# How far does/should your web-rep go?



## hopewrites (May 21, 2015)

Not sure if this should go in Tech or World, (mods feel free to move)...

I was reading through and as I 'liked' a post, I was reminded of something that I'd been working with others on in other parts of the web-o-sphere.

Preface:
When applying for a loan a persons life feels like it gets turned inside out. Repayment history, current and projected incomes, and the like make sense in assessing one's Risk Factor and thereby interest rate. The higher the risk, the higher the interest one is charged for the loan.

KYC* has added to the list of things that those issuing loans musk ask those receiving loans. And it's gotten to the point where it feels like you need to list which laundry detergent you use and how often you changes your socks before you can submit an application for a loan.

Part of my work with cryptocurrencies has been to help set up and set the standards for loans. While sorting out international KYC standards has taken up most of the developers time, a few companies hit on the idea to integrate their forum reputation systems into their product lines. Now, being helpful/funny/informative on the "bank's" website may** get you a better interest rate on your loan.

It got me thinking. If there was a way to assess someone's overall web-presence or some algorithm for averaging one's web-rep cross platforms (and a part of me shudders at the idea, because such a thing would require the breakdown of privacy standards and the processing of metadata) should it affect one's financial life?
*
What would the effect be on cyber-bullying, if a persons trollish posts meant they had to pay higher interest rates?

Would their be a flood of memes sent out to bolster credit ratings before student loans were procured?

Would the over all intelligence of the internet seem to increase as people did their best to be insightful and helpful while simultaneously terrified of asking something stupid?

Is there a "Real World" banking parallel I'm not aware of? If so, how well was it received when it was first introduced, and what changes did it inspire?*

*Know your customer/client
** most crypto-lenders allow the person setting up the loan to decide what interest rate they would be willing to pay on said loan... but also have rating systems that suggest minimum interest for users based on how complete their profile is (KYC) and +/- rep assessed by previous lenders opinion of their repayment history. That way when someone comes along to invest in a loan, they can see not only the paragraph that states what the loan is for, but a percentage of how complete the profile is (not all the information, just what percent of it has been filled in) and comments from others who have invested in that user before. New users or those with incomplete profiles are encouraged to offer to pay higher interest rates and will frequently post up "rep loans" asking for $50-100 at 15-25% interest, with the understanding that investors will give them +rep for their on time/early repayment of said loan. 
Personally I only invest in rep loans that state they will do more than dump the investment right back into repayment. Upgrade equipment for a business, refinish the garage, something that will benefit them.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (May 22, 2015)

hopewrites said:


> Not sure if this should go in Tech or World, (mods feel free to move)...
> 
> I was reading through and as I 'liked' a post, I was reminded of something that I'd been working with others on in other parts of the web-o-sphere.
> 
> ...




This is an excellent post that asks some very vital questions about the internet's value.

First of all, bankers and banking are not the same as in our parent's generation. Although I am speaking here about America, my country's insane practices have had an undue influence on how the rest of the world has conducted its business affairs, especially in the UK. In former times, banks were an integral part of their community, not a faceless branch of some monstrous corporate entity. Bankers were very reserved and risk-adverse in their practices because they were beholden by law to guard the public's financial interest. However, those laws were rolled back in the 1990s to allow people's savings to be gambled with in the housing and stock markets. As a consequence, there was a dramatic increase in irresponsible/high-risk behaviour that has devastated the world's economy in 2008 (and is now in the process of doing the same in the near-term future). In total, trillions of dollars (or, if you prefer, pounds sterling) in wealth have been redirected into the pockets of high-level criminals.

Because this type of ruthless, criminal conduct is so common in the banking/financial industry today, it has attracted a higher than usual number of sociopaths into the ranks of executive management. *In fact, many high-profile New York financial institutions openly admit to using the Hare Psychopathy Index test to identify and recruit new management employees. *To put it mildly, they "like the cut of their jib", nurturing an environment where they may flourish and providing huge financial incentives for their destructive actions.

Banks are, therefore, hardly the best judge of moral, responsible conduct in a potential borrower. But they sit in judgement of us anyway because they have something the public needs: vast liquidity . . . . a vast liquidity that was stolen from the very same public who is now approaching them, cap in hand, for a bit of it back only now shackled to a high interest rate. This is nothing less than debt peonage. Welcome to our neo-feudal New World Order.

The low barrier of entry and the anonymous nature of the internet has unleashed a Pandora's Box of vicious, cowardly conduct - everything from cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying to outright fraud and lying. The nature of the medium encourages users to indulge in virtual conduct that they wouldn't normally try in real life because it would carry severe, direct consequences for them. In a sense, many internet users carry on a double life, but do they leave their anti-social selves online, or do the virtual abuses they commit foster the rudeness and callousness we find in our real world, increasingly uncivil society? From my observation, the answer is no and yes, respectively.

Bearing all this mind, the internet should *not *be used in any kind of objective assessment of an individual's character. But is it? Unfortunately, the answer is yes, and for another, altogether different reason: people are lazy and spoiled by the convenience the technology has brought to their lives. And is that isn't an indictment of human nature, I don't know what is.


----------



## hopewrites (May 22, 2015)

Curt Chiarelli said:


> The low barrier of entry and the anonymous nature of the internet has unleashed a Pandora's Box of vicious, cowardly conduct - everything from cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying to outright fraud and lying. The nature of the medium encourages users to indulge in virtual conduct that they wouldn't normally try in real life because it would carry severe, direct consequences for them. In a sense, many internet users carry on a double life, but do they leave their anti-social selves online, or do the virtual abuses they commit foster the rudeness and callousness we find in our real world, increasingly uncivil society? From my observation, the answer is no and yes, respectively.



I would say that some even live more than a double life. I know I dont use the same characteristics when posting here on chrons as I do posting in other parts of the web.

_More to the point_ I have noted the subtle shifts in my total person as each facet of my total personality finds outlet ether on or off line. How the balance shifts to those facets I most indulge. So, yes, I would say that who we are on line does effect who we are in total.



Curt Chiarelli said:


> Bearing all this mind, the internet should *not *be used in any kind of objective assessment of an individual's character. But is it? Unfortunately, the answer is yes, and for another, altogether different reason: people are lazy and spoiled by the convenience the technology has brought to their lives. And is that isn't an indictment of human nature, I don't know what is.



Thank you for reminding me that our online presence is already being used to asses our offline capabilities. Employers check Facebook and G+ presences of prospective and current employes, and I've lost count of the news stories (let alone those that dont make the news) of people who have lost jobs (or opportunities) based on something they did or said online.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 22, 2015)

hopewrites said:


> If there was a way to assess someone's overall web-presence


No. Because sensible people use multiple fake identities for different things on the internet, for the sake of privacy and sanity. Google's practice of wanting every unrelated service that they have to have a single identity / login runs counter to privacy and the spirit of EU data protection.



hopewrites said:


> If there was a way to assess someone's overall web-presence or some algorithm for averaging one's web-rep cross platforms (and a part of me shudders at the idea, because such a thing would require the breakdown of privacy standards and the processing of metadata) should it affect one's financial life?


Such a thing is probably already illegal and really obnoxious.
No, it absolutely should have nothing to with financial life.

Privacy is already invaded too much by illegal tracking done by Twitter, Facebook and Google. Most of what is on the Internet is also logged. Most sensible countries a Court Order is required, then a web site gives up the date time and IP for the content. Then tracking down the user (using judicial process) via the easily identified ISP and the time/date is trivial. Even internet cafes have then been put under surviellence and the miscreant caught as most using an Internet Cafe have a small number of choices.
It's a problem when Google or others do this with no process of law to help with their marketing.
It's a problem when government agencies do this without due process.

Very few people use proper  tools to be anonymous. Even then often they can be tracked down. It's trivial to find the addresses of many of the people here without a warrant or court order. A little harder for the rest unless you are Google or similar.

You can't hide who you are with multiple web identities. But it's illegal in most of  Europe and all of EU to deliberately collect and act apon the information like most US companies that exploit the Internet do, and many Governments.

Exactly what problem crypto-currencies* solve or how they are better than real digital money such as IBAN (sadly missing in USA), or nearly real digital money such as PayPal is an interesting topic for a different thread.

I used to work in an ISP, we got faxes from the law enforcement people. I also know web site operators who also gave up logs due to proper processes.

(*Bitcoin is not a currency, it is a speculation vehicle, practically Dutch tulips, south sea bubble or a pyramid scheme)


----------



## hopewrites (May 22, 2015)

I think that it's going to be something that gets looked into and used. 

Just because it is so easy to figure out someone's IP from their posting history, and thereby track down their other web presences, that it's something that will get used more and more as the decades wear on. Some one who grew up before the internet rose to power pointed out to me that my son's generation is growing up with no sense of Personal Privacy. Posting their meals on instagram, every hookup and breakup published on social media sites, unaware that their use of google maps tracks their every footstep... and not caring.

When those whose normals are defined by their web presence are presented with an opportunity to get a better interest rate on their credit cards or student loan, why would they not?


----------

