TransUnion to Offer Credit Freezes Nationwide 174
An anonymous reader writes "In a little-noticed press release issued Tuesday, credit reporting bureau TransUnion said it would begin offering credit freezes to all Americans, a change the belies the credit industry's oft-uttered claim that doing so would be too expensive and burdensome. The program takes effect Oct. 15, 2007, will cost $10 each to place and to remove, and request and must be filed by certified mail. As The Washington Post reports, the move comes as some 39 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws entitling their residents to credit freeze rights. The new right may have little benefit unless the other two major credit reporting bureaus follow suit, and both companies are staying mum about any plans to do so. In May, Slashdot examined a related story on the credit bureaus' traditional resistance to freeze laws."
Confused... (Score:2, Interesting)
1) I ask to freeze my credit history
2) My history is frozen
3) ???
4) profit
Anybody able to distill this into simple terms for us?
Re:Confused... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
How can this be? You need a registered letter to freeze the account, yet a telephone call from your identity thief will "thaw" your account within 15 minutes and allow him/her to run wild with your credit again...
I don't see how this will do anything to slow or stop this kind of fraud.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Basically, this service allows you to selectively decide whether you want somebody to pull your Experian report. Your report is typically pulled when applying for new credit, undergoing background checks, apply for insurance, marketers looking for candidates to send Balance-Transfer offers, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that by providing the service in states that don't have credit freeze laws that they are hoping to get a few to freeze the accounts, then a fee each time they thaw it out for a credit provider.
Re:Confused... (Score:5, Informative)
2) My history is frozen
3) ???
4) profit
3a) identity thief attempts to open an account in my name
3b) identity thief fails to guess the secret password needed to mail in and unlock my account
3c) identity thief's credit line is denied.
3d) my credit record is safe, allowing me to unlock the credit when I actually do need it and...
In simple terms, it makes sure nobody else can attach lines of credit to you. The credit bureaus hate this because every time someone verifies your credit, they make $50 or so, which means that they have a financial interest in making sure as many people as possible can access your credit as often as possible. If they only made money when people were legitimately applying for a credit card or a mortgage, they'd never be able to pay their CEO the millions of dollars he deserves.
You've all got it wrong, its like this: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not terribly pleased with the inner workings of the credit-granting industry either, but it seems to me it'd make the most business sense to grant credit to people who care about protecting their own report. Therefore, someone who carefully freezes and thaws their own report would seem to me to be less of a credit risk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Confused... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Called the companies up and, after wasting endless time in the phone system, finally found someone who claimed to be able to remove me from the mailing list. This had no noticeable effect.
2. Started mailing back every single offer with "PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM YOUR LIST" scrawled across the acceptance form, in their own postage-paid reply envelopes. This was wildly successful. The mail stoppe
Re: (Score:2)
It goes deeper than that (Score:5, Interesting)
This helps, say, your credit card issuer because you'll get fewer or less lucrative offers to switch to other cards because you are higher risk, but it also means you might pay a higher interest rate on things you DO want to buy on credit (like a car).
If you can freeze your credit, credit issuers can't silently over-credit you and drive up your cost of credit at the same time.
IMHO, the credit "industry" is a major racket which only appears to be a marketplace; the customers of the credit reporting clearinghouses are the lenders, and the lenders benefit from lower credit ratings and scores by being able to charge higher interest rates. The credit clearinghouses have ZERO incentive to have accurate records, fair correction policies or transparent scoring algorithms; their customer, the lenders, benefit from consumer-unfriendly policies through both higher interest rates and lender-leaning policies that treat borrowers suspiciously.
I don't know, but I've often speculated that the mortgage crisis, which is actually a bad-lending-policy crisis, happened because some renegade lenders figured out several years ago that the clearinghouses were manipulating data against consumers grossly enough that a market was being denied credit generally unfairly. Of course this blossomed into a get-rich-quick real estate bubble, but the technical origins were in our "traditional" credit markets being lender-skewed by the reporting agencies and non-traditional lenders exploiting this gap.
I'd like to see MUCH greater regulation of the reporting agencies, including mandating transparency of records (eg, I get access to everything you share/sell about me in whatever format you package it in), record freezing, banning scoring (force lenders to make decisions based on actual borrowing and payment histories) or at least making the scoring process totally transparent and subject to regulation (ie, queries alone can't lower your score, scoring only based on borrwing and payment histories), requiring a simpler challenge process with the burden of proof greatly shifted to lenders (eg, electronic-only records not in consumers favor MUST be removed if challenges, lenders must provide non-electronic proof of discrepencies, etc).
I'd also like to see credit reporting ONLY available to lenders, not to employers or landlords or anyone else not extending credit trying to judge personality or whatever they use it for.
Its just amazing how little control we have over our credit dossiers and how much influence it has over many details of life. You can get caught raping a 10 year old and win a million dollar settlement if the cop who arrests you even THINKS about smacking you, yet even if you're the best credit consumer in the world you can get dicked over by the credit reporting agencies with only the weakest of "rights" available to you.
Re:It goes deeper than that (Score:5, Informative)
I frequently read through CreditBoards, and while having a lot of available credit could conceivably hurt you, actually being denied for having too much credit is pretty rare and seems to only apply to mortgages. In this case, the loan officer will instruct you to close some tradelines before they will proceed. This practice hardly seem predatory, especially given the multitude of other huge problems with the CRA system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
*A few transactions are act
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It goes deeper than that (Score:4, Informative)
You may have problem only if your total amount of credit starts to exceed your possible income. But in that case you don't really need another credit card anyways (though it may have implications for getting a different type of credit such as mortgage etc)
But yes, credit companies love to extend the credit to "not credit worthy" because there is a better chance of getting fees/interest payments/etc.
Of course it's more fun to think that all of the free credit increases you get are just companies trying to "get you". But it's sorta like believing that cities that provide water service do it so they can put "evil drugs" in the water. And electric companies transmit through the power lines hidden mind control signals.
If credit card is really interested in screwing you, they wouldn't increase your credit line. Instead they'd report to credit agencies that you were late with your payment 3 times by more than 30 days, which'll put your rating in the toilet so much faster.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It goes deeper than that. Companies you have credit with will extend you more credit than you think you have (often in the form of higher limits) not just because they like you, but because it can actually lower your credit score by making you more "at risk" for being in debt because you have access to credit.
This is a common misconception regarding credit limits. larger credit lines do not decrease credit scores. An increased credit line decreases a) credit utilization for that specific credit line a
Re: (Score:2)
It's not required that you participate in modern life, either, but its damn hard to do it without access to credit. And I'm not talking about dumbshit consumer debt wasted on dining out, clothes, big-screen TVs and look-at-me cars; I'm talking about renting a car or a hotel room, buying a house/condo, hell, even getting a *job* often requires a credit check and one that comes back with "no credit history" will surely raise red flags.
I haven't personally had a proble
So what they really mean (Score:4, Insightful)
What I'm curious about is the certified mail [usps.com]
It doesn't prove anything about the sender, merely that it got received.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what they really mean (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to other services, such as ATM fees, cash withdrawal fees, transfer fees, application fees, discontinuation fees, etc, it's affordable IMO.
Re:So what they really mean (Score:5, Insightful)
They've been making money by keeping information about me, and now they want ME to pay them to STOP?
Ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But, I completely agree with you with the passive credit pulls. We don't request those, but we do have regulation to block those with the 1-888-
Re: (Score:2)
In the event that they claim bad information, then you should be able to sue the party providing the bad information?
Any lawyers, or lawyer-alikes care to comment?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If I say, "You're going to lend money to llamalad? Hm, he's not a good risk. He's behind on his payments to a grass-laying company" and that's not true, you can sue me and collect damages.
If Experian does that through a credit report, you can maybe get it corrected
Re: (Score:2)
It strikes me as non-constitutional. How is anyone to succeed in the pursuit of happiness when major credit agencies are divulging damaging falsehoods about you in your significant financial relationships? Truly, in American society the pursuit of happiness must translate to litigating these credential-bung
Re: (Score:2)
It's just to prevent identify thiefs from opening a new account in your name.
I agree that a fee for this is absurd, but they will still collect all information on you that they are currently collecting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One possible reason is to prevent people from claiming that they froze their records after something goes wrong and then trying to blame TransUnion. TransUnion can simply say, "If you sent it, you must have done it via certified mail, so you have the records to prove that it was our mistake, right? No? Then go away." Of course, one would think that a canceled check or record of a credit
Pulling Credit Reports (Score:5, Interesting)
This year, I went to go pull my report from all 3 bureaus and none of them will let me see it - apparently because they "cannot adequately verify my identity", even though I've logged in with my same account information I've had with them for years. I enter my info; they'll ask me 3 questions about my credit past, which I correctly answer... then tell me I need to send my request via snail-mail.
HOWEVER
If I login and agree to pay $10, then they'll grant me access to the information, no questions asked.
This is a scam!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They can SEE the money they're turning away, and they block the transaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I went to TransUnion, logged in, provided my buddy's credit card number (with his consent, I gave him $10 cash) and bought my credit report that they previously would not give me for free!
Any questions?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Already available for free? (Score:2)
If you want to change banks, you can always shop for a better rate on-line and then request an account application from the bank you decide best fits your needs. This will probably be a better rate than the unsolicted card offers you get in the mail.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Which would be like the US correct? I do live in Canada and granted the Healthcare does have issues (mostly silly things like people who are just sick clogging the hospital when they should stay home or go to a clinic instead), but when my wife required an MRI it was less than a month. It wasn't critical just used
Experian won't answer its phone. (Score:5, Interesting)
No live response at the 1-877 number, just loops of answering machines that hung up after awhile.
So I called corporate at 714.830.7000, at 5:29 pm eastern. Operator hung up on me. Called back, same operator, wouldn't tell me her name, wouldn't put me through to a supervisor, kept sending me to an answering machine that after awhile of canned ads hung up on me. Went through this 4 times.
I've been meaning to email tony.hadley@experian.com> vp govt relations
Matthew Besler Public Relations Manager ("flack", not a real manager) Tel: +1 224 698 4415 Email: matthew.besler@experian.com, about this, to ask them why they don't answer their phones,
but I'm lazy and didn't get around to it.
So, experian, are you going to answer your phone next time I call?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I had a case of ID theft, filed a police report and everything. Experian kept telling me I wasn't me.
Equifax and TransUnion had no problems.
Experian are a bunch of asshats.
Re:Experian won't answer its phone. (Score:5, Informative)
Send everything in writing and send it certified mail return receipt, yes it is a pain but when the time comes to the the CRA to small claims court you have everything you need.
Re: (Score:2)
new income stream (Score:3, Insightful)
Are they taking responsibility for the fact they give you sensitive information which might compromise your identity? No. Instead, they say for $10 per transaction (freeze/unfreeze), you can do it.
Welcome to the new corrupt America where we are all treated like some kind of cash machine, be it from corporations or gov't agencies.
That's nice... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
After checking your credit score, we talked with the credit bureaus & discovered you won't be able to afford >$1,000 a year in cellular service anyways.
Sorry, no iPhone for you.
Signed,
AT&T
Tell TransUnion what you think of their new plan (Score:2)
CONTACT: Steve Katz of TransUnion, +1-312-985-2373,
skatz@transunion.com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's to stop a thief from lifting it? (Score:3, Insightful)
To place a freeze with TransUnion, consumers will need to submit a request via certified mail, but they will be able to lift it via regular mail or by telephone.
Uh, isn't this backwards? It takes certified mail to issue the stop, but only a phone call to lift it? That's like saying it takes a key, password, and retina scan to shut down your computer but nothing else to turn it on. What's to stop a determined identity thief from lifting the freeze with a phone call?
Re: (Score:2)
Since you're initiating the process from scratch, the reason they need a mailing to initiate the freeze is firstly: the cover-your-ass surety of certified mail, and secondly: you're doing all the "initiation" bits there-- passing them the initial "key" information you'll use to unlock your account later, and giving them the information you need to associate your request with your account. When you're unlocking, however, all you're doing is reciting the "key"-- they have all the oth
Possible problematic detail... (Score:5, Funny)
So much fuss, so little problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. By law, make it the creditor's problem to prove that charges or credit requests were legitimate.
2. Preemptively invalidate absolutely ALL contract terms, agreements, or otherwise, which shift this burden. Period.
If there were an economic incentive for security, banks would be secure.
Right now, citibank employees will tell you to enter information about your accounts on the web site in "that email" if it has their logo. They don't know what sites are theirs or not. Paypal sends stuff out that comes from "x.com" -- try explaining THAT one to someone who's not aware of their history. Why? Because it's mostly not their problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Funny thing that. It is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Identity clearinghouse (Score:4, Interesting)
The clearinghouse would take the lender's verification request, determine whether the purported credit applicant was listed in the database, and if not, they would respond that the person isn't listed. The lender could then open the line of credit. If the applicant is listed, then the clearinghouse attempts to contact the applicant using the contact information on record to verify the request, first by phone, then by mail (the applicant could also request only to be contacted by mail, or could request that all verifications be denied until further notice). If the applicant verifies the credit request, then the lender is notified with a simple "yes" and can then open the line of credit. Otherwise, the lender is notified with "no" and is forbidden from offering credit under that application.
Any lender found to have opened a line of credit for a person who refused to verify a credit request would become fully liable for that line of credit. The reporting agencies would be required to remove the credit line from the person's records. Any legal costs incurred would also become the lender's responsibility.
The system would be funded via a fee charged for every verification request.
This wouldn't solve all identity theft problems. For example, if someone steals your credit card, you're still on the hook (at least as much as your credit card issuer doesn't cover). It wouldn't necessarily cover interception of one's mail. But it would make mass ripoffs of PII useless.
Disable all services you don't use (Score:3, Interesting)
Here in the UK, someone by the name of Jamie Jamieson came up with a way to exploit a UK law that says that everyone has a right to place a "Notice of Correction" in their credit report, which lenders must take into account when they assess your credit. Full details are given at http://www.freeidprotection.co.uk/ [freeidprotection.co.uk] but in short, you send the three UK credit agencies a notice of correction stating that any application for credit by you will be accompanied by your thumbprint, and that any application not accompanied by your thumbprint should be considered fraudulent.
It's important to note that the credit agency is not expected to verify that the thumbprint is yours. But most fraudsters would not know in advance that a thumbprint would be necessary, and certainly would not want to supply their own...
I have no idea whether this would work in the USA.
heading off state laws (Score:3, Insightful)
They really need sued.
Extortion - money for nothing? (Score:2)
If ever there ever was a business model that is sure to be profitable, this one is a winner.
Re: (Score:2)
Before the cell phone boom, the bell companies made $$$ selling their phone lists to telemarketers.
Then they tried to extort more $$$ from the customer by selling options that would combat telemarketing - caller ID, call blocking, etc.
It was a great double-dipping $$$ scam until the phone customers got wind of it. Small wonder many of them abandoned land lines for cell phones.
lose home and auto inurance? (Score:2)
Biggest Unreported Credit Fraud Crap (Score:2)
I personally know of banks that have refused to extend credit, or even consider applications, when they see a flurry of recent inquiry activity. They'll look for every loophole to deny credit to anyone they feel "is shopping around for credit."
This inquiry history has no bearing on your true credit hist
Re:Too lazy... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too lazy... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a PR move made by extraordinarily wealthy people trying to shore up their public image.
Simply put all of the conventional wisdom about freezing credit reports, and all of the hyporthetical armchair conjecture about identity thieves, and all of the poster children who pop up in news articles and brochures saying,"I froze my credit and, not only did it save my life, but it walked my dog, buttered my toast, and installed Gentoo for me!" are a decoy. Nobody knows the inner business workings or dealings of the major credit bureaus at the executive level and the credit bureaus, along with the executive level members of the banking institutions which they work with, like it that way. They'll keep offering you bread and circuses ("You can now freeze your credit report" "OMG! That's going to totally revolutionize the economic system and make all of the executive level fraud, insider trading and political graft suddenly disappear!") as long as the American public continues to generate profit and support their multibillion dollar facade.
Truth hurts. Cue the whimpering cries from trolls screaming "where's the evidence!" in agony.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Educate Yourself (Score:5, Informative)
First, there was a lot of corporate pressure for Employees to invest all their 401k allocation in company stock. This was pushed by the HR department as well as the C-level managers at corporate pep rallies. Second, Enron stock was GOING THRU THE ROOF. It was EXPLODING. You're sitting there, in the middle of the 90s boom, and you're seeing your co-workers dumping the max federal limit into their 401k's, every dime of it into company stock, you see the internal view of the company, flush with cash and growing like crazy, and you see those co-workers becoming MILLIONAIRES before your eyes. So you invest your 401k into Enron stock and get your boarding pass to the gravy train.
Still, I can level with you that personal greed (however understandable) is what put them in that position. However, there's a whole lot of people who never really had a choice. PG&E was bought on the cheap and integrated them with the rest of the Enron West Cost energy assets. PG&E had an internal stock ownership program: employees were granted shares of the company. Lifelong employees had loads of stock in a company that had been local, with a solid business, for decades. This was their nest egg.
When Enron bought them, they swapped PG&E shares for Enron shares. No doubt many of these employees were excited to see that, considering how Enrons stock was still going strong. But these are people who never really had a choice. They lost everything. And the very worst part of that story is that a Federal Bankruptcy Judge injuncted those employees from selling the stock. Enrons share price didn't collapse overnight. It took some time to unpeel that onion. At the same time, executives like Lou Pai were selling millions (even Hundreds of Millions) of dollars in Enron stock, these poor bastards who worked 40 years as linemen or plant operators were forced to just sit by and watch the stock price plunge.
This was an absolute tragedy. These people were just bent over and fucked over and over by the company AND the government. You really should educate yourself before you speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait wait wait. So, you're saying that because these people (who, if they held stock, had plenty of time to sell it and put their gains elsewhere than the company they worked for) were sheep who trusted the company they worked for to provide for them, like the corporation was some sort of kind benefactor looking out for their best interests, we should feel bad for them?
Yeah, sure, the stock market is a zero sum game, but comeon, every ESPP has "sell" dates where people can ditch the stock. They weren't f
Re: (Score:2)
So I'll skip over that and correct one more thing:
The stock market is NOT a zero sum game. The notion of a ZSG is that your gain is somebody else's loss. If I buy shares in XXXX for $100 and sell them next month an investor at $120, I made money, and he didn't LOSE anything -- those shares are WORTH $120.
The difference is that wealth is created in the stock market when companies appreciate in value, not when you out-maneuver somebody else. A
Re: (Score:2)
If it gets that way - and it isn't too hard to switch back and forth - I may freeze mine, as I don't need any new credit now, and just unlock it when I need to.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to build good credit if you start early. Just get a credit card with a low limit of say $500. Use it once in a w
Re:The Problem with credit freezes (Score:5, Informative)
I do take issue with the benefit of keeping the credit limit low. A potential lender may see larger limits and take that as a sign that other lenders feel comfortable extending credit to you. This is reflected in how the score is calculated. I use Experian's site regularly because I have free access due to my previous job (employer exposed employee data so they bought us all full access). There is a section where you can modify a number of the factors that affect your credit score and see what your score would be with the modified factors. Raising your limits on your credit cards accounts can improve your score. What will harm your score is having a low total percentage of credit available. For example if you have a balance of $400 on credit cards with a total limit of $500 between your credit cards, you will only have 20% of your credit available. This will negatively affect your credit score. If you have a $10,000 total limit with the same $400 balance, your percent of available credit is close to 100% and your score with be much higher.
Re: (Score:2)
After the freeze, existing accounts would still post monthly reports so you're still going to have a continuous credit history even with a frozen file, if it's done that way. I admit there would still be a window of tim
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Problem with credit freezes (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should a lender trust you to repay the $60K loan - the $100K loan - when you have no history of managing debt on a much smaller scale?
The mortgage market is getting very tight for borrowers who can't demonstrate that they have both the experience and the resources to meet their commitments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Long term, he'll have had more money available to him, as he hasn't been paying interest on his expenditure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have one of those, Experian has no knowledge of it, so it doesn't help one bit. Some banks only share details of defaults with credit agencies, at least in the UK.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you've never handled a bunch of cash someone else gave you, how can I trust you'll be good with mine?
If it was only about this, then it should be enough to show your monthly salary ('cash someone else gives you') and that you have no outstanding debt. QED. And it's exactly how it works in europe: there's no such thing as this credit reporting bureau bullshit. You are right, they want to squeeze you like a lemon, and not necessarily make sure you can pay back your loan properly. Otherwise why would they offer things like 2nd or 3rd mortgage ? After you fail payment, they move in, grab the loot and make eve
Re: (Score:2)
There is, they're just being less obnoxious, and Europeans aren't as obsessed with spending more money than they have than Americans. For example the SCHUFA in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is there are people in this world that have money to invest. Some do it by lending money to others that need money for things....houses, cars, buying dinner, whatever. All investing has a certain amount of risk, including lending. Anyone who invests or lends wants to assess and minimize risk. Some might equate low risk with trust. The reality is that even the most trustworthy people have emergencies or personal disasters that result in the inability to pay off debts. Defaulting on loa
Re: (Score:2)
Once I got on top of things, I wrote everyone I owed money a letter with a check. The letter said that even though the debt is written off, I would like to pay it back, as long as they agreed to remove it from my report. It also said t