FCC blocks Tor so I can’t see the page, but I just wanted to mention a hack if number porting is refused for some reason (based on @[email protected]’s hint that it could be): downgrade the vz contract to the full extent possible (ideally make it a prepaid acct if that’s possible, so you can nix the monthly fee). Then dial whatever magic code forwards your vz number to your new number.
So not what their running debt is but only whether they can take on a new, specific one.
I knew the criteria was out of the hands of EU-based lenders, but didn’t realise the data is also out of reach to the lender. I suppose it makes sense that the lender would get no info other than a yes or no, if lenders have no discretion.
I noticed A shop had a rediculously priced phone (like €800+, something I would never buy) but advertised something like €9 if you take a contract. So it’s effectively a loan factored into a locked-in phone service plan. IIUC, the phone shop must arrange that with a bank and does not have the option of taking on risk, and then the bank asks the central bank if customer X can handle that loan, correct?
You can reverse payments through the bank in the EU as well but it’s seldom necessary, since the companies tend to revert the charge willingly when confronted by the consumer protection bureaus.
I’ve only had to resort to bank reverse a couple if times.
One was when I ordered a pair of shoes of what appeared to be an Italian website. It later turned out it was a scam site that listed popular models that were not made anymore and then sent you a ridiculously poorly made knock-off copy from China. I explained the issue to my bank and showed the knockoffs I got and a week or so later the charge was reversed.
That’s quite a surprise. I heard SWIFT/IBAN transfers were permanent and irreversable. I heard of mistakes being corrected but it required the two banks to collude and the bank of the recipient to do a money grab on their account, which I suppose would be impossible if a criminal closes their account. I wonder if your bank took a loss or if they colluded with the other bank. IIRC, banks have a minimum “investigation” fee of like €25 plus an hourly rate to pay bankers to deal with bad transactions. Did your bank offer that service for free?
The only similar things I know is the central bank keeping a listing of “unpaid credit” which make ban you from getting any new credit for a certain time.
Indeed that’s what I’m talking about. In Belgium it seems consumers have no control over whether a creditor can access the central bank’s records. Apparently the central bank simply trusts that creditors are checking records in response to an application for credit. I would like to know if any EU countries make use of an access code so consumers can control which creditors can see their records.
I don’t mean to imply anything about scoring, but certainly there must be some kind of mechanism to expose bad debtors to lenders.
In Belgium, there are no private credit bureaus but there is a central bank. Belgian banks are obligated to report loan defaults and cash transactions to the central bank, and creditors are obligated to check the central bank’s records. Consumers have no way to control creditors access to their records in the central bank. It seems to be trust based. The central bank apparently trusts that a creditor is checking a consumer’s file in connection with an application for credit by the consumer.
I wasn’t aware of the “Privacy Shield”, but the article mentions that:
“In the Schrems II judgement, the CJEU raised several points regarding the U.S. intelligence agencies’ access to EU data. The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework tackles them and includes significant improvements compared to the mechanism having existed under the Privacy Shield.”
Found this and this to help me catch up on this.
(edit) in this doc I counted 81 “should”s and 33 “shall”s, to get an idea of the strength.
“One more step…”
Nothing like a privacy abusing Cloudflare site to expose privacy abuse. If anyone has openly accessible Cloudflare-free links, or can post the info for the excluded people, plz post.
eclic.ro is an exclusive Cloudflare site just like change.org is. Exclusivity is obviously quite lousy for democracy. Better alternatives are here:
privacytools.io always was shit show even before the infighting. They put their own endorsement site on Cloudflare. Despite a collossal pile of dirt emerging on #Signal:
https://github.com/privacytools/privacytools.io/issues/779
PTIO continued endorsing Signal non-stop, refusing to disclose the issues. That was also before the breakup. Dirt was routinely exposed on PTIO endorsements and it never changed their endorsement nor did they reveal the findings on their website.
Now both factions are hypocrits just as they were when they were united. The original PTIO site is back to being Cloudflared (nothing like tossing people coming to you for privacy advice into the walled garden of one of the most harmful privacy offenders), and Privacy Guides has setup on a CF’d Lemmy node. The hypocrisy has no end with these people.
Interesting, but that does not help because Mint jails all their docs in Cloudflare.
They are centralised in the walled garden of Cloudflare. Access to all those instances is dictated by a gatekeeping tech giant in the US who excludes several demographics of people. Lemmy World and some of the others are also centralised by disproportionate size, which is enabled by Cloudflare with no sense of self control on growth.
Ethical users who are informed about Cloudflare avoid those centralised instances. The purpose of the fedi is to balance power. Those instances represent an attack on that principle. In principle it’s not much different than doing a community search and getting half a screen full of Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn links.