Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No Justice For Victims of Identity Theft

Posted by timothy on from the revenge-would-be-the-best-revenge dept.

chicksdaddy writes: The Christian Science Monitor's Passcode features a harrowing account of one individual's experience of identity theft. CSM reporter Sara Sorcher recounts the story of "Jonathan Franklin" (not his real name) a New Jersey business executive who woke up to find thieves had stolen his identity and racked up $30,000 in a shopping spree at luxury stores including Versace and the Apple Store. The thieves even went so far as to use personal info stolen from Franklin to have the phone company redirect calls to his home number, which meant that calls from the credit card company about the unusual spending went unanswered. Despite the heinousness of the crime and the financial cost, Sorcher notes that credit card companies and merchants both look on this kind of theft as a "victimless crime" and are more interested in getting reimbursed for their losses than trying to pursue the thieves. Police departments, also, are unable to investigate these crimes, lacking both the technical expertise and resources to do so. Franklin notes that he wasn't even required to file a police report to get reimbursed for the crime: "'As long as their loss is covered they move on to [handling] tomorrow's fraud,' Franklin observes. And that makes it harder for victims like Franklin to move on, 'In some way, I'm seeking some sense of justice,' Franklin said. 'But it's likely not going to happen.'"

9 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. The real problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That you have an identity to steal. Our society needs to be a "lender beware" society more than relying on individuals to protect that which isn't in their power (nor the government's power) to protect. An "identity" isn't non-abstract enough to have legal meaning. I owe you money? Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. (something they don't have to do today) Force lenders and credit card companies to take ownership of the issue, not individuals.

  2. Re:Get over it by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Until the next person who 'bought' that identity does the same thing.

    Having your space violated, either physical or online, is not always easy to get over. If your house is broken into and someone steals your TV, fine...you get a replacement TV. But you still feel 'violated'.

  3. That's partly how it should be by SecurityGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The world at large should consider it mostly not your problem when someone opens a credit card account in your name. It should be as simple as saying "Nope, not me!", and it's actually the credit card company that has been defrauded, not you. That's why I really hate the term identity theft. I had that happen to me, and my identity wasn't stolen. I still had it. My credit card company was defrauded to the tune of a couple thousand dollars, but I was mildly annoyed and had to spend a few minutes confirming that a few purchases weren't made by me.

    I think it should still be considered a criminal act, and obviously things like changing your medical record or arrest record can have very serious consequences, but it's a positive that creditors understand that when this happens, THEY have a problem. I much prefer that to them coming after me and trying to stick me with the consequences of their lax security.

    1. Re:That's partly how it should be by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly this.Further, the various lenders and credit reporting agencies shoul;d be forced to compensate you for the time you spend fixing their screw-up for them.

    2. Re:That's partly how it should be by fisted · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I had that happen to me, and my identity wasn't stolen. I still had it.

      Yeah, I couldn't agree more. It's not identity theft, it's identity copyright infringement

      --
      CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
    3. Re:That's partly how it should be by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why I really hate the term identity theft. I had that happen to me, and my identity wasn't stolen. I still had it. My credit card company was defrauded to the tune of a couple thousand dollars, but I was mildly annoyed and had to spend a few minutes confirming that a few purchases weren't made by me.

      Actually it was the merchant which was defrauded. When you tell the credit card company that the purchase wasn't made by you, they turn around and tell the merchant to prove the purchase was made by you. If the merchant can't, the merchant eats the loss, not the credit card company. Those exorbitant interest rates credit card companies charge are to pay for deadbeats who don't pay back their credit card accounts, not fraud.

      That's the real problem. The parties in control of credit card security - the credit card companies - have shifted the negative consequences of fraud onto a third party - the merchants. The merchants have a huge incentive to minimize fraud, but have no control over it other than some rudimentary tools the credit card companies provide them (you know how gas station pumps require you to enter you home zip code? That's the credit card companies' idea of "security"). Since they don't directly suffer the consequences of fraud, they've been sitting on their asses for 40 years doing nothing about it. If they'd been forced to pay for fraud, we probably would've all gotten chip and PIN in the 1980s when two-key encryption was taking off.

      Anyhow, the personal cost of identity theft is clearing up your credit history afterward. You try to open up a new bank account, the bank sees all this activity and red flags on your credit report which you claim was due to identity theft, and just to be on the safe side the bank denies your new account. So in that respect it really is identity theft - someone has deprived you of the (presumably) clean credit linked to your identity and polluted it with their scummy one.

  4. Re:Boo Hoo by blue+trane · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The companies are hedged, I bet. Insured. I bet no one loses any money. The insurance companies reinsure and profit no matter what happens.

    Why even prosecute shoplifters? Physical stores should get the same kind of insurance.

    Michael Brown should have been let off, not even chased. No one loses money because the finance industry creates money out of thin air to cover all losses.

  5. Re:Boo Hoo by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Banks are fully hedged. When Goldman Sachs stood to lose a few billions ...

    Just because they were bailed out on billions, it does not follow that they are going to get a bail out for a thousand dollar credit card fraud.

  6. Re:Get over it by amxcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Until you get mugged because you are carrying hundreds of dollars of cash around. No one will reimburse that either when it's cash. It's all your loss. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against cash in the least, but there is no fool proof method. Before debit and ATM cards were all the rage, more people got mugged for the cash they carried on them. Now that cards are more prevalent, less people have cash on them to drive the "muggings" market, but CC and bank card fraud is through the roof.