Hacker News Reader

Comment by civilized | Hacker News Reader

If identity theft were to get so common that the data became statistically unreliable, we would be long past the point that even Congress would feel compelled to do something about it.

View on HN

There’s no such thing as identity theft, it is impossible to steal an identity, the person still has their identity. It is impersonation. The victim is the entity that has fallen for the impersonation (likely a bank, etc), the perpetrator is the one who did the impersonation, and the impersonated person is just some uninvolved third party.

I know it is pedantic but it is important to keep in mind because dumping the need to seek redress on the uninvolved third party is ridiculous, so we shouldn’t use language that plays into that point of view.

100% agree, except the impersonated person is impacted when their credit score eventually gets screwed and they can no longer get loans themselves. So, in that regard, they are also a victim.

Although I think it is more accurate to call them a victim of something like slander by the credit agency, in that case. I mean, I’m not sure exactly what the laws are around slander, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some cutout for cases in which the person actually believed the lies they were repeating, but if an organization represents itself as an expert in people’s trustworthiness it obviously has a heightened responsibility to verify what it is repeating.

Credit reporting agencies have immunity from slander claims unless you can prove malice.

So you've found the problem. If they are immune from the crime, they won't stop practicing it.

My understanding is that in most cases, slander/libel is never a crime anyway.

It's merely a tort (wrong). It never rises to the level of a crime. The few instances/places where slander is a crime in the US (historically or otherwise) are very problematic and subject to abuse.

Perhaps this specific kind of slander should be criminal, but it might be the only kind that should be. Not only would you need to justify that philosophically, but somehow convince legislators to make it that way (at the federal level, I should think).

It'd be a tough journey.

Well, ok. There's no need to make it a literal crime. Those companies just need to be responsible for correcting the damage they cause.

Don't forget compensating the injured party for any consequential losses. Which in this case might be a house or the income from a good job. See how fast they clean up their act if they can be held responsible for six or seven figures of damages every time they make a serious mistake.

I don’t think it is that tricky philosophically; they are representing themselves as experts on a topic so, they have a responsibility to ensure that they have a professional level of competence in it. Just like doctors and civil engineers.

Agreed that getting legislators to do anything about it will be a pain, though.

Would them ignoring a few certified letters asking them to contact you to correct slanderous significant errors in your information be enough to show malice?

That’s what a dispute is. It’s required by the FCRA.

The impersonated person is impacted because the credit agency is lying about them to other people.

The point is that the impersonated person shouldn't have these fraudulent items reported on their credit. That's the crux of how the responsibility of cleaning up this mess is absolutely on the wrong person

It’s identity fraud frankly. Hold consumers harmless and put the burden on the industry (if you did not have an high identity assurance you’re on the hook for costs and losses) and this problem evaporates. Also outlaw credit monitoring and identity theft insurance.

The banks aren't the only victims. The person has had their credit rating damaged, and may even be on the hook for fraudulent charges made in their name.

> The person has had their credit rating damaged

This is called libel. This person is a victim of a crime the credit reporting agency committed.

Libel is an intentional act. Agencies are not intentionally reporting false information. Banks may be reporting false information, but even they are unaware until the fraud has been discovered, by which time information they thought was true has already been reported.

Libel can be intentional or a reckless disregard for the truth. I don't know what the courts would interpret that standard to be here.

A classic Mitchell & Webb sketch: https://youtu.be/-c57WKxeELY

Thank you for that, I'm actively looking to see how I can watch this show now.

This is from That Mitchell and Webb Sound, a radio show they did. The BBC don’t tend to region-lock audio, so you should be able to listen at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007lqrh (or using the BBC Sounds app).

I completely agree. But if I recall correctly, they've set up the law so that if they get duped, you're on the hook for whatever they got duped into giving the impersonator. That's the biggest problem.

Tell me you're Bank of America and I'll give you a thousand dollars. You disappear into the night and I'll go get my thousand dollars back from the real Bank of America. Is that how the law is setup? (Honestly, making a website that looks like a legit Bank of America website is about as difficult as getting someone's SSN.)

You give Congress too much credit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com