That's a fair point, but when pet dogs are getting cc offers, I feel like we're still in the regimes where credit is just a wee bit too easy to get.

I don't necessarily disagree with the analysis, I just think conceiving of it as a social choice is misleading. The people who actually decide what a loan application looks like and how it's supported are lenders. Lenders don't care about regressivity or the unbanked except to the extent that it affects their bottom line. If fraudulent loan applications go up because Russian hackers have a hundred million CRA files, then that could move banks to put more scrutiny on borrowers.

(BTW Sweden has a higher foreign-born population share than the U.S.!)

Sure. I agree that, for instance, creditors and banks and finance haven't made low barriers to satisfy a social obligation but it's a by-product of their choice anyway. The result is that our culture (consumers, creditors, borrowers, firms that count on consumers who pay with credit, etc.) have become accustomed to our credit environment.

I am not convinced that there will be any market or regulatory will to roll back our relatively-low-barrier credit culture without that sort of outside impetus you describe (e.g., large increases in fraud).

Seems like two or three public floggings would go a long way toward solving these problems.

The low barrier to use credit exists to allow lenders to grow their businesses. It isn’t some kind of favor or consideration for people seeking credit.

Frictionless credit access is dumb and unnecessary.

It's a big part of the business model for many retailers.

It's also a big part of the personal finance 'plans' of many consumers, car-buyers, etc.

Even if lenders and creditors who push for easy access to credit do so for selfish reasons, I think it is wrong to conclude therefore that it's unnecessary and that people don't avail themselves of it except in predatory situations; and we shouldn't ignore the fact that many who are using friction-less credit would stop whatever activities their credit pays for. That would happen. This isn't necessarily a gesture in the direction of poor people. My personal anecdote about lengthy stays in northern Europe was simply to show that when the barriers get higher, lots of consumers will just say **** it and not bother.

In some sense, this is neither here nor there though. The utility of low barrier credit and banking access is a difficult question. All I want to get across is that there are genuine market incentives and political power behind forces that want to keep the barriers low. So while I love bobman and Trolly, I think arguing the way to solve the problem of data security in the banking and credit industry is to have the finance industry erect higher scrutiny of consumers simply ignores the question of why they don't do that already.

Google Equifax Credit Freeze, one of the first results is how Experian allows lifting a freeze with a handful of breachable facts

WTF they shouldn't lift it without the PIN. I mean the point is all y our info is compromised.So they are going to allow compromised info to lift the freeze?

These assclowns should require our permission in order to collect our data.

It’s okay if you’re doing it to make money, otherwise it’s just called stalking.

This doesn't seem that far fetched to me. Would the world really be that much worse off if, to get a credit card, you had to physically go to a bank and show them two pieces of photo ID? Is it really THAT essential that people be able to sign up for credit cards by clicking a few buttons and having someone mail them a card?

I realize that some marginalized members of society have difficulty getting forms of government issued ID, and I'm not keen on further disadvantaging those people, but those very same people probably aren't going to benefit a lot from getting consumer credit at 15%+ interest or whatever anyway.

Those are the people who go to payday loan places at 15%/month.

Yeah, but to their benefit? Free market, etc, blah blah blah but would the world really be that much worse off without them?

As an aside, are payday loans really in scope here? If you want a payday loan I imagine you've got to show up in person with some legit ID. High risk lenders (I'm guessing) aren't keen on letting people fill out some forms on line.

I feel like we need to proactively implement some sort of data privacy laws. And take the monitoring of credit data out of the hands of private companies that treat us as the product rather than the customer.

Or Blockchain or something

For posterity, this is the worst breach in history for multiple reasons. The amount and type of data stolen. The fact that it's not like consumers actively sign up for this ****. It's forced upon us in most cases. The way they have handled this thing from initial security to "The attempts they are making to protect affected consumers". Short of government intervention, we have hardly any recourse, and only an overhaul of the way credit works will accomplish anything. The fact that the vast majority of people affected, which is huuuuge, either don't know, don't care, or can't be bothered to protect themselves in the few ****ty ways that are actually available.

How ****ed everybody could potentially be is almost funny.

I talked to my banker, who's coincidentally the president of a (smaller) bank about how to handle this. He said he's enrolled in the mid tier life-lock plan.

We're really ****ed.

I was trying to tell people at work that they should strongly consider freezing their credit and everyone thought I was crazy. This is a STEM workplace with mostly intelligent people.

So are we going to have to have our credit frozen for the rest our lives?

That's my plan. Temporarily unfreeze whenever necessary.

This has to be one of the most obvious spots where government should step in to help but of course that likely won't happen.

They wrongly believe the consequences are for others and worst case scenario is they will be mildly annoyed.

Same here

PP try again. I read if you haven't gotten it by now you need to sign up again. Or just freeze your credit because these idiots can't be trusted anyway.

Not that freezing means it's impossible to steal your identity. But I'm going with the theory that since I've frozen mine there will be about 100 million easier targets out there.

this is accurate. Hackers and criminals go for low hanging fruit. If it takes 2 steps to steal your identity and 1 step to steal your neighbor's, it should be obvious which one of you gets popped.

What if someone loses/forgets his PIN? Should they just be permanently frozen for eternity or should there be some way for them to unfreeze in that case?