3 ms·

Agreed. The whole idea of "identity theft" stinks of PR lubrication. Your identity cannot be stolen, but "identity theft" is a clever, cynical sleight of hand t

Agreed. The whole idea of "identity theft" stinks of PR lubrication. Your identity cannot be stolen, but "identity theft" is a clever, cynical sleight of hand that obscures what really happened: credit fraud, specifically fraud that is the responsibility of the party issuing credit and the criminal propagating it.

cortesoft 7y ago
I agree with this idea in principle, but I am unsure of how it would work in practice. Say you open a credit card, then try to say it wasn't you..... what would a bank need to do to prove it was you? The things they would provide are already the things they have... your signature, your information, etc. What EXTRA bit would they start collecting that would prevent fraud? Currently, banks ARE on the hook for fraud.... if you dispute fraudulent credit opened on your behalf, they have to eat the cost. I don't quite see what the difference would be in this alternative world... currently, someone applies for credit, the credit issuer decides it is legit, and issues the credit. That would still be the same. Say it was fraudulent; the fraudster doesn't pay it off, so the issuer tries to collect... at that point, you say "hey, I didn't open this credit!" Well, the issuer is going to say "yes you did, here is the information I have saying it was you"... how would that be different in your alternative world? Maybe you would require more verification steps... but what? Picture of you holding a sign saying you signed up for the credit? Video? What could you possibly provide that couldn't be faked for fraud? What could the issuer require? At this point, things are no different than now. The issuer says it was you, you say it wasn't, and then someone has to arbitrate and decide who was correct. I guess I just don't see how we can do it better (although I would LOVE to do it better!)
- JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
  The issuer and arbitrator are, if not the same entity outright, are so far in bed together they should be common-law spouses. Let me explain one of 2 possible outcomes based on socioeconomic factors. A) you have money to keep a lawyer on it; No problem. B) you don't have money for a lawyer; Tough shit. Nothing beyond real unilateral enforcement of the system already in place is required.
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  It has been done better in other countries and could be done better in the US if there were political will to do it. There's a whole universe of cryptographically signed certificates that we in the US don't use. The hard part is not signing a cert; it's making sure the certs are given to the correct people and having a procedure for when a cert is lost. Estonia has done this well; Korea has done this poorly. But it's quite doable if you have political will for it.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Does that then make the cert a high value target? How do you get people to protect it and use it properly? If it is stolen, does it actually make it HARDER to prove you didn't open the credit line?
    - earthboundkid 7y ago
      This is not a theoretical topic. Other countries have electronic signature system and you can evaluate how well or poorly they are implemented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signatures_and_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signatures_and_law

cortesoft 7y ago

I agree with this idea in principle, but I am unsure of how it would work in practice. Say you open a credit card, then try to say it wasn't you..... what would a bank need to do to prove it was you? The things they would provide are already the things they have... your signature, your information, etc. What EXTRA bit would they start collecting that would prevent fraud? Currently, banks ARE on the hook for fraud.... if you dispute fraudulent credit opened on your behalf, they have to eat the cost. I don't quite see what the difference would be in this alternative world... currently, someone applies for credit, the credit issuer decides it is legit, and issues the credit. That would still be the same. Say it was fraudulent; the fraudster doesn't pay it off, so the issuer tries to collect... at that point, you say "hey, I didn't open this credit!" Well, the issuer is going to say "yes you did, here is the information I have saying it was you"... how would that be different in your alternative world? Maybe you would require more verification steps... but what? Picture of you holding a sign saying you signed up for the credit? Video? What could you possibly provide that couldn't be faked for fraud? What could the issuer require? At this point, things are no different than now. The issuer says it was you, you say it wasn't, and then someone has to arbitrate and decide who was correct. I guess I just don't see how we can do it better (although I would LOVE to do it better!)

JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
The issuer and arbitrator are, if not the same entity outright, are so far in bed together they should be common-law spouses. Let me explain one of 2 possible outcomes based on socioeconomic factors. A) you have money to keep a lawyer on it; No problem. B) you don't have money for a lawyer; Tough shit. Nothing beyond real unilateral enforcement of the system already in place is required.
earthboundkid 7y ago
It has been done better in other countries and could be done better in the US if there were political will to do it. There's a whole universe of cryptographically signed certificates that we in the US don't use. The hard part is not signing a cert; it's making sure the certs are given to the correct people and having a procedure for when a cert is lost. Estonia has done this well; Korea has done this poorly. But it's quite doable if you have political will for it.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Does that then make the cert a high value target? How do you get people to protect it and use it properly? If it is stolen, does it actually make it HARDER to prove you didn't open the credit line?
  - earthboundkid 7y ago
    This is not a theoretical topic. Other countries have electronic signature system and you can evaluate how well or poorly they are implemented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signatures_and_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signatures_and_law