agedclock

Your comment is a great example of "If you assume, it makes an ass out of u and me".

Everything about this reply is completely incorrect.

> Your case is a great example of why credit scores are not reliable indicators. You were living on the ropes then. One job loss and you probably have very little saved and will be forced to incur debt and and start defaulting on payments potentially. You were very much the risky bet. And yet, you were able to game the system to look like a reliable bet.

So you made a bunch of assumptions about my personal circumstances. Let me correct you:

- I didn't "Game the system". I had absolutely no idea at the time such a thing as a credit score existed. I cannot game a system when I have no idea that it exists. The only reason I checked is that other people at work were checking theirs and I did so sheerly out of curiosity. Many years later I happened to work a contract where they wrote software that did the credit checks.

- I was not "living on the ropes". I lived within my means.

- I had 2-3 months of savings. My strategy for saving this money was to save it on payday. So I forgot I had the money and couldn't spend it. I do exactly the same thing now.

- The debt I had on my credit card was paid off in full monthly. I only used it for online purchases (many online sites didn't take debit cards still).

> Gaming the system like you were able to do in order to improve your credit score is very much correlated to financial literacy which is correlated to socioeconomic class which is correlated to race.

Again I did not game the system. I was completely financially illiterate at the time. My only financial literacy, I had at time was that I shouldn't spend all my money after payday and I shouldn't spend more money than I had. I found that out in the first month of living on my own. My family actually earn a lot less than I do now.

None of this has anything to do with race. From reading your comments replying to me and your posting history, I am pretty sure you are from the US. You are applying your US centric view of the world onto the UK. The UK is not the US.

> This is how we arrive at credit scores being race and class indicators, but not bound by laws that prohibit using race and class as indicators.

What you are trying to do is to erroneously shoehorn in your brand of US politics into a discussion about the UK. As a result of this you have got everything about my personal circumstances (at the time) and the circumstances of family and wider community completely incorrect, in an attempt to score some political points (it obvious btw from the language you are using).

I suggest in future you shouldn't make assumptions.

> I have also had a problem before with a transaction being inaccurately flagged as fraudulent. This could either be because an anti-fraud algorithm isn’t perfect 100% of the time, or it could be the result of a vast government conspiracy to limit my travel.

I never said it was part of a government conspiracy. What I am saying is that your ability to transact freely is infringed by opaque mechanisms.

If that is added with digital only payments which is tied to your gov id, it isn't difficult to imagine a scenario where your ability to transact freely be taken away to stop you from travelling for political reasons.

No having a high credit score has nothing do with your wealth or social class. I have worked in this industry briefly. It looks at your ability to manage credit, and whether you have any flags.

e.g. I had a 995 credit score on Experian back in the late 2000s. The highest was 999. I earned £18,000 at the time, and was in my mid-20s and didn't really own anything at the time. I did have a credit card at the time where I made the payments, and I lived at a household which had no debt, and I was on the electoral roll.

That is why when you are making larger purchases they do a "means test" e.g. see if you earn enough to pay a mortgage.

> Sky is a really right wing partisan channel though, ofc they are going to say negative things about the incumbent government or basically anything it does

You are pretending as if Sky is like Fox News in the UK. It is more like a slightly right of centre network.

Legally they have to provide "Due Impartiality" on the TV network. So they normally invite several people so they can claim they have provided balance.

I actually don't like that they are legally required they do this as often it becomes a shouting match between two participates. I want to hear someone's argument in full.

> Watch any home VHS video from the 80s. Half the people the person holding the camera points it at say "stop filming me"

I suspect a lot of that is more to do with them being worried about their how they look on the film than actually being on the film itself.

> There's just always been people uncomfortable with it.

Of course there are going to be people uncomfortable with it. I am. The issue is that it isn't ever going to go backwards and being video recorded in public by amateurs has been around for almost 40 years. The ship has sailed a long time ago.

Not at all. It is simply a score based on your ability to manage credit, it is scored differently based on the company making the assessment.

In reality that means "have you paid off what you owe in the manner that was agreed" and does the person have any red flags e.g. County Court Judgements against their name or residence.

There are people I know that manage it properly and those that don't. It has nothing to do with wealth or class.

> Well that entirely depends on the country - in the UK it is true, but it wouldn't be true in Switzerland or Germany, where you do have the right to privacy even in public spaces.

Obviously the law is different in different places.

However. The person is talking about Newbury which I used to live near, which is in the UK. So they are talking about their experience in the UK.

So the only law the is applicable here is UK law.

> The author knows what the laws are, but presumably disagrees with the reasoning behind the laws and is criticising them.

He specifically says at the end "This isn’t about what is legal". I also don't believe he understands the law, since he often conflates/misuses the use of term private throughout the entire article.

What he understands as private isn't what is understood by almost anyone (both legal and colloquially).

If you are going to mock conspiracy theorists can you at least articulate the conspiracy theory correctly.

People are worried that it would be made difficult for you to travel outside 15 minute city via a combination of mandated digital payment system for all transactions that are tied to you identity and removal of personal vehicles (e.g. cars).

e.g. Person A is allowed by authorities to buy a train ticket, while Person B is not due to <arbitrary criteria>.

I've been told this has been done in China to stop people travelling to protests, but I don't actually know if that is true.

Do I think this is the intention behind 15 minute cities? No. I do however think that what they are describing is possible since I've had problems making transactions electronically for legal purchases because my transaction was flagged by the bank for being fraudulent.

Also in the UK the bank can refuse to give you your money.

It is not a generational thing at all.

There were plenty of TV shows centred around candid camera / security camera / home video footage back in the 1980s/1990s well before digital cameras or the internet was ubiquitous.

I found this frustrating to read. First the other airsoft participates he seems to seem to be okay with people filming. There is clearly no expectation of privacy.

> I occasionally see people saying “well, if you don’t want to be in photos published online, don’t be in public spaces”.

>

> This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should be able to exist in society, including going outside one’s own home, without needing to accept this kind of thing.

There is no expectation of privacy in any place that is considered public.

I don't like it that things are recorded around the clock or by anyone and be broadcast anywhere, but the ship on this has sailed long ago.

> In any case, here, the issue is somewhat different, since it is a private site, where people engage in private activity (a hobby). > > But then I’ve seen the same at (private) conferences, with people saying “Of course I’m free to take photos of identifiable individuals without their consent and publish them online”.

Again is there an expectation of privacy? Are people told that they are not allowed to use their cameras?

It is whether the is a expectation of privacy. A McDonald's or a Burger King is "private property", but there is no expectation of privacy. I would not expect privacy at an airsoft, paint-balling or any other outdoor activity even if it is on private property.

A public toilet cubical is a public place with an expectation of privacy.

> Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me

It depends whether there was an expectation of privacy as whether it should feel wrong. If there isn't an expectation of privacy. Then this is nothing else than you "not liking it".

> This isn’t about what is legal (although, in some cases, claims of legality may be poorly conceived), but around my own perceptions of a private life, and a dislike for the fact that, just because one can publish such things, that one should.

How else is this supposed to be tacked if not by what is legally permissible?