bo peep wrote on [Mon, 14 May 2007 15:42:35 -0500]:
- quote -

Debt validation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"At a minimum, the debt collector is required to confirm with the
creditor the amount being claimed is correct and that the person from
whom they are attempting to collect the debt is the person who owes it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_validation

On May 14, 3:05 pm, "Elle" <honda.lion...[at]nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
- quote -

I also recommend a police report, but the report should be against the
bank, not the individual that used your SSN. It's up to the bank to
chase him down.

- quote -

It's troubling to me that some think I need to protect someone else (a
bank in this case) from strangers defrauding them.

"Justin" <nospam[at]insightbb.com> wrote
On companies who have an account opened under false ID:
- quote -

And this takes how much time while one has a black mark on
one's credit reports? To save time while we wait for
corporations to do as you wish, I recommend individuals
being pro-active and vigilant over all financial accounts.

On May 14, 11:56 am, Justin <nos...[at]insightbb.com> wrote:
- quote -

You don't seem to know what you are talking about. Can you provide a
cite to back up your information/assertions?

Elle wrote on [Mon, 14 May 2007 14:05:02 -0500]:
- quote -

They need to prove that you owe them, that you agreed to owe them and
that you applied for credit. That's how it works.

- quote -

The burden of proof. It's their job to prove you owe them. Checking
your reports is just a pre-emptive strike to generally know what's going
on in case you need new credit.

"Justin" <nospam[at]insightbb.com> wrote
- quote -

Not in the instance to which I alluded earlier. Paperwork
had to be filled out and notarized; a police report was
recommended; an exchange w/the company that claimed I owed
them was necessary. It went pretty smoothly (over two
months), but I suspect this was laregly because the company
had had numerous complaints for ID theft.

- quote -

You said to put the burdens on corporations.

In a newsgroup whose main cause d'etre is promoting
individual financial responsibility, your view is troubling.

Elle wrote on [Mon, 14 May 2007 12:40:22 -0500]:
- quote -

Then the best defense is to educate corporations on security. Teach them
that a Social Security Number is not a password and is readily available
to anyone with time and a few bucks. Three little question and answer
security questions on a website aren't going to stop anyone if you
select them yourself once registering for an account.

Until then, they can pay the bill to fix the problems they created to
begin with.

At most it takes an hour to dispute all fraudulent accounts with each
CRA. Go get your credit report once every 4 months and check it over.

"Justin" <nospam[at]insightbb.com> wrote
- quote -

My experience is correcting my credit reports (subsequent to
finding a black mark due to theft of my identity via a phony
account opened with a certain phone company) was a pain in
the neck. I am retired and had the time to cross all t's and
dot i's. For those without time and smarts, multiply the
aggravation and time factor by 100. Figure at least two
months of chasing paper and communicating with all parties.

ID theft is a crime against society affecting finances of
individuals and corporations alike. I think we all have a
responsibility to stop crime to the extent that we are
reasonably capable.

bo peep wrote on [Mon, 14 May 2007 09:42:27 -0500]:
- quote -

Not really, it's the banks that report the items. Once they stop
reporting and you dispute them all with the CRAs, it's simple.

On May 14, 4:56 am, "Daniel T." <danie...[at]earthlink.net> wrote:
- quote -

It is my understanding that the main problem area is getting the
various credit reporting agencies (TRW, etc.) to correct your records.

Douglas Johnson wrote on [Sun, 13 May 2007 18:00:49 -0500]:
- quote -

You just need to sue for proof from the institutions that you opened the
account(s).

bo peep wrote on [Sun, 13 May 2007 08:41:54 -0500]:
- quote -

Which makes no difference to the OPs original point, as it was current
issued ccs they knew about that they were worried about.

Does anyone have any first hand knowledge of the banking systems fee
structuring that could provide some insight?

Daniel T., what I think Elle was getting at is that banks know they
will be defrauded to some extent and incorporate that into their
operating expenses. These expenses are then passed onto consumers by
way of higher fees than would be present in the absence of fraud. "No
free lunch" and all that.

However, if you're a bank to what extent do you actually try to
prevent ID theft? At some point the marginal cost of security will
outweight the marginal benefit of preventing ID theft. If the bank is
economically rational they are providing ID security to the point that
Marginal cost = Marginal benefit. So even in the presence of declining
ID theft, the consumer still bears the new cost of ID theft security.
Simply put, If the bank spends $100 million on security to prevent
$100 million in fraud they come out smelling like roses (because of
their consumer safety measures), but their operating expenses, and our
fees, haven't changed a cent.



P.S. - avoid high interest credit card debt (this is my financial
planning relevancy requirement)!!!

"Daniel T." <daniel_t[at]earthlink.net> wrote
Elle
- quote -

This is like my saying to you to please make it easy for
someone to steal your identity. Let's make these lending
institutions pay!

The above two paragraphs represent neither of our
viewpoints.

I do not agree with your promotion of people being less
responsible when it comes to minimizing losses due to ID
theft. Most people in the U.S. do not live in a vacuum. We
have to try to get along with our neighbors, so AFAIC some
consideration should be had for acting in all's interest,
especially when the "cost" (a little time watching one's
credit card accounts) is so low.

I am happy to agree to disagree and likewise will withdraw
now.

"Elle" <honda.lioness[at]nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
- quote -

By all means then, simply pay the debt if someone defrauds the bank.
That way we can all be "paid" for your efforts.

My basic point is: when someone defrauds the bank, you are not the
victim until the bank attempts to collect from you. Then you are the
victim, but it is the bank that is culpable. In marketing the crime as
"identity theft" the bank is trying to make you feel like the defrauder
has committed a crime against you instead of them.

[Note to Moderators: This is starting to feel like something that should
be in a politics newsgroup rather than here. I'll stop now.]

bo peep <cowartmisc1[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

I can believe it. A couple of things about your comment above are
inaccurate though. It would be more accurate to say, "Once someone has
committed fraud against several banks using your name and SSN, many
banks would rather make your life difficult in the hopes that you are
willing to give them money instead of accepting the loss and making the
insurance claim."

You see, "identity theft" is a misnomer perpetrated by the banks in an
effort to make you feel responsible for their problems.

On May 13, 8:34 am, "Daniel T." <danie...[at]earthlink.net> wrote:
- quote -

FWIW, on average, once a person's identity is stolen, it takes about
600 hours of effort on that person's part to correct all of the
consequences. The less consequences there are, the less time it should
take to correct everything.

"Daniel T." <daniel_t[at]earthlink.net> wrote:

- quote -

Unscrewing an identity theft can take considerable time and effort. You are
essentially trying to prove a negative -- "I did not open that account."
Strictly speaking, the burden of proof is on the institution, but practically
speaking, it is on you. They can make a mess of your credit rating while you
are chanting "Not me, not my signature, not my picture, I was not in that town."

Just ask my daughter.

-- Doug

"Daniel T." <daniel_t[at]earthlink.net> wrote
- quote -


The lending institutions will pass along the costs of ID
theft to consumers one way or another. If everyone, or even
just some are vigilant, all will be "paid" for their
efforts.

bo peep <cowartmisc1[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

The monthly statement in question is the one from the credit reporting
bureau that the OP is getting. My question is, why is it so important to
make that a daily report? Seems to me monthly is more than adequate.

The OP raised a concern about someone stealing his/her identity "near
the beginning of the month" and it not getting caught until the
statement comes in at the end of the month. I say "big deal" that's the
banks problem, not the OPs.

Keep in mind "identity theft" is not a crime against you, it's a crime
against the lending institution that may hurt you only if the lending
institution is being obstinate and trying to push its problems into your
lap. Your catching the fraud earlier, rather than later, is a nice thing
you can do for them if you are so inclined, but unless the banks are
willing to pay me for the service, I'm not going to expend a lot of
effort in it.