Mark Bole wrote:
- quote -

Oh, I never said that. But I do think it's the principal "theft" risk to
worry about because the numbers can get big. There's nothing quite like
it really. I guess the next closest (for people who don't keep a Hope
Diamond in the family safe) is car theft, which is not a huge deal when
you're insured. What if you find out you are on the hook for a $50,000
debt from a house in Lake Tahoe, from someone who created an identity by
intercepting your mail? True story! (not me, luckily) Or what if someone
figures out how to hook into an investment account and siphon money out
while you're away on vacation? (not too difficult to do). You think
about this when a mail-fraud felon was caught with a hand reaching into
your mailbox, fishing out mail (true story!! that one was me.)(no I was
NOT the felon!)

A common thing I've seen with these is that the critical step involves a
financial institution granting credit without truly verifying identity.
It's not universal that even photo ID is required and only a few
transactions require a fingerprint (eg cashing certain checks). And a
photo ID can be faked convincingly enough to be useful for the cursory
check they typically do.

If that step could be trapped then protecting SSNs and account numbers
wouldn't be as important, because thieves couldn't do anything with
them. It's almost a game-theory kind of problem...and my assumption is
that it's impossible to truly protect SSNs & account numbers -- so why
not try to trap it at the next step?

-Tad

I surprised there hasnt been a class action suit yet with all the
suffering
ID theft has cost. Maybe the credit agencies dont have deep pockets
like other class targets like abestos, tobacco, fast food, etc.

Tad Borek wrote:

- quote -

The ACLU isn't giving out financial advice, last time I checked. It
would be interesting to see how financial institutions would bear up
under such stringent measures, not to mention customers. Photo ID is
required for most banking transactions these days, anyway, so hasn't
that already provided most of the security you seek? What would be the
additional benefit to justify the additional cost?

- quote -

"out of each of our control" ... as are many other aspects of financial
planning. Is ID theft really the worst threat facing folks trying to
anticipate their future financial needs? What about inflation, Social
Security insolvency, Denial-of-Service (DOS) attacks on on-line logins,
and so on?

-Mark Bole

Elle wrote:
- quote -

This is the piece that I find very annoying about ID theft, that the
responsibility isn't shifted to the financial institutions that grant
credit. The law should put the onus on them to absolutely, positively,
verify the identity of their customers, and take financial
responsibility when they get it wrong. Add in something like "treble
damages" - heck, $100k liquidated damages - benefitting the person whose
ID was taken and the industry would shape up.

But under the current system they don't really lose. The person whose ID
is taken has the responsibility for correcting it, and often bears
financial losses as well. Any cost for the industry is shifted to other
customers in the form of higher fees & interest rates.

And of course, freer credit means more cards in more hands which is how
the business thrives. So there's no incentive to start a system where,
say, every customer must pick up their card in person, and be
photographed and fingerprinted. Or photo/print must accompany every
transaction of a certain type (issue credit card, get mortgage, etc). I
guess the ACLU might not like that but perhaps it could be a voluntary
protection added to your credit record (flagged as "no credit extended
without fingerprint verification"). Or something like this -- something
substantially more than filling in a form, and seeing a credit card with
a $18k limit land in your mailbox a week later.

The frustrating thing is that it's out of each of our control. The (to
me, negligent) behavior is done by a third party so you can do
everything right & still get nailed. And it's your responsibility to
clean it up.

There have been proposed bills to shift more responsibility to financial
institutions (eg one in CA in 05 I think) but they've lost vs. the
industry lobby. If ID theft gets more common this type of legislation
may become more feasible.

-Tad

Elle wrote:
- quote -

FWIW, you can get free monitoring if you have a (free) Paypal account.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/websc...ealing-outside

John Cowart

It seems this newsgroup gets a lot of questions about
identity theft, credit scores, and the "Big 3" credit
bureaus. The article below has some interesting commentary
about how the credit bureaus have helped create a lucrative
industry (for them, of course) using so-called monitoring
systems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/bu.../12credit.html

A follow-up letter in today's NY Times from a St. John's
professor of law adds:
---
Federal law imposes on credit bureaus an obligation to
follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy in credit reports.
Yet because, as you report, credit bureaus are the biggest
beneficiaries of identity theft, they have an incentive to
use systems that enable identity theft so they can profit by
selling services to prevent it.

We will not see an end to identity theft until those with
the greatest ability to prevent it have an incentive to do
so.

---

One of the morals of the story is that paying extra to any
of the Big 3 credit bureaus for alleged 'extra security' is
likely money thrown away.