15 ms·

Stop Calling it ‘Identity Theft’

361 points by herghost 9y ago

basicplus2 9y ago
But if one fraudulent use involving your identity enables a different fraudulent use and then another so that is becomes multiple cases such that it impunes my character then i would call that identity theft.
xtiansimon 9y ago
Identity Theft sounds better than, "someone pretending to be me has lead corporations, agencies, and other bureaucrats who have control and influence on my life to mistakenly attribute another person's actions to me, costing me time, damage to my reputation and money." And then all those other things.
- MatthewWilkes 9y ago
  It does, but that's because the companies who benefit from it being seen as your fault for being careless or unlucky rather than theirs for being lackadaisical in their verification process are the ones with the marketing departments.
  - mosselman 9y ago
    That is exactly the point. All sorts of companies and government have shaved off every possible cost of operation, in this case verification of identity, and then try to pass on this operational debt on to you when someone games their system. I couldn't care less if the phone company never checked identities, but when I say "that wasn't me" whenever they serve me €2000 bills I think they should just wave the case and clear my name. That €2000 is still nothing compared to what they save on proper verification mechanisms.
    - jsjohnst 9y ago
      Playing devils advocate, the issue is that if there’s zero responsibility on your end, then it’s also easy to claim it wasn’t you when it really was.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        Responsibility on your end only makes sense if you actually have control over whatever you are supposed to be responsible for. So, responsibility to not share a secret password with a third party? Fine! Responsibility to pay a bank money because the bank believed some criminal when they said they were you? Not OK! What matters is that the power to actually do something about a problem needs to be aligned with responsibility, so if the bank decides to use unreliable authentication, that's fine, but then they have to bear the responsibility and live with the fact that some people who actually were the real person later claim it wasn't them. If they don't want to bear that responsibility, it's up to them to use reliable authentication so they can actually prove it was you.
        jsjohnst 9y ago
        Define “reliable authentication” then. Most banks already require government ID (which is fakeable generally) due to KYC laws. What more is standardized so they could use it?
        TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        To open a bank account. Not to open a credit card account. Applying for a credit card involves essentially no verification of identity other than asking for some information that is supposedly but not really secret.
        jsjohnst 9y ago
        > Not to open a credit card account. And there is a large part of the problem. If equivalent to KYC laws applied to credit cards it would likely cut down on criminal's ability to get credit in someone else's name.
- mnw21cam 9y ago
  That, I think, is how this article is trying to re-frame the conversation. If we describe someone using my details to take out a loan in my name as "identity theft", then it sounds like the onus is on me to sort it out and (possibly) absorb some of the cost of doing so. If we describe it as "credit fraud", then that makes it clear that the problem lies with the loaning organisation, is independent of me, and I should suffer no consequences.
  - wccrawford 9y ago
    Either way, "identity theft" or "credit fraud", the onus is on someone other than the corporation that let it happen. It's the victim, or the criminal, but neither of them blame the corporation with the name alone. So I don't see any point in trying to get millions of people to change what they call it, if that's the other option.
    - panopticon 9y ago
      I think the point is to change the way people think about the situation. If you reframe the problem for enough people, it might become an issue politicians campaign with.
      - wccrawford 9y ago
        Exactly, but as I pointed out, they've failed to reframe it so that the company is at fault. It's still the same thing under those 2 names. They're putting all that work into a new name that doesn't do what they want.
- criddell 9y ago
  > "someone pretending to be me has lead corporations, agencies, and other bureaucrats who have control and influence on my life to mistakenly attribute another person's actions to me, costing me time, damage to my reputation and money." Oh, you mean fraud.
- turk184 9y ago
  As long as its all your fault somehow, right? I mean, I had no ability to control Equifax or how shitty they run their business, but somehow it's now on me to pay to freeze my credit? Fuck that!
- jgeada 9y ago
  Technically, isn't the real problem is one of slander? The credit reporting agency is slandering your name by stating that you committed a crime, be it theft, benefit fraud, or failed to pay your creditors or whatever, that you have not. It is that slander against your good name or good credit that causes the individual all the problems.
kstenerud 9y ago
Nerd rage is so cute to watch...
- sjcsjc 9y ago
  Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - kstenerud 9y ago
    I absolutely would say this face to face. It's silly and trivial and of no consequence in the real world. The very definition of nerd rage. Posts like this do absolutely nothing useful.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      So, if everyone did switch to saying "the bank was defrauded by someone impersonating me", you think that would have no effect on how banks perform authentication vs. if everyone says "my identity was stolen"? Or are you saying that you think changing the use of language in such a way does not ever work? Or something else?
    - sctb 9y ago
      Please stop violating the guidelines with uncivil or unsubstantive comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
cableshaft 9y ago
Someone used my credit card number and went on a spending spree with it about six months ago, and I had to get my details changed and a new number issued. Since then I've been referring to it as having my identity stolen. Not too long ago I met a guy who worked for a credit union, and he ripped me a new one for it, saying "you didn't get your identity stolen, that's just credit card fraud!" While I see his point, that there's much, much more serious forms of it out there, I still think it's pretty much the same thing, and that just because I could get it more or less taken care of with an hour at the bank and didn't have to go through years and years of pain to get things undone doesn't make it any less identity theft. Which is kind of the opposite point of the linked rant, I know. He's saying we shouldn't let it be called that so corporations can pin the responsibility on you and wiggle out of any liability.
- mgkimsal 9y ago
  someone committed credit card fraud by stealing your identifying information. maybe that's a more technically accurate description?
  - baldfat 9y ago
    To use a credit card you need not just the name but also the credit card number and possibly the csv and your zip code.
    - lotsofpulp 9y ago
      Many hotel systems (at least Marriott/Hilton/IHG/Choice) have system’s that allow transactions with only the 15 or 16 digit card number and expiration. No need for name/billing address/zip/PIN or CVV code. I assume it’s due to old systems and hotel chains not having enough incentive to modernize systems because the vast majority of hotels are franchised, so if there is a chargeback, it’s the franchisee that pays, while the hotel chain still gets their royalty %. Edit: to avoid cancelation or no show fees, you can even make reservations with a fake card # (4111 1111 1111 1111) and unless the hotel has a deposit policy where they test the card to see if it has the funds it takes a payment to make sure the card has at least $x amount of money, then you can pretty much get away with not showing up at no expense.
lcfg 9y ago
Quicker one: start calling it 'identity fraud'
- shawnz 9y ago
  Still missing the point in my opinion. Nothing is happening to my identity, it is their verification mechanisms which are failing.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    Well, something did happen to your identity - someone else associated a bunch of fraudulent purchases with it. Whether it's your fault or not, whether banks assume all fault or not, it is still ultimately your identity (your credit score, your bank accounts, your home) which ends up troubled. Consider for a moment the tech alternative. If someone hacks their way into my Google mail account and uses it to send out a ton of spam, who is going to suffer the consequences for it? Google, for using insecure sms messages for 2fa and not requiring 2fa for all accounts, or me when my account is closed?
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > Well, something did happen to your identity - someone else associated a bunch of fraudulent purchases with it. Still, nothing happened to your identity. Your identity is who you are. You still are you. > Whether it's your fault or not, whether banks assume all fault or not, it is still ultimately your identity (your credit score, your bank accounts, your home) which ends up troubled. Apart from the fact that none of that is your identity, but rather your reputation, your contract, and your property: No, you actually have it all backwards. There is no law of nature that implies that if a third party impersonates you to a bank, say, that therefore the bank has to start fraudulently telling people that you don't pay your loans, or harrass you to pay the loan they gave to that third party. Yes, that is a correct description of what banks actually do nowadaya, but the whole point of this discussion is that that should be illegal. The bank should be liable for reputational damage they cause by incorrectly attributing a third party's actions to you, and you'd be surprised how little your "identity" ends up troubled next time the bank is defrauded. > Consider for a moment the tech alternative. If someone hacks their way into my Google mail account and uses it to send out a ton of spam, who is going to suffer the consequences for it? Google, for using insecure sms messages for 2fa and not requiring 2fa for all accounts, or me when my account is closed? Are we talking about what google would do, or about what google should be held accountable for?
arjie 9y ago
Well , if we're just going to go on rants about words, then I'm going to bring up that old pro-piracy thing. It's not identity theft because the other guy hasn't taken it away from you. Either both of you have it or neither does, and the first is just copying and the second is vandalism.
- iamtew 9y ago
  Piracy, not privacy, correct? :-)
  - arjie 9y ago
    Haha oops.
mrweasel 9y ago
Regardless of what you call it, the fact that someone using your information to take out loans and signing all sorts of contracts should never be your problem. If a credit card company issues a card in your name to someone else, then clearly they didn't do their verification properly. It should be possible to have all your personal information floating around and still be certain that no one can use that information for anything. I'm pretty sure it works for Sweden where their SSN aren't secret, nor are addresses or phone numbers. Sure that may mean that you need to show up in the bank, or have a secure government authentication method, but that's not beyond implementation.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  > that's not beyond implementation It may be in the US. Because of Revelation 13:16-17: "16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads; 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." That's why national ID is difficult to sell here. Sorry.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
    You seem to be under the impression that the national ID in Sweden is in the form of some kind of tattoo?
    - scotty79 9y ago
      > receive a mark in their right hand I guess if you got your ID by picking it up with your right hand it still is the mark of the beast.
  - brlewis 9y ago
    I don't think mrweasel's comment was proposing national ID as a solution to "identity theft". It was just positing that solutions must exist other than keeping identifying information secret.
  - mcdonje 9y ago
kilceem 9y ago
It is identity theft in that they are posing as you to so they can perform fraud. It's identity as a societal thing like id with you name but their picture. Being able to do this remotely like credit charges(can be in brick n mortars though) etc just means normally they just need enough info. Once again it is mor societal concept of how we identify people we don't know.
- zdkl 9y ago
  The point is they're not stealing my identity from me, but from a third party. Why should I be on the hook for the consequences of someone else's negligence?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    Really, they aren't stealing an identity at all, they are simply stealing information about you. Saying that someone stole your identity because they know non-secret information about you is about as sensible as saying that someone stole your body when they stole a picture of you. If a bank accepts someone showing a picture of you as proof that they are you, they are simply being an idiot.
    - zdkl 9y ago
      Identity and the means to establish identity are the same thing as far as anyone is concerned in the current US model though
  - twobyfour 9y ago
    What about the term "identity theft" suggests that you should be on the hook?
    - dboreham 9y ago
      The idea that there is a victim, and that's you. You had a bad thing done to you and are now the worse. In fact nothing was done to you -- some big stupid corporation gave money to a criminal is what happened. The big stupid corporation would prefer that this be seen as : you owe them the money because they thought the criminal was you.
carloshpf 9y ago
Identity theft is not a joke, Jim! Millions of families suffer every year!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
daurnimator 9y ago
The Mitchell and Webb clip about this is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E
datr 9y ago
Mitchell & Webb did a sketch on this over ten years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E It's worth a listen.
- zellyn 9y ago
  I keep thinking of this sketch every time I see this sentiment expressed recently.
- cupantae 9y ago
  Beat me to it.
- AndrewOMartin 9y ago
  I was going to post this, just be warned anyone who was meant to be working, the Mitchell & Webb "related videos" on YouTube is an incredibly addictive spiral.
baldfat 9y ago
Just like don't call people using computers for illegal activity a Hacker. To bad that one was decided a long time ago.
- turk184 9y ago
  The media hates the Internet. They totally despise it and will attribute and blame "the Internet" for all kinds of criminal activities that merely use technology as part of the process in any fashion. The concept of "hackers" plays into that fear mongering.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Is HackerNews a place solely for news about people using computers for illegal activity?
  - baldfat 9y ago
    Definition of Hacker: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hacker https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hacker 1 :one that hacks 2 :a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity a tennis hacker 3 :an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer 4 :a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system RMS on Hacking and Cracking Yet when I say I am a hacker, people often think I am making a naughty admission, presenting myself specifically as a security breaker. How did this confusion develop? Around 1980, when the news media took notice of hackers, they fixated on one narrow aspect of real hacking: the security breaking which some hackers occasionally did. They ignored all the rest of hacking, and took the term to mean breaking security, no more and no less. The media have since spread that definition, disregarding our attempts to correct them. As a result, most people have a mistaken idea of what we hackers actually do and what we think. You can help correct the misunderstanding simply by making a distinction between security breaking and hacking—by using the term "cracking" for security breaking. The people who do it are "crackers" (*). Some of them may also be hackers, just as some of them may be chess players or golfers; most of them are not. https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html
mfisher101 9y ago
If you are having to spend your time and resources to clean up a mess that was not of your making, not to mention prove yourself innocent of making it, then you are most certainly a victim in some sense. You have a point about insurance, though I would argue that corporations should be required to carry identity theft insurance in proportion to the amount of personal data that they collect and store, for the benefit of the victims created as a result of the theft and misuse of said data.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  But the point is that the bank is who makes you a victim by baselessly asserting that you are responsible for their blunders. You are not the victim of someone pretending to be you, the bank is. You are the victim of the bank making you spend resources on cleaning up their failure.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    This only matters because a measure of blame is assigned to the victims. Even if we switch the words around and call it bank fraud, individual whose identity was copied will still be the one to endure the pain and effort of putting their affairs back in order.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      Except it probably doesn't, framing matters. People put up with it because they are led to believe that it's their problem, just like if someone broke into their home and stole their TV. People would be much less likely to accept the same reasoning from their bank if it were not stated as "Someone stole your identity, we are sorry you have to pay this", but instead as "A third party defrauded us, we are sorry you have to pay this".
- turk184 9y ago
  There was a word I ran across that perfectly describes how western financial firms operate and it is "Bezzle." The Bezzle is that low-ethics mode of operation where all extraneous costs are off-loaded to bagholders like you and me and whoever else isn't "them". The Bezzle doesn't concern itself with your problems or your legal hassles, even if it caused them, as long as there is plausible deniability. The government operates in much the same fashion because the government is made up of the same types of weasels as the financial industry is.
revmoo 9y ago
1000% percent agree. This fiction has gone on long enough.
jasonmaydie 9y ago
Identity theft means a specific thing. It doesn't mean someone is pretending to be physically you. what did I just read?
sriku 9y ago
The cases given are already under regulatory protection and so have their own terminology. There are kinds of thefts which leave the bit trail pointing to someone, when they shouldn't be. If the bit trail is not crossing major regulatory boundaries, but is affecting things like what Google knows about someone's personal preference or what items Facebook decides to show in his/her feed, or some personally incriminating things is done to them in the digital world (ex the recent post about upwork), the fact that folks may trust the bit trail more than they trust the person can be damaging esply if in-person contact is not the norm. In all these cases it involves someone taking an identifying token and pretending to be you for a while. The taking is done without permission, so it amounts to stealing. So I don't see a particular harm in bucketing this category of activity as "identity theft".
nikcub 9y ago
Credit card fraud and identify theft are distinct threats with distinct solutions. On underground forums they're also distinct products obtained and sold in different ways (cvvs/dumps vs fullz). It has taken a long time and a lot of media exposure to raise awareness of these two concepts to ordinary people. My parents now know what both identity theft and credit card fraud are - and they understand the basics of how to deal with each. To start over again with any of these terms because of a nuance of definition and semantics would be extremely counterproductive.
dsjoerg 9y ago
It should be called "Reputation Theft". Because what the criminal is doing is harming _your_ reputation with companies that _you_ want to do business with in the future.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  No, the criminal is not doing anything like that. It's the company that is harming your reputation with them by blaming somebody else's actions on you.
jsgo 9y ago
While I get the author's point, the problem is that for a lot of us in the US (those primarily impacted by Equifax I believe, unless they do work overseas as well), if someone claims to be me and gets the IRS to send my income tax refund to them, they are not going to mea culpa and send me the refund too. I'm just hosed.
- kd0amg 9y ago
  they are not going to mea culpa and send me the refund too Isn't that exactly the author's point? In that scenario, the IRS has taken harmful action against you to make up a cost they incurred by falling for someone else's fraud, and they get away with it by calling you the fraudster's victim, not theirs.
  - jsgo 9y ago
    while that's fair, they also state "The only way I get to be victim is if one of these organisations is duped and then they can’t or won’t address their mistakes or shortfalls and therefore they choose to pass the buck to me." And in this particular case, there is no recourse and you're certainly a victim. Last year there was something going on that they increased the fraud prevention-esque refunds with delays for a majority of people filing. Hopefully the IRS does similar this go around (and going forward).
dvdhnt 9y ago
I’m American. I’ve come to understand that the organizations I used to favor, like Google, consider me to be a product and not a customer. Now, I’m realizing that my nation considers me to be a resource and not a person.
- B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
  It's always been like that, what changed was the advertising. Don't be depressed about it. Poke some fun at the owners.
  - dvdhnt 9y ago
    Haha that’s fair. You’re right - it’s tough not to get angry about it given that I can’t individually do much about it. Laughter is the best medicine (or distraction).
andy_ppp 9y ago
Regarding the way social security numbers are used in the US. It’s the first thing you learn in security I’d say; don’t ever ever ever use identifiers as passwords.
yellowapple 9y ago
"The term ‘Identity Theft’ implies, and its usage accepts, that the person whose identity is being stolen is the victim. They’re almost always not." What. If someone uses your information to take advantage of your good credit and get a car loan, then defaults on that loan, guess whose credit score just got hurt? Guess who's going to have a harder time getting a loan for one's own new car? The whole article stems from the assumption that stealing someone's identity doesn't make that someone a victim. That assumption is blatantly false, and therefore so is pretty much the rest of the article. Call it what you want, but fraud committed in your name still harms you, and thus still makes you a victim.
- knodi123 9y ago
  You're missing the point. Obviously yes your credit score gets hurt, and yes you sometimes have the hassle of recovering money, re-establishing your identity, etc. The entire point of the article is that all these harms are not something the identity thief does to you. They are things that the identity thief does to SOME CORPORATION, and then that corporation passes part of the problem on to you. And the phrase "identity theft" is part of the way of thinking that allows the corporations to justify passing the harm on to you. The short audio clip from Mitchell And Webb that people in here are passing around really explains it best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E
  - yellowapple 9y ago
    You're missing my point. Just because the person whose identity was stolen was not the direct/intended victim does not mean that said person is not a victim at all.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      The bank is the victim of the crime. The person whose identity was stolen is a victim of the bank's negligence in properly identifying people.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
visarga 9y ago
It's short for "identity data theft". You can't actually steal an identity.
turc1656 9y ago
"The term ‘Identity Theft’ implies, and its usage accepts, that the person whose identity is being stolen is the victim. They’re almost always not." Flat out wrong. They nearly always are. They frequently have their credit impacted as a result of non-payments for credit, mortgages, etc. Also, I see "identity theft" as a subset of theft by conversion: https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-by-conversion/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-by-conversion/ "Theft by conversion occurs when someone wrongfully uses property or funds of another for their own purposes." A person's name, SSN, address, financial history, credit rating, etc. are all their property. And it is being used without their consent and in blatant violation of other laws that already exist. They clearly are a victim (but not the only victim) of these illegal acts. Also, let's not forget that it typically takes an enormous amount of time and effort to fully undo the damage. That time alone has a cost - and it has been forcefully taken from the person whose identity has been stolen by the perpetrator(s) of these crimes.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  The point here isn't that the targets of identity theft don't suffer, the point is that the institutions facilitating the fraud are the true perpetrators of the damage and that calling it "identity theft" makes it sound like the perpetrator is the person committing the fraud. The goal is to make it clear that when a bank allows someone to falsely represent themselves as me, the bank suffers, not me. They're the ones who messed up.
- wfo 9y ago
  I think you miss the point. Sure if I have my identity stolen bad things happen to me, but I am not the victim of the crime. The bank is. Someone has defrauded the bank and stolen money from them; the bank then turns around and says, no, the money was not stolen from the bank, it was stolen from you. In reality, if the bank gives someone else my money, this is fraud. This is theft. The bank is under contract to give my money to only me, and they have broken this contract. So either they have given the thief their own money (which means someone has committed fraud against the bank, with no relation to me at all) or they have given someone else my money (which means the bank has defrauded me and stolen from me). The only way I am a victim of 'identity theft' is if we allow the bank to decide the money they gave away to some random person actually belonged to me; they should not be able to do this. It is identical to the bank withdrawing money from my account and reporting it as corporate profit, fraud and theft. There are two possibilities: I am the victim and the bank is the perpetrator of fraud, or the bank is the victim and the thief is the perpetrator of fraud. 'Identity theft' as a phrase suggests a ridiculous notion, that the thief is the perpetrator and I am the victim, which suggests I am somehow related to someone who happened to rob my bank.
2close4comfort 9y ago
I would call it "losing my sh!t" but I have already lost it even if I didnt really opt-in in the first place. And now I have lost it so much I have nothing left to lose...makes you wonder about a credit collapse huh. With everyone's personal information freely available I wonder if free credit monitoring would even matter.
punnerud 9y ago
I can’t remember one place in Norway where this is still possible. Every bank is using 2-auth for sign-in and signing papers. They don’t event accept your hand signature without the 2-auth in addition. You can’t pay on webpages without 2-auth, so good luck using my card. All the mail from the Government is digital, and of course with... 2-auth. I even got a text when my child was born, saying we could now could fill in his name. And both parents had to sign the documents with... (you get it)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
naboofry 9y ago
What amazes me is - Why the social security number was ever used as an identity number in the first place. This number should simply be used to trace your account with the social security department when you retire. The practice by institutions to use the last four digits of your social security as some sort of de facto secret number is not only foolish but laughable that no one has a problem with it. I should be able to freely float my social security number and not expect to have my identity stolen.
- vec 9y ago
  CGP Gray did a really good video[1] about this recently. The short version is that it's the least terrible mechanism presently available for uniquely identifying and disambiguating American citizens. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus
fredophile 9y ago
There is a question I've been pondering in the wake of all of these data breaches but I'm not a lawyer so my assessment doesn't necessarily reflect what the law says. If person X opens a credit card in person Y's name and doesn't pay it back, the bank will tell all of the credit agencies that person Y doesn't pay their debts. When person Y eventually finds out about this would they be able to go after the bank for slander?
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
  Libel, not slander. Slander is spoken, libel is written or otherwise published. I'm not a lawyer, but probably. Since you'd have to prove that the bank made false statements of fact to get the credit agency to remove the fraudulent debt from your record anyway you'd necessarily have gathered plenty of evidence to help your case.
pjdorrell 9y ago
http://thinkinghard.com/blog/IdentityTheft.html http://thinkinghard.com/blog/IdentityTheft.html (2005)
khedoros1 9y ago
If someone commits fraud in your name, and you suffer the consequences of their actions, then you're one of the victims of their fraud. Noting that things bundled under "identity theft" are actually different crimes isn't a novel observation; the whole point of that label is to group the class of crimes where a criminal uses your personal information to perpetrate various kinds of fraud.
SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
We should just call it "libel". The credit issuer fails to adequately verify the identity of someone applying for credit (the thief) and lets them take out a loan in your name. The thief defaults on the loan. The credit issuer commits libel by reporting that you were the thief to the credit reporting agencies. There are two crimes contained in every case of "identity theft". Everyday consumers are affected by libel. Credit issuers are affected by fraud (enabled by their own negligence).

361 points by herghost 9y ago

But if one fraudulent use involving your identity enables a different fraudulent use and then another so that is becomes multiple cases such that it impunes my character then i would call that identity theft.

xtiansimon 9y ago

Identity Theft sounds better than, "someone pretending to be me has lead corporations, agencies, and other bureaucrats who have control and influence on my life to mistakenly attribute another person's actions to me, costing me time, damage to my reputation and money." And then all those other things.

MatthewWilkes 9y ago
It does, but that's because the companies who benefit from it being seen as your fault for being careless or unlucky rather than theirs for being lackadaisical in their verification process are the ones with the marketing departments.
- mosselman 9y ago
  That is exactly the point. All sorts of companies and government have shaved off every possible cost of operation, in this case verification of identity, and then try to pass on this operational debt on to you when someone games their system. I couldn't care less if the phone company never checked identities, but when I say "that wasn't me" whenever they serve me €2000 bills I think they should just wave the case and clear my name. That €2000 is still nothing compared to what they save on proper verification mechanisms.
  - jsjohnst 9y ago
    Playing devils advocate, the issue is that if there’s zero responsibility on your end, then it’s also easy to claim it wasn’t you when it really was.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      Responsibility on your end only makes sense if you actually have control over whatever you are supposed to be responsible for. So, responsibility to not share a secret password with a third party? Fine! Responsibility to pay a bank money because the bank believed some criminal when they said they were you? Not OK! What matters is that the power to actually do something about a problem needs to be aligned with responsibility, so if the bank decides to use unreliable authentication, that's fine, but then they have to bear the responsibility and live with the fact that some people who actually were the real person later claim it wasn't them. If they don't want to bear that responsibility, it's up to them to use reliable authentication so they can actually prove it was you.
      - jsjohnst 9y ago
        Define “reliable authentication” then. Most banks already require government ID (which is fakeable generally) due to KYC laws. What more is standardized so they could use it?
        TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        To open a bank account. Not to open a credit card account. Applying for a credit card involves essentially no verification of identity other than asking for some information that is supposedly but not really secret.
        jsjohnst 9y ago
        > Not to open a credit card account. And there is a large part of the problem. If equivalent to KYC laws applied to credit cards it would likely cut down on criminal's ability to get credit in someone else's name.
mnw21cam 9y ago
That, I think, is how this article is trying to re-frame the conversation. If we describe someone using my details to take out a loan in my name as "identity theft", then it sounds like the onus is on me to sort it out and (possibly) absorb some of the cost of doing so. If we describe it as "credit fraud", then that makes it clear that the problem lies with the loaning organisation, is independent of me, and I should suffer no consequences.
- wccrawford 9y ago
  Either way, "identity theft" or "credit fraud", the onus is on someone other than the corporation that let it happen. It's the victim, or the criminal, but neither of them blame the corporation with the name alone. So I don't see any point in trying to get millions of people to change what they call it, if that's the other option.
  - panopticon 9y ago
    I think the point is to change the way people think about the situation. If you reframe the problem for enough people, it might become an issue politicians campaign with.
    - wccrawford 9y ago
      Exactly, but as I pointed out, they've failed to reframe it so that the company is at fault. It's still the same thing under those 2 names. They're putting all that work into a new name that doesn't do what they want.
criddell 9y ago
> "someone pretending to be me has lead corporations, agencies, and other bureaucrats who have control and influence on my life to mistakenly attribute another person's actions to me, costing me time, damage to my reputation and money." Oh, you mean fraud.
turk184 9y ago
As long as its all your fault somehow, right? I mean, I had no ability to control Equifax or how shitty they run their business, but somehow it's now on me to pay to freeze my credit? Fuck that!
jgeada 9y ago
Technically, isn't the real problem is one of slander? The credit reporting agency is slandering your name by stating that you committed a crime, be it theft, benefit fraud, or failed to pay your creditors or whatever, that you have not. It is that slander against your good name or good credit that causes the individual all the problems.

kstenerud 9y ago

Nerd rage is so cute to watch...

sjcsjc 9y ago
Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kstenerud 9y ago
  I absolutely would say this face to face. It's silly and trivial and of no consequence in the real world. The very definition of nerd rage. Posts like this do absolutely nothing useful.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    So, if everyone did switch to saying "the bank was defrauded by someone impersonating me", you think that would have no effect on how banks perform authentication vs. if everyone says "my identity was stolen"? Or are you saying that you think changing the use of language in such a way does not ever work? Or something else?
  - sctb 9y ago
    Please stop violating the guidelines with uncivil or unsubstantive comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

cableshaft 9y ago

Someone used my credit card number and went on a spending spree with it about six months ago, and I had to get my details changed and a new number issued. Since then I've been referring to it as having my identity stolen. Not too long ago I met a guy who worked for a credit union, and he ripped me a new one for it, saying "you didn't get your identity stolen, that's just credit card fraud!" While I see his point, that there's much, much more serious forms of it out there, I still think it's pretty much the same thing, and that just because I could get it more or less taken care of with an hour at the bank and didn't have to go through years and years of pain to get things undone doesn't make it any less identity theft. Which is kind of the opposite point of the linked rant, I know. He's saying we shouldn't let it be called that so corporations can pin the responsibility on you and wiggle out of any liability.

mgkimsal 9y ago
someone committed credit card fraud by stealing your identifying information. maybe that's a more technically accurate description?
- baldfat 9y ago
  To use a credit card you need not just the name but also the credit card number and possibly the csv and your zip code.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    Many hotel systems (at least Marriott/Hilton/IHG/Choice) have system’s that allow transactions with only the 15 or 16 digit card number and expiration. No need for name/billing address/zip/PIN or CVV code. I assume it’s due to old systems and hotel chains not having enough incentive to modernize systems because the vast majority of hotels are franchised, so if there is a chargeback, it’s the franchisee that pays, while the hotel chain still gets their royalty %. Edit: to avoid cancelation or no show fees, you can even make reservations with a fake card # (4111 1111 1111 1111) and unless the hotel has a deposit policy where they test the card to see if it has the funds it takes a payment to make sure the card has at least $x amount of money, then you can pretty much get away with not showing up at no expense.

lcfg 9y ago

Quicker one: start calling it 'identity fraud'

shawnz 9y ago
Still missing the point in my opinion. Nothing is happening to my identity, it is their verification mechanisms which are failing.
- falcolas 9y ago
  Well, something did happen to your identity - someone else associated a bunch of fraudulent purchases with it. Whether it's your fault or not, whether banks assume all fault or not, it is still ultimately your identity (your credit score, your bank accounts, your home) which ends up troubled. Consider for a moment the tech alternative. If someone hacks their way into my Google mail account and uses it to send out a ton of spam, who is going to suffer the consequences for it? Google, for using insecure sms messages for 2fa and not requiring 2fa for all accounts, or me when my account is closed?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > Well, something did happen to your identity - someone else associated a bunch of fraudulent purchases with it. Still, nothing happened to your identity. Your identity is who you are. You still are you. > Whether it's your fault or not, whether banks assume all fault or not, it is still ultimately your identity (your credit score, your bank accounts, your home) which ends up troubled. Apart from the fact that none of that is your identity, but rather your reputation, your contract, and your property: No, you actually have it all backwards. There is no law of nature that implies that if a third party impersonates you to a bank, say, that therefore the bank has to start fraudulently telling people that you don't pay your loans, or harrass you to pay the loan they gave to that third party. Yes, that is a correct description of what banks actually do nowadaya, but the whole point of this discussion is that that should be illegal. The bank should be liable for reputational damage they cause by incorrectly attributing a third party's actions to you, and you'd be surprised how little your "identity" ends up troubled next time the bank is defrauded. > Consider for a moment the tech alternative. If someone hacks their way into my Google mail account and uses it to send out a ton of spam, who is going to suffer the consequences for it? Google, for using insecure sms messages for 2fa and not requiring 2fa for all accounts, or me when my account is closed? Are we talking about what google would do, or about what google should be held accountable for?

arjie 9y ago

Well , if we're just going to go on rants about words, then I'm going to bring up that old pro-piracy thing. It's not identity theft because the other guy hasn't taken it away from you. Either both of you have it or neither does, and the first is just copying and the second is vandalism.

iamtew 9y ago
Piracy, not privacy, correct? :-)
- arjie 9y ago
  Haha oops.

mrweasel 9y ago

Regardless of what you call it, the fact that someone using your information to take out loans and signing all sorts of contracts should never be your problem. If a credit card company issues a card in your name to someone else, then clearly they didn't do their verification properly. It should be possible to have all your personal information floating around and still be certain that no one can use that information for anything. I'm pretty sure it works for Sweden where their SSN aren't secret, nor are addresses or phone numbers. Sure that may mean that you need to show up in the bank, or have a secure government authentication method, but that's not beyond implementation.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
> that's not beyond implementation It may be in the US. Because of Revelation 13:16-17: "16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads; 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." That's why national ID is difficult to sell here. Sorry.
- SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
  You seem to be under the impression that the national ID in Sweden is in the form of some kind of tattoo?
  - scotty79 9y ago
    > receive a mark in their right hand I guess if you got your ID by picking it up with your right hand it still is the mark of the beast.
- brlewis 9y ago
  I don't think mrweasel's comment was proposing national ID as a solution to "identity theft". It was just positing that solutions must exist other than keeping identifying information secret.
- mcdonje 9y ago

kilceem 9y ago

It is identity theft in that they are posing as you to so they can perform fraud. It's identity as a societal thing like id with you name but their picture. Being able to do this remotely like credit charges(can be in brick n mortars though) etc just means normally they just need enough info. Once again it is mor societal concept of how we identify people we don't know.

zdkl 9y ago
The point is they're not stealing my identity from me, but from a third party. Why should I be on the hook for the consequences of someone else's negligence?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  Really, they aren't stealing an identity at all, they are simply stealing information about you. Saying that someone stole your identity because they know non-secret information about you is about as sensible as saying that someone stole your body when they stole a picture of you. If a bank accepts someone showing a picture of you as proof that they are you, they are simply being an idiot.
  - zdkl 9y ago
    Identity and the means to establish identity are the same thing as far as anyone is concerned in the current US model though
- twobyfour 9y ago
  What about the term "identity theft" suggests that you should be on the hook?
  - dboreham 9y ago
    The idea that there is a victim, and that's you. You had a bad thing done to you and are now the worse. In fact nothing was done to you -- some big stupid corporation gave money to a criminal is what happened. The big stupid corporation would prefer that this be seen as : you owe them the money because they thought the criminal was you.

carloshpf 9y ago

Identity theft is not a joke, Jim! Millions of families suffer every year!

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

daurnimator 9y ago

The Mitchell and Webb clip about this is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E

datr 9y ago

Mitchell & Webb did a sketch on this over ten years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E It's worth a listen.

zellyn 9y ago
I keep thinking of this sketch every time I see this sentiment expressed recently.
cupantae 9y ago
Beat me to it.
AndrewOMartin 9y ago
I was going to post this, just be warned anyone who was meant to be working, the Mitchell & Webb "related videos" on YouTube is an incredibly addictive spiral.

baldfat 9y ago

Just like don't call people using computers for illegal activity a Hacker. To bad that one was decided a long time ago.

turk184 9y ago
The media hates the Internet. They totally despise it and will attribute and blame "the Internet" for all kinds of criminal activities that merely use technology as part of the process in any fashion. The concept of "hackers" plays into that fear mongering.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Is HackerNews a place solely for news about people using computers for illegal activity?
- baldfat 9y ago
  Definition of Hacker: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hacker https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hacker 1 :one that hacks 2 :a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity a tennis hacker 3 :an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer 4 :a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system RMS on Hacking and Cracking Yet when I say I am a hacker, people often think I am making a naughty admission, presenting myself specifically as a security breaker. How did this confusion develop? Around 1980, when the news media took notice of hackers, they fixated on one narrow aspect of real hacking: the security breaking which some hackers occasionally did. They ignored all the rest of hacking, and took the term to mean breaking security, no more and no less. The media have since spread that definition, disregarding our attempts to correct them. As a result, most people have a mistaken idea of what we hackers actually do and what we think. You can help correct the misunderstanding simply by making a distinction between security breaking and hacking—by using the term "cracking" for security breaking. The people who do it are "crackers" (*). Some of them may also be hackers, just as some of them may be chess players or golfers; most of them are not. https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html

mfisher101 9y ago

If you are having to spend your time and resources to clean up a mess that was not of your making, not to mention prove yourself innocent of making it, then you are most certainly a victim in some sense. You have a point about insurance, though I would argue that corporations should be required to carry identity theft insurance in proportion to the amount of personal data that they collect and store, for the benefit of the victims created as a result of the theft and misuse of said data.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
But the point is that the bank is who makes you a victim by baselessly asserting that you are responsible for their blunders. You are not the victim of someone pretending to be you, the bank is. You are the victim of the bank making you spend resources on cleaning up their failure.
- falcolas 9y ago
  This only matters because a measure of blame is assigned to the victims. Even if we switch the words around and call it bank fraud, individual whose identity was copied will still be the one to endure the pain and effort of putting their affairs back in order.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    Except it probably doesn't, framing matters. People put up with it because they are led to believe that it's their problem, just like if someone broke into their home and stole their TV. People would be much less likely to accept the same reasoning from their bank if it were not stated as "Someone stole your identity, we are sorry you have to pay this", but instead as "A third party defrauded us, we are sorry you have to pay this".
turk184 9y ago
There was a word I ran across that perfectly describes how western financial firms operate and it is "Bezzle." The Bezzle is that low-ethics mode of operation where all extraneous costs are off-loaded to bagholders like you and me and whoever else isn't "them". The Bezzle doesn't concern itself with your problems or your legal hassles, even if it caused them, as long as there is plausible deniability. The government operates in much the same fashion because the government is made up of the same types of weasels as the financial industry is.

revmoo 9y ago

1000% percent agree. This fiction has gone on long enough.

jasonmaydie 9y ago

Identity theft means a specific thing. It doesn't mean someone is pretending to be physically you. what did I just read?

sriku 9y ago

The cases given are already under regulatory protection and so have their own terminology. There are kinds of thefts which leave the bit trail pointing to someone, when they shouldn't be. If the bit trail is not crossing major regulatory boundaries, but is affecting things like what Google knows about someone's personal preference or what items Facebook decides to show in his/her feed, or some personally incriminating things is done to them in the digital world (ex the recent post about upwork), the fact that folks may trust the bit trail more than they trust the person can be damaging esply if in-person contact is not the norm. In all these cases it involves someone taking an identifying token and pretending to be you for a while. The taking is done without permission, so it amounts to stealing. So I don't see a particular harm in bucketing this category of activity as "identity theft".

nikcub 9y ago

Credit card fraud and identify theft are distinct threats with distinct solutions. On underground forums they're also distinct products obtained and sold in different ways (cvvs/dumps vs fullz). It has taken a long time and a lot of media exposure to raise awareness of these two concepts to ordinary people. My parents now know what both identity theft and credit card fraud are - and they understand the basics of how to deal with each. To start over again with any of these terms because of a nuance of definition and semantics would be extremely counterproductive.

dsjoerg 9y ago

It should be called "Reputation Theft". Because what the criminal is doing is harming _your_ reputation with companies that _you_ want to do business with in the future.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
No, the criminal is not doing anything like that. It's the company that is harming your reputation with them by blaming somebody else's actions on you.

jsgo 9y ago

While I get the author's point, the problem is that for a lot of us in the US (those primarily impacted by Equifax I believe, unless they do work overseas as well), if someone claims to be me and gets the IRS to send my income tax refund to them, they are not going to mea culpa and send me the refund too. I'm just hosed.

kd0amg 9y ago
they are not going to mea culpa and send me the refund too Isn't that exactly the author's point? In that scenario, the IRS has taken harmful action against you to make up a cost they incurred by falling for someone else's fraud, and they get away with it by calling you the fraudster's victim, not theirs.
- jsgo 9y ago
  while that's fair, they also state "The only way I get to be victim is if one of these organisations is duped and then they can’t or won’t address their mistakes or shortfalls and therefore they choose to pass the buck to me." And in this particular case, there is no recourse and you're certainly a victim. Last year there was something going on that they increased the fraud prevention-esque refunds with delays for a majority of people filing. Hopefully the IRS does similar this go around (and going forward).

dvdhnt 9y ago

I’m American. I’ve come to understand that the organizations I used to favor, like Google, consider me to be a product and not a customer. Now, I’m realizing that my nation considers me to be a resource and not a person.

B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
It's always been like that, what changed was the advertising. Don't be depressed about it. Poke some fun at the owners.
- dvdhnt 9y ago
  Haha that’s fair. You’re right - it’s tough not to get angry about it given that I can’t individually do much about it. Laughter is the best medicine (or distraction).

andy_ppp 9y ago

Regarding the way social security numbers are used in the US. It’s the first thing you learn in security I’d say; don’t ever ever ever use identifiers as passwords.

yellowapple 9y ago

"The term ‘Identity Theft’ implies, and its usage accepts, that the person whose identity is being stolen is the victim. They’re almost always not." What. If someone uses your information to take advantage of your good credit and get a car loan, then defaults on that loan, guess whose credit score just got hurt? Guess who's going to have a harder time getting a loan for one's own new car? The whole article stems from the assumption that stealing someone's identity doesn't make that someone a victim. That assumption is blatantly false, and therefore so is pretty much the rest of the article. Call it what you want, but fraud committed in your name still harms you, and thus still makes you a victim.

knodi123 9y ago
You're missing the point. Obviously yes your credit score gets hurt, and yes you sometimes have the hassle of recovering money, re-establishing your identity, etc. The entire point of the article is that all these harms are not something the identity thief does to you. They are things that the identity thief does to SOME CORPORATION, and then that corporation passes part of the problem on to you. And the phrase "identity theft" is part of the way of thinking that allows the corporations to justify passing the harm on to you. The short audio clip from Mitchell And Webb that people in here are passing around really explains it best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E
- yellowapple 9y ago
  You're missing my point. Just because the person whose identity was stolen was not the direct/intended victim does not mean that said person is not a victim at all.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    The bank is the victim of the crime. The person whose identity was stolen is a victim of the bank's negligence in properly identifying people.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

visarga 9y ago

It's short for "identity data theft". You can't actually steal an identity.

turc1656 9y ago

"The term ‘Identity Theft’ implies, and its usage accepts, that the person whose identity is being stolen is the victim. They’re almost always not." Flat out wrong. They nearly always are. They frequently have their credit impacted as a result of non-payments for credit, mortgages, etc. Also, I see "identity theft" as a subset of theft by conversion: https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-by-conversion/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-by-conversion/ "Theft by conversion occurs when someone wrongfully uses property or funds of another for their own purposes." A person's name, SSN, address, financial history, credit rating, etc. are all their property. And it is being used without their consent and in blatant violation of other laws that already exist. They clearly are a victim (but not the only victim) of these illegal acts. Also, let's not forget that it typically takes an enormous amount of time and effort to fully undo the damage. That time alone has a cost - and it has been forcefully taken from the person whose identity has been stolen by the perpetrator(s) of these crimes.

Veratyr 9y ago
The point here isn't that the targets of identity theft don't suffer, the point is that the institutions facilitating the fraud are the true perpetrators of the damage and that calling it "identity theft" makes it sound like the perpetrator is the person committing the fraud. The goal is to make it clear that when a bank allows someone to falsely represent themselves as me, the bank suffers, not me. They're the ones who messed up.
wfo 9y ago
I think you miss the point. Sure if I have my identity stolen bad things happen to me, but I am not the victim of the crime. The bank is. Someone has defrauded the bank and stolen money from them; the bank then turns around and says, no, the money was not stolen from the bank, it was stolen from you. In reality, if the bank gives someone else my money, this is fraud. This is theft. The bank is under contract to give my money to only me, and they have broken this contract. So either they have given the thief their own money (which means someone has committed fraud against the bank, with no relation to me at all) or they have given someone else my money (which means the bank has defrauded me and stolen from me). The only way I am a victim of 'identity theft' is if we allow the bank to decide the money they gave away to some random person actually belonged to me; they should not be able to do this. It is identical to the bank withdrawing money from my account and reporting it as corporate profit, fraud and theft. There are two possibilities: I am the victim and the bank is the perpetrator of fraud, or the bank is the victim and the thief is the perpetrator of fraud. 'Identity theft' as a phrase suggests a ridiculous notion, that the thief is the perpetrator and I am the victim, which suggests I am somehow related to someone who happened to rob my bank.

2close4comfort 9y ago

I would call it "losing my sh!t" but I have already lost it even if I didnt really opt-in in the first place. And now I have lost it so much I have nothing left to lose...makes you wonder about a credit collapse huh. With everyone's personal information freely available I wonder if free credit monitoring would even matter.

punnerud 9y ago

I can’t remember one place in Norway where this is still possible. Every bank is using 2-auth for sign-in and signing papers. They don’t event accept your hand signature without the 2-auth in addition. You can’t pay on webpages without 2-auth, so good luck using my card. All the mail from the Government is digital, and of course with... 2-auth. I even got a text when my child was born, saying we could now could fill in his name. And both parents had to sign the documents with... (you get it)

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

naboofry 9y ago

What amazes me is - Why the social security number was ever used as an identity number in the first place. This number should simply be used to trace your account with the social security department when you retire. The practice by institutions to use the last four digits of your social security as some sort of de facto secret number is not only foolish but laughable that no one has a problem with it. I should be able to freely float my social security number and not expect to have my identity stolen.

vec 9y ago
CGP Gray did a really good video[1] about this recently. The short version is that it's the least terrible mechanism presently available for uniquely identifying and disambiguating American citizens. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus

fredophile 9y ago

There is a question I've been pondering in the wake of all of these data breaches but I'm not a lawyer so my assessment doesn't necessarily reflect what the law says. If person X opens a credit card in person Y's name and doesn't pay it back, the bank will tell all of the credit agencies that person Y doesn't pay their debts. When person Y eventually finds out about this would they be able to go after the bank for slander?

SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
Libel, not slander. Slander is spoken, libel is written or otherwise published. I'm not a lawyer, but probably. Since you'd have to prove that the bank made false statements of fact to get the credit agency to remove the fraudulent debt from your record anyway you'd necessarily have gathered plenty of evidence to help your case.

pjdorrell 9y ago

http://thinkinghard.com/blog/IdentityTheft.html http://thinkinghard.com/blog/IdentityTheft.html (2005)

khedoros1 9y ago

If someone commits fraud in your name, and you suffer the consequences of their actions, then you're one of the victims of their fraud. Noting that things bundled under "identity theft" are actually different crimes isn't a novel observation; the whole point of that label is to group the class of crimes where a criminal uses your personal information to perpetrate various kinds of fraud.

SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago

We should just call it "libel". The credit issuer fails to adequately verify the identity of someone applying for credit (the thief) and lets them take out a loan in your name. The thief defaults on the loan. The credit issuer commits libel by reporting that you were the thief to the credit reporting agencies. There are two crimes contained in every case of "identity theft". Everyday consumers are affected by libel. Credit issuers are affected by fraud (enabled by their own negligence).