Slashdot Mirror
Identity Theft Skeptic Ends Up As Fraud Victim
An anonymous reader writes "British TV host Jeremy Clarkson recently wrote a newspaper editorial ridiculing the uproar that had occurred after the British government admitted to losing two compact discs containing the personal information on 25 million people. To support his claim about the overhyped risks of identity theft, he published his bank account information in the article. Proving that some identity thieves have a sense of humor, a week later, he found out that someone had set up an automatic bank transfer for $1000 to a diabetes charity from his account. This comes less than a year after the CEO of LifeLock, an identity theft protection company which publishes the CEO's social security number on its website, himself was a victim of financial fraud. Back in July of 2007, a man in Texas was able to secure a $500 loan from a payday loan company using the CEO's widely publicized SSN. Will this latest incident finally prove that identity theft is real, and that publishing your own financial info is an invitation for fraud?"
To be fair what happened was someone set up a Direct Debit in his name, where a company or organisation can deduct money directly from your bank account. These are _very_ common in the UK, much more so than direct bill payment in the US.
One of the reasons they are so common is that every transaction under them is covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee. Under this, he can get an immediate refund from his bank just by asking.
The process of being approved to collect direct debits is pretty arduous, as the banks bear a lot of the costs if something goes wrong. At the same time, the consumer has a level of protection light years beyond that offered in the US for similar transactions.
It's not that uncommon for friends exchanging money in the UK (say someone borrowed some cash for a night out) to simply hand over their bank details and get the money from their friend as an electronic transfer using online banking. In general it'd be pretty difficult for someone to take money from an individual's bank account, even knowing their details for their own benefit. I'm not even sure most online banking in the US lets you deposit money directly into another person's account?
Actually, it doesn't say that he was a victim of "identity theft". It says that he is an "Identity Theft Skeptic" and that he is a "Fraud Victim". The article called the crime "identity fraud" which seems accurate. Somebody said "These is my account information, please accept my money." - Perfectly describable as "identity fraud" and nearly enough for the article submitter to assume that the fraudsters were "identity thieves" as he described them.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
You may appreciate his views on America (choice quote 'when being chased by a gang of rednecks': "I honestly believe that in certain parts of America now, people have started to mate with vegetables.")
In the UK you can only set up a direct debit to certain registered things, one of them being charities.
The pranksters couldn't have set up direct debit to their own account, for example.
No sig today...
We have a right to privacy, as the 4th Amendment says. The government exists to protect it
Wrong. That's not what the 4th amendment says. The 4th amendment puts a limit on the government's ability to invade your privacy:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It does not establish a right to privacy; that right, since it is not expressly surrendered to the government in the Constitution, is reserved to the states and the people via the 10th amendment.
It is up to your state and local government to define the limits of other individuals' ability to encroach on your privacy and property. (Similarly, it is up to those governments to specify how they protect individual's lives from the threat of other individuals.) If they fail to sufficiently protect those rights, well, there's always the 2nd amendment...
Did I say overlords? I meant protectors.
On the flip side, a recent episode of Top Gear featured the presenters in a race across London- by car, bicycle, public transport, and speedboat on the Thames. Of course the bike won...