3 ms·

> the victims are also individuals because banks passed the reputational risk of fraud to the customers In that case I am not a victim of the fraudster, I am a

> the victims are also individuals because banks passed the reputational risk of fraud to the customers In that case I am not a victim of the fraudster, I am a victim of the bank. The banks do not have sufficient incentive to improve their identification methods, so long as we tolerate the concept that we bear any responsibility for a transaction that involves only themselves and a fraudster who knows the answers to a few trivia questions about me.

true_religion 3y ago
It’s like defamation. If someone goes and spreads a bunch of terrible lies about you by pretending to be you… then you are their victim. You’re not the victim of people who merely believe the lies and start to avoid you.
- ethanwillis 3y ago
  That's not a good analogy. If those people believe the fraudster and give them something.. I'm not liable for whatever they gave that person. You're leaving out the most important part. Avoiding != Requiring something.
  - true_religion 3y ago
    I think I was focusing on the fact that identity fraud ruins your credit score, so you can’t get loans and the such for yourself. To me that was akin to being ostracized because your reputation was ruined by an impersonation.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    But most victims of identity theft don't have to repay the loans. They just have ruined credit scores. So I think it's an excellent analogy
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
vineyardmike 3y ago
> The banks do not have sufficient incentive to improve their identification methods On the contrary, they stand to risk 100% of the loaned money. What more could be at risk. Also the fair credit reporting act has pretty strict requirements for what a bank or credit agency should do when you’ve told them the debt is fraudulent, returning you to whole eventual. What would be required to fix false identity frauds? Is that more or less tolerable for society than X% of people dealing with a stolen identity. What about people who have some problematic history (ran away from home, prior homeless, etc)? How would strict requirements impact them? Really I guess my question. Oxygen_crisis, why do you believe identity theft is actually a problem that needs solving?

true_religion 3y ago

It’s like defamation. If someone goes and spreads a bunch of terrible lies about you by pretending to be you… then you are their victim. You’re not the victim of people who merely believe the lies and start to avoid you.

ethanwillis 3y ago
That's not a good analogy. If those people believe the fraudster and give them something.. I'm not liable for whatever they gave that person. You're leaving out the most important part. Avoiding != Requiring something.
- true_religion 3y ago
  I think I was focusing on the fact that identity fraud ruins your credit score, so you can’t get loans and the such for yourself. To me that was akin to being ostracized because your reputation was ruined by an impersonation.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  But most victims of identity theft don't have to repay the loans. They just have ruined credit scores. So I think it's an excellent analogy
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

vineyardmike 3y ago

> The banks do not have sufficient incentive to improve their identification methods On the contrary, they stand to risk 100% of the loaned money. What more could be at risk. Also the fair credit reporting act has pretty strict requirements for what a bank or credit agency should do when you’ve told them the debt is fraudulent, returning you to whole eventual. What would be required to fix false identity frauds? Is that more or less tolerable for society than X% of people dealing with a stolen identity. What about people who have some problematic history (ran away from home, prior homeless, etc)? How would strict requirements impact them? Really I guess my question. Oxygen_crisis, why do you believe identity theft is actually a problem that needs solving?