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for this article claimed they caught on to the fraud after the transactions had cleared, but before the suspects had withdrawn the money from various checking accounts around the country.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.""

45 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmmmm..... by FatherKabral · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if Microsoft accepts credit cards.....

    1. Re:Hmmmmm..... by Faustust · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know if they have in the past, but I made sure that they do now!

      *strolls off singing "I'm in the money..."*

  2. This happened to the TV show punk'd by Fr05t · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ashton was quoted saying, "Dude where's my company."

  3. seems it would be by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    just as easy, and potentially more profitable.

    All you would need is a legit FEIN, and real or forged Articles of Formation. Maybe an operating agreement. Open a bank account and VOILA!

    1. Re:seems it would be by robogun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, but the article is talking about merchant account fraud (where companies go to a special type of bank account to accept credit card payments). Unlike personal credit card accounts, this process is vetted at all levels. Like you said, fraud at cardholder level is unlikely to provoke a useful response. But this article is talking about fraud at the level of the credit card acceptor - a much higher level. I was suggesting that the merchant bank who provides this service to these companies is risking its entire ability to open merchant accounts -- that VISA and MasterCard would literally put it out of business if they felt they were being defrauded, since they're who pays for this type of fraud.

  4. 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.]
  5. Good Idea by alarocca · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love these articles that outline great ways to break the law. Like the one a while back about how to open a kryptonite U-Lock with a pen. It used to be hard to come up with great criminal schemes...now you just have to watch the news.

    1. Re:Good Idea by Rev.+DeFiLEZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Security through obscurity never works. The only thing putting on the news does is create outrage until the problem is fixed. "criminals" (and kryptonite) knew about the u-lock bic pen weakness for _years_ (2-3) now that it is on the news, kryptonite is replacing the defective ones.

      now maybe the banks will ask the client for their goverment papers that proves they registered the bussiness.

  6. Re:As long as... by hype7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    on the subject of questionable ethics, does anyone else wonder about the guy who said "One did concede, however, that the scheme has real potential"? Potential? Potential? Maybe "potential for abuse" would be ok, but the way that's phrased at the moment... I can see the cogs turning over in this guys head for companies to target!

    -- james

  7. MP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And so - the Crimson Permanent Assurance was launched upon the high seas of international finance!

  8. Hmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    For some reason this just does not generate the sympathy in my heart that stories of personal identity theft does... I wonder why?

  9. well documented type of theft , just not reported by Anonymous+Chemist · · Score: 3, Informative

    check out the link http://www.iwks.com/features/default.asp?pagetypei d=2&articleid=31496&subsectionid=655 this type of theft is well known; just not as reported as personal id theft. From other stories is seems the average is 30,000 or more per theft. Seems that perhaps the victum in this story came out lucky. However since you have to provide ID and would get captured on camera setting up a checking account, keeping your real ID does seem to be a challenge.

  10. Theft via deception = Theft by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful
    We're talking about a crime, as I understand it, that involves taking property from others by pretending to be someone you aren't. We don't talk about "Lock theft" (as in you pick a lock, get in, take what you want, and run out), but if it was unique enough for people to want to deal with it in special ways, I'm sure we would.

    I'd say it's legitimate to call Identity Theft "theft" under the circumstances, whatever your opinions are on the "proper" wording for piracy.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Theft via deception = Theft by (void*) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But deception is also fraud. The grandparent poster is NOT WRONG, and has a point. The point being that
      even if the theft did not go through, one can still
      prosecute it as fraud. 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.

    2. 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
    3. Re:Theft via deception = Theft by shreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > The OP believes that it isn't theft if the
      > stolen items were obtained through fraud

      No the OP believes that the term "Identity Theft" implies that the identity was stolen. Just as your "Lock Theft" implies that the lock was stolen.

      There is a crime here, it's theft of property (the merchandise that was stolen from the store). The mechanism used to steal the stuff was fraudulent use of someone's credentials (identity). This mechanism already has a term (fraud) and it's already a crime to perpetrate it.

      The OP is complaining because everyone keeps using the term "identity theft" for which there is no crime on the books.

      No doubt some official somewhere will get lathered up and make a law about "identity theft" when there is a perfectly good one available.

      =Shreak

  11. Re:As long as... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They nail the AT&T's and Microsofts, and not the smalltown businesses owned by ma and pa (are there any left?), I don't have a problem with it at all. Go crooks go!

    Problem is, they do target ma and pa businesses. Indeed, apparently their scheme only works if the victim does not yet have a merchant account on his own (or else the fraudulent account would be easily flagged as duplicate...). Thus the perfect victim is a company too small to be accepting credit cards. Sorry, Microsoft will unfortunately never be the target of these gentlemen;-(

  12. Note: IRS has a new address by perdu · · Score: 5, Funny
    Dear Taxpayer, Your local IRS office address has changed. Please mail all taxes in the future to: Internal Revenue Service Box 1776 The Cayman Islands

    --
    You only use 2% of your DNA
    1. Re:Note: IRS has a new address by TykeClone · · Score: 4, Informative
      That's why you should make out your checks to the "United States Treasury" instead of the "IRS".

      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.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    2. 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
  13. 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.
    1. Re:How to article by Zak3056 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      To me that says one thing: honeypot.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  14. Bring on those people who roll their eyes by Featureless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...every time some "paranoid" person starts talking about security. You know who I'm talking about.

    They're everywhere. Nobody thinks worrying about security is cool or fun, it seems like a waste of money, a sign of mental instability, even a kind of obsessive behavior.

    Everyone much prefers to be surprised and wave their hands when things go wrong. "It's out of control. You can't stop hackers/criminals/etc."

    People have a terrible problem understanding scale. Nobody understood at Microsoft that the computer wasn't a little house in the country where you could leave the doors unlocked so occupants wouldn't have to fumble with the keys. When engineers there raised the problems they were scoffed at, disciplined. "Keep your priorities straight. Don't be paranoid." Nobody got it when the first spam was sent and we were all outraged... "What's wrong with a little spam?" How about what's wrong with 300 spam a day? It's just the "logical conclusion" - which is not logical anymore to people who don't like to be bothered thinking deeply about their responsibilities.

    The many systems our financial institutions use for identifying and tracking "consumers" are ridiculously insecure. And although the victims wail and now are allowed a few minutes a month to tell their horrible tails on 60 minutes, we as a whole seem determined to close our eyes and race grinning into the brick wall of scale again. How many hundreds of thousands of people have to have their lives ruined before colleges stop making everyone spout their social security number like it's their first name, and the mother's maiden name loses its appeal? How long before companies stop letting $5 an hour employees handle "meaningless" data (with literally no background checks or security controls) that is worth millions when properly exploited?

    This is a cultural change we need to kick off. We need to take security seriously. It needs to become uncool to roll your eyes and mock the security expert.

    1. Re:Bring on those people who roll their eyes by JimBobJoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How long before companies stop letting $5 an hour employees handle "meaningless" data (with literally no background checks or security controls) that is worth millions when properly exploited?

      Or, alternatively, when will companies stop pretending that they can be trusted simply because of employee credit card verification checks, background checks and a piss test?

      I like to look at it this way, here in Ohio (as in most states) you need to go through the most awewsome background check ever in order to take the state bar. Full multi level 10 finger fingerprint check (local, state, national) credit check, employer verification check for all jobs worked since you were 16, the list goes on and on and it may even go into your mental health history (one of the few jobs you hear of that occuring.)

      In spite of all of this, the industry as a whole can be summarized as a convention of pricks.

      There are limits to background checks.

    2. 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.
    3. Re:Bring on those people who roll their eyes by forkboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could always find your mortgage broker and piss-pound him into giving back your file.

      You're luckier than most people, you actually know the identity of the person who took yours.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  15. 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.

  16. mostly insider theft by presmike · · Score: 3, Informative

    Identity theft was covered at this years blackhat in vegas and it was stated the the vast majority of indentity theft is corporate insiders stealing the info and selling it on the web. Hackers/crackers only account for a small about of the current identity theft.

    --
    presmike
  17. Re:Stolen? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 4, Insightful
    THIS IS NOT THEFT!!! Theft involves the physical taking of something!!

    Like credit cards with SOMEONE ELSES name on them? Like SOMEONE ELSES money or "physical" merchandise? Theft is when you steal something of value. Websters gives examples of both tangible and intagible theft.

    Besides, what's your point? Just trying to be argumentative, or perhaps justify something darker?

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  18. Damn right the problem is built-in to the system by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are damn right the problem is built-in to the system.

    The scum create an account, and charge a bunch of crap to it from stolen cards. They then extract the money and run.

    The people bilked bitch to the credit card companies.

    The card companies attempt to reverse the charges.

    The poor business who was impersonated gets stuck with the bill. At best, the company can establish its innocence, and the CC company writes the cost off its taxes.

    If the *credit card companies* were the ones who had to suffer the costs of fraud, rather than shifting it to the companies or to the taxpayer, then they would be a HELL of a lot more motivated to add stronger authentication to the system.

    As it stands now, if somebody is committing massive credit card fraud in the form of lots of small charges, and you try to bring this to the card company's attention, they blow you off because it just isn't worth their time - it is easier to just charge back to the merchants. A friend of mine who works in the order-processing chain for a large company ran into just that - he detected a fraud ring attempting to rack up a lot of charges, he called the card company and said "I'll give these guys to you with a ribbon tied around them - addresses, names, the works." "Not interested - bu-bye!"

  19. Not Credit cards by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Funny

    But they do accept souls..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  20. 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.

  21. The only way to stay protected... by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...appears to be by trashing your own credit. This way your credentials will be rejected for new applications.

    1. 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?
  22. Yes they do.. by Pontiac · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you don't have a support contract with MS than the only way to talk to them for support is with your credit card.

    --
    If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
  23. Re:Damn right the problem is built-in to the syste by qbzzt · · Score: 3, Informative

    If the *credit card companies* were the ones who had to suffer the costs of fraud, rather than shifting it to the companies or to the taxpayer, then they would be a HELL of a lot more motivated to add stronger authentication to the system.

    Except they are the ones who pay for it. They get to deduct a business loss from their taxes, because those losses reduce their earnings.

    --
    -- Support a free market in the field of government
  24. Re:As long as... by fizban · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ah, relative morals, don't you just love 'em?

    A crook's a crook, no matter his target.

    --

    +1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.

  25. Here are the facts... by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...I've worked in the credit card industry for many years and am friends with a VP at one of the largest ISOs in the US.

    Simple fact is, the system is not designed to prevent fraud. It is designed to detect, catch, and prosecute those that do exploit the system. Granted, the industry has slowly started trying to move toward a more proactive stance, while making it a little harder to comit fraud. But the merchants generally complain about efforts to make it harder on criminals and go out of their way to facilitate these types of problems.

    Long story short, you may think you're getting away with these types of crimes, but rest assured, it's only a matter of time before you are caught and placed in jail.

  26. What is particularly outrageous is ... by Presence1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... that the company whose identity is misused is seen as being responsible for the losses. It is the merchant service providers and banks that should be held fully responsible -- they are the gatekeepers who failed to mind the gate, never checking the imposters' identies or association with the company.

    "For all of us, it's a tough business," Steinberg, of Merchant E Services, said. "It's a large, large problem."

    No Shit, Sherlock. It may be a large, large problem, but it is your responsibility to solve it. If you can't solve it or handle the losses, you shouldn't be in the business. Period.

    Any suggestions on how to keep the losses on the banks and service providers, instead of the businesses?

  27. Re:Interesting by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Informative

    Who hasn't read some story or seen some report on TV about "phishing" and those evil "hackers" who sniff your internet conx looking for credit card numbers?

    It's not nearly as lurid to talk about joe schmoe, who got pissed at his boss and sold 100,000 customer records to some guy in detroit. Security breaches have always been about 80% inside jobs.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  28. Ob Quote Re:Fraud != Theft by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2, Informative

    Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing.
    'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
    But he that filches from me my good name
    Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed.
    -William Shakespeare - Othello the Moor of Venice (Iago at III, iii)

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  29. "Credit card merchant providers" are near-crooks by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative
    This scam depends on the netherworld of "credit card merchant providers", who are also the money launderers who make spam possible.

    If you're a legitimate business, and want to accept credit cards, you go to your bank and open a merchant account. They check your financial history, may demand a deposit (on which they pay interest), want to see you in person, may visit your premises, and make you sign a painful contract. Then they charge you about $100 per month, plus 1-3% of the transaction cost. This is the way real companies do it.

    If you're a less legitimate business, there are services for you, too. Charge-It-Now is a more or less legitimate one. "Now you can be approved to accept credit cards in as little as two hours and have a live merchant account in 24 hours. Applying online for our Internet processing software has never been easier. The entire application process is done online in less than 10 minutes and with our digital signature approval process; we do not need a physical signature. We deposit funds directly into your existing bank account. ... We accept 98% of applicants". At this tier, the rates are higher and the merchant is more likely to be doing something dodgy. These outfits aren't regulated as banks. They're resellers of banking services. They need to be better regulated.

    Further down in the muck, there is the "high risk merchant account" business. "Has PaySystems or other merchant providers shutdown your company, virtually stopping you from processing credit cards? ... Good Credit / Bad Credit okay! ... We pride our business on the fact we can place just about any business type. Even if you've experienced problems in the past with other processors or have a low credit rating." This is where your mid-grade spammer gets credit card processing. Most of those operators need to be kicked out of the credit card system.

    Down at the bottom, there's "offshore high-risk credit card processing". "Merchant account service for bad credit, high risk, gambling, and adult related business." This is the land of 15% fees, long holdbacks, and processors who disappear suddenly. Here we find companies operating from undisclosed locations, a criminal offense in many jurisdictions. These outfits help crooks and spammers launder their money, evade taxes, and hide from law enforcement. These operators are essentially part of organized crime.

  30. 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.