Slashdot Mirror


Corporate Identity Theft on the Rise

prostoalex writes "As millions of Americans lose their identities to online and offline thieves, a new kind of crime has been cooked up by the criminals who are not bothering with doing pesky credit card charges. They steal entire companies, opening up merchant accounts for existing businesses and running up charges from aforementioned stolen credit card numbers. What's worse, is that the hole the criminals exploit seems to be built into the system. According to Bob Sullivan from MSNBC, "Many of the processing firms interviewed for this article claimed they caught on to the fraud after the transactions had cleared, but before the suspects had withdrawn the money from various checking accounts around the country. One did concede, however, that the scheme has real potential.""

11 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Fraud != Theft by Theseus192 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hate it when the mass media call it "identify theft." If someone impersonates me, he's not taking away my identity, he's committing fraud.

    Repeat after me... intangible and intellectual "property" cannot be "stolen." It can only be used in unauthorized ways.

    --
    If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out? - Will Rogers
    1. Re:Fraud != Theft by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If someone impersonates me, he's not taking away my identity, he's committing fraud.

      But the mass media is very, very vested in this New Economy thing -- literally, technocrats of the first order -- and really, really want to get people to transform their lives into the most Teflon-coated fiscal state possible (the velocity of money always being of interest to the banking and merchant classes). The phrase "identity theft" does not hinge on the word "theft" ... it hinges on "identity", and that's what people want to focus your attention on. If they can get you to agree it's IDENTITY theft, and not identity THEFT, then they have obtained your cooperation in continuing the conversion of a citizen into a consumer.

      Remember the "inheritance tax"? The mass media has managed to transform that into the "death tax". The word change fools people into thinking the mean, big, bad ol' government is a tax and fee confiscator of the highest order (*), and literally taxes people simply for dying. The inheritance tax doesn't work that way since it has a huge exclusion ($650K by 1999) that makes it apply to a small fraction of newly dead Americans (at most 2% this year) that themselves haven't taken full advantage of things like family trusts. Yet this tiny minority tax was demonized and the public wording of it changed to reflect it.

      Getting back to identity theft ... if we would decrease the concept of money velocity with respect to business transactions, then identity theft, fraud or whatever would decrease remarkably. I in fact don't actually believe in identify theft or fraud. The twits who will actually trust a voice over a phone speaking a 12-digit number, are the ones I firmly blame. If businesses want to indulge in higher velocity of transactions, then they are entirely to blame for the expansive fraud possibilities that result. A business who uses a fraud-prone transaction system should eat the losses incurred thereby.

      * As a matter of fact, with a middle class person being hit for at least 40% of his income due to income tax, gas tax, sales tax, property tax, and other such fees, I'd have to say that it IS a confiscator of the highest order.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  2. How to article by raider_red · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anyone else have a problem with the level of detail in the article? They not only report on the scam, but tell exactly how it was carried off. They've even provided the names of the merchant transaction companies which can be suckered.

    --
    It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
  3. FBI Not Interested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Never mistake silence for disinterest (or assent, for that matter).

    The FBI could be very interested in the Pakistan and Russian connections. However they are very unlikely to be discussing details of the case with regular civilians.

    Or they could be disinterested.

  4. why bother stealing a companies identity by InfoHighwayRoadkill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why cant you just go and legitimately buy a whole series of off the shelf companies?

    Then you get a totally legit and above board merchant account to run your stolen cards through.

    Here in the uk you can see ads for pre-created legitimate shell companies that you can buy cheaply and rename to cut out the hassle and legal niceities of creating a limited company from scratch.

    --
    another Roadkill on the Information Superhighway
    1. Re:why bother stealing a companies identity by KatieL · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, even if you rush off and buy an off the shelf company and a rename (for a hundred quid say). You still can't open a business account.

      *I* own such a company, I use it, it trades, it files tax returns.... and the palaver I have to go through to open accounts and things is bonkers.

      (Instead I have to turn up with massive piles of other documents.)

      Because I don't have a passport. And in Britain, to open a company bank account, all the company officers have to turn up in person and present their passports.

      So suddenly, you've got to get a fake passport as well.

      And, bear in mind, you also have to somehow change the address of the company at companies house -- otherwise the trick of sending the mail to a duff address doesn't work; given the companies registration number it's trivial to find the registered address.

  5. Re:The only way to stay protected... by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1. Start off as a person not using credit.
    2. Apply for a moderately difficult to get account, such as a 9.5% preferred visa card, and not a simple card to get (i.e. a 21% Sears card).
    3. On the application, list a low income, a job like "writer", and stipulate your income is irregular.
    4. You now have been rejected for credit, and this will stay on your credit score for at least 2 years. At this point, the companies that would have issued you a small limit - high interest card won't see the reasons you were rejected, just that you were.
    5. If you want to make really sure, repeat steps 2-4 a few times.

    If you ever need to reverse this, complete a new application with a (hopefully true) higher listed income from a steadier paying job, voluntarily requesting a smaller line of credit that the maximum they will offer that income bracket.
    At the worst, you may have to write a letter to one of the credit review agencies to make sure your record is properly updated, but no one in the more responsible side of the credit industry is going to blacklist you, and the less responsible side of the industry just looks at the highlights of the records Providian and the other review services provide.
    This will not stop real fools from sending you letters that say you have been pre-approved for a line of credit based on your home ownership, even though you don't own a home. There are companies that have sent tens of thousands of offers out to minor children, and even one that sent several thousands of credit offers out to a list of people's pets some scammer had sold them after obtaining it from veterinary records.
    These companies typically charge high rates and have lots of hidden penalties, have a lot of fraud committed against them, and in return play dirty in trying to collect from most of their clients. They work with collection agencies that will violate state laws whenever they think they can get away with it. They often fall afoul of the law themselves, and actually have a poor return on investment. Nothing short of finally going out of business will stop such fools from being scammed and wasting your time in return if someone commits a fraud agaisnt them using your identity.

    Sorry I couldn't leave out step 2 ;-)

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  6. Re:Note: IRS has a new address by perdu · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This has actually been done before, and anyone can open an account for, as an example, "IsoRectal Spectroscopy" dba "IRS" and cash stolen tax checks.
    Interesting -- I opened a bank account recently for a non profit and had to get a taxpayer id from the IRS first. So maybe they watch out for this sort of thing...

    --
    You only use 2% of your DNA
  7. Re:Theft via deception = Theft by Nept · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thus the credit card companies who repay the merchant but don't persecute
    the fraudsters even with a lot of evidence are PART OF THE PROBLEM


    Yes, the credit card companies have it nailed down to the last dollar - Will it cost more to
    a) Prosecute the fraudsters
    b) Repay the merchant
    They choose B in most cases. There's a high cost of litigation in this country.

    Same with car insurance. I was sued in an obviously bogus manner once, AAA even admitted when I called them that the lawsuit was a total fraud. Yet, they paid the $15,000 (and raised my insurance a couple hundred a year) because it would have cost them too much to take the case to court.

    This is a smart business decision for credit card and insurance companies in the short term, but not in the long run.

    --
    "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
  8. Re:Bring on those people who roll their eyes by infinite9 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, we tried to have fraud alerts placed in all three credit reporting agencies. The problem is that credit reporting agencies are just as bad (if not worse) than the credit card companies themselves. Since the credit card companies are their customers, and not the people they're gathering information on, they won't actually talk to you. To get a fraud alert, you have to send them a request, in writing. One of the agencies did this immediately. Another did so after a lot of harrassment. The third never did put it on. This was after following all the correct procedures. Once the fraud alerts were on, we ran into them exactly one time while applying for instant credit. In this case, it was a home depot card. The people at the store put me on the phone with their credit department. The woman asked, "Do you know why I'm talking to you?" I mentioned the fraud alert and that was it. Here's your card. No other proof was required. I bought a car without a word from the bank who wrote the loan. Fraud alerts are a joke.

    If someone gets your information, you're hosed. There's only one thing you can do. It was modded +5 funny, but another post hit the nail on the head. Burn your credit rating.

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  9. disinterested? by brauwerman · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It's really annoying when a single word no longer means anything, and concise communication becomes impossible.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disinte re sted


    Usage Note: In traditional usage, disinterested can only mean having no stake in an outcome, as in
    Since the judge stands to profit from the sale of the company, she cannot be considered a disinterested party in the dispute.
    But despite critical disapproval, disinterested has come to be widely used by many educated writers to mean uninterested or having lost interest as in Since she discovered skiing, she is disinterested in her schoolwork.

    Oddly enough, not interested is the oldest sense of the word, going back to the 17th century. This sense became outmoded in the 18th century but underwent a revival in the first quarter of the early 20th. Despite its resuscitation, this usage is widely considered an error.

    In a 1988 survey, 89 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the sentence
    His unwillingness to give five minutes of his time proves that he is disinterested in finding a solution to the problem.
    This is not a significantly different proportion from the 93 percent who disapproved of the same usage in 1980.