Re: Mitigating Identity Theft

Well said. I have felt for a long time that the term "identity theft" is Orwellian Newspeak, designed to spread fear and obscure the real situation. Someone who "steals my identity" is not (per se) stealing anything from me at all. He is impersonating me, and this is not a newly invented crime.

Fraudulent transactions have nothing to do with the legitimate account > holders. Criminals impersonate legitimate users to financial > institutions. That means that any solution can't involve the account > holders. That leaves only one reasonable answer: financial > institutions need to be liable for fraudulent transactions.

Toucheé ...

I think the Orwellian term is being spread by the financial institutions who want the impersonated people to feel that it's their fault.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: While it is true the crime is not your fault, you are required, under the law to attempt to mitigate the damage as much as possible. If something bad happens, you cannot just sit there and let it go on; that is where the 'fifty dollars or until we are notified' rule comes in. I don't think that is a bad rule, atually. Fifty dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to the damage that _could_ be caused, and if you are lucky, you can call on the phone before any damage is done at all. PAT]
Reply to
Loading thread data ... Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.