8 ms·

What does "identity theft" have to do with the person being impersonated? They have nothing to do with these transactions. It is not my fault Wells Fargo was tr

• newsreview1 7y ago
  Agree, 100%
• binarymax 7y ago
  You're right of course. Hopefully at some point a class action goes to court and that finally turns the tide.
  • inetknght 7y ago
    You think a class action lawsuit could turn the tide against fraud? I wonder exactly what you think a class action lawsuit is actually capable of doing.
    • ceejayoz 7y ago
      The class action would be against the banks for their negligence in protecting against said fraud. It's bafflingly easy to get a new credit card from them with a couple key bits of info that everyone knows are widely compromised or otherwise readily available.
  • dwyerm 7y ago
    Did you miss the mandatory binding arbitration and class-action waiver in your terms and conditions?
• sorokod 7y ago
  This came up on a different hn thread recently: > This reminds me of a great Mitchell and Webb sketch. https://youtu.be/CS9ptA3Ya9E https://youtu.be/CS9ptA3Ya9E
• matmann2001 7y ago
  Around the time of the Equifax breach, there was a discussion here that put it succinctly. "Identity theft" is just a clever name for "fraud" that shifts the responsibility away from the bank.
  • vernie 7y ago
    Similar to "responsible disclosure"
    • october_sky 7y ago
      > Similar to "responsible disclosure" Huh? How is "responsible disclosure" related at all?
      • taviso 7y ago
        It's acceptable to cut corners and ship shoddy software to consumers, because if anyone points out the flaws, they're being "irresponsible". The responsibility to protect customers is therefore shifted away from the vendors onto researchers. Pretty sweet deal, because good quality security engineering is expensive!
        • SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
          I have never once seen someone say that it's irresponsible for security engineers to point out flaws in software. Indeed, "responsible disclosure" often includes disclosing bugs even though they haven't yet been fixed when the developer isn't responding. There are problems with the term, but this isn't one of them.
          • taviso 7y ago
            > I have never once seen someone say that it's irresponsible for security engineers to point out flaws in software. I've got news for you, it happens all the time. I can't open my mouth without some Microsoft lackey shouting irresponsible at me.
• dangero 7y ago
  You're right of course, but I wonder if the status quo were to suddenly change so that banks are liable, would credit suddenly restrict and cause a recession or worse?
  • iamnotacrook 7y ago
    No, because banks make a lot from credit so they'll find a way to issue it and protect themselves.
  • pwg 7y ago
    More likely, the banks would respond by being more vigilant at verifying the identity documents as valid before accepting the crooks word for it. So it might take a day to open an account (while the bank does the verification they should have done anyway), instead of five minutes, but the financial world would continue on as normal. And, this would shift the work onto the entity best suited to performing the work instead of forcing the work onto the victim.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    Within the context of cortesoft's sibling comment: > I mean, they ARE liable in the sense that they will have to eat the loss (the money they loaned out won't be repaid). The problem is that for them, this is just a cost of doing business, and that cost is already priced into interest rates... the cost to the person who has to prove it wasn't them has no return and is only negative What would "the status quo [changing] so that the banks are liable" look like?
• draw_down 7y ago
  Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way, and it has everything to do with the victim. We wouldn’t be talking about it otherwise.
• yrro 7y ago
  > why in the world is Wells Fargo not liable for damages? Surely the identity thief, the actual criminal who committed fraud, should be liable?
  • ksdale 7y ago
    Ultimately, yes, but in the lag between when the fraud is discovered and the criminal caught, who should bear the cost of the fraudulent transactions? There's a very good argument to be made that Wells Fargo, who was actually one of the parties involved in the transaction is more appropriately liable than the identity theft victim, who had absolutely nothing to do with the transaction, besides their name being used against their will.
    • harryh 7y ago
      The financial institution is, in fact, liable for these sorts of charges. The Bloomberg reporter's problems weren't that he had to pay a bunch of money because a fraudster did a bunch of stuff using his name. His problems were all related to his damaged reputation (credit score, government lists, etc).
      • ksdale 7y ago
        Your point is well taken about the banks. I think the general principle still applies though. We have a system where all of these entities possess all kinds of information, and the main question is, "Who should pay when they get that information wrong through no fault of the person whose information they're keeping?" At the end of the day, his problem is exactly that he had to pay a massive cost (in the form of reputational damage and tremendous wastes of his time) because a fraudster did a bunch of stuff using his name. While not technically monetary, it's definitely not impossible to financially quantify people's time and reputation.
      • IX-103 7y ago
        If the bank were really liable they would pay for the damage to the reporter's reputation and make a reasonable effort to set it right.
• tylersmith 7y ago
  The concept of identity theft is a massive scam that not only let's financial institutions shift losses to other people, but then then they get to double dip by selling ID theft prevention solutions.
• cortesoft 7y ago
  I mean, they ARE liable in the sense that they will have to eat the loss (the money they loaned out won't be repaid). The problem is that for them, this is just a cost of doing business, and that cost is already priced into interest rates... the cost to the person who has to prove it wasn't them has no return and is only negative
  • grecy 7y ago
    > the cost to the person who has to prove it wasn't them has no return and is only negative So flip that around as well. Instead of a person being required to prove it wasn't them, the bank should be required to prove it was.
• arugulum 7y ago
  Balance of power. You can draw an analogy to price elasticity in economics (more directly, the cost of switching). Because of identity theft, the expected cost of business between you and the bank has gone up. Who has an easier time switching to an alternative: you (to another bank), or the bank (to another customer)? Based on that, you can conclude, fairness aside, who ends up carrying the burden of addressing the identity theft.
• gist 7y ago
  > And why in the world is Wells Fargo not liable for damages? This is more or less a digital question in an analog situation. What I mean by that is they could very well be liable however the cost, trouble and barriers to pursue this make it impractical to enforce that liability. This is often the case in both business and life unfortunately.
• appleshore 7y ago
  It’s even worse for people using prepaid banking cards like GoBank. I got issued one of these debit cards from an employer. Months later, someone skimmed my debit card presumably at a gas station. While at home, someone withdrew $265 out of my account. I call to report it. The 800 number says you can email the dispute but an operator told me that was outdated. I’d have to mail it into a PO Box. I repeatedly asked if they would inform law enforcement as dozens of other people’s cards were likely stolen. Approximately a month later, GoBank responds and denies my dispute. I then searched for the executives, emailed them, someone called me and the next day my money was returned. Yet I’m assuming no one investigated the actual theft. If you ever have problems communicating with customer service people, the only thing you can do is email the executives and suddenly you have a real person capable of understanding and making actual decisions.
  • novaleaf 7y ago
    never use debit cards for payments. When fraud occurs you have little/no recourse. I dislike credit cards, but at least with them you can contest fraudulent charges and more often than not, succeed.
    • nrb 7y ago
      Totally anecdotal, but I’ve had a great experience with Capital One 360. I never really use the card except for occasional ATM withdrawal but the number was somehow nabbed and a fraudulent charge was processed. Since I have it configured to send me a notification on every transaction, I noticed instantly and froze the card from the mobile app. A 5 minute call to their fraud dept later and the funds were returned to the account pretty much immediately during their investigation (which eventually came back successful) and a new card was sent next-day delivery for no charge.
  • m463 7y ago
    I wonder if the ultimate responsibility could regress to your employer? They gave you not-money in a way that never reached you.
• caconym_ 7y ago
  If your government is not willing to step up and protect you, who do you expect to prevent these abuses? I think you know the answer to all these questions. Might makes right.
• mirimir 7y ago
  Because they identify people using Tax ID, obviously. Plus birth date and other information. So if they need to go after an account holder, whoever they find with the matching Tax ID is "it". And then it's your responsibility to prove that you're not "it". But turn it around. How else would they identity people? I suppose that they could collect fingerprints, iris scans, DNA samples, etc. But for >99% of cases, that's overkill. And too expensive. In a way, this just reflects the fact that anyone can sue anyone. And if sued, you must defend yourself. So basically they're just using Tax ID to decide who to sue.