>Smith later discovered why she had been arrested: a scammer had tricked someone into sending $1,000 to a Cash App account, one that was in her name but controlled by a criminal.

And that brings $50,000 bail and days spend in jail before trial? Should just be a civic matter at worst.

>It turned out that the account had been created using Smith's Social Security number and date of birth. But Smith, who describes herself as not tech-savvy, said she had never used Cash App. The situation sounds like one that should have been resolved quickly. But Smith says she is still being asked to prove her innocence in an ongoing criminal case. One stumbling block was that Cash App refused to hand over details of the account to Smith because she couldn't prove she was the owner. She eventually received the data through discovery in her case.

Surely some details about her are the same as in the account profile, and not just the name, else they wouldn't prosecute her for an app account that bears no relation to her. Do they prosecute people just for something happening on the same name and surname as them?

If the account had others details about here to fool people, like her photo or SSN or address, she should have got access to the account, without having to demand it via discovery.

▲

trollbridge 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To get access to the account probably required using e-mail or phone number to match 2FA for a password reset.

▲

bluGill 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> she should have got access to the account, without having to demand it via discovery.

Even if she can (which is probably the case), she wants to go through discovery so there is a paper trail of going through a process. If she does this by any other means she depends on them to have the records of that process to prove she didn't have access to the account at the time. By going through discovery there is a trail of when she transferred access to her name and so it is on them to prove she had access to the account before that date.

	▲	coldtea 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>Even if she can (which is probably the case), she wants to go through discovery The case, as per TFA, was the opposite: she wanted to get access and couldn't, and she finally managed through discovery. You describe what she "should have preferred" (in order to have the trail), I was talking about the actual case.

▲

skinfaxi 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If the account had others details about here to fool people, like her photo or SSN or address, she should have got access to the account, without having to demand it via discovery.

Did you read the quote you quoted? Your quote says the account was created with her social and date of birth.

	▲	coldtea 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>Did you read the quote you quoted? Did you read what I wrote? Did I say it wasn't created with her SSN? I'm saying "if it was created with her SSN, then the service should have given her access. We use the "if X" in my parts to mean "since X was the case, then....". And it seems it's valid in US English too: Even if the speaker has just read a report explicitly stating that X did Y, using "if" is perfectly possible. The important distinction is that "if" does not necessarily indicate doubt about whether the Y occurred. In this context, it can have two interpretations: Conditional justification: "If X did Y, then so and so is justified" The speaker is explaining what makes some reaction justifiable, without necessarily questioning the report. Uncertainty about the facts: "Assuming X really did Y, then so and so was justified." Here, the speaker is reserving judgment about whether the report is accurate. Both interpretations are available to a native English speaker.