Hacker News Reader

Comment by matheweis | Hacker News Reader

> The problem underlying identity theft is not the existence of social security numbers, but rather, how little authentication is done for a person requesting credit.

> Why don't they do [stronger authentication] for credit card requests? At a guess, it's because these stronger schemes are too inconvenient, and will drive away consumers who are trying to apply for credit.

> If that guess is correct, it suggests that the real solution is regulatory: make credit providers liable for the full damages, including ongoing inconvenience, suffered by victims of identity theft. SSNs are not the problem; authentication commensurate with the risk to all parties, including especially individuals, is.

Doesn't sound that hard to me...

View on HN

I want to clarify that it doesn’t sound like a hard technical problem. Bending the will of our politicians is much harder than it should be, unless you have a lot of money.

Keep in mind the credit reporting agencies are well known to give white glove treatment to senior politicians, their families, and even their friends. Thus no one who matters has to deal with the shit you or I have to deal with if our credit is stolen.

What kind of money are we talking?

According to OpenSecrets[0] (MPAA PAC), it’s $100k - $200k, or about $1k - $5k per politician. That’s actually a lot less than I expected

[0]: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00139519

This latest article about Detroit developers seems to support that [0]. A meager $300K dished out to politicians opened up the possibility of $700M-$1B plus the developers of these buildings can collect income tax from businesses and folks who occupy them for the next 20 years.

What's the now?!

[0] https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/how-dan-gilbert-just-scor...

It's a bit more subtle than that, in the same way that the cost of an ad is larger than the cost to place that ad somewhere. But on steroids.

If you just show up and dump $300k on some politicians laps, the effect isn't likely to be particularly overwhelming. You need to cultivate relationships, wait for a good moment (when the money is disproportionately valuable to said politician), at least sell the perception that you're able and willing to dish up more in the future, etc.

So the actual cost is a lot higher than the amount the politician actually receives.

I feel we need to stop complaining and begin playing this game as the others do. A community such as HN alone could raise this much in a matter of minutes.

My take on it that I've expressed for years: "I'm not surprised that politicians are whores. I'm horrified that they're CHEAP whores."

This is Vice, everything is hard for them. Hey cover interesting stories with glorious incompetence, the Dunning-Kruger daily...

Curious, but did you see who was the author of the piece?

I did, but I also saw this:

They could also do things like send paper mail to the last long-term address, to confirm it. Why don't they do that for credit card requests? At a guess, it's because these stronger schemes are too inconvenient, and will drive away consumers who are trying to apply for credit. If that guess is correct, it suggests that the real solution is regulatory: make credit providers liable for the full damages, including ongoing inconvenience, suffered by victims of identity theft. SSNs are not the problem; authentication commensurate with the risk to all parties, including especially individuals, is.

That’s a loooooot of guesses for my taste.

One could argue that neither the reputation of Vice nor the reputation of the author has anything to do with the quality of the article. You're both appealing to authority (or non-authority for the GP).

True. But the author's reputation in the security area makes me more inclined to listen to what he has to say.

An article with the same title, but written by, say, a marketing specialist would probably get a more sceptical reading.

It's worth nothing that Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy only when the authority is not an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.

Deferring to a subject matter expert is logical.

There’s something to be said, especially when this site is so full of subject matter experts (although I am not one), for the notion that a discussion of somebody’s authority without including a discussion of the subject at hand is by definition, an appeal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com