Comment by fragmede
9 months ago
The video doesn't quite get into the problem of identity theft, which is when someone uses your stolen creds to claim they are you, and then go on a shopping spree which may include buying a car under your name. You shouldn't be liable for debts incurred after having your identity stolen but proving that is a lot of work.
> You shouldn't be liable for debts incurred after having your identity stolen but proving that is a lot of work.
The first step is to call it what it is: fraud by misrepresentation. The owner wasn't deprived access to their identity (a key component of theft), they weren't even involved in the transaction. Companies want to have their cake and eat it - have low barriers to making sales/offering loans without rigorously verifying the identity of the person benefiting and be shielded from losses when their low-friction on-boarding fails lets in fraudsters.
If a home buyer is duped into transferring deposit into a fraudsters account, they don't blame it on corporate "identity theft" and put the escrow agent on the hook by default.
I never really understood why the onus is on any person to prove they didn’t do something. Shouldn’t the shaggy defence be sufficient?
e.g. You get hauled into court for a lawsuit demanding the loan repayment, for a loan someone else used your name to get?
- It wasn’t me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_defense
The reason the Shaggy defense doesn't work is the default assumption of the courts is that you're a deadbeat trying to game the system. This assumption comes about because in the majority of cases it is the truth. The system would be a lot nicer if there weren't people trying to scam it every hour of every day of the week.
> The reason the Shaggy defense doesn't work is the default assumption of the courts is that you're a deadbeat trying to game the system
Isn't that the opposite of innocent until proven guilty?
1 reply →
> a deadbeat trying to game the system.
The problem with putting a value judgement on this is that it will precondition people to assume good faith or bad faith on the validity of the assessment based on how they interpret the fairness of the court system.
Instead, we could just say that the majority of the cases are people trying to get out of legitimate debts. If we wanted to go farther, we could say that's because some people just don't feel responsible for their own debts and some people make a choice that a last ditch effort to get out of a debt they know they should pay rather is the lesser of two evils when the alternative is to continue to fail to provide adequately for their family given their circumstances, and how different people may draw that line at different points.
That's harder to articulate and a larger discussion that may be a tangent people aren't interested in discussing though, so it's probably just simpler to keep the value judgements out of it if the intent is to keep the discussion productive.
1 reply →
> This assumption comes about because in the majority of cases it is the truth.
Are we saying that if you can show you have enough income / assets, it'll be that much more likely that you'll be fine in those cases?
Doesn't that violate innocent until proven guilty?
1 reply →
When someone named adamomada comes to the bank for a loan, the presumption is that adamomada will repay the loan.
If they knew it wasn't you, they wouldn't have written the loan in the first place. They're asking you to repay it because they really do think it was you.
If "it wasn't me" was all anyone had to do to get out of paying a loan, many people would do it.
It's much more subtle, fraud is accepted and part of the business. Even if you are not 100% certain of the identity of the person, what matters is how likely you are going to get paid back.
For example, when you purchase online, some merchants do not check who is the owner of the card, or the address. It's done on purpose, because some people borrow the card of the others, some people don't want to use their card, etc. And overall it's all about risk management, but if the holder is really the one in front of you is just one factor among others.
1 reply →
Is that even a Shaggy defense? The whole point of the Shaggy defense was that it's saying it wasn't you despite overwhelming evidence ("She even caught me on camera - it wasn't me")
But in this scenario, there is basically zero evidence it was you
I thought it was, they would have to have some sort of evidence of your name, dob, ssn, blood type, etc. But in the end it was just your information used fraudulently; you the person did not authorize the loan and therefore it really isn’t your loan.
"Identity Fraud" is institutionalized victim blaming. The claim is that the person who's identity was stolen was defrauded (and they should protect themselves or fight back), but in reality it was the creditor that got defrauded.
And in turn libeled the person who they thought had borrowed from them.
"Identity theft" is just fraud, rephrased to make us the victims instead of the defrauded companies.
That's why SSNs are still such a big deal. Why fix the problem when you can just make it someone else's problem?
As brilliantly satirized by the mitchell & web sketch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E
In many other places SSNs are non-sensitive data. There is not much one can do just knowing a SSN. Usually one has to do some kind of verification (eg using some sort of authentication app, if online). Which is why it is so confusing.