This kind of behavior is caused by rules that put the cost of fraud on the payment processor rather than the customer, even though the payment processor's primary tools to prevent it basically involve locking the customer's account based on vague suspicion and hearsay.
When someone has stolen your identity, there isn't really anything you can tell someone to prove you're you. Having your password or SSN or access to your email or the answers to your security questions tell them nothing. The perpetrator could have those things. Your account may have been created by the perpetrator to begin with and the person whose name is on it has never even used their service. How are they supposed to tell? Even if you're you, the perpetrator may still have access to whatever method was used to access your account to begin with and if they turned it back on there would be more fraud (which causes the payment processor to lose money instead of you). So your account is locked forever and you can pound sand.
The alternative to people getting locked out of their accounts is having accounts without reversible transactions. You don't want this for your brokerage account, but you do want it for the account you're using to buy things with petty cash. Because then the account never has more than $1000 in it to begin with, which limits your losses to that amount, but then the payment processor doesn't have any incentive to ban your account because the losses are yours. If you're careless and reuse passwords, you might lose the $1000, but you don't get banned forever from making financial transactions. Then you learn your lesson and do better next time.
That would also result in lower transaction fees, because most of the transaction fees go to paying the cost of fraud protection. And it would reintroduce the incentive to prevent fraud to the people best situated to do that (stop reusing passwords, people), so there would also be less fraud, which is better for everybody.