>Responsibility doesn't require punishment (who is going around punishing non-criminal adults anyway?), a situation where negative consequences can fall upon innocent people has been created.
The negative consequences is precisely why it's correct to call the consumer a "victim" here, as mentioned in my previous comment.
>I said "apparently" because I don't see any moral reason that individual ought to be responsible for monitoring Experian's data collection, but to monitoring these reports does somewhat reduce the risk that they've created and nobody else is going to do it for you, so...
I also don't see any moral reason that individual ought to be monitoring their belongings (or paying a company to monitor their belongings for them).
>[...] the risk that they've created [...]
>As to the analogy -- who is Experian in your analogy? And how does the analogy simplify the explanation? I think it is unnecessary and obfuscating. It removes the agency if the entity that has caused the problem in the first place.
Okay but this feels like you're moving the goalposts from the original discussion of "is identity theft some sort of scheme to convince people to take responsibility for fraudulent behavior?" to "is experian responsible for leaking personal information?". "Identity theft" has existed well before credit bureau were breached.