4 ms·

Semantics. Nobody thinks your password being stolen means someone actually takes it from you or your device getting hacked means someone inflicted a physical bl

Semantics. Nobody thinks your password being stolen means someone actually takes it from you or your device getting hacked means someone inflicted a physical blow with a sharp object. Someone illegitimately uses your personal information to claim your identity in recipt of goods and services. They stole your identification information to impersonate you.

recursive 4y ago
And framing. "Identity theft" makes it sounds like you lost something. In reality, it's the financial institution that lost something.
- chefandy 4y ago
  If someone stole your idea, did you lose something tangible? Also, crimes generally consider cause and effect, including indirect effects if they're foreseeable. Is having to expend time, energy, and perhaps resources to protect the usage of information institutions use to identify you an unexpected side effect? Is it worth nothing? Pretending the catalyst isn't culpable in the indirect effects of identity theft is every bit as wilfully obtuse as pretending the institutions aren't.
lolinder 4y ago
"Semantics" is an extremely lazy way to dismiss an argument. Semantics is all that really matters in communication: what is the meaning of what is said? There is more than a trivial semantic difference between "identity theft" and "bank fraud". The former very clearly identifies the victim as being the individual whose data was used, while the latter makes the victim the bank. There's a compelling argument to be made that it's unreasonable to expect any of the information that we have come to associate with "identity theft" to actually be private any more after repeated data leaks by Equifax et al. And if we cannot expect it to be private, is it fair to drag individuals through hell and back when someone successfully defrauds a bank using their details? That's the question being posed by OP, and the semantics of the terms we use are central to resolving it.
- chefandy 4y ago
  You're flubbing the scope of the argument. The second definiton of steal in Webster's is to appropriate (e. g. credit) without permission. Identity theft is when someone appropriates someone else's identifying information, without permission, to impersonate them in a transaction or contract. Full stop. There's no qualification that the appropriated thing must be secret or that it was suited to its its purpose. If you think that the term is misapplied to other financial crimes, that's an entirely different argument, and it doesn't render the actual term a misnomer.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    I'm not, this is where OP scoped it to. OP is arguing that "identity theft" shouldn't be applied to any kind of crime, because stealing an identity isn't actually possible. What is possible is legally persuading a bank that you are someone else. Calling it identity theft when all someone has to do is get on to one of the many public data leaks and find your information is weird. It's not some kind of heist, it's using publicly available information to trick gullible banks.
    - chefandy 4y ago
      Identity: identity, n. 4. "the state or fact of being the same one as described." Those companies aren't trying to verify that information for its intrinsic suitability, and their goal isn't to facilitate a transaction with someone who merely has all of someone else's personal information- they're trying to make sure the person engaging in that transaction is the person indicated on the form. If they switched to say, a finger print, voice sample, DNA, and an in-person interview with an ID check, they would still be trying to validate your identity. > stealing an identity isn't actually possible. What is possible is legally persuading a bank that you are someone else. That's like saying murdering someone with a gun is incredibly difficult because unless you actually beat them to death with the gun itself, you're just aiming and pulling a trigger, which isn't even illegal in many cases. Theft: steal, v. 2. "to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment," Appropriating your identity for the duration of a transaction certainly fits. > Calling it identity theft when all someone has to do is get on to one of the many public data leaks and find your information is weird. It's not some kind of heist, it's using publicly available information to trick gullible banks. Nothing in that definition requires the thing in question was suitably protected or appropriate for the job. Nothing requires that it be permanently stolen or that anything be removed from anyone's possession. --- I agree that the data and mechanisms used are not up to the task, but only using arbitrary definitions of theft and identity and looking at the mechanisms of theft while ignoring the purpose of those mechanisms doesn't mean the term is wrong or that people aren't, by definition, stealing people's identities. You don't get to decide that people can't use specific, existing dictionary definitions to evaluate whether a term makes sense. And that's just from a technical perspective-- English is a descriptive language and terms mean what popular usage dictates they mean. So unless you have some convincing arguments that nothing, by any definition, was stolen, that personal data wasn't being used to determine identity, and that the colloquial usage of the term doesn't actually matter, then identity theft is undeniably the correct term. The heistiness of the acts, other non-applicable definitions of the words, and the suitability of the methods of verifying identity are entirely irrelevant.

recursive 4y ago

And framing. "Identity theft" makes it sounds like you lost something. In reality, it's the financial institution that lost something.

chefandy 4y ago
If someone stole your idea, did you lose something tangible? Also, crimes generally consider cause and effect, including indirect effects if they're foreseeable. Is having to expend time, energy, and perhaps resources to protect the usage of information institutions use to identify you an unexpected side effect? Is it worth nothing? Pretending the catalyst isn't culpable in the indirect effects of identity theft is every bit as wilfully obtuse as pretending the institutions aren't.

lolinder 4y ago

"Semantics" is an extremely lazy way to dismiss an argument. Semantics is all that really matters in communication: what is the meaning of what is said? There is more than a trivial semantic difference between "identity theft" and "bank fraud". The former very clearly identifies the victim as being the individual whose data was used, while the latter makes the victim the bank. There's a compelling argument to be made that it's unreasonable to expect any of the information that we have come to associate with "identity theft" to actually be private any more after repeated data leaks by Equifax et al. And if we cannot expect it to be private, is it fair to drag individuals through hell and back when someone successfully defrauds a bank using their details? That's the question being posed by OP, and the semantics of the terms we use are central to resolving it.

chefandy 4y ago
You're flubbing the scope of the argument. The second definiton of steal in Webster's is to appropriate (e. g. credit) without permission. Identity theft is when someone appropriates someone else's identifying information, without permission, to impersonate them in a transaction or contract. Full stop. There's no qualification that the appropriated thing must be secret or that it was suited to its its purpose. If you think that the term is misapplied to other financial crimes, that's an entirely different argument, and it doesn't render the actual term a misnomer.
- lolinder 4y ago
  I'm not, this is where OP scoped it to. OP is arguing that "identity theft" shouldn't be applied to any kind of crime, because stealing an identity isn't actually possible. What is possible is legally persuading a bank that you are someone else. Calling it identity theft when all someone has to do is get on to one of the many public data leaks and find your information is weird. It's not some kind of heist, it's using publicly available information to trick gullible banks.
  - chefandy 4y ago
    Identity: identity, n. 4. "the state or fact of being the same one as described." Those companies aren't trying to verify that information for its intrinsic suitability, and their goal isn't to facilitate a transaction with someone who merely has all of someone else's personal information- they're trying to make sure the person engaging in that transaction is the person indicated on the form. If they switched to say, a finger print, voice sample, DNA, and an in-person interview with an ID check, they would still be trying to validate your identity. > stealing an identity isn't actually possible. What is possible is legally persuading a bank that you are someone else. That's like saying murdering someone with a gun is incredibly difficult because unless you actually beat them to death with the gun itself, you're just aiming and pulling a trigger, which isn't even illegal in many cases. Theft: steal, v. 2. "to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment," Appropriating your identity for the duration of a transaction certainly fits. > Calling it identity theft when all someone has to do is get on to one of the many public data leaks and find your information is weird. It's not some kind of heist, it's using publicly available information to trick gullible banks. Nothing in that definition requires the thing in question was suitably protected or appropriate for the job. Nothing requires that it be permanently stolen or that anything be removed from anyone's possession. --- I agree that the data and mechanisms used are not up to the task, but only using arbitrary definitions of theft and identity and looking at the mechanisms of theft while ignoring the purpose of those mechanisms doesn't mean the term is wrong or that people aren't, by definition, stealing people's identities. You don't get to decide that people can't use specific, existing dictionary definitions to evaluate whether a term makes sense. And that's just from a technical perspective-- English is a descriptive language and terms mean what popular usage dictates they mean. So unless you have some convincing arguments that nothing, by any definition, was stolen, that personal data wasn't being used to determine identity, and that the colloquial usage of the term doesn't actually matter, then identity theft is undeniably the correct term. The heistiness of the acts, other non-applicable definitions of the words, and the suitability of the methods of verifying identity are entirely irrelevant.