8 ms·

"Identity theft" as a term has always struck me as a terrible description of what is happening. A bank falsely reporting to a credit agency that I am a debtor (

"Identity theft" as a term has always struck me as a terrible description of what is happening. A bank falsely reporting to a credit agency that I am a debtor (when a criminal hands over some exclusively public information about me to get credit) seems like a slam-dunk definition of defamation. It meets the 4-part definition I'm aware of with (1) statement of fact (2) made to a 3rd party that (3) harms the reputation of the plaintiff while (4) acting negligently. (4) is of course the hardest to prove, but surely if all the information a bank asks to verify identity is in the public domain, that seems pretty clear to me.

jliptzin 4y ago
I had not thought about it that way, but that is incredibly astute.
samwillis 4y ago
Branding it as “identity theft” is a strategic move by the industry to attempt to move liability from themselves onto their customers, labelling them as the victim. The reality is in most cases it should be considered fraud against the business/bank/lender not the customer - they are the entity that has seen defrauded.
- noja 4y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E
- indymike 4y ago
  Identity theft is fraud that the lender failed to prevent.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Branding it as “identity theft” is a strategic move by the industry to attempt to move liability from themselves onto their customers, labelling them as the victim. Except nobody seriously thinks that if someone "stole" their identity, that they're on the hook for the fraudulent loans. The consumer is one of the victims here, in the sense that they have to go through the hassle to have the issue resolved.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    Apparently individuals are responsible keeping an eye on their credit report, though.
    - gruez 4y ago
      individuals are "responsible" for "keeping an eye on their credit report" in the same way that individuals are "responsible" for having an alarm system. They're both proactive things you can do to reduce the risk of something bad happening to you, but if you fail to do it you're not going to be punished for it. Not having an alarm system doesn't mean the burglar gets to keep your TV, and not keeping an eye on your credit report doesn't mean you're responsible for the fraudulent debt.
      - thfuran 4y ago
        >but if you fail to do it you're not going to be punished for it I don't think anyone who has ever dealt with the aftermath of identity theft that want promptly addressed would say that. >not keeping an eye on your credit report doesn't mean you're responsible for the fraudulent debt. It does mean that disputing charges or accounts becomes way more onerous.
        gruez 4y ago
        >It does mean that disputing charges or accounts becomes way more onerous. So? It's also more onerous to recover your belongings if you don't have an alarm system and the burglar makes off with your things instead of being scared away.
      - bee_rider 4y ago
        Responsibility doesn't require punishment (who is going around punishing non-criminal adults anyway?), a situation where negative consequences can fall upon innocent people has been created. I said "apparently" because I don't see any moral reason that individual ought to be responsible for monitoring Experian's data collection, but to monitoring these reports does somewhat reduce the risk that they've created and nobody else is going to do it for you, so... There's an option to just not deal with anyone who uses their services, but this might include landlords, mortgage companies, and employers. As to the analogy -- who is Experian in your analogy? And how does the analogy simplify the explanation? I think it is unnecessary and obfuscating. It removes the agency if the entity that has caused the problem in the first place.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Identity theft allows them to shift the responsibility for their own fraudulent debts to us. Now we're the ones who have to seek redress. It's great for them.
- willhinsa 4y ago
  Yep, this was the premise of a hilarious “That Mitchell and Webb Sound” sketch. https://youtu.be/CS9ptA3Ya9E https://youtu.be/CS9ptA3Ya9E
mhb 4y ago
‘Identity theft’? It’s daylight robbery by the banks https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/25/identity-theft-is-daylight-robbery-banks https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/25/identi...
- icecap12 4y ago
  This is a great article. Thanks for the link.
staticautomatic 4y ago
Typically the defendant must know the statement is false.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
YPPH 4y ago
Nitpick I know, but (1) is a false statement of fact. It's not defamatory to say something which, while harmful of another's reputation, is true.
xkcd-sucks 4y ago
Typically in the USA the standard isn't negligence but malice?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jliptzin 4y ago

I had not thought about it that way, but that is incredibly astute.

samwillis 4y ago

Branding it as “identity theft” is a strategic move by the industry to attempt to move liability from themselves onto their customers, labelling them as the victim. The reality is in most cases it should be considered fraud against the business/bank/lender not the customer - they are the entity that has seen defrauded.

noja 4y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E
indymike 4y ago
Identity theft is fraud that the lender failed to prevent.
gruez 4y ago
>Branding it as “identity theft” is a strategic move by the industry to attempt to move liability from themselves onto their customers, labelling them as the victim. Except nobody seriously thinks that if someone "stole" their identity, that they're on the hook for the fraudulent loans. The consumer is one of the victims here, in the sense that they have to go through the hassle to have the issue resolved.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Apparently individuals are responsible keeping an eye on their credit report, though.
  - gruez 4y ago
    individuals are "responsible" for "keeping an eye on their credit report" in the same way that individuals are "responsible" for having an alarm system. They're both proactive things you can do to reduce the risk of something bad happening to you, but if you fail to do it you're not going to be punished for it. Not having an alarm system doesn't mean the burglar gets to keep your TV, and not keeping an eye on your credit report doesn't mean you're responsible for the fraudulent debt.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      >but if you fail to do it you're not going to be punished for it I don't think anyone who has ever dealt with the aftermath of identity theft that want promptly addressed would say that. >not keeping an eye on your credit report doesn't mean you're responsible for the fraudulent debt. It does mean that disputing charges or accounts becomes way more onerous.
      - gruez 4y ago
        >It does mean that disputing charges or accounts becomes way more onerous. So? It's also more onerous to recover your belongings if you don't have an alarm system and the burglar makes off with your things instead of being scared away.
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      Responsibility doesn't require punishment (who is going around punishing non-criminal adults anyway?), a situation where negative consequences can fall upon innocent people has been created. I said "apparently" because I don't see any moral reason that individual ought to be responsible for monitoring Experian's data collection, but to monitoring these reports does somewhat reduce the risk that they've created and nobody else is going to do it for you, so... There's an option to just not deal with anyone who uses their services, but this might include landlords, mortgage companies, and employers. As to the analogy -- who is Experian in your analogy? And how does the analogy simplify the explanation? I think it is unnecessary and obfuscating. It removes the agency if the entity that has caused the problem in the first place.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

Identity theft allows them to shift the responsibility for their own fraudulent debts to us. Now we're the ones who have to seek redress. It's great for them.

willhinsa 4y ago
Yep, this was the premise of a hilarious “That Mitchell and Webb Sound” sketch. https://youtu.be/CS9ptA3Ya9E https://youtu.be/CS9ptA3Ya9E

mhb 4y ago

‘Identity theft’? It’s daylight robbery by the banks https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/25/identity-theft-is-daylight-robbery-banks https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/25/identi...

icecap12 4y ago
This is a great article. Thanks for the link.

staticautomatic 4y ago

Typically the defendant must know the statement is false.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

YPPH 4y ago

Nitpick I know, but (1) is a false statement of fact. It's not defamatory to say something which, while harmful of another's reputation, is true.

xkcd-sucks 4y ago

Typically in the USA the standard isn't negligence but malice?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]