There was a good essay I saw a bit ago, talking about how this shift from "fraud" to "identity theft" neatly started shifting the victim from the bank to the in

There was a good essay I saw a bit ago, talking about how this shift from "fraud" to "identity theft" neatly started shifting the victim from the bank to the individual. E.g., 30 years ago, if someone claiming to be me went to my bank, asked for my money, and the bank gave it to them, then the bank that was a victim of fraud. But now, if someone goes to my bank, asks for my money, and the bank gives it to them, then I am the victim of identity theft. The difference is subtle, but potentially important. If the bank unfortunately gives money to someone else, that's their problem: I can say to the bank, I'm sorry you were the victim of fraud, but you still owe me my money. If I unfortunately "have my identity stolen", then that makes it seem like it's my problem -- the bank may say, we're sorry you "had your identity stolen" and thus lost your money, but that's not really our problem.