Loads of soft searches but I haven't looked for anything!

[Deleted User]

savehound said:

Deleted_User said:

Regardless of whether that fits the rules of DSAR or not, soft searches from insurers have no impact on anything and are not seen by lenders, so just ignore them

A soft search may have no impact on credit report, but it could be done for nefarious reasons and it is prudent, especially if they are unexpected, to identify why. 

OK - someone is going to set themselves up as a business and pay to access the CRA reports, then run meaningless soft searches on random people and get very little data. Soft searches are run all the time by various people, it has no impact on anything

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User said:

OK - someone is going to set themselves up as a business and pay to access the CRA reports, then run meaningless soft searches on random people and get very little data. Soft searches are run all the time by various people, it has no impact on anything

I feel that is a very narrow minded view of the risks of data sharing. I am aware of someone who was tracked on each house move by an abusive ex who happened to work for a company that could do soft hits. While you may not worry about that kind of things, others may be vulnerable. If you want to go with the view of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" that is, of course, your choice, but I find data privacy and validation of those looking at my data is a positive situation and I advocate the same. 

[Deleted User]

savehound said:

Deleted_User said:

OK - someone is going to set themselves up as a business and pay to access the CRA reports, then run meaningless soft searches on random people and get very little data. Soft searches are run all the time by various people, it has no impact on anything

I feel that is a very narrow minded view of the risks of data sharing. I am aware of someone who was tracked on each house move by an abusive ex who happened to work for a company that could do soft hits. While you may not worry about that kind of things, others may be vulnerable. If you want to go with the view of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" that is, of course, your choice, but I find data privacy and validation of those looking at my data is a positive situation and I advocate the same. 

It's not a narrow view of anything, an extremely rare scenario of an ex being illegally traced by an ex who as an employee would immediately get fired is not a reason to care about a few random soft searches. Don't play the "won't someone think of the children" card, you're talking about a handful of people at best who would a) want to do that sort of thing b) have access to do that and c) would do it knowing it would end up with them sacked for gross misconduct.

[Deleted User]

I guess you are one of those fun-at-parties type who just cant stop until everyone agrees with you being right. You don;t care who looks up your data and trust that every company protects it perfectly. Thats your view and i respect that. It's just not mine and I'm free to express that.

You seemed incredulous to my point as if it couldn't happen, so I gave you a known example and your only retort is to without ridicule the example to prove your point. I can see you are an amazing listener and understanding person. 

I take a view that policies and procedures "fail open" and that these things can and do happen. I review any soft hit to my lexisnexis risk solutions file and my credit files with all three agencies. I don't rely on third party data processor policies. You do, and thats your view and I respect that. 

[Deleted User]

savehound said:

I guess you are one of those fun-at-parties type who just cant stop until everyone agrees with you being right. You don;t care who looks up your data and trust that every company protects it perfectly. Thats your view and i respect that. It's just not mine and I'm free to express that.

Resorting to ad hom? Against the forum rules.
Rest is strawman, not what I said at all

savehound said:

You seemed incredulous to my point as if it couldn't happen, so I gave you a known example and your only retort is to without ridicule the example to prove your point. I can see you are an amazing listener and understanding person. 

I didn't ridicule anything. I explained why making wholesale changes to the credit system because of an incredibly rare and incredibly unlikely set of circumstances that simply wouldn't happen more than once or twice ever is simply not going to happen. Regardless, a company doing a soft search is nothing like what you are talking about - a scenario that requires the nefarious person to have access to such a system and be willing to misuse it and ruin their career for the sake of finding a person which could be done just as easily (and legally) using a tracing service, It's not ridicule, it's pointing out facts.

savehound said:

I take a view that policies and procedures "fail open" and that these things can and do happen. I review any soft hit to my lexisnexis risk solutions file and my credit files with all three agencies. I don't rely on third party data processor policies. You do, and thats your view and I respect that. 

If you want to spend your money doing all that, be my guest, it's simply not necessary for a perfectly legal, innocent and valid soft search which happens constantly without any ill effects.