The FCRA is a compromise. It may not be the best compromise; but just saying it doesn't work isn't helpful and makes me want to dismiss you nad your complaints as a crank.

Never said FCRA doesn't work, but like any compromise, it can be immproved. How many times has a politician said, "it's not what I would have wanted but it's a start"? I gave you an answer to how I would improve it in the last post. Regulations that require the CRAs to improve how they match new data with existing data, a minimum "fingerprint" type standard required for automated processing, an escalated analysis process for near but not certain matches, identifying data sources within the credit report (so individuals can track incorrect data back to its origins).

I don't see where this is a first amendment issue at all. CRAs buy and sell data. They are not expressing an opinion or even originating information. They have nothing to say - they do not interpret data nor do they evaluate its message. They are a data warehouse and I am not proposing that their trade be restricted, just that they improved the integrity of their data reporting. As long as the data is correct, they are clear of any libel. And as long as they present the data as received from the source, they are not responsible for that data. It is only in matching new data to existing records that they take their own action, and for that they need to be accountable.

Fuskie
Who thinks the core problem is that the courts have ruled we do not own our personal information; it can be bought and sold without our permission or knowledge, nor without compensation for it's value, though some might argue that we receive value through the services that the trade of our data enables us to obtain...