Apology accepted.

the fact that the system is vulnerable to such a possibility, and vulnerable in such a way as to hide its own vulnerability strikes me as highly problematic

Can I talk more about this, or is the whole thing off the table?

Please, go ahead.

My questions are--how is the system particularly vulnerable (as in, this system in this industry above and beyond any other) to the possibility? How does it inherently hide its own vulnerability different from any other client communication that happens every day? And is this something that's happening, or is it a potential problem, again like any other in this industry or any other?

Is this theory or practice? If it is theory, is this a particularly threatening theory? What sets it apart, or is the system/industry rife, and this is just one more example?

It seems to me to be an assurance, so I don't understand how it's flipped to a problem here.

I also think you are missing the wider point here. I actually think it unlikely a credit scoring company sends an incomplete version of the report or one different from the one they usually send. I don't see a strong incentive to do this. Sean has kind of dropped this point as well, though he may still believe it more likely than I do.

However I think his wider points are right on.

1) Credit scores can be incredibly inaccurate. The procedures for correcting them make it extremely difficult to for corrections to stick. And the credit scoring companies have little incentive to fix that. Also one point about it being hard to correct an error a collection agency stands behind is that collection agencies are big customers for credit scoring companies, unlike the person being scored.

2) Credit scores are an awful basis for making hiring decisions. A poor credit score really is not evidence someone will be careless in their work, or likely to steal or be dishonest.

3) Credit scores are an even worse basis on which to base insurance decisions.

I also think you are missing the wider point here

I haven't espoused an opinion on the wider point in quite a while. So I'm not sure what position you think I have on it.

I have a specific point I want clarification on. That's all I'm going on record with. The rest you're inferring, and I don't consider myself bound by your interpretation in any way until I start discussing it.

Sean, I think this falls under the rubric of "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." The credit bureaus have data on millions of people that comes from any number of institutions whose accuracy is suspect, and they have no incentive to notice that the person linked to the information can't be 87 or have defaulted on a plane in Alaska. If you want to know how your credit score is figured, go to MyFico [link]

I loathe the whole system, but in terms of your concerns, I really don't believe someone could successfully fiddle the scores of one individual with malicious intent on three separate credit bureaus.

My credit report still shows an IRS tax lien that was paid off in 1997. It still shows that my name used to be Elizabeth Wright and I lived on an Army base. (Neither is true, but I can't prove I *wasn't* and *didn't*.) It does not show my mortgage, which I've had for three years. I asked my bank about that and they shrugged and basically said it wasn't their problem. I think that the three credit score companies compare their records, and if you get a bad thing fixed on one score but not another, the company just picks up the bad thing again the next time they compare notes. The companies actually have no incentive to get it right. Getting it right only benefits us, and we are not their customers.

I have given up trying to fix these things. My credit score hovers around 715, and considering how bad it used to be, I'm okay with that. But the knowledge that these errors are affecting my score, and there seems to be nothing I can do to correct them that doesn't get overwritten the next time someone looks at it, is extremely frustrating.

Right plenty of evil just in the fact that they don't care about accuracy. Make them liable for not taking reasonable precautions to ensure accuracy and see how fast they improve their ability to correct.

However the fact that credit scores are often inaccurate is only one reason they should not be the basis for jobs or insurance. They really are not highly relevant.

My questions are--how is the system particularly vulnerable (as in, this system in this industry above and beyond any other) to the possibility?

I'm not sure, so I concede here that I am not being very convincing. In particular, since I have no hard data, we'll consign this to theory, however...

Is this theory or practice? If it is theory, is this a particularly threatening theory?

Theory I guess. But I do find it particularly threatening.

Put this way: President Obama signed into law a provision that can very easily be interpreted to allow indefinite detentions of natural born US citizens.

That it has not been used that way yet (that we know of) makes it theoretical, but no less dangerous.

But yes, that only holds if there is any validity to my concerns. But while I have no information that the concern is actually occurring, non-occurrence doesn't do much to allay my fears.

What sets it apart, or is the system/industry rife, and this is just one more example?

I feel like it's one more example of other system-wide problems.

I don't know if I'm clarifying myself any better here or just digging myself in deeper.

Sean, don't want to focus too much on this, but:

1) What is the incentive for this? I mean if they are going to send people credit reports anyway why fudge?

2) If this has been happening in the past, wouldn't they have been caught? I mean either an employee would turn whistle blower or one of the many many people who work for companies that subscribe to services would check the report they got directly against the one the company ordered?

3) Aren't there plenty of problems we can prove are happening? I mean I don't think anyone disputes that credit scores really get screwed up and the scorers have little incentive to fix it. And even if credit scores are accurate, they are being used to measure stuff they should not be. (Not undisputed, but I bet any fair weighing of the facts would conclude that. )