Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> When someone uses my SSN to set up a loan, I'm not the victim, the bank is

If someone steals your car and uses it to run over a pedestrian, both you and the pedestrian are victims. They're far more damaged. And you aren't at any fault, even if you e.g. didn't lock it or even left it with the keys in. It's still going to create a mess for you.

Fraud involving a stolen identity is similar. The defrauded is most damaged. But the person whose identity was used is also in a mess. Obviously, if a bank has a loan in your name it's going to need to talk to you to straighten things out. And the way it would prefer things be straightened out is also, obviously, that the loan be paid versus poofed. (And on the other side, there are also going to be people who borrowed money who claim they never did.)

View on HN

If someone steals my car and kills someone with it, I'm not liable for murder. I just had a car stolen.

If someone who looks nothing like me steals my passport and convinces someone to loan them a bunch of money, I'm not liable for that money, the person who loaned money to someone without checking the photo is just out of luck.

If the bank does the above, suddenly it's my problem for "getting my identity stolen".

> If someone steals my car and kills someone with it, I'm not liable for murder. I just had a car stolen.

Right. You're a victim. And you'll probably be involved in the process of investigating and resolving the manslaughter.

> If someone who looks nothing like me steals my passport and convinces someone to loan them a bunch of money, I'm not liable for that money

Right. But you're obviously going to be involved in sorting out that mess, even if that begins and ends with "fuck off."

> If the bank does the above, suddenly it's my problem for "getting my identity stolen"

How? If someone opens a credit line in my name in a foreign country, and I'm never contacted about it, it's not my problem. It only becomes my problem if they try to take my stuff.

Identity theft is in the same category, from the victim's perspective, as a bank error. If a bank mistakenly initiates foreclosure proceedings against me, that's their mistake. But it's my problem. That's the basic reality of the situation. (For a lower-level analog, if you accuse the wrong person of a crime to a police officer, that's your mistake. But it's their problem.)

What you're recognising is how much more powerful the bank is than you or me. Given how common identity theft is, they shouldn't be given the benefit of doubt they (or anyone else) would if they had a piece of paper purporting to promise something from us to them. But we have to recognise this isn't a return to the status quo; we're creating an exception.

If someone kills someone with my car, and I do nothing, I'm innocent until proven guilty.

If a bank mistakenly initiates foreclosure proceedings against me, and I do nothing, what happens?

> If someone kills someone with my car, and I do nothing, I'm innocent until proven guilty

Yes. That doesn't mean you won't have any inconvenience.

> If a bank mistakenly initiates foreclosure proceedings against me, and I do nothing, what happens?

You're describing seizure. If I walk into your home and steal something and you do nothing, what happens?

The point is that if the bank gives someone a loan in my name, I'll have to prove it wasn't me, it's not the bank who has to prove it was me.

> point is that if the bank gives someone a loan in my name, I'll have to prove it wasn't me, it's not the bank who has to prove it was me

They do. When they file for e.g. foreclosure, they're submitting proof to competent authorities. You're disputing that proof because it's bad proof. But they--and the authorities--don't know that. It looks like regular proof. It's a conventional adversarial set-up. It's just incredibly unequal.

What I'm getting at is this isn't some weird switcheroo. It's how contracts work in general.

I'll have to defer to you, I'm not very familiar with these processes, and I don't want to argue more fervently than my limited certainty allows.

I think you two don’t really disagree, one of you is describing what ought to be and the other is describing how the system is currently rigged, unfortunately.

> If someone steals your car and uses it to run over a pedestrian, both you and the pedestrian are victims. They're far more damaged. And you aren't at any fault, even if you e.g. didn't lock it or even left it with the keys in. It's still going to create a mess for you.

The degree of which the individual is victimized is a direct result of the bank's efforts to push all fault and responsibility to the person who had their information used for the fraud. I would argue that the bank is victimized by the fraudster and the bank chooses to transfer the fallout of the victimization to the individual.

Of course, the difference in your example and the identity use is that one is tangible and the other is not. If someone steals your car, you've lost your car. If someone 'steals' your identity, you haven't lost it.

> Obviously, if a bank has a loan in your name it's going to need to talk to you to straighten things out. And the way it would prefer things be straightened out is also, obviously, that the loan be paid versus poofed. (And on the other side, there are also going to be people who borrowed money who claim they never did.)

True, but it shouldn't be my responsibility to prove I didn't take a loan, but instead the bank's responsibility to prove that I did once I make the claim. If they don't like the work involved, then they should perform better due diligence before giving out money, or accept this risk as a cost of doing business.

> If someone steals your car, you've lost your car. If someone 'steals' your identity, you haven't lost it.

Valid. Imagine it's a car you never use, didn't care for and won't replace. The inconvenience of being proximate to a crime is what I'm getting at.

> it shouldn't be my responsibility to prove I didn't take a loan, but instead the bank's responsibility to prove that I did once I make the claim

I know only one person who went through full-blow identity theft. Most of the consequence was in halting creditor actions. They weren't proving they didn't take out the loan as much as disqualifying attempts to seize their stuff. What made it stressful was there being no way to know when you're out of the woods.

Or, someone steals your car, commits a murder with it and places it right back at the same location in the exact condition.

The police will come after you and you will need to explain. But you still have your car.

A more fitting analogy: Imagine a bad actor buying a car that strongly resembles your own (same make, model, year, and color), then they convince the DMV to give them a duplicate of your license plate. In this analogy, the DMV is the bank.

The bad actor runs over a pedestrian. Sure, it may be a headache to prove that it wasn't actually your car, but once you do so, how much of the responsibility should you hold?

> may be a headache to prove that it wasn't actually your car, but once you do so, how much of the responsibility should you hold?

This is a good analogy. You shouldn’t hold any responsibility. But you’ll still have a problem that takes a lot of work to resolve. The impetus of resolving that falls to you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com