Slashdot Mirror
More Than 1 Million Kids Had Their Identities Stolen in 2017 (nypost.com)
More than 1 million children were victims of identity fraud in 2017, a new study from Javelin Strategy & Research found, costing a total of $2.6 billion. From a report: With limited financial history or existing account activity, children are the most likely to become victims of new-account fraud, the research showed. These attacks can occur before children even become active internet users, with some two-thirds of victims being under the age of eight. The overall numbers are likely even higher, said Al Pascual, research director at Javelin said, since their study relied on parents and guardians reporting cases of identity theft. In many cases, the parent or another relative may be the one using a child's identity to start a new account.
actually yes, children's SS numbers are in fact used to establish lines of credit by identity thieves. And to get utilities and rental contracts. Also identities are used to get government benefits
A minor's identity is a blank slate.
No arrests, no bad credit, no legal troubles in another state... It's a fresh start to adult life, just as soon as that identity turns 18 and stops raising the real big red flags on background checks. Usually for a job or credit account, the person running the check isn't actually dealing with the fraudster, so they're unlikely to notice that the guy who clearly looks middle-aged is claiming to be 20.
Unfortunately, the other common case is that it's often parents who honestly don't think they're doing anything wrong. They screwed up their own credit, but now they think they've learned their lesson, and since it's their own kid, the parents think they're doing good for the child, establishing credit history early. Then they often slip into old habits, thinking they have lots of time to pay back the credit and fix their kid's rating before the kid actually needs it. Then they forget the account altogether, and the kid is screwed.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The overall numbers are likely even higher, said Al Pascual, research director at Javelin said, since their study relied on parents and guardians reporting cases of identity theft. In many cases, the parent or another relative may be the one using a child's identity to start a new account.
That indicates to me that the exact numbers are hard to arrive at because of confounding factors. One is that it relies on self-reporting which may not accurately allow researchers to determine the real extent of the issue. The other is that the parents in their capacity as legal guardians may be creating the accounts for the child in which case it may be difficult to classify as identity theft. In some circumstances this is a legal requirement since children under a certain age are prohibited from having an account without some kind of parental permission or oversight.
What I was getting at is trying to understand for what purpose anyone would steal a child's identity, which I don't believe the summary explains. The article provides some clarification to this point, that in 33% of cases a family friend is signing someone up for an account that they don't want, but doesn't indicate what the other 66% of cases are for. If lines of credit are being opened under a child's name, there's a bigger problem than just identity theft. Maybe that's possible and I'm simply under the misinformed impression that financial institutions were doing any kind of due diligence.
Anecdotal story: me, 40 year old, fully employed for as long as I can remember, show up at a bank's desk, get rejected from various offers because of what I'm being told is "not enough history". How the hell does a 18 old get anything but a lollipop?
Or health insurers who require enough data to clone your kids, but can't adequately secure their data warehouses.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Replying to my own post before others say "parents:"
Parents committing fraud will be very difficult to detect until the child/victim discovers it on his own.
How can a bank tell the difference between a kid opening a credit card at his parent's urging so he can build up a credit history, and a parent opening the same account for fraudulent purposes? It is difficult or impossible without a personal interview, which isn't something most banks are going to do for your average consumer account.
But as for other perpetrators - banks should be diligent about authenticating the child-applicant as well as the parent/legal guardians who are signing the documents and about authenticating that they really are the parents or legal guardians.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Yes, damn me for giving Blue Cross my children's Social Security numbers and a host of other information, as they demanded in order to insure us. Totally my fault they turned out to have shitty security. :eyeroll:
A child's identity has no good history, but it has no bad history either, so it's suitable for, oh, getting utility services, or low-limit credit cards, or maybe a low-value loan with collateral, like a used car. Stuff that we typically expect college students who've just moved away from their parents to need to do.
as to due diligence, if the SSN has no history, then the credit bureaus will have no data attached to it. So the financial institution has no basis to decide that the applicant isn't the holder of the SSN, unless they're really on the ball and demand both a photo ID and the SSN card itself, and refuse to accept discrepancies in the name... which is rare.