4 ms·

Yeah, Identity theft is one of those crimes where the authorities don't really care. It can be quite lucrative for the folks carrying it out since there are no

Yeah, Identity theft is one of those crimes where the authorities don't really care. It can be quite lucrative for the folks carrying it out since there are no consequences. The police are so overwhelmed and typically it is out of jurisdiction so their options are 0 to none to prosecute. The only way to guard against it is to keep your foot print small and give as little info as required.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> Yeah, Identity theft is one of those crimes where the authorities don't really care. There is no such thing as "identity theft". You can't steal who someone is, that's bullshit. It's rather some party not making sure it's actually you they are talking to, and then claiming that you are responsible for it anyway because they fell for someone else's scam.
- drdaeman 9y ago
  And piracy is an act of robbery on the high seas. When the name sticks, there's usually nothing we can do. Sad but true.
  - sowbug 9y ago
    That example doesn't use word games to shift the loss to an uninvolved and innocent party.
  - uiri 9y ago
    The problem with the phrase "identity theft" is that it puts the onus of security onto the consumer to secure their personal details instead of onto the bank/telcos/etc to secure their systems. We should call it what it is: fraud. Whether that's bank fraud, computer fraud or wire fraud, banks should be responsible for compensating individuals for the losses incurred. One way to encourage this change is a change in the language we use surrounding these crimes.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > The problem with the phrase "identity theft" is that it puts the onus of security onto the consumer to secure their personal details instead of onto the bank/telcos/etc to secure their systems. And it's really even worse than that, as you are assigned blame for something that the party blaming you is itself forcing you to do. Like, they won't open an account for you unless you tell them your SSN, but then they blame you if you don't keep your SSN secret. It's reasonable to some degree to expect that you keep your password secret. It's a different thing altogether to take information that is unavoidably known to lots of parties, or in many cases even outright essentially public info (like, stuff you can just buy as a database) as proof of identity, and then insist that you are legally responsible for a contract or whatever they made with someone who knew your DOB or something. It's really not much different than just throwing darts at a phone book, and then pretending that the fact they hit your name proves that you now have a contract with them ... no, it doesn't, and it's your fucking problem if you think it does.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The Uniform Commercial Code (in the US) has provisions about what constitutes accepting an instrument of payment taken in good faith, and that indemnifies a business. Maybe those laws should not exist and insurance should be the mechanism to cover loss stemming from fraud, but it doesn't work that way.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> Yeah, Identity theft is one of those crimes where the authorities don't really care. There is no such thing as "identity theft". You can't steal who someone is, that's bullshit. It's rather some party not making sure it's actually you they are talking to, and then claiming that you are responsible for it anyway because they fell for someone else's scam.

drdaeman 9y ago
And piracy is an act of robbery on the high seas. When the name sticks, there's usually nothing we can do. Sad but true.
- sowbug 9y ago
  That example doesn't use word games to shift the loss to an uninvolved and innocent party.
- uiri 9y ago
  The problem with the phrase "identity theft" is that it puts the onus of security onto the consumer to secure their personal details instead of onto the bank/telcos/etc to secure their systems. We should call it what it is: fraud. Whether that's bank fraud, computer fraud or wire fraud, banks should be responsible for compensating individuals for the losses incurred. One way to encourage this change is a change in the language we use surrounding these crimes.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > The problem with the phrase "identity theft" is that it puts the onus of security onto the consumer to secure their personal details instead of onto the bank/telcos/etc to secure their systems. And it's really even worse than that, as you are assigned blame for something that the party blaming you is itself forcing you to do. Like, they won't open an account for you unless you tell them your SSN, but then they blame you if you don't keep your SSN secret. It's reasonable to some degree to expect that you keep your password secret. It's a different thing altogether to take information that is unavoidably known to lots of parties, or in many cases even outright essentially public info (like, stuff you can just buy as a database) as proof of identity, and then insist that you are legally responsible for a contract or whatever they made with someone who knew your DOB or something. It's really not much different than just throwing darts at a phone book, and then pretending that the fact they hit your name proves that you now have a contract with them ... no, it doesn't, and it's your fucking problem if you think it does.
lr4444lr 9y ago
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The Uniform Commercial Code (in the US) has provisions about what constitutes accepting an instrument of payment taken in good faith, and that indemnifies a business. Maybe those laws should not exist and insurance should be the mechanism to cover loss stemming from fraud, but it doesn't work that way.