7 ms·

Good article, thanks for posting. A good friend of mine maintains that there is no such thing as Identity theft. What we call identity theft is simply bank fr

Good article, thanks for posting. A good friend of mine maintains that there is no such thing as Identity theft. What we call identity theft is simply bank fraud. However, in a brilliant marketing reframing, the financial industry has made the consumer the victim, instead of the financial institution. Unlike a Gilliamesque world in which a bad actor assumes your identity, generally a bad guy gains access to your resources, bypassing the protections set in. While the consumer is guilty of this sometimes, the victim harmed is almost always the institution, not the consumer; and yet the consumer is framed as the victim. In a signature based authentication system, the banks suggest YOU are the victim of identity theft if someone gets your credit card number when it's their authentication system that was 'hacked.' Similarly, checking account numbers, etc. Of course there are exceptions, people use bad passwords, they allow others to get their info, etc. But, I do think this term "identity theft" is often overused.

iaw 11y ago
I really appreciate your view. The conceptual reframing of crime in our society is a fascinating process.
jkyle 11y ago
I'm not sure considering the consumer a victim is merely a marketing ploy. There are very real, persistent, and hugely negative repercussions suffered by a consumer in identity theft. Destroyed credit, unknown debt tied to their identity, etc.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Most of the consequences are inflicted upon them by the bank. If the banks didn't open fraudulent accounts, they wouldn't put incorrect information on credit reports and there wouldn't be any unknown debt.
  - jkyle 11y ago
    > If the banks didn't open fraudulent accounts, they wouldn't put incorrect information on credit reports and there wouldn't be any unknown debt. Well. Sure. But that's the point. That's why it's called identity theft. Someone has acquired the information about you needed to effectively pretend to be you. For example, say I convince the police that you committed murder. As a result they arrest you and put you in jail. By your logic, you're not a victim in this scenario because if the police didn't get fooled into arresting you nothing would have happened. I think almost any reasonable person would agree that you were a victim in the above scenario. Regardless whether a third party bears some level of responsibility or was used as an instrument in that victimization.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Someone has acquired the information about you needed to effectively pretend to be you. This low bar is set by the banks! I'm not saying that innocent third parties that the banks and financial system harass are not victims, I'm saying that the central role of the bank in the crime makes it more reasonable to describe it as bank fraud. The murder analogy sort of breaks down, the dead guy (which I see as analogous to the bank) can't do a whole lot to push the consequences of you murdering him onto me. A bank that opens a fraudulent account can (and in fact, this is the major source of the problems for those that are impersonated).
      - maxxxxx 11y ago
        Totally agree with maxerickson. I remember some years ago there was a discussion whether banks should first check back with the consumer whether he really wants to open the account. Banks were against it because it's too much trouble for them.
      - Zigurd 11y ago
        I also agree. Interesting how these accounts get opened without it being a violation of the post 9/11 know-your-customer laws.
    - maxxxxx 11y ago
      The banks could make a simple phone call and ask you whether you really want to open the account. Or send you a letter. that would stop a lot of "identity theft". The only reason they get away with this is because they can make your life hell and unless you can afford a lot of lawyer time there is not much you can do.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
"bank fraud" is a subset, as not all uses of someone's identity are for banking. Consider tax returns filed with someone's name and identity, with refunds deposited or mailed elsewhere, not discovered until the real person files a "duplicate" return. Likewise credit card fraud. You could generalize most of those to "financial fraud", though. Although there are some cases of identities being used for non-financial (or not directly financial) purposes. > In a signature based authentication system, the banks suggest YOU are the victim of identity theft if someone gets your credit card number when it's their authentication system that was 'hacked.' And yet you're the one who has to go to the trouble and possible expense of dealing with it. Describing you as the victim seems more relevant. Now, who and what you're the victim of is a different question. When yet another break-in turns up millions of plaintext passwords, we don't just blame those who obtained them illicitly; we also blame the company that stored them in plaintext. So, I don't think it's reasonable to describe a bank as a victim in "identity theft". On the contrary, I think it's reasonable to describe them as negligent in protecting your account and personal information.
ableal 11y ago
If your friend is the Patrick Kelly who contributed the comment quoted below at http://www.cringely.com/2015/04/15/where-the-money-is-or-was/ http://www.cringely.com/2015/04/15/where-the-money-is-or-was... , his words should get more circulation """ “Identity theft” is a lie. There is no such thing as “identity theft”, it’s all fraud. The term “identity theft” was created to put the burden back on the consumer, away from financial institutions. The actual problem is that the cost of actually verifying identity is higher than financial institutions want to bear. Most of the cost would be in missed loan opportunities. Financial institutions don’t want to bear the cost of verifying identity so they experience fraud (surprise!) and then tell us that somehow we have to protect our identity. It’s insane. If it was legally required that you appear in a bank with an ID to get a loan or a credit card, imagine what would happen to “identity theft”. There’s nothing wrong with filing electronically, but how about having people come to the post office, with ID and a thumb drive, show ID and sign a log, then file from there? """
- makomk 11y ago
  It's not an uncommon idea. There's a Mitchell and Webb sketch about it too that you may be able to find online somewhere.
  - walterbell 11y ago
    Here you go: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oOQBpHN_kS0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oOQBpHN_kS0
mattmanser 11y ago
I had my identity stolen recently for 3 mobile phones, I was surprised at how well the companies and the police handled it, both totally stressing it was a crime against the company not the individual (UK).
RexRollman 11y ago
"the financial industry has made the consumer the victim, instead of the financial institution." I honestly love this point. It's never occured to me.

iaw 11y ago

I really appreciate your view. The conceptual reframing of crime in our society is a fascinating process.

jkyle 11y ago

I'm not sure considering the consumer a victim is merely a marketing ploy. There are very real, persistent, and hugely negative repercussions suffered by a consumer in identity theft. Destroyed credit, unknown debt tied to their identity, etc.

maxerickson 11y ago
Most of the consequences are inflicted upon them by the bank. If the banks didn't open fraudulent accounts, they wouldn't put incorrect information on credit reports and there wouldn't be any unknown debt.
- jkyle 11y ago
  > If the banks didn't open fraudulent accounts, they wouldn't put incorrect information on credit reports and there wouldn't be any unknown debt. Well. Sure. But that's the point. That's why it's called identity theft. Someone has acquired the information about you needed to effectively pretend to be you. For example, say I convince the police that you committed murder. As a result they arrest you and put you in jail. By your logic, you're not a victim in this scenario because if the police didn't get fooled into arresting you nothing would have happened. I think almost any reasonable person would agree that you were a victim in the above scenario. Regardless whether a third party bears some level of responsibility or was used as an instrument in that victimization.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Someone has acquired the information about you needed to effectively pretend to be you. This low bar is set by the banks! I'm not saying that innocent third parties that the banks and financial system harass are not victims, I'm saying that the central role of the bank in the crime makes it more reasonable to describe it as bank fraud. The murder analogy sort of breaks down, the dead guy (which I see as analogous to the bank) can't do a whole lot to push the consequences of you murdering him onto me. A bank that opens a fraudulent account can (and in fact, this is the major source of the problems for those that are impersonated).
    - maxxxxx 11y ago
      Totally agree with maxerickson. I remember some years ago there was a discussion whether banks should first check back with the consumer whether he really wants to open the account. Banks were against it because it's too much trouble for them.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      I also agree. Interesting how these accounts get opened without it being a violation of the post 9/11 know-your-customer laws.
  - maxxxxx 11y ago
    The banks could make a simple phone call and ask you whether you really want to open the account. Or send you a letter. that would stop a lot of "identity theft". The only reason they get away with this is because they can make your life hell and unless you can afford a lot of lawyer time there is not much you can do.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

"bank fraud" is a subset, as not all uses of someone's identity are for banking. Consider tax returns filed with someone's name and identity, with refunds deposited or mailed elsewhere, not discovered until the real person files a "duplicate" return. Likewise credit card fraud. You could generalize most of those to "financial fraud", though. Although there are some cases of identities being used for non-financial (or not directly financial) purposes. > In a signature based authentication system, the banks suggest YOU are the victim of identity theft if someone gets your credit card number when it's their authentication system that was 'hacked.' And yet you're the one who has to go to the trouble and possible expense of dealing with it. Describing you as the victim seems more relevant. Now, who and what you're the victim of is a different question. When yet another break-in turns up millions of plaintext passwords, we don't just blame those who obtained them illicitly; we also blame the company that stored them in plaintext. So, I don't think it's reasonable to describe a bank as a victim in "identity theft". On the contrary, I think it's reasonable to describe them as negligent in protecting your account and personal information.

ableal 11y ago

If your friend is the Patrick Kelly who contributed the comment quoted below at http://www.cringely.com/2015/04/15/where-the-money-is-or-was/ http://www.cringely.com/2015/04/15/where-the-money-is-or-was... , his words should get more circulation """ “Identity theft” is a lie. There is no such thing as “identity theft”, it’s all fraud. The term “identity theft” was created to put the burden back on the consumer, away from financial institutions. The actual problem is that the cost of actually verifying identity is higher than financial institutions want to bear. Most of the cost would be in missed loan opportunities. Financial institutions don’t want to bear the cost of verifying identity so they experience fraud (surprise!) and then tell us that somehow we have to protect our identity. It’s insane. If it was legally required that you appear in a bank with an ID to get a loan or a credit card, imagine what would happen to “identity theft”. There’s nothing wrong with filing electronically, but how about having people come to the post office, with ID and a thumb drive, show ID and sign a log, then file from there? """

makomk 11y ago
It's not an uncommon idea. There's a Mitchell and Webb sketch about it too that you may be able to find online somewhere.
- walterbell 11y ago
  Here you go: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oOQBpHN_kS0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oOQBpHN_kS0

mattmanser 11y ago

I had my identity stolen recently for 3 mobile phones, I was surprised at how well the companies and the police handled it, both totally stressing it was a crime against the company not the individual (UK).

RexRollman 11y ago

"the financial industry has made the consumer the victim, instead of the financial institution." I honestly love this point. It's never occured to me.