5 ms·

The fact that "identity theft" is still a thing in 2018 is an indictment on the legacy financial industry. If not for the web of opaque "agencies" that collect

The fact that "identity theft" is still a thing in 2018 is an indictment on the legacy financial industry. If not for the web of opaque "agencies" that collect and sell data about individuals without affirmative action on behalf of the individual (frankly still surprised this is legal) it would be a complete non-issue. It's irrelevant to me whether someone else opens an account with my name - just as it's irrelevant to me whether someone registers an account elsewhere with the username 'esotericn'. The banks bring this problem upon themselves. edit: The replies to this post are missing the point entirely. Yes, it's a problem because it's a problem. It doesn't have to be this way.

throwaway2048 8y ago
except then they blame you, for having your identity "stolen".
TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
> It's irrelevant to me whether someone else opens an account with my name If they commit crime in your name, that's your problem no matter what financial system they do it in.
- esotericn 8y ago
  Exactly. It's a self inflicted issue. They claim that "my identity" matters, so it matters. Their decision making affects me through no action of my own. If you sign up at Reddit with the username 'esotericn', I don't care. It doesn't matter. Somehow, if someone signs up for, say, a phone contract in my name and doesn't pay it, it affects some opaque 'credit score' somewhere because an agency couldn't be arsed to do due diligence. They push the burden on to end consumers. I sidestep most of this by just avoiding debt because I can't be arsed with the farce.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
    So, they shouldn't try to use identifying information to track down people committing crimes?
    - esotericn 8y ago
      I'm not really sure how to answer this. Sure. That's not actually how "identity theft" affects people for the most part. The case of the police turning up at your door or some sort of court summons because a fake "TazeTSchnitzel" performed fraud is pretty rare. What actually happens is some opaque credit score thing whereby you just find interacting with the system harder because someone else fucked up. For example, an agency deciding that because fake "TazeT" managed to get a phone contract and didn't pay it, real "TazeT" must be a layabout and not pay his bills. Or an account of yours has the password reset because someone sent in a photo of your ID gained from some database leak from a nightclub. All of this comes about because of inaccurate linking of accounts. There are trivial ways of determining actual linkage, for example if I send money from account A to account B under the same name and it goes uncontested, it's the same identity. Using stuff like photographs of bits of paper or things sent in the mail as proof is completely asinine. I get mail from half of my street because my postman is underpaid and can't be arsed.
      - TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
        Ah, yes, I see the argument about credit reports. Putting aside the question of whether they can exist at all, the security checks are laughable and therefore someone can make a black mark on yours by impersonating you with much greater ease than should be the case.
        esotericn 8y ago
        Right. The other main category of problem that comes with identity theft is my own resources being used (e.g. an account, bank or otherwise) by a non-me. Again, this goes away if you use real authentication rather than "oh, he has a photo of a pink bit of plastic with an address on it?, gosh must be him, here you go!". It would be more expensive to do so, though, so we don't. The burden is pushed on to the end user.
- wongarsu 8y ago
  In a justice system that actually does what ours pretends to do that isn't my problem at all. I'm innocent until proven guilty, and if other people accept insecure methods of authentification that shouldn't be my problem. Or put another way: if a burgler spraypaints the words "wongarsu was here" on the walls after relieving a house of its valuables the police may want to hear my side; but it isn't my problem because those words prove nothing.
mannykannot 8y ago
It would not be a problem if it were only a problem for the entities creating it. It will become very relevant to you if it ever happens to you.
listenallyall 8y ago
> web of opaque "agencies" While I've got no love for credit-reporting agencies, and they have managed to mangle my file, they do act as a non-partisan 3rd party that can (when their records are accurate) verify that a person is credit-worthy -- Which is a highly valuable service. Banks can offer low rates and other economic incentives to credit-worthy people, and make decisions for hundreds of thousands of dollars (i.e. a mortgage) in minutes, due to the existence of TransUnion, etc. If it was possible for you to opt-out (or refuse to opt-in), you'd pay much more for a mortgage or any loan, decisions would take weeks, you'd be burdened with having to self-report your credit history (i.e. collect every statement on every account for the past 5-10 years) and since you are self-reporting, banks would still add a premium on because they would assume you've "forgotten" to include the credit card which you skipped payments on for 3 months back a few years ago. As an analogy, auto insurers can easily check your accident and claims history -- imagine what your premiums would be if insurers had no way to check. They would have to assume the worst about almost everyone, and charge accordingly. Do credit agencies need to be more accurate, and more secure? Absolutely. But wishing to opt-out entirely would likely be detrimental to you personally.
- esotericn 8y ago
  I pretty much have opted out entirely. I'm sure these agencies collect information on me regardless, there's not much I can do about that. I have no need for loans other than possibly a mortgage - I find it difficult to conceive of why one would even want a loan, outside of the first few years of adulthood. The mortgage is a stickler, but given that I have no desire to lock myself in to the traditional 25 years of working to buy a house in a high CoL area, it really just means saving before buying. It would be nice to have those things, but not with the additional stress involved of satisfying arbitrary requirements all the time. I prefer to live life without thinking about how other entities wish to 'rank' me all the time. I'd find it stifling to do otherwise. > As an analogy, auto insurers can easily check your accident and claims history -- imagine what your premiums would be if insurers had no way to check. They would have to assume the worst about almost everyone, and charge accordingly. More realistically, you'd be asked to provide your claim history, and if you fraudulently provided a fake history, you'd be hit with severe penalties.
jimmy1 8y ago
This isn't a case of "identity theft" at least the modern sense of the term, this is a case of impersonation, which has been a problem since humanity existed.

throwaway2048 8y ago

except then they blame you, for having your identity "stolen".

TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago

> It's irrelevant to me whether someone else opens an account with my name If they commit crime in your name, that's your problem no matter what financial system they do it in.

esotericn 8y ago
Exactly. It's a self inflicted issue. They claim that "my identity" matters, so it matters. Their decision making affects me through no action of my own. If you sign up at Reddit with the username 'esotericn', I don't care. It doesn't matter. Somehow, if someone signs up for, say, a phone contract in my name and doesn't pay it, it affects some opaque 'credit score' somewhere because an agency couldn't be arsed to do due diligence. They push the burden on to end consumers. I sidestep most of this by just avoiding debt because I can't be arsed with the farce.
- TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
  So, they shouldn't try to use identifying information to track down people committing crimes?
  - esotericn 8y ago
    I'm not really sure how to answer this. Sure. That's not actually how "identity theft" affects people for the most part. The case of the police turning up at your door or some sort of court summons because a fake "TazeTSchnitzel" performed fraud is pretty rare. What actually happens is some opaque credit score thing whereby you just find interacting with the system harder because someone else fucked up. For example, an agency deciding that because fake "TazeT" managed to get a phone contract and didn't pay it, real "TazeT" must be a layabout and not pay his bills. Or an account of yours has the password reset because someone sent in a photo of your ID gained from some database leak from a nightclub. All of this comes about because of inaccurate linking of accounts. There are trivial ways of determining actual linkage, for example if I send money from account A to account B under the same name and it goes uncontested, it's the same identity. Using stuff like photographs of bits of paper or things sent in the mail as proof is completely asinine. I get mail from half of my street because my postman is underpaid and can't be arsed.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
      Ah, yes, I see the argument about credit reports. Putting aside the question of whether they can exist at all, the security checks are laughable and therefore someone can make a black mark on yours by impersonating you with much greater ease than should be the case.
      - esotericn 8y ago
        Right. The other main category of problem that comes with identity theft is my own resources being used (e.g. an account, bank or otherwise) by a non-me. Again, this goes away if you use real authentication rather than "oh, he has a photo of a pink bit of plastic with an address on it?, gosh must be him, here you go!". It would be more expensive to do so, though, so we don't. The burden is pushed on to the end user.
wongarsu 8y ago
In a justice system that actually does what ours pretends to do that isn't my problem at all. I'm innocent until proven guilty, and if other people accept insecure methods of authentification that shouldn't be my problem. Or put another way: if a burgler spraypaints the words "wongarsu was here" on the walls after relieving a house of its valuables the police may want to hear my side; but it isn't my problem because those words prove nothing.

mannykannot 8y ago

It would not be a problem if it were only a problem for the entities creating it. It will become very relevant to you if it ever happens to you.

listenallyall 8y ago

> web of opaque "agencies" While I've got no love for credit-reporting agencies, and they have managed to mangle my file, they do act as a non-partisan 3rd party that can (when their records are accurate) verify that a person is credit-worthy -- Which is a highly valuable service. Banks can offer low rates and other economic incentives to credit-worthy people, and make decisions for hundreds of thousands of dollars (i.e. a mortgage) in minutes, due to the existence of TransUnion, etc. If it was possible for you to opt-out (or refuse to opt-in), you'd pay much more for a mortgage or any loan, decisions would take weeks, you'd be burdened with having to self-report your credit history (i.e. collect every statement on every account for the past 5-10 years) and since you are self-reporting, banks would still add a premium on because they would assume you've "forgotten" to include the credit card which you skipped payments on for 3 months back a few years ago. As an analogy, auto insurers can easily check your accident and claims history -- imagine what your premiums would be if insurers had no way to check. They would have to assume the worst about almost everyone, and charge accordingly. Do credit agencies need to be more accurate, and more secure? Absolutely. But wishing to opt-out entirely would likely be detrimental to you personally.

esotericn 8y ago
I pretty much have opted out entirely. I'm sure these agencies collect information on me regardless, there's not much I can do about that. I have no need for loans other than possibly a mortgage - I find it difficult to conceive of why one would even want a loan, outside of the first few years of adulthood. The mortgage is a stickler, but given that I have no desire to lock myself in to the traditional 25 years of working to buy a house in a high CoL area, it really just means saving before buying. It would be nice to have those things, but not with the additional stress involved of satisfying arbitrary requirements all the time. I prefer to live life without thinking about how other entities wish to 'rank' me all the time. I'd find it stifling to do otherwise. > As an analogy, auto insurers can easily check your accident and claims history -- imagine what your premiums would be if insurers had no way to check. They would have to assume the worst about almost everyone, and charge accordingly. More realistically, you'd be asked to provide your claim history, and if you fraudulently provided a fake history, you'd be hit with severe penalties.

jimmy1 8y ago

This isn't a case of "identity theft" at least the modern sense of the term, this is a case of impersonation, which has been a problem since humanity existed.