficient system represents an advantage.
>Yes, however the topic is not your personal preferences, but which choice has the greatest risk.
But it is a question of my personal preference. If I'm willing to accept the risks and am willing to pay for this then the option should be available to me. Or are you saying that a an adult shouldn't be able to make these types of decisions?
>OP didn't understand why the present seemingly inefficient system represents an advantage.
But don't you see, the current system isn't an advantage, it is an old and inefficient way of doing things! There is clearly room for improvement here.
Yes, and on top of that, you really understand contemporary computer security issues. You've certainly proven that.
>> Yes, however the topic is not your personal preferences, but which choice has the greatest risk.
> But it is a question of my personal preference.
If it was simply a question of personal preference, you wouldn't have asked for the advice of others in a public forum.
You can't have it both ways -- you've posted in a public forum, asking for someone to explain why address changes are difficult. I explained it. Now you're insisting you're an expert, don't need anyone's advice, and in any case, it's all a matter of personal preference.
Knock yourself out. But I suspect long-term, your war against reality isn't going to go very well.
I never said that I'm an expert or that I don't need advice. I merely defended myself against a personal attack by you (accused me of not thinking deeply and not knowing basic things about the US government structure).
The point of the OP was that I noticed a problem, couldn't find a solution and wanted to see what thoughts others had on the issue. You came in with a personal attack and an answer that stopped at the first hurdle- "this would be difficult to secure." Yes a solution would have to answer a tough security question, but I don't think this is a hurdle that can't be overcome.
Maybe it is an issue of age, but when I'm encountered with an inefficient system I prefer to figure out how it can be changed/improved rather than saying "it is reality, deal with it."
I did nothing of the kind. Both claims are false. Locate where I accused you of not thinking deeply, or of not knowing the structure of the U.S. government.
The reasons for the above are legion. First, there is no "you" -- I'm conversing with a nickname, not a person. You're personally quite immune from anything I might choose to say to a nickname.
Second, I didn't accuse you of anything. If I say "It's raining today", is it implicit in my remark that you are ignorant of that fact, and therefore my having mentioned the rain is an accusation of your ignorance? You need to think about how you communicate online.