5 ms·

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 vic

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.
      - gruez 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. The negative consequences is precisely why it's correct to call the consumer a "victim" here, as mentioned in my previous comment. >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... I also don't see any moral reason that individual ought to be monitoring their belongings (or paying a company to monitor their belongings for them). >[...] the risk that they've created [...] >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. Okay but this feels like you're moving the goalposts from the original discussion of "is identity theft some sort of scheme to convince people to take responsibility for fraudulent behavior?" to "is experian responsible for leaking personal information?". "Identity theft" has existed well before credit bureau were breached.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

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.
    - gruez 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. The negative consequences is precisely why it's correct to call the consumer a "victim" here, as mentioned in my previous comment. >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... I also don't see any moral reason that individual ought to be monitoring their belongings (or paying a company to monitor their belongings for them). >[...] the risk that they've created [...] >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. Okay but this feels like you're moving the goalposts from the original discussion of "is identity theft some sort of scheme to convince people to take responsibility for fraudulent behavior?" to "is experian responsible for leaking personal information?". "Identity theft" has existed well before credit bureau were breached.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]