6 ms·

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

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.

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.