3 ms·

The concept of frozen credit itself is wrong. Creditors need to positively identify those seeking to open new accounts or access existing accounts with a more

The concept of frozen credit itself is wrong. Creditors need to positively identify those seeking to open new accounts or access existing accounts with a more rigorous process. Which is to say that in the absence of a government identity verification service, you really shouldn't be able to open a new account without showing up to a branch office in person. That would at least limit identity theft to those that bear some physical resemblance to you. If they could also take cheek-swab DNA samples directly from the applicant, establish shared secrets, and exchange cryptography certificates at that time, that would be great. The procedure should really be predicated on the possibility that they would later have to prove conclusively in court that the account-opener and the defendant are actually the same person.

bangurhead 9y ago
i'd like to personally say fuck off for the dna stuff and a fuck you for mentioning it so casually
Ajedi32 9y ago
> The procedure should really be predicated on the possibility that they would later have to prove conclusively in court that the account-opener and the defendant are actually the same person. Why is it not already this way? If a credit reporting agency falsely alleges that you have a history of failing to repay your debts (when in reality the person failing to pay is actually a scammer who has no relationship with you whatsoever) and that false allegation negatively impacts your ability to obtain a new credit line in the future, isn't that libel? Why aren't credit reporting agencies already being sued left and right as it is under existing law? If a company wants to make it their job to determine the credit-worthiness of individuals, then shouldn't they be required to make sure that information is accurate or face libel charges?
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  > Why is it not already this way? Because the credit industry can afford better lobbyists and lawyers than you. A normal, rational person would indeed know that to be libel, but US treats damage to reputation differently from Europe. I'm not a lawyer, but I think in the US you have to prove the allegation was false, that they knew it was false when making it, and that the false statement actually caused you harm. The businesses in the industry establish the reasonable norms for knowing when something is false. The CRAs say they trust the creditors to report accurate information, and the creditors say they trust the CRAs to match reports to the correct records. They both point at the identity thief as the true culprit. But you can't sue them, because they used your name, and no one knows who they really are. Essentially, it's a blame-shifting shell game that only holds up because of the massive amount of money flowing through the industry.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > Why aren't credit reporting agencies already being sued left and right as it is under existing law? Too Big To Fail, I think. They did eventually get sued for "robo-sigining", although personally I think everyone who ordered their staff to participate in it should have been jailed for perjury. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-breaks-down-93-bln-robo-signing-settlement-2013-02-28 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-breaks-down-93-bln-robo-...

bangurhead 9y ago

i'd like to personally say fuck off for the dna stuff and a fuck you for mentioning it so casually

Ajedi32 9y ago

> The procedure should really be predicated on the possibility that they would later have to prove conclusively in court that the account-opener and the defendant are actually the same person. Why is it not already this way? If a credit reporting agency falsely alleges that you have a history of failing to repay your debts (when in reality the person failing to pay is actually a scammer who has no relationship with you whatsoever) and that false allegation negatively impacts your ability to obtain a new credit line in the future, isn't that libel? Why aren't credit reporting agencies already being sued left and right as it is under existing law? If a company wants to make it their job to determine the credit-worthiness of individuals, then shouldn't they be required to make sure that information is accurate or face libel charges?

logfromblammo 9y ago
> Why is it not already this way? Because the credit industry can afford better lobbyists and lawyers than you. A normal, rational person would indeed know that to be libel, but US treats damage to reputation differently from Europe. I'm not a lawyer, but I think in the US you have to prove the allegation was false, that they knew it was false when making it, and that the false statement actually caused you harm. The businesses in the industry establish the reasonable norms for knowing when something is false. The CRAs say they trust the creditors to report accurate information, and the creditors say they trust the CRAs to match reports to the correct records. They both point at the identity thief as the true culprit. But you can't sue them, because they used your name, and no one knows who they really are. Essentially, it's a blame-shifting shell game that only holds up because of the massive amount of money flowing through the industry.
pjc50 9y ago
> Why aren't credit reporting agencies already being sued left and right as it is under existing law? Too Big To Fail, I think. They did eventually get sued for "robo-sigining", although personally I think everyone who ordered their staff to participate in it should have been jailed for perjury. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-breaks-down-93-bln-robo-signing-settlement-2013-02-28 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-breaks-down-93-bln-robo-...