Slashdot Log In
Identity Theft Skeptic Ends Up As Fraud Victim
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jan 10, 2008 02:52 PM
from the eyes-like-paul-mccartney dept.
from the eyes-like-paul-mccartney dept.
An anonymous reader writes "British TV host Jeremy Clarkson recently wrote a newspaper editorial ridiculing the uproar that had occurred after the British government admitted to losing two compact discs containing the personal information on 25 million people. To support his claim about the overhyped risks of identity theft, he published his bank account information in the article. Proving that some identity thieves have a sense of humor, a week later, he found out that someone had set up an automatic bank transfer for $1000 to a diabetes charity from his account. This comes less than a year after the CEO of LifeLock, an identity theft protection company which publishes the CEO's social security number on its website, himself was a victim of financial fraud. Back in July of 2007, a man in Texas was able to secure a $500 loan from a payday loan company using the CEO's widely publicized SSN. Will this latest incident finally prove that identity theft is real, and that publishing your own financial info is an invitation for fraud?"
Related Stories
Submission: Identity Theft Critic Ends Up As Fraud Victim by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Poetic justice (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Poetic justice (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
They didn't have a lot of choices... (Score:5, Informative)
The pranksters couldn't have set up direct debit to their own account, for example.
Parent
Re:They didn't have a lot of choices... (Score:4, Interesting)
"I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has set up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account," he said. "The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.
Admitting the error of his previous article dismissing identity theft concerns, he wrote that, "I was wrong and I have been punished for my mistake." The incident seems to have changed his opinion about the risks to which the 25 million Brits have been exposed. "Contrary to what I said at the time, we must go after the idiots who lost the discs and stick cocktail sticks in their eyes until they beg for mercy."
So, does that mean that every charity and bank out there who has to deal with administrative headaches because he gave his information away should get to poke sticks in his eyes?
Parent
Re:They didn't have a lot of choices... (Score:4, Interesting)
The key word being "his", as opposed to "25 million peoples".
There is a certain difference between being careless in a way which will cause you trouble, and being careless in a way which will cause other people trouble.
Parent
Re:Poetic justice (Score:5, Informative)
You may appreciate his views on America [wikipedia.org] (choice quote 'when being chased by a gang of rednecks': "I honestly believe that in certain parts of America now, people have started to mate with vegetables.")
Parent
Re:Poetic justice (Score:5, Funny)
I bet he's a terrist too!
Parent
Re:Poetic justice (Score:5, Funny)
He's British.
Parent
Re:Poetic justice (Score:5, Informative)
On the flip side, a recent episode of Top Gear featured the presenters in a race across London- by car, bicycle, public transport, and speedboat on the Thames. Of course the bike won...
Parent
Not quite (Score:4, Informative)
Just as a point of relevance here, Clarkson was victim to a fraudulent direct debit [bbc.co.uk], not a standing order. While both are useful for similar things, the mechanics in the two cases are quite different.
A standing order is normally some sort of regular payment you set up yourself for a constant amount, such as a monthly rent payment to a landlord. A direct debit is set up by the recipient and can vary in amount and date it is collected, and is typically used for paying things like utility bills, where the money owed varies a bit from month to month.
The key difference, for the purposes of debunking the hype here, is that because of the obvious danger in letting a third party instruct your bank on your behalf and then withdraw your money remotely, all direct debits are covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee [bba.org.uk]. Among other things, this says that if something goes wrong, your bank must refund your missing money first and ask questions later. A corollary of the latter is that Clarkson is unlikely to have any trouble getting his missing money back here, ironic and amusing as the incident is.
Parent
Schadenfreude (Score:5, Funny)
And learn what a pickup truck is designed for, would ya?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or to be put on top of a building being demolished (hilux)
Or to have an incredibly large outboard motor attached to the back and get capsize on a reservoir (another hilux, which he broke!)
Or to be driven to the north pole. (modified hilux)
What did you think they were designed for?
Bwahahahahaha! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bwahahahahaha! (Score:5, Funny)
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny: "Ain't I a stinker?"
Parent
If you give it away (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, what defrauders do with it might constitute stealing. But that's less "identity theft" and more "money theft" if you ask me.
Re:If you give it away (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, giving away the information for free doesn't make it a crime for you to possess the information. If you then use it, claiming you are a person you are not, that's fraud and illegal in most jurisdictions.
Parent
Re:If you give it away (Score:5, Insightful)
Before anyone claims that giving his bank account number out was irresponsible - it's printed on the bottom of your cheques.
[1] Even if more than one person can have the same name, it should be easier than normal in this case.
Parent
Re:If you give it away (Score:5, Insightful)
With regards to "identity theft" vs "money theft", the end result is usually the theft of money. The label of "identity theft" basically describes HOW the theft took place...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If you give it away (Score:4, Interesting)
Obtaining and using a persons identity isn't theft because it's impersonation fraud.
Please let's use the correct terms.
Parent
Re:If you give it away (Score:5, Funny)
Signed
Sam B. Carswell
4994 Pin Oak Drive
Whittier, CA 90603
Email Address: SamBCarswell@fontdrift.com [fakemailgenerator.com]
Phone: 562-943-0713
Mother's maiden name: Grondin
Birthday: January 27, 1955
Visa: 4532 7971 3753 8401
Expires: 12/2009
SSN: 550-80-1765
UPS Tracking Number for my Plasma TV: 1Z 195 055 46 3018 447 5
Parent
Re:If you give it away (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:If you give it away (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:If you give it away (Score:5, Funny)
I do.
Parent
He had it coming... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He had it coming... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Privacy Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
The 4th Amendment already makes explicit the right to such privacy, but it clearly isn't enough anymore - not for a long time. But since the 4th Amendment itself was merely an emphasis of a right already implicit in the Constitution, but worth repeating explicitly to ensure government protection of it (like the rest of the Bill of Rights), it's perfectly appropriate to reiterate it in terms easily enforceable in the current era, like copyright terms.
Re:Privacy Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
America is built on the simple, but radical (for the 1780s, anyway) realization that people have rights, create governments to protect those rights, so when we create them, we must create them with powers to protect them, but not to abuse them. We have a right to privacy, as the 4th Amendment says. The government exists to protect it,
Or are you going to tell me that, say, the 13th Amendment banning slavery limits only the government from owning slaves? No, freedom is a right. Rights are inalienable, not just "inalienable by the government".
Parent
Re:Privacy Amendment (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. That's not what the 4th amendment says. The 4th amendment puts a limit on the government's ability to invade your privacy:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It does not establish a right to privacy; that right, since it is not expressly surrendered to the government in the Constitution, is reserved to the states and the people via the 10th amendment.
It is up to your state and local government to define the limits of other individuals' ability to encroach on your privacy and property. (Similarly, it is up to those governments to specify how they protect individual's lives from the threat of other individuals.) If they fail to sufficiently protect those rights, well, there's always the 2nd amendment...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't your bank the only institution able to transfer money out of your account? Don't you have to show your ID? Don't you have to sign some documents???
My opinion is ID theft is only possible because the clerks in the banks are too lazy to check for an ID or a signature. Whenever you go to a bar in the US, they will look at your ID before they serve booze, but if you set up a $xxxx account/load no one will ever check it. This is just how ridiculous the system is. Account number without proof of identity should be as useless as a car without gas.
Re:How?? (Score:5, Informative)
Not at all. I've just set up direct debits to pay my bills just by sending my bank account number to the electricity company. They do the rest. Presumably they just take my word for it that it's my money, and then the bank sets up the debit without asking any questions.
Oh actually I think there was a 'this is not a fraud' tickybox.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you can sign a form with a company allowing them access to your account.
I've done this with my insurance company for years. However, I won't let anyone else do it because I've heard too many stories of the company messing up and taking too much money too often or what have you. I don't remember the particulars, but I don't think I had to involve my ba
Naiveate` (Score:5, Informative)
I used to run credit cards and EFT as part of a previous job, and I was responsible for setting up the system. The only thing I need for an electronic funds transfer is your bank routing and account numbers. All that information is available on a voided check.
The only security you have, is that it's difficult to complete these kinds of transactions anonymously. Bank fraud is a big deal if you are caught.
The same is true of credit cards. Your signature is a contract promising to pay. It protects the business against customers reversing charges on purchased goods. It is not used for authentication of any form.
Parent
No, there are systems to do it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How?? (Score:4, Informative)
Direct debit can only be set up for large institutions like major phone company, electricity company etc... These are either tight to a particular location or your ID is checked (for instance for mobile phones). It's pretty hard to do anything nasty with that.
Wire transfer over the internet requires a one time pad in Germany. You receive a list of codes via secure mail (the same as the one used to send you credit card PIN). In France it sucks, but basically it is not so different from the US, you have to sign up for the service and various password / identification schemes are put in place (although they suck compared to the German OTP).
In France one of my banks even required me to go to a branch to register the bank number before I could make a transfer.
Parent
Will it lead to stricter regulation of credit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead, we should remove the incentive for identity theft and make it MUCH more onerous and difficult to get anything worthwhile out of stolen financial data.
Plus, it'd be nice to not get those 10-15 credit card offers a week in the mail.
Re:Will it lead to stricter regulation of credit? (Score:5, Funny)
No, no, no! You're looking at this all wrong!
I LOVE getting those free offers in the mail - but only the ones with the return-postage-paid envelopes.
Did you know that you can tape that envelope to ANYTHING (almost...) that weighs less than 70 lbs.? And it will be delivered?
That's how I get rid of my old 486, 386, etc computers. And I don't fill up MY landfill! (And they have to dispose of them correctly!)
Sweeeet!!
Parent
Hoist on his own petard (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if he poked sticks into his own eyes ... after all, he did exactly the same thing, the only exception being that he did it to himself, rather than to others.
I can only hope he continues to contribute to the charity so he can stay humble.
Direct Debit Guarantee (Score:5, Informative)
One of the reasons they are so common is that every transaction under them is covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee [bacs.co.uk]. Under this, he can get an immediate refund from his bank just by asking.
The process of being approved to collect direct debits is pretty arduous, as the banks bear a lot of the costs if something goes wrong. At the same time, the consumer has a level of protection light years beyond that offered in the US for similar transactions.
It's not that uncommon for friends exchanging money in the UK (say someone borrowed some cash for a night out) to simply hand over their bank details and get the money from their friend as an electronic transfer using online banking. In general it'd be pretty difficult for someone to take money from an individual's bank account, even knowing their details for their own benefit. I'm not even sure most online banking in the US lets you deposit money directly into another person's account?
Strangely (Score:3, Insightful)
I still hear the LifeLock commercials on the radio as I drive to work all the time. I don't see how they can prevent someone from stealing your identity, especially if you're dumb enough to give out the information to people who will use it for nefarious purposes. If all there offering is a service to undo the damage, that might be useful given how time-consuming it is, but then can they necessarily represent you to organizations where you need the information changed or charges nullified?
available information vs. foot in mouth (Score:5, Insightful)
Data protection act ? (Score:5, Interesting)
If a crime bas been committed the police have good reason to seek to have privacy doors opened - perhaps with the oversight/approval of a judge. Recent UK legislation is giving civil servants wide investigation powers - without judicial oversight.
This smacks of an excuse.
How Many Different Ways.... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. I get someone elses ssn, and I'm off to the bank. (or whatever) Why is the process that associates a unique identifier (U.S. = SSN) with financial activity so simple?
2. Why does "sucks to be you" suffice every single time this issue comes up?
3. While individual financial data is available to the financial institutions, it's totally opaque to the consumer. Ex. how is my credit score calculated? How come consumers have practically no control over it?
4. The risks of an easy credit system far outweigh the benefits and yet no one seems to acknowledge this. An indirect example of this is the bad packaged loans that are driving the current "credit crunch."
Transparency is the keystone to a healthy economy and yet there's less and less with each passing year.
Information != ID (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is possible only because people confuse information about an identity with that identity, and therefore believe that knowledge of that information proves that the person is who they say they are.
I think there's way too many people and organizations with legitimate access to all kinds of information about me for me to consider that my SSN (or an account number that's printed on every statement that goes through the mail, or 16+4+3 digits on a credit card) is a good shared secret between me and my bank (or employer, or anyone.) Then, there's all the people who have illegitimate access.
We still use this because... it works "well enough." Banks make enough that they can cover the loss from a few fraudulent loans. And a person having to clean up a credit record is a PITA, but it's doable. And it's an externality from the bank's perspective.
Thinking about this, I don't have a real solution. It's advisable to guard your psudo-secrets, when you can. A law or two to help this might help, but not get rid of the problem. Until someone comes up with a good identifier[1], we're stuck with it.
[1] For values of "good identifier" that include a way that one person can prove they are the same person who established the good credit / made the bank deposit / whatever, including letting someone act as a limited agent of another (so the power company can take my electricity bill out of my account, but not let a rogue employee take all my money and buy Enron stock) and also doesn't let someone establish multiple identities with which to keep ripping off banks and others.
It kind of proved his point (Score:4, Interesting)
If it was as rampant as people are bing led to believe, his account wold have been empty.
Yes, it exists, but I don't think it's worth the panic people tend to go into.
Of the millions and millions of people whose information has been stolen or lost or were copied froma computer system, only a very tiny fraction have been the victims of identity theft.
Re:To answer the question (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:To answer the question (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
skeptic is right (Score:5, Informative)
He was wrong and went on to say so
Parent
Re:News? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Identity theft
2) A celebrity who holds extreme views on a wide range of topics of interest to nerds, from the environment to computers and identiity theft.
3) The celebrity has changed his mind on the topic after being proven wrong by a very cheeky identity thief.
4) That celebrity presents a show that does interest nerds. (Not just the cars either. One episode showed a car being blown off the tarmac by a 747's engine thrust).
How is this not news? How is this not interesting?
Yet a comment like yours gets modded as insightful instead of -1:troll. More proof that
Parent