3 ms·
They're already trying to change "bank fraud" into "identity theft" and defer liability to the person whose info is being used, vice the old way of the bank bei
by jaggederest 9y ago
They're already trying to change "bank fraud" into "identity theft" and defer liability to the person whose info is being used, vice the old way of the bank being fully liable.
Ironically, for a lot of industries they're better off just giving it the see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil treatment and ignoring that those numbers can/will be stolen.
It's a little bit like the opposite of the way everyone is doing facial recognition and biometrics these days - plausible identifiability, when it's to their interest not to notice that the person doesn't match the id.
- jMyles 9y ago> They're already trying to change "bank fraud" into "identity theft" Interesting - has anybody been vigilantly documenting this transition and its impact for consumers? Have a link handy? I've certainly noticed it in the common vernacular, but I haven't yet really considered what it means for bottom lines.
- bogomipz 9y ago>"They're already trying to change "bank fraud" into "identity theft" and defer liability to the person whose info is being used, vice the old way of the bank being fully liable" Do you some references or citations you could share about such a development? This is the first I have heard about this. Who is the "they" here? SEC? Banks? Lawmakers?