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?"
It seems like making people paranoid about protecting their personal data is the wrong way to attack the problem, especially given the significant chance that whatever they do, some 3rd party will release that data and put them at risk.
Instead, we should remove the incentive for identity theft and make it MUCH more onerous and difficult to get anything worthwhile out of stolen financial data.
Plus, it'd be nice to not get those 10-15 credit card offers a week in the mail.
Copying music online isn't stealing because it's copyright violation.
Obtaining and using a persons identity isn't theft because it's impersonation fraud.
Please let's use the correct terms.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
This guy is a jackass.
"I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has set up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account," he said. "The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.
Admitting the error of his previous article dismissing identity theft concerns, he wrote that, "I was wrong and I have been punished for my mistake." The incident seems to have changed his opinion about the risks to which the 25 million Brits have been exposed. "Contrary to what I said at the time, we must go after the idiots who lost the discs and stick cocktail sticks in their eyes until they beg for mercy."
So, does that mean that every charity and bank out there who has to deal with administrative headaches because he gave his information away should get to poke sticks in his eyes?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
If a crime bas been committed the police have good reason to seek to have privacy doors opened - perhaps with the oversight/approval of a judge. Recent UK legislation is giving civil servants wide investigation powers - without judicial oversight.
This smacks of an excuse.
The key word being "his", as opposed to "25 million peoples".
There is a certain difference between being careless in a way which will cause you trouble, and being careless in a way which will cause other people trouble.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
He published is information, and the only thing that happened was an automatic withdraw?
If it was as rampant as people are bing led to believe, his account wold have been empty.
Yes, it exists, but I don't think it's worth the panic people tend to go into.
Of the millions and millions of people whose information has been stolen or lost or were copied froma computer system, only a very tiny fraction have been the victims of identity theft.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on