Here’s Why I Hate Credit Reporting Agencies — And Why You Should Too

A few days ago, Equifax, one of the Big Three credit reporting agencies, admitted that the personal data of 143 million consumers had been compromised. This is not the biggest data breach ever, but it might be the worst. After all, Equifax is not just any company. It’s a company whose main job is collecting masses of private financial data—and it does this even though it has neither a business relationship nor explicit permission from the people it monitors. This is a massive and unprecedented FUBAR.

(For more on why the Equifax breach is even worse than you think, Michael Hiltzik explains here.)

I am no fan of the credit reporting business, one of the most arrogant and anti-consumer industries imaginable. Twelve years ago I wrote about them for the Washington Monthly, and it’s startling how little has changed since then. I could republish the story today with only the most cursory changes.

For example, part of my piece was devoted to “credit freezes,” something you may have heard a lot about lately. This is an action you can take to protect yourself in case of identify theft: if you ask for your account to be frozen, credit agencies will furnish a credit report only after they’ve confirmed that it really is you who applied for credit. This stops identity thieves in their tracks: if they apply for a credit card in your name, the credit agency will call you first. When you tell them you never applied for the card, it doesn’t get issued.

But this really shouldn’t be an option you have to request. It should be routine for all credit transactions. The reason it isn’t is because it’s inconvenient for the credit reporting agencies, who have fought regulation on this topic tooth and nail. It’s also because they literally make money on identify theft—no, that’s not a typo—and therefore don’t have much incentive to do anything about it.

Still, as much as I think all accounts should be frozen by default, my solution to the problem of identity theft isn’t to force the credit reporting agencies to freeze or unfreeze accounts—or to force them to do anything else. It’s to make them responsible for all damages related to identity theft and then let them figure out the best solution. Here’s what I wrote in my Monthly piece:

There is a successful precedent for this type of approach. In 1968, Congress passed the Truth in Lending Act, which imposed a variety of regulations on the lending industry. One notably simple provision was that consumers could be held liable for no more than $50 if their credit cards were stolen and used without their authorization. For anything above that, it was the credit-card issuer who had to pay. The result was predictable: Credit-card companies have since taken it upon themselves to develop a wide range ofeffective anti-fraud programs. Congress didn’t tell them to do it, or even how. It just made them responsible for the losses, and the card issuers did the rest themselves.

The same method should be used for identity theft. There’s no need to create mountains of regulations, which are uniformly despised by the credit industry. Instead, simply make the industry itself—and any institution that handles personal data—liable for the losses in both time and money currently borne by consumers. The responsible parties will do the rest themselves.

There’s more to say about this, but sadly, my piece is no longer available at the Monthly site. The great linkrot plague has devoured it. Luckily, I’m a magazine packrat and I still have a dead-tree copy. So I scanned it and turned it into a PDF. Click here to read it—and to find out just why I hate the credit reporting agencies so intensely. It’s worth your time, especially considering how little has been done about this over the past decade. It represents one of the all-time abject surrenders to Big Finance, and it’s something the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party should be all over. The time for small-bore proposals is over. It’s time to make the credit agencies—and others—pay for their flagrantly careless behavior. When they allow someone to steal your identity, they’re the ones who should pay the price, not you.

UPDATE: The Wayback Machine also has a copy of my article. I shoulda checked! Click here to see it.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate