The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Personal Finances / Credit Cards and Consumer Debt


Subject:  Re: Ever heard of the 30% rule? FICO Date:  8/28/2019  9:18 AM
Author:  xtn Number:  312624 of 312702

CRAs asserted proprietary ownership over individual credit files....


I respectfully take issue with that bit. The key word is files. A lot of people will read that bit and think the CRAs asserted ownership over the information, but that isn't true at all.

The accurate way to say it is that they INHERENTLY HAVE ownership of the FILES (or, more accurately, the reports) they developed.

Sure, those files contain data reported to them about individuals. But that doesn't matter. If a professional photographer takes a picture of you, he OWNS that picture and the rights to it. He did the work required to produce the picture. Doesn't matter that the content of it is you. Unless he sells you the picture or some of the usage rights to it, it all belongs to him. He doesn't even have to let you look at it if he doesn't want to.

The concept is the same with credit reports. I know, there are arguments that this isn't the case, but they're all just attempts to justify consumer greed. The logical reality is that we pushed through the FCRA because of that greed. Because of entitlement. We weren't going to let a little thing like logical, reasonable ethics stand in our way.

Don't get me wrong here. I understand that most of the FCRA was logical and reasonable and necessary. It's just the part about a FREE report that wasn't. Heck, if we want to see court documents, even about a case concerning us personally, there is a processing fee to the Clerk. If we want to see the plat of our own property, there is a processing fee to the P&Z Dept. If you want to see your own tax return, you're going to have to pay the accountant that prepared it for you. The return is all about you, having only information about you within it, but he did the work to produce the return, which is his product, not yours, unless you pay him. And yes, if we want a copy of that picture the photographer took of us, we have to pay him for it. It was not unreasonable for us to have to pay $12 or whatever for a credit report, at least not by the reasonable standards illustrated above that we are all used to.

By forcing CRAs to give away credit reports, based on the notion that it's OUR information because it's ABOUT us (which is false), we've basically said we're okay with forcing our photographer to give us the pictures we are in, with forcing our accountants to give us the returns containing our information, etc. Entitled justifications don't make it any less wrong.

Copyright 1996-2019 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us