We should also stop calling it ID theft. The identity is not stolen, the owner do still have it. Calling it ID theft is moving the responsibility from the one that a fraud is against (often banks or other large entities) to an innocent 3rd party

▲

herbturbo 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes tricking a bank into thinking you are one of their customers is not the same as assuming someone else’s identity.

	▲	messagebus 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		As always, Mitchell and Webb hit the nail precisely on the head. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E

▲

JohnFen 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Calling it ID theft is moving the responsibility from the one that a fraud is against (often banks or other large entities)

The victim of ID theft is the person whose ID was stolen. The damage to banks or other large entities pales in comparison to the damage to those people.

▲

rypskar 6 days ago | parent [-]

I did probably not formulate myself good enough. By calling it ID theft you are blaming the person the ID belongs to and that person have to prove they are innocent. By calling it by the correct words, bank fraud, the bank have to prove that the person the ID belongs to did it. No ID was stolen, it was only used by someone else to commit fraud. The banks don't have enough security to stop it because they have gotten away with calling it ID theft and putting the blame on the person the ID belongs to

	▲	erikerikson 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		While I agree that bank fraud is a more accurate and just labeling, I observe that people are required to prove their innocence regularly.