Slashdot Mirror
Identity Thief Apprehended By Victim
ewhac writes "Karen Lodrick was entering her sixth month of hell dealing with the repercussions of having her identity stolen and used to loot her accounts. But while she was waiting for a beverage, there standing in line was the woman who appeared on Wells Fargo security video emptying her accounts. What followed was a 45 minute chase through San Francisco streets that ended with the thief being taken into custody by police."
Lucky for the identity thief they ended up in the police station and not the morgue. If you were on the jury and the victim had beaten the thief to death... would you convict? I'm not sure I would.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
It would take me 45 minutes to run up ONE of thoes big SF hills.
With a little bit of digging, I got the name, address and phone of two of the people who got to use my debit card three years ago. One bought a Nextel cell phone, the other paid their Progressive insurance bill. I called Progressive and escalated this, and asked them what they were going to do. The answer? "I guess next time she'll have to pay cash."
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
So... how long before Karen's sued by the thieving bitch for harrasment and stalking...?
Someone had used my credit card number to buy a cell phone. When I saw the charge on my CC statement, I called the cell phone company (can't remember which one it was anymore) and asked what address it went to. Even though they paid for it with my credit card, they said they weren't allowed to provide me with any information. I called my credit card company, got a new card, and told them what I knew. Since the money came out of their pocket and not mine, I assume they didn't quit that easily.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
On top of the credit cards and prada bags, that fiend even had the tenacity to start up a web consulting business in her name!
...Yes, I know, but after all she's been through I think she deserves a gratuitous plug.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Would they convict you on successful (as opposed to attempted) suicide?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I agree completely. Also, consider this: if she had carried a gun, she could have saved herself a 45-minute chase.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Did you RTFA? She didn't get her comeuppance. She got more probation and is probably out there right now stealing your identity and buying ice cream on your dime while you sit there and write you're glad "she got her comeuppance."
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
It was clear Nelson had targeted her: Lodrick changed bank accounts and identification numbers, only to find that Nelson had again broken into her mail and stolen the new information and was still after her accounts.
Where the hell were the postal service inspectors? The USPS has an entire police force for dealing with this sort of stuff. I can see it now, down at USPS Homedonut Protection Service:
"Hey Billy-Bob, we had a carrier's keys stolen. Think we should do something?"
"Nah, Bo-Billy, we gots terrorists to watch out for."
"But we have a report of identity theft from..."
"T-E-R-R-I-S-T-S. We gots CQB trainin' this afternoon."
She was sentenced by Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn to the 44 days she had already served in county jail and three years' probation.
What about mail fraud? Theft of mail?
Nelson also was ordered to make restitution in an amount to be determined by the court and to stay away from Lodrick.
"Amount to be determined"? How about ALL OF IT?
Those were the terms of a plea bargain negotiated by Assistant District Attorney Reve Bautista with Nelson's public defender, Christopher Hite.
The DA had her on TAPE using someone else's bank account. It was clearly planned and multiple victims were involved. They no doubt could have searched her properties and found the mail, the stolen keys, etc. The goods that were charged either involved her going to stores (where she'd be on camera) or mail order / online, where the goods had to be delivered somewhere (and the cops could have been waiting for her to pick up.)
Why in god's name did they need to plea-bargain? Why does it always seem that to scam artists, identity thieves, and drunk drivers the justice system is a revolving door?
Please help metamoderate.
The story is a great read! If you don't normally RTFA, I can really recommend this one.
Paid Q&A/Research
bitch hard! She should at least gone away for 5 years for doing crap like that!
Wonderful justice system we have here.
One of the items stolen from her mailbox in 2006 was a CD statement that included her SSN. Hasn't California (if not other states) banned SSNs on mailed documents for a few years now?
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
(playing off another poster's similar comments)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I wonder why someone would go through this trouble. It is much easier to pick through the trash, where many people just tear up those unsolicited credit card envelopes or just throw them away... Victims of identity theft sometimes never realize that they were "robbed" because their trash was used against them.
...it's clear the best way to deal with this women would be to quietly "Soprano" her after the hype dies down in 3-4 months. The justice system is pretty screwed up if her "punishment" was to be doing exactly the same thing that should be otherwise doing.
If the judge had any sense of justice, he would have thrown her in jail for 40 years as an "example".
Why not the death penalty? Seriously, what social use is there for anyone who'd commit identity theft? We've filled our jails with potheads - who hurt nobody and subtract nothing from society, indeed include many of our most artistically accomplished people - and yet the penalty for stealing tens of thousands through identity theft, and running the victims through months of hell - is probation? It should be at minimum 20 years in jail.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
You are allowed to use reasonable force when stopping a thief. As long as he can't prove you deliberately used excesive force you should be rather safe. In some US states reasonable force included shooting people in the back with a shotgun. In Europe anything short of shooting them in the back with a gun goes. In California, who knows...
The perp gets probation! No freakin way I would pursue someone and take the risk
that they could turn around at any moment and shoot or stab me, all so they can get probation!
man my life is worth more than that...
The bottom line is that the big corporations that could prevent identity theft
have a vested interested in not doing so because the solutions would
a) make it harder to use their products
b) increase their costs (more employees, more IT systems etc,)
c) put their products in a bad light - e.g. VISA wants you to use their card without hesitation, like cash and
not start associating it with the risks of identity theft.
According to the comments I've read (no, I dont' RTFA), there was no punishment. She was already on probation, so probation as a punishment is nothing extra.
Once again, the Justice System has proven itself to be broken. If I were the victim, there would have been no living body to sentence. Let the corpse do probation, that's what she deserves.
Repeat offenders of anything should have their offense tattooed on their forehead, and on the backs of both hands. Of course, some countries chop off fingers or hands. I'm all for having the snot beaten out of people who do things like that. Spammers too, while we're at it.
'Lodrick, who made a statement at sentencing, was dissatisfied. "I can't believe it," she said. "I went through six months of hell, and she's going to get probation? She was on probation when she victimized me. Obviously, probation's not helping."'
What the hell? Is she on double secret probation now? Isn't that the point of probation, that you serve your sentence if you break it? I realize it's more important to have violent offenders incarcerated, but recidivist, unapologetic thieves who rack up that kind of bill need to be dealt with.
Problem is jails are expensive, but anything less is no deterrent to people like this. I'm sick of our PC justice system - this person needs something to fear, and I think lashings should play a central role.
Did it follow the mandatory formula?
1) Crash through, or at least pass by a rail trolley
2) Jumping the tops of hilly streets
3) At least one elderly person/woman with a baby carriage serenely crossing against the light
4) A ferarri and a "hum-vee"
This woman was in a department store and was purchasing something. As she approached the counter, she handed the clerk her credit card. The clerk went to use the machine but it apparently wasn't working, so she had to use a phone to call in the card. A short time later, a security guard came over and grabbed the customer. The cashier had actually called in a code to have the guard come by. The clerk said that she realized the woman was committing identity theft.
The astonished customer couldn't believe it, and asked the cashier how on earth she knew. She said, "Because that's my name on the card, and that's my credit card that had been stolen."
-- Paul Robinson - My BlogThe lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
The thief took advantage of bank spam:
I don't even have a lock on my mail box and banks send me this crap all the time. Besides being a massive waste of everyone's money, it only takes a few days of intercepting the mail to rob someone.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Ugh, I hate it when writers try to look smart by throwing french expressions. Even without being a grammar nazi, "beaucoup expensive" is completely incorrect. "très expensive" would have been better but, hey, I guess it doesn't sound hip enough... I haven't finished TFA, but this doesn't bode too well.
How so? By shooting the thief in the back as she ran away?
Life isn't a TV show and yelling "FREEZE!" at criminals usually doesn't work.
Hey! YOU OVER THERE! The one with my identity!!! STOP!
And in so doing converted herself from victim to attempted murderer, or at the very least assault with a deadly weapon. It's only legal to shoot someone in self defense, if the person hadn't pulled a gun (or in some cases a knife) on her, then she can't legally shoot them. Also, in some cases it's permissible if threatened with physical violence, but that's much tougher case to argue. In any event, shooting a fleeing person in the back almost always ends up in a slam dunk for the prosecution.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
That long chase was ridiculous. If this had happened to my sister, for example, she would have held the criminal at gunpoint in the Starbucks where the chase started. None of this running all over creation and actually *talking* to the perp during the chase. WTF is up with that?! Hell, even in CA, would anyone have blamed her if she had simply picked up a chair, smashed the bitch over the head with it, and *then* called the police to report that she'd carried out a citizen's arrest? My God, I hope not.
Right, a very stirring tale of one plucky self-employed consultant who personally appended the identity thief. But a very relevant question to ask here is, who made it so easy to get your identity stolen and what responsibility do they bare.
davecb5620@gmail.com
Of course she could have, this is America. You can sue McDonald's for making you a fat, lazy dumbass! You can sue for cutting your hand on shards of glass from the window you shattered while breaking into someone's house. You can press charges if your idiotic kid falls out of a tree in your neighbor's yard or drowns in their pool while trespassing. Smell that? That's stupidity, it replaced freedom a long time ago in this country.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Seriously, I find all these oh-so-tough-guys saying that they'd beat the thief up hilarious. It's like those pathetic "Terrorist Hunting Permit" stickers I see in the cars of pasty, overweight chickenhawks.
(Now expect someone to follow up with BS about being a Navy Seal or a black-belt or some damn thing. Yeah, sure.)
It's absurd that anyone that knows your name, date of birth, and SSN can pretend to be you and open up accounts in your name. Banks and credit card companies have to be held accountable for verifying the identities of their customers.
Likewise, credit reporting agencies should be fined a significant amount for evey incorrect item on a person't credit report with the full fine going to the individual. We need to incentivize the financial services industry to take care of the mess they've largely created.
Finally, probation for a repeat offender guilty of identity theft, mail fraud, theft of mail, theft by deception, and violation of existing probabtion? Give me a break. She should have gotten 10 years in jail, a 6 figure fine, and been made to pay full restitution.
While real problems and challenges like privacy and identity theft go ignored, they waste their time on crap like "National milk drinking day" and raising funds so they can leave more problems unsolved.
We are in the midst of an identity fraud crime wave, made possible by more intrusive technology and fewer regulations that limit the sharing of that information. There is a limit to the solutions that the individual can do - it can only be accomplished on a national level. Unfortunately, there is no leadership of any sort at the national level in the US. The head of the fish has completely rotted away.
"First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
Great, your sister would jeopardized the life of everyone else in that starbucks.
Oh, and if the person ran away and got shot in the back? The best case scenario, going to trial. even if found innocent, her life would be turned upside down. Time in jail, attorneys, bail.
Yeah, good thinking.
Even in Texas, if you can not convince people you felt your life was threatened you go to jail for killing people. Granted, what it takes to feel you life is immediately threatened is looser then in most states.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There's a whole other unofficial... "justice" which can be visited on people who've wronged you.
I suggest you all have a little less respect for officialdom, you can read that as "politicians and bureaucrats".
Deleted
If someone was holding you at gunpoint, would you really bet your life it's all a bluff and try to run off?
Isn't stealing US mail a federal crime? How come the feds didn't charge her also?
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I think I'm too cynical these days to even try escalating such things these days. Granted, if it were more serious (e.g., if they had my whole identity and not just my now-canceled cc number), I might have fought my cynicism. However, the more people who do escalate it, the easier it makes it for others to escalate (or so I assume). So, again, good for you!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The perpetrator outweighed her by 40 pounds, I doubt the victim would be able to overpower her. Besides, even if she told everyone in the Starbucks that the person she had just hit over the head had stolen her identity, there's a pretty good chance the well-meaning patrons would not believe her and would have let the thief go and held the woman so police could arrest her for assault. And the previous poster basically summarized quite well the problems that would arise with using a gun.
They would have thrown the book at her for vigilante justice. Considering the 44 days and probation served by the thief, the "heroine" would likely have gotten a stiffer sentence. Assault is a very serious crime, after all.
As a firearm owner, I'd have to disagree with this idea. I'm not sure that her holding, in public, someone she THOUGHT was the person who stole her identity at gunpoint is necessarily a good idea. If someone is ACTIVELY committing a crime, then a concealed permit and sidearm MIGHT be called for, if it can be used *safely*. H'wever, I can see too many people with itchy trigger fingers and bad memories/eyesight creating more problems than they solve.
Illegally enter someone's HOUSE, on the other hand, and you get what you deserve.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Called up some random company that was listed on my statement to inquire about a charge and the call went roughly along these lines...
Me: I'm seeing a recurring charge for $21.99 on my credit card and the number is listed next to it
Rep: Yes that's for a website
Me: Umm which website
Rep: I think you know sir
Me: I really don't. I buy quite a lot of stuff on-line but don't recognize this charge
Rep: I think i'd better spell that for you b-l-a-c-k-c-o-c-k-d-o-w-n dot com.
Me: Yeah, that's not authorized
Rep: Is your wife authorized to use the card, perhaps she signed up
Me: Really dont think so
They then had the audacity to ask my to file a police report. I threatened to call chase and have the charges reversed and they eventually backed down.
In the process they did actually reveal the IP address that was used to sign up, although naturally I had a list of all the IPs that comcast had assigned me in the last 6 months to refute that with.
It is clear that the current government (including state law enforcement agencies) don't care about protecting the general public as they do about protecting the wealth of the very rich.
Identity theft does not stop the steady flow of consumption, so it doesn't bother the wealthy controlling powers very much, so it is not given serious attention. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, hits the wealthy where it hurts, so the punishments for it are sufficient to destroy your life.
The American public seems to have accepted this as simply being "the way things are," and doesn't seem very interested in demanding more of its government. I suppose we are all getting what we deserve.
Off topic here, but I have always had a problem with using guns for hunting. You go to the store, buy a gun and bullets that someone else made, stand at a safe distance, and instantly kill the animal in your sights. Compare that to the hunter who makes his own bow and arrows, carefully tracks and stalks his prey, and kills with skills that are far harder to learn than pulling a trigger. Who has more to be proud of?
Sure, if your sister held someone up at gunpoint, she'd get back what was hers. End of story. Good for her.
This woman, unarmed, caught a thief after an intense 45 minute chase worthy of mention in the news (at the very least). She will be talking about this for the rest of her life to people in awe of her feat. She has something to be proud of. "Good for her" doesn't do this justice.
Not to mention if she was mistaken and it wasn't the perp (for all she knew the jacket could've been sold or given away by the orignal crook) and now SHE is the criminal for assault.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
+3 Insightful?!
I had someone using my credit card once. I was still in possession of it which told me it was either someone who had been to my house or a server at a restaurant who took my card to ring me up.
I got phone numbers of the online stores where they were ordering things. I got the IP address of the person from the two places that he ordered stuff from and then from the web mail place where he registered a new address in my name.
This IP address was from the same Central Florida ISP that I use which confirmed my suspicion that it was a local person.
I go to call the ISP and of course they don't give me anything but said they would be happy to work with the police.
I call the police and they said that even if they got the person's info from the ISP they wouldn't be able to prove which person in that household actually did anything.
No video surveillance, no physical merchandise was purchased...
I think it was complete bullshit that these lazy pigs wouldn't make one phone call to find out who it was. Now I'm probably still going to the same restaurant and tipping the asshole who stole my CC number.
We as a society really have our priorities out of whack. DUI? Home confinement in your mansion (no, I'm not linking to the stories about you-know-who). One teenager has consensual sex with another teenager? Throw him in jail for 10 years.
Steal someones identity, multiple times, costing the victims thousands of dollars in cash and lost time? Probation. Hell, I got people in my city getting probation for serious gun crimes. WTF?
She was already on probation, so probation as a punishment is nothing extra.
If you're already on probation and commit another felony, you're then supposed to get sentenced to PRISON with no more chance of further probation.
Wells Fargo doesn't give a damn about fraud. A few years ago I noticed a charge for under 10 bucks to a business in Tijuana. I called WF. They told me not to worry about it since it was still a pending charge because someone "probably just entered one of the digits on the card wrong." (yes, i know all about checksums...) Not satisfied, I called back and spoke with someone else. In all, three different WF employees told me not to worry about it.
A week later, it was a firm charge, no longer pending. I called back. Explained what happened again. They transferred me to a bilingual account specialist because the fraud happened in Mexico, yet I've never been there, don't speak Spanish, and I live 2,000 miles away. "They told you not to worry about it?!?!!"
Instead of issuing me a new card like they said they would, all they did was vow to block all activity to my account from the one place that it had been abused with. No new card. And they never made a fraud report because "it was only 10 bucks." Uh, someone has my card details and you're not going to do anything.
WF wasn't pleased when I closed my accounts the next day.
pwned.
But thanks for playing.
Ross
...post her info on slashdot.
Problem Solved.
I don't like how we call these crimes "identity theft". "Theft" especially implies that the owner no longer has their identity, which is certainly not the case - that loss could actually free them from the liabilities the "thief" is attaching to their old identity.
It's not really their identity that the thief steals. It's their ID, like traditional theft of a driver's license, credit card or copying a signature. We probably need a new word for the virtual representation of an individual, like "ident", that is 1: made of ID info and 2: points to the individual's abstract identity. IT people know that each level of pointer can be a different type, with different valid uses, and an entirely different set of data than the pointer or content to which it points. We should probably call the "online canonical identity" data their ident or something like that.
And so they're not really "thieves". They're like copyright violators, who leave the original intact in the hands of its owner, but dilute or discredit the original by unauthorized use. Maybe they're "ident pirates".
Conflating piracy with theft and identity with IDs with "idents" shows we don't have the first idea of how to cope with these crimes. We can't even distinguish between crimes and legitimate, if novel (and/or controversial) acts. We can't properly catch and correct the criminals. We can't control the content. We certainly can't allow those nuanced cases which benefit more than they cost.
It's time to get our story straight so we can look ourselves in the eye and know who we really are.
--
make install -not war
She stole mail. She stole keys from the federal government postal employee. Mail fraud? This worthless sack of shit should get 20 years of HARD time, split between state and federal pens!
Of course, being able to steal master keys for the mailboxes is not good either, but WTF is the bank thinking??? I can't shred stuff if it is intercepted before I go to my friggin' mail box!
"Why not the death penalty? Seriously, what social use is there for anyone who'd commit identity theft?" Why not exile? What use is there for criminals of the predatory, parasitic type anyway? Can we send them overseas? I hear they need coal miners in Russia.
technical writing / development
Indeed, this is all "cheer" for the good guy until you read the end and hear the failur of the U.S. justice system. The "thief" was on probation, pleaded guilty, and I believe it said she had quite a record of doing this before. I would have punished for the maximum term given the thief's attitude and likely hood of continuing the same offense. But due to over-crowding and budget problems, there's still not much that can be done given that we have to take the worse of two evils and we need the space for murderers over ID thieves.
Though, this does make a side point that even "poor" people get slaps on the wrist and not just famous rich celebrities.
Out here in a politically left wing state, the law has yet to be tested in an appeals court. Its interesting to note that prosecutors shy away from charging shooters in such cases for the shooting itself. The charge is usualy unlawful discharge of a firearm or something else. I think they are afraid that a direct charge would result in an NRA financed appeal and a legal precedent similar to that in Texas being established
Have gnu, will travel.
9 times?
And she's destroyed how many people's lives?
And she's put on probation again?
What are they thinking in California?
This is one of the reasons we need to legalize marijuana. So we can put real criminals in jail.
Sounds like they make everyone a criminal so they can't put anyone in jail.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Here in California, you have to worry about even the most trivial things - a thief was robbing one of my friends houses, was on the roof and fell threw the sky-light and onto a knife in the kitchen... then sued the family for his injuries.
Our system needs some reworking, no?
The identity theft victim pulls a gun and tells the thief to freeze. The thief screams for help and that the woman holding the gun is trying to kill her. The identity theft victim explains that the woman she has at gunpoint is a thief. The thief says the identity theft victim is crazy and has the wrong person. Another well meaning hero to be pulls their gun and points it at the obviously angry woman with a gun telling her to calm down. Person number three pulls their gun and picks a side or generally points it at the other two people with guns in the coffee shop and tells them all to calm down. Everyone with a gun is convinced they are doing the right thing.
Ask a working police officer, this is a good way to get people shot and or killed.
Seriously, look at how people drive cars, and you want to give them concealed weapons permits to have guns on them all the time?
The jails are mostly full, the incarceration rate in the US is much higher per population than most other western nations. What I've never understood is that people get jailed for personal use of drugs (abuse to themselves), whereas crimes like identity theft (abuse to others) result in multiple probations and no meaningful consequences -- which has a worse societal effect?
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Great.
I've spent some time in Texas, and the whole place seemed to be filled with cartoon-crazy amounts of private oil wealth and stressed out women aching to cheat on whatever guy they managed to desperation-marry at the end of highschool so their friends wouldn't laugh at them.
No thank-you.
-FL
"a thief who posed no threat."
This criminal is not a thief.
This criminal is much more than that.
This is someone who commits fraud.
This is someone who damages the victim's name and reputation.
This is someone who destroys someone else's public life for their own gain; the damages of which may linger on for years after the crime is committed.
All this is much more than the simple act of theft; stealing a car, stealing cash, etc.
Why are you suprised at the response?
When the criminal act is a perpetual public destruction of someone's life; why are you suprised when victims are calling for tit-for-tat?
Built into all kinds of transactions is a safety code that is only activated once identity theft has been proven.
You have to contact a branch of your creditor or bank (or whoever supplies your cards) and prove that you are who you say you are. It'll have to be done in such a way that would make it difficult for identity thieves to duplicate. e.g. Have parents/siblings/spouses appear with photo ID and official documents for example.
Then... your account is flagged as currently going through an identity theft episode and you're issued a PIN. Next time you, or someone pretending to be you, uses your card online, in Starbucks, or to pay a bill, the system notifies the attendant that the card is in Identity Theft status and therefore the special PIN needs to be entered.
This would also be required at your bank even when appearing in person.
But of course the problems with this is that it doesn't solve check fraud instances and the secret PIN should not ever be relayed to the attendant of the business you're making a transaction with. So in that case there'd need to be a special PIN pad that you could be given to enter your PIN.
Why not just give the secret PIN when you're initially issued your card(s) to be prevent identity theft in the first place? Because it's just another thing to be stolen when your identity is taken in the first place. If you issue the PIN *after* your identity has been stolen it will put a huge hamper on the whole operation.
I have a (relatively) simple solution of what to do with criminals such as these (actually to most criminals in my opinion). Round up as many as will fit into a large cargo airplane/jet, fly them to Iraq, transport them out into the desert, and leave them. If they survive, they should be suitably "broken and rebuilt." Oh, and revoke their US citizenship and leave them with no IDs of any kind so (hopefully) they never come back to America.
We can call it "Operation Iraqi Redemption"
I was thinking Iraq would also be a good place to store all our spent nuclear fuel, the only problem being the proliferation of terrorists there that would love to get their hands on the stuff. I'm sure we can figure something out.
I'm confused, did he stumble onto the knife after he threw the skylight? Was he throwing the skylight to another house owned by your friend?
I heard that one in a movie once...
Who thinks criminals should get probation and non-sentences. Liberals or right-wingers. Answer: Right-wingers.
Oh, offcourse they don't actually say that directly. It is just the end result of their policies of cutting taxes and public spending. Jails costs money. Sending someone away for 20 years costs money. Lots of money.
Money that comes from taxation.
Between liberals who think probation works and right-wingers who don't want to pay for anything else, you get this result.
Never believe a politician who says he wants to be though on crime unless he clearly states where he is going to get the money from to do it. Double the police force. The dutch goverment currently has a nice red herring going. More police and lab personel to solve more crimes. Absolutly no mention of any more jails to actually house the offenders. That is because you can easily fiddle staffing figures, but people can easily spot a jail that isn't there.
Hey - check out the mod score. It's been modded informative! The identity thief is at it again and has marked your assumptions as being correct!
IANAL, but IAAT (I Am A Texan). And I believe that that particular law only applies to a person's residence and property (and, as of the latest session of the legislature, a person's car). That is, you can use deadly force to prevent theft out of your home, your land and your car, provided you are on your property or in your car. Unless the ID theft victim owned the Starbucks, I don't believe they'd be able to legally pull a gun on the thief, even in the Lone Star State. And, on top of that, even in gun-happy Texas there are town and city restrictions on firearm discharge. Again, IANAL.
"The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
When you consider all the grief that the crime of identity theft
(or is it identify hijacking?) causes, I think we should make
it a capital crime. Take over someone's life, lose yours.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Shooting? I'd jam the backside of the gun into their stomach (or, if no rifle, club it over their heads), that usually takes care of their ability to run while not leaving any measurable lasting effect.
It's legal too. After all, you applied the least necessary force to keep the criminal from escaping 'til the police arrives.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I love how you separate states within one country, and then refer to a whole fucking continent as one entity with one legal system. Well done.
"punishment for theft"
It's not theft, you dumb motherf*cker, it's fraud.
It's the perpetual destruction of someone's public identity, something that cannot be easily repaired or returned. There's a world of difference. It's personal.
It can and has destroyed peoples lives, sent the wrong people to jail, resulted in physical harm (no or poor medical treatment because of destroyed insurance), removed people's ability to work (false criminal records).
So stop and think before you get on your soapbox.
California has a three strikes law. According the TFA, "she pleaded guilty to one felony count of using another person's identification fraudulently." So, at minimum, that's one strike. Her prior conviction may or may not be a strike, but sounds serious enough that it probably is. If it is, then the fact that she "was delivered to the Yolo County sheriff on another outstanding fraud-related warrant after she was sentenced in San Francisco" may very well be strike three, which results in a long, mandatory sentence. Of course, I may be wrong about the applicability of three strikes here. Then you can have a debate about putting another non-violent offender into the already *absurdly* overcrowded California prison system, versus allowing her the freedom to, most likely, do a lot of damage to peoples lives -- neither is a very attractive outcome.
Madness takes its toll. Exact change please.
Most identity theft could be avoided if we adopted a system whereby a document used for identification is verified/validated by the issueing authority at the time of use.
For example, if a Drivers License (or ID card) is used as identification, it should be swiped, and information electronically validated against a state DMV / Vital Records / or issuing authority. This will in and if itself eliminate fraudulent ID's through forgery. Additionally, a second layer of security such as a pin number, thumbprint scan, (or any other information not physically located on the document) can be used to validate that the person posessing the document is the person to whom the document was issued.
This system works well because no information is ever retrieved from the issuing authority, instead responses are a "yes/no" type of transaction.
A more active system, and more troubling for provacy advocates is to return a third piece of identification information (assuming the first two tests are passed), such as an electronic photo, which can then be used by the validating person to match the photo on the ID, with the electronically returned photo, with the person standing there.
This system would not need to be used for every transaction, but transactions such as opening new bank accounts, extending credit, and government transactions would be required to participate. In many ways this is not an encumbering task, as most of these transactions already require some sort of network processing, or computer transactions.
The Federal Government has started to move in this direction with the DHS's "Real ID" initiative. This is just the first step, in that it standardizes the practice of issuing ID's and forces states to adhere to a common "protocol" for validating and issuing an ID to an individual. Of course, this has met with heavy resistance from privacy advocates, although I am not entirely sure why. The idea that every american is uniquely identifiable has been around for a long time, and as we can see in cases of identify theft and impersonation fraud, is a vital protection for our citizens who are otherwise easily victimized.
The last piece of the puzzle is to stop thinking of "identity theft" as a petty crime. It should become a federal crime, because it often occurs across state boundaries, and the penalties and sentencing guidelines for said federal crime should be harsh. Identity theft is alot more invasive then many felonies and involves a longer recovery time for victims, it's about time we start treating it as a real crime, requiring preventative measures (re-thinking our identification sytem) and prosecuting offenders aggressively.
Regards,
John R.
"I've got one word for you: Restitution"
This is more than financial damage.
You cannot compensate for the loss of public reputation and identity.
Who fixes your credit score?
Who gives you your house back that you lost because you couldn't pay the mortgage?
Who expunges the false charges your criminal record?
Who fixes the poor or no medical treatment you recieved because someone was committing fraud on your insurance?
How do you compensate a victim not being able to get a job for years because their finances / public records / criminal records have been defrauded?
"Needless to say, the vast majority of prisoners are NOT violent -- what exactly do they need to be locked in a cage for?"
Because they do not have the ability to be a productive member of society.
One word: Enron. How many lives were destroyed there? The money can NEVER be paid back. Such is the case, are they to be set free? If so, what is exactly is the restitution then?
"Morally speaking, only violent animals belong in the cage: rapists, murderers, aggressors of physical force or threat thereof. This is just common sense."
Bull-fucking-shit. People who repeatedly prove they cannot be a productive member of society without infringing upon other's rights deserve to be separated from such a society.
"So, do they still have you convinced? Do you still think prison is still the answer to any conceivable crime?"
The crime results in the destruction of someone's public life and reputation and you don't want this person confined to a cell?
Seems to me you are the f*cking looney.
How does this keep happening? Didn't the USPS change the locks after the first time the keys were stolen?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
He took a pre-approved credit card application from the mail, tore it to shreds and taped it back together. He filled it out with an address other than his (parents), and used his cell phone as promary number. He recieved the credit card from his father when it arrived.
On another story he did he documented signing for credit card purchases with stuff like "Not Authorized" and the like, and rarley was he declined. He had picturs to document the entire story.
http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/creditcard/applica tion.shtml
Velcroman98
Kevin
Irrational Diversions
Last year when we got our new credit cards mine had my first name but my wifes last name (she did not change her last name when we got married). I did not notice it until I was down in LA on a business trip. Checking into my hotel they took my drivers licence and credit card and checked me in. The entire week I was in LA nobody said a single thing about my credit card and drivers licence not matching.
/boggle
So I guess all you really need to do is match the first name...
Timing is everything
Je pense que oui.
That's one of the dumber things I've read. How can anyone provide proof that murder in retaliation for theft is inexcusable? What kind of proof would be acceptable? It's a statement of belief! The author did not say "No one can excuse..." He said "It's inexcusable" which anyone with even the most basic reading comprehension skills understands to mean "I could not excuse."
But beyond that idiocy lurks a deeper and more sinister implication. You are implying that you think killing thieves is acceptable. I understand you have a fanatical belief in ultra strong property rights, but isn't that taking things a little far? Really, is that what you are trying to say, that you condone killing a thieves?
In my own personal opinion, that is immoral and you are an immoral person for implying that thieves should be killed. It boils down to theft of choice. Property theft represents a reduction in choices: you can no longer use that property. Murder takes away all choices a person could possibly have made. As such, it is in no way equivalent to property theft.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's true that the merchant is responsible if they accept a stolen credit card. However, in a case of identity theft, like this one, the credit card company is responsible. It's the same idea as if someone didn't pay their credit card bill, Visa doesn't come after the merchants for it.
How the heck is this modded down? It's a damn insightful comment.
Truth is not relative. Anyone who says there are no absolutes whatsoever are lying, fooling themselves, or have an agenda.
"Given that there is never any absolutes"
"Are you absolutely sure of this? This statement assumes that itself is true, no?"
Not only that, but truth itself must exist for the statement to be true, otherwise it would have no meaning whatsoever.
So it's doubly wrong.
I didnt see anything thing in the article suggesting that a federal crime was commited by stealing/reading/opening someone's mail. What's with that?
lick the cancle button (at least thats what our Chinese QA says)
As an ex-police officer, I have to say that the parent is right on target. As soon as a situation became confused, everything would go downhill FAST. With a lot of concealed weapons around, I don't want to think how many innocents would be maimed or killed in a year given the number of altercations that occur in any large city.
(I have a story about how an irate woman went after a man whom she believed had stolen her cat. Only problem was the man's cat was male and the lost cat was female. The woman ended up in prison for breaking the windows in the man's house and his car's windshield. If she had had a gun...)
It's a far cry from admitting your fallibility (refraining from ever thinking you are absolutely right) to denying objectivity (asserting that there is no absolute truth or absolute good to strive to understand or attain). The latter is relativism; the former is simply not absolutism. And those two -isms are not even on the same spectrum; relativism isn't just non-absolutism or vice versa. Relativism is a metaphysical doctrine (talking about what actually is, or in this case, is not) denying objectivity, i.e. denying that there is something which really is true independent of anyone's opinions; absolutism is an epistemological doctrine (talking about knowledge, understanding of belief) denying subjectivity, i.e. denying that one's access to that independent truth is incomplete and colored by one's perspective. Thus, one can be both objective and subjective, as scientists strive to be. The conflation of objectivity with absolutism is the error at the root of all the relativist bull going around these days, which itself is really just a conflation of "truth" with "belief". A purely descriptive relativism is obviously true: duh, people believe different things. But it doesn't follow from that that they're all equally right. Likewise, it doesn't follow from the denial of that *that* any of them are absolutely right.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/06/13/AR2007061302033.html
The complete lack of humorous sensibilities in most of the replies in this thread surprises me about as much as this whole situation. So, as the original poster, let me pick this post at semi-random to reply to everyone and actually get serious. (Something I didn't want to do, but, hey, this is Slashdot and it's apparently full to the brim with literalists pushing their affectation to the point of absurdity.)
You said that shooters have a right to protect property in Texas. Well, that's not exactly right. (No, IANAL but I have been through the concealed carry coursework in Texas and have, thus, more than a little training in the legal issues surrounding the use of force in the state. Also, I understand that you're thinking of a federal court action but the truth is that most shootings are going to be handled in state court under state law; that's what I address here.) The absolute requirements for using deadly force to protect property in Texas are, frankly, strange. The biggest surprise to most people is that using deadly force to protect property gets a blanket OK from the law after dark. That's right; it's unnecessary force to shoot someone in the back while they're stealing your TV set at noon. At midnight, you can fire away.
Realistically, no one does that. We're Texans, not savages. (And yes, I'm giving y'all an opening to prove to me you have *some* sense of humor. We like to poke fun at ourselves; feel free to join in.)
From a broader view, though, what impressed me about the whole article was the passive/agressive weirdness of the whole thing. This was a long chase, complete with conversations between the pursuer and pursued. That's a more or less workable illustration of cognitive dissonance. If the crook is a crook, catch 'em and be done with it. Dancing around the streets is, well, just weird.
In my neck of the woods, a more agressive approach to apprehending the suspect would have been tolerated. In the small town I grew up in, the woman could have simply asked the nearest couple of men for help and gotten it. In the big city I live in now, that might not happen. And, yes, people would scatter from the Starbucks if a gun got pulled. But the aftermath would have been a quicker resolution.
There was an attempt there to contrast public attitudes in the Republik of Kalifornia with those in Texas, but that flew right over the heads, it seems, of most readers. In my neck of the woods, the reaction to this story is most likely to be "Why didn't she just clock the bad guy?" California, it seems, would rather praise her for running around in the streets like two kids playing tag for an extended period of time. To me and lots of other folks, that's just strange.
One last thing. No, pulling a gun in a Starbucks doesn't place anyone in any danger except for the person being apprehended. On average, CCW license holders are at least as cognizant of where their gun is pointed as LEOs. We know that we carry as a privilege under a license subject to revocation for any misconduct. No one wants to risk that. Any CCW holder is going to keep their gun out of sight unless it's actually needed. My only point was that if an acceptably more aggressive approach were taken to the apprehension, such a need might have arisen and, at that point, the well-considered display of a gun would most likely have ended the proceeding more quickly and cleanly.
OK, sourpusses (That doesn't include you, PPH); have at it.
freedom and stupidity are not mutually exclusive. in america, we are free to be stupid.
and many of us take advantage of this freedom.
"The victim is emotionally attatched to the crime and clearly not in the best position to properly consider the extremely complex moral and ethical problems."
Uh, huh. So what's complicated about someone repeatedly "borrowing" (Identity Infringement) someones identity, ruining their good name (and finances), and being a prick about it?
I say to bring back the punishments of olde, like public stoning, public whipping (cat of nine tails), etc. Give people something to actually FEAR if they're going to consider committing a crime (premeditated). It's pretty obvious that our current methods of punishment aren't effective, so why not go back to something that we all know worked... Granted, many will say it's a 'human rights violation', but when someone knowingly plans to violate the rights of another, then tough beans! You chose your path, knowing the consequences if you were caught, no one else made that decision but you.
I wonder though, couldn't she have just run after her yelling "Thief! Thief!"? Sooner or later someone might have grabbed the villain and held her until help arrived.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
In Albania, they would have your concealed weapon before you could draw it - ask Pruzident Bush - aka The Decider aka Master of The Universe
I apologise for the confusion: the original post should have read "...not as final as death". I don't think that manslaughter for self-defence is murder either, but I do think that taking life is to be avoided wherever possible.
I agree with the "Overrated" moderation; I didn't realise this was contentious and I really didn't know I spoke Troll.
If you are using this as a defense of killing in defense of property, I will respectfully tell you that your argument may not hold up well under scrutiny.
You are arguing that capability is equal to intent. If I get into a fistfight with someone and they find my Leatherman in my fanny pack, even though it is folded up and at the bottom under all my other junk, your argument could be taken to suggest that I am guilty of attempted murder, because I had the capability of killing someone (provided of course they didn't laugh themselves to death at the dullness of the blade), whereas the intent would not be there.
It reminds me of the <possibly/probably fictitious> story of the newspaper reporter who interviewed a military officer in charge of teaching marksmanship. She said he was teaching the young men how to be killers, since he was providing the equipment. He suggested that she might be mistaken for a prostitute, as she also had the same equipment. For some reason, the interview suddenly ended.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
She was already on probation when she committed another crime, and now she is going to get probation fro that crime, while already ON probation?
Is that like being on "Double Secret Probation" or something?
Its slimy habitual criminals like this that *REALLY* make the case for corporal punishment. Nothing says "DON'T F*CK UP AGAIN!" like a few lashings.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Habeas Corpus guarantees you the right to a trial (wherein you are present and able to defend yourself). No indefinite detention without trial. It's not directly linked to a dead person's immunity from persecution but hey, I'm not a lawyer. Are you?
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
I know this won't get modded up much, but I have to say it: Most of the time, the article which is linked from a blog isn't very meaty or involving. This article rose beyond a simple statement of fact and drew me into an exciting story to read. Who doesn't love a good chase? A great read!
You are not phrasing it correctly. The question is, "Where are those flatfoots when I thing someone else needs one?"
On the serious side, if you are disgusted with law enforcement, and think you can do better, then do something about it. See if there's a police auxiliary unit that you can join, or see if there's some form of activism that you can take up to make the police better.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
The real identity person should have first taken a hefty life insurance policy in her name and then killed the impostor. Her family would have made quick money.
On the serious side, if you are disgusted with law enforcement, and think you can do better, then do something about it.
Uh, it was a joke. I guess that there were more humorless people around here then I first expect. I know the 400th Balmer-throws-a-chair joke still gets high praise around here. Maybe I'll switch to that.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Given that there is never any absolutes and no action has any inherent meaning,
Gee. That sounds like two absolute statements in a row. Pretty good for a relativist!
To make the statement that there are no absolutes is itself a truth statement.
Your argument is self-refuting. Try again, please.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I write "See ID or DIE!!!" and 4 out of 5 will ask. Actually, they ask so frequently that I'm just going to sign my next card since I find it annoying now.
Good luck with that.
You're completely right that it's not theft; however, it's not really piracy either (which is a kind of theft by the literal definition), nor is it copyright infringement or anything like it. The acquisition of the information is a collection of different crimes (depending on how they went about getting it; opening someone's mail, etc). But the use of the information, which is the real harmful part, is one simple crime: fraud. Someone else is going around pretending to be you. So just call it fraud, or "identity fraud" if you want to be more specific (as opposed to, say, tax fraud or false advertising or some such). In fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard that term (identity fraud) used in some official capacity a few times...
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Sorry, didn't mean to be a sourpuss. I have a couple of friends who are or have been cops, and from what they've described of their jobs, I don't want it.
You hit a nerve without knowing it, and I broke my usual rule of "don't post when annoyed." I should've counted to ten first. I apologize for coming down so hard.
<extends hand to shake>
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Oh poetic irony, thy name is this article.
Another way of looking at it is that your property represents hours of your life. If that TV walking out your front door cost you a month's wages to buy, the thief is stealing a month of your life. If you have insurance it abstracts the loss (deductible + higher insurance premiums over time) but doesn't change the fact that property = money = hours of your life.
It's functionally the same as the thief kidnapping you and making you work for him for a month. i.e slavery
Credit cards are the epitome of insecure financial transactions.
For the merchant.
As the cardholder, they're very secure because you can repudiate illegitimate charges at any time, and won't be held responsible if , for example, the signatures don't match, or if the product was defective, or never shipped, etc.
While I've seen it before, using "ASK FOR ID" is risky because there's no reference signature to verify against, which is a violation of how card companies want you using that panel, and can cause problems at dispute time. However, the merchant typically should use another ID that does have a signature on it.
-Stu
So would a sleeper hold, and that wouldn't cause any lasting damage.
The title says it all. reminds me of that movie with Sandra Bullock
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
Props to Karen Lodrick for her immense determination. Most people would've given up & let the chips fall where they may. The only bad part is that this is a RARE case of an identity theft investigation being solved. The odds are just too staggering against law enforcement. It seems that people that resort to such thievery are experts at knowing where the cracks in the system are. Still, though, it gives all folks who've been victimized as such some sort of hope which is good since, in this digital age, this type of crime seems to be growing at an exponential rate.
Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. -Mahatma Ghandi
At the risk of slashdotting the poor girl, Karen has a website and blog about the whole experience, including some choice observations about Wells Fargo and their fairly useless help on the issue. Website is at http://www.fightingbacknow.com/ and the blog is at http://blog.fightingbacknow.com/. It'll piss you off even more than the article. The DA never even talked with her before making the plea. The judge didn't care what she had to say at the sentencing. Pretty pathetic.
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night; set him on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Can you REALLY not see the difference between someone who:
(a) Wakes up one morning and decides they're going to pick some random innocent weaker stranger, invade their space, assault them, beat them up, perhaps try to murder them, possibly attack their family too, and try to steal their stuff, and someone who:
(b) Always lives their life on the principle of never harming somebody and never infringing anybody else's rights or attacking anyone else UNTIL, and ONLY WHEN somebody attacks them or their family or tries to rape their wife or whatever first?
Don't try to draw a moral equivalence between the two, it is nonexistent. They are totally different - firstly the moral philosophies are completely different, and secondly, from a purely practical perspective: My family and I are PERFECTLY SAFE from (b), and IN DANGER from person (1). Can you not see that difference?
Or do you think these barbarians are otherwise decent people like you and me who are just down on their luck and were "forced" by desperate circumstances to attack others? That we would all choose to murder in similar circumstances, and therefore all need to be protected lest we behave like that someday?) These people are not like you and me.
So maybe you think people just behave this way because of the desperation of poverty. You don't really have "real" poverty in the US, nobody is THAT down and out and the economy still has jobs for anyone who wants to work and welfare for those who don't or can't. The poverty in the US doesn't compare to the real poverty we have here in Africa. But don't take my word for it, consider this: "Jay-Z went to Africa in 2006 on his first world tour and found a cause: 1.1 billion people don't have clean drinking water. He teamed up with the U.N., bought pumps, helped supply clean, running water to an entire village, and, with MTV, filmed a documentary, Water for Life. "I come from the Marcy projects, in Brooklyn," he says, "which is considered a tough place to grow up, but this [showed me] how good we have it. The rappers who say, 'We're from the 'hood,' take it from me, you're not from the 'hood. You haven't seen people with no access to water. It really put things in perspective.""
I think one measure that would reduce identity theft is to outlaw credit card solicitation mailings. In almost all cases, people throw away these mailings, and then a criminal fills them out and gets a card in the victim's name. If I want a card, it should be up to *me* to initiate it -- I don't want Podunk Bank of Idaho sending me a solicitation for a Visa card when I didn't ask for it. Plus, think of all the trees that would be saved. And if financial institutions complain that it would make it harder to acquire new customers, boo-fucking-hoo...
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman