3 ms·

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

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.