3 ms·

There's something that I don't understand about these identity theft cases. If I didn't really sign any document, why should I be held responsible just because

There's something that I don't understand about these identity theft cases. If I didn't really sign any document, why should I be held responsible just because someone else used something public (non-private) about me? P.S. To be more clear: the company giving the loan should prove that I signed the documents, not I that I didn't sign them. The presumption of innocence if you will.

smallblacksun 16y ago
Legally, you aren't. The issue is the time and expense in proving that you didn't sign anything.
- matwood 16y ago
  This is why I think companies that incorrectly send you to collections or give credit to someone using your identity should not only be on the hook for the money they lost but also liable to the person they are forcing to clear their name. Years ago I rented at a crappy apartment complex. When I left their check out basically meant you always owed them ~$200. I paid and moved out of state. 6 months later I get a collections call saying I didn't pay the bill. I told them I paid it, she said it wasn't and said it was going on my report unless I paid that day. Luckily I paid by check and my bank (like all banks I guess now) keeps canceled checks online for pretty much ever. So now I had to go back 6 months and find this check then call the apartment then the collections agency, etc... A HUGE hassle and time waster for me all because the apartment complex employed incompetent people. The kicker was that the girl trying to collect from me said "people make mistakes and you can't blame them." Um, when I make a mistake and forget to pay a bill you guys jump all over me. You make a mistake and it's still my problem to solve.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  It's a weird situation. You're not legally liable for the debt incurred by the thief even if you don't bother to prove anything (although they will still hassle you by phone), but your credit is destroyed.
johnnyb4 16y ago
This is why the Wired article seems a little exaggerated to me. 1) He will never be responsible for any of these claims from merchants ("seller beware") 2) Any major transaction would not go through since they'd pull a credit report and see his profile is frozen (I believe LifeLock just freezes credit for you on your behalf) Given the above, it seems like this is a trade-off between the time spent getting this stuff off your credit report (I think you would just file an error with the bureau, but perhaps it's more involved), vs. the benefit gained by the marketing tactic.

smallblacksun 16y ago

Legally, you aren't. The issue is the time and expense in proving that you didn't sign anything.

matwood 16y ago
This is why I think companies that incorrectly send you to collections or give credit to someone using your identity should not only be on the hook for the money they lost but also liable to the person they are forcing to clear their name. Years ago I rented at a crappy apartment complex. When I left their check out basically meant you always owed them ~$200. I paid and moved out of state. 6 months later I get a collections call saying I didn't pay the bill. I told them I paid it, she said it wasn't and said it was going on my report unless I paid that day. Luckily I paid by check and my bank (like all banks I guess now) keeps canceled checks online for pretty much ever. So now I had to go back 6 months and find this check then call the apartment then the collections agency, etc... A HUGE hassle and time waster for me all because the apartment complex employed incompetent people. The kicker was that the girl trying to collect from me said "people make mistakes and you can't blame them." Um, when I make a mistake and forget to pay a bill you guys jump all over me. You make a mistake and it's still my problem to solve.
jessriedel 16y ago
It's a weird situation. You're not legally liable for the debt incurred by the thief even if you don't bother to prove anything (although they will still hassle you by phone), but your credit is destroyed.

johnnyb4 16y ago

This is why the Wired article seems a little exaggerated to me. 1) He will never be responsible for any of these claims from merchants ("seller beware") 2) Any major transaction would not go through since they'd pull a credit report and see his profile is frozen (I believe LifeLock just freezes credit for you on your behalf) Given the above, it seems like this is a trade-off between the time spent getting this stuff off your credit report (I think you would just file an error with the bureau, but perhaps it's more involved), vs. the benefit gained by the marketing tactic.