4 ms·

> what is the point of using it? Plausible deniability allowing them to push as much significant risk of identity theft onto consumers instead of themselves wh

> what is the point of using it? Plausible deniability allowing them to push as much significant risk of identity theft onto consumers instead of themselves where it should be.

ajmurmann 3y ago
Even the term "identity theft" needs to go. My identity wasn't stolen! I'm still the same person. The bank got tricked by a scammers and somehow the bank tries to make that my fault. Edit: Imagine this the other way around! Grandma gets scammed by someone pretending to be her bank. So the bank's identity got stolen. So now the real bank needs to fix it, provide more proof of identity to all customers and jump through all kinds of hoops to not owe grandma crazy amounts of money.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Why do you think that calling something theft blames the victim of the theft?
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    It isn't blaming the victim. I think they meant something else but worded it that way. What they meant was 'redefining the victim'. The victim is the bank, who got defrauded. They then call it 'identity theft' instead of 'bank fraud'.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > I think they meant something else but worded it that way Well, we have no idea about that :)
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        I think it is a reasonable inference given the context and the description and that it makes sense to think of it like 'victim blaming' because mixing common parlance with legal terminology often results in similar confusions (for instance breaking and entering is a legal term which does not have to involve breaking anything, and assault in common use means physical contact but legally it does not have to). In any case if it meant literally 'blaming the victim' it makes no sense at all, so either we give the benefit of assuming the poster is able to make coherent statements or we don't.
  - notatoad 3y ago
    it's not about blame, it's about responsibility. "identity theft" implies that your identity is a thing that can be stolen from you, and you need to be responsible for preventing it from being stolen. instutions should be respomsible for protecting themselves from fraud, they shouldn't need me to protect them from my identity being used in an unauthorized way.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > and you need to be responsible for preventing it from being stolen It doesn't imply this second bit.
  - mixdup 3y ago
    I think the point that's trying to be made is, the traditionally recognized 'victim' is not the actual victim. The person whose "identity" was "stolen" is not a victim, the bank is. What was stolen was money--from the bank. But, we've designed our system, laws, contracts, etc such that the third party who was not involved at all has all responsibility of cleaning up the mess shoved onto them
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      I don't really understand this. If you pay me to store your car in my garage, and it's stolen, who is a victim of car theft?
      - 3np 3y ago
        Assuming the thief impersonated your friend, convincing you to hand over the keys and open the door so they could drive it off?
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        Can you finish your thought? I'm not following.
        3np 3y ago
        Sibling zaphod4prez laid it out for you, I hope.
      - zaphod4prez 3y ago
        I think you're imagining the ID thief going to the bank and withdrawing your money from your bank account (which probably happens too). I also think your analogy of a "friend" isn't right... you are the bank's PAYING customer... you pay them to secure your money and only give it to you! If they fail to provide the service they're offering to you... seems like they ought to be responsible for their failure. But another, more common scenario here is that I convince the bank that I'm you and get a credit card or loan from the bank. Now the bank is knocking on YOUR door asking you to pay them back for the cash they handed to some random person... but they're the ones who messed up by giving cash to a random person and not verifying that they are who they say they are! You aren't really involved... the bank messed up by going "Oh you say you're Bob? Okay here you go!" Why is it your fault that they failed to accurately verify the identity of the person they gave THEIR money to? You didn't play any role in them deciding who to give their money, nor in their ID verification procedures.
- earthboundkid 3y ago
  Yes! I’ve been saying this for years. The whole framing is a victim blaming dodge, when the two bad actors are the crooks and whoever made the loan with insufficient ID.
- DoctorOW 3y ago
  It always reminds me of this classic Mitchell and Webb sketch about the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E

> what is the point of using it? Plausible deniability allowing them to push as much significant risk of identity theft onto consumers instead of themselves where it should be.

ajmurmann 3y ago

Even the term "identity theft" needs to go. My identity wasn't stolen! I'm still the same person. The bank got tricked by a scammers and somehow the bank tries to make that my fault. Edit: Imagine this the other way around! Grandma gets scammed by someone pretending to be her bank. So the bank's identity got stolen. So now the real bank needs to fix it, provide more proof of identity to all customers and jump through all kinds of hoops to not owe grandma crazy amounts of money.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Why do you think that calling something theft blames the victim of the theft?
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  It isn't blaming the victim. I think they meant something else but worded it that way. What they meant was 'redefining the victim'. The victim is the bank, who got defrauded. They then call it 'identity theft' instead of 'bank fraud'.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > I think they meant something else but worded it that way Well, we have no idea about that :)
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      I think it is a reasonable inference given the context and the description and that it makes sense to think of it like 'victim blaming' because mixing common parlance with legal terminology often results in similar confusions (for instance breaking and entering is a legal term which does not have to involve breaking anything, and assault in common use means physical contact but legally it does not have to). In any case if it meant literally 'blaming the victim' it makes no sense at all, so either we give the benefit of assuming the poster is able to make coherent statements or we don't.
- notatoad 3y ago
  it's not about blame, it's about responsibility. "identity theft" implies that your identity is a thing that can be stolen from you, and you need to be responsible for preventing it from being stolen. instutions should be respomsible for protecting themselves from fraud, they shouldn't need me to protect them from my identity being used in an unauthorized way.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > and you need to be responsible for preventing it from being stolen It doesn't imply this second bit.
- mixdup 3y ago
  I think the point that's trying to be made is, the traditionally recognized 'victim' is not the actual victim. The person whose "identity" was "stolen" is not a victim, the bank is. What was stolen was money--from the bank. But, we've designed our system, laws, contracts, etc such that the third party who was not involved at all has all responsibility of cleaning up the mess shoved onto them
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I don't really understand this. If you pay me to store your car in my garage, and it's stolen, who is a victim of car theft?
    - 3np 3y ago
      Assuming the thief impersonated your friend, convincing you to hand over the keys and open the door so they could drive it off?
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Can you finish your thought? I'm not following.
        3np 3y ago
        Sibling zaphod4prez laid it out for you, I hope.
    - zaphod4prez 3y ago
      I think you're imagining the ID thief going to the bank and withdrawing your money from your bank account (which probably happens too). I also think your analogy of a "friend" isn't right... you are the bank's PAYING customer... you pay them to secure your money and only give it to you! If they fail to provide the service they're offering to you... seems like they ought to be responsible for their failure. But another, more common scenario here is that I convince the bank that I'm you and get a credit card or loan from the bank. Now the bank is knocking on YOUR door asking you to pay them back for the cash they handed to some random person... but they're the ones who messed up by giving cash to a random person and not verifying that they are who they say they are! You aren't really involved... the bank messed up by going "Oh you say you're Bob? Okay here you go!" Why is it your fault that they failed to accurately verify the identity of the person they gave THEIR money to? You didn't play any role in them deciding who to give their money, nor in their ID verification procedures.
earthboundkid 3y ago
Yes! I’ve been saying this for years. The whole framing is a victim blaming dodge, when the two bad actors are the crooks and whoever made the loan with insufficient ID.
DoctorOW 3y ago
It always reminds me of this classic Mitchell and Webb sketch about the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E