Bill Introduced to Congress Would Allow ID Theft Restitution 166
verybadradio writes with an article at News.com about a bill introduced into Congress that would allow citizens who have been victimized by identity theft to seek repayment for the money and time spent repairing their credit history. The bill was introduced by Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. "Last year, 8.4 million Americans were victims of identity theft, and many were left with a bad credit report, which takes months or years to repair, the lawmakers said ... The bill would also eliminate a requirement that the loss resulting from damage to a victim's computer must exceed $5,000 for prosecution; make it a felony to use spyware or keyloggers to damage 10 or more computers; and expand the definition of cybercrime to include extortion schemes that threaten to damage or access confidential information on a computer."
Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:2, Insightful)
why can't we get what the RIAA gets? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they set the damage levels anything near what the RIAA got in their last downloading lawsuit, that would put the brakes on ID theft right quick.
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where have I heard "damage computers" before... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Would this apply to the RIAA and MediaSentry/SafeNet breaking into private individuals computers?
Now if only... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why can't we get what the RIAA gets? (Score:3, Insightful)
Extortion. (Score:4, Insightful)
Would threatening to expose a security flaw in a server or website unless it was patched open you up to prosecution under cybercrime laws then?
If you ask for money in return for keeping your mouth shut, you are already an extortionist. At the same time, it's hard to see them using the bill [senate.gov] to come after an honest disclosure, where you simply published details. Must find bill to know.
Years too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Whose fault was it that my identity was stolen? That would be the credit bureaus and the credit card companies that allowed it to happen, not me. It is their system that is at fault for allowing people to steal identities so easily. So why am I responsible to clean up their mess? If I have marks on my credit report, I should be able to tell the bureaus and that should be the end of it. I think restitution is the least they can do.
This is the WRONG approach (Score:5, Insightful)
The abuse of SSNs and the credit system at large needs to be dismantled or severely reformed in such a way that the creators of the problem are liable for the problems it causes. As it stands, they can buy and sell "your information" because it's not your data... it's theirs... they collected it! But when it's abused and affects your life, YOU are responsible. How is that appropriate? NO. This bill is VERY wrong. The bill should assign liability to the parties responsible for creating the mess. This is just further effort to assign the liability of the SSN and credit industry to people who may not even be willing participants!
Re:Years too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why ten? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The nature of the identity theft crime... (Score:2, Insightful)
wow (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:New laws really necessary? (Score:1, Insightful)
It's basically useless to try to get money from the criminals themselves since they're unlikely to have much to begin with and will likely spend anything they do have trying to defend themselves. It would be much more useful to be able to go after the businesses that can make it more difficult to commit identity theft. If they were partially responsible for the damages done by identity theft, there's a much greater chance that we'd see improved practices and security in the credit issuing industry.
Oh Not This Again (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Your premise is wrong. The banks DO NOT assume the costs of fraud. Merchants absorb all of the cost of fraud and pay the bank a penalty too. The costs are shifted to consumers through higher prices. Bottom line: The Association banks benefit greatly from fraud.
2. The bill in question is the wrong way to address the issue. The card associations have a solution to the problem except they won't implement it because it cuts into their fraud revenue and the costs are much higher per-card than dumb plastic/mag-stripe. The standard is called EMV. It solves 98% of fraud issues. Today. The other 2% I'll blame on bad coding.
Re:Can we sue the credit reporting agencies? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's the fact that they make it too easy for people to buy stuff without realizing that they have to pay it back, but it's kind of a separate issue. If they erred on the side of security, the economy would slow drastically. You'd need an economist (which I am not) to run all the numbers, but basically the assertion is that the amount of fraud does less damage to the economy than the good done by easy credit.
What we really need is to make it easy to get credit if you qualify and not if you don't, which means forcing the credit providers to come up with a better mechanism for verifying identity than they're currently using (which is essentially none at all). There are difficulties there with civil liberties, as well as the fact that if you put more faith in a better authentication mechanism you suffer even more when it's broken (and there are no unbreakable authentication mechanisms).
Plus, there's the fact that the credit providers are personally profiting from the current rules. Which means it would be up to government to mandate a better scheme, which (a) they would do badly, like those idiotic RFID passports, and (b) would certainly set records for new forms of civil liberties violations.
Re:Oh Not This Again (Score:5, Insightful)
Credit card number theft is almost an insignificant issue. I've had unknown charges occur on my credit card, and in one of those cases, the card company contacted me. The other one only required a simple phone call. I'm not sure how they got the numbers---one of those cards had only been used once at CostCo---but it happens. Either way, it didn't cost me a dime.
This is about identity theft---stealing enough information to obtain credit cards of your own in someone else's name, then racking up thousands of dollars of debt. EMV doesn't solve any fraud issues because most identity theft is either A. caused by somebody giving out information too willingly to someone who really doesn't need it, or B. caused by somebody who should have been trustworthy not taking care of the data that they retain. EMV won't help either of those situations. (For people who aren't aware, EMV is a smart card system for credit cards. AFAIK, EMV also won't really solve card number theft, since internet purchases have to be made the old-fashioned way unless you just happen to be willing to buy a reader for your computer....)
The only thing that will really solve identity theft is making credit card companies and credit agencies fully responsible for every penny of losses due to identity theft. This law is exactly backwards and should not be passed. The reality is, we wouldn't have identity theft problems if those companies were held liable for losses. You would apply for a credit card, and they would make phone calls to your last known telephone number, give you some code number, and ask you to call a 1-800 number and enter that code in order to complete the request. The fact that they don't do even the most basic checks to verify the validity of a CC request is proof positive that they are content to let merchants and individuals bear the brunt of their own incompetence.
I've never had my identity stolen, but if it happened to me, the first thing I'd do is hire a lawyer to sue every reporting agency that the CC company contacted for credit history information. If the reporting agency were responsible, they would have contacted me and asked for authorization before releasing that information. As far as I'm concerned, a credit reporting agency should not have the right to retain data on me nor to release that data to anyone without my explicit permission. That means checking signatures against known signatures on file, contacting me at known prior addresses/phone numbers, etc. Then, I would follow that by suing the credit card company for similarly failing to properly research the request. When it was all over, my credit history would still be screwed, but at least I'd have gotten enough money out of the dirty scumbags that I wouldn't have to care.
Re:Wow... (Score:1, Insightful)
Now, if a law that actually protected the victims of identity theift passed, it would indeed be Bizarro World. What this law would say would be that the corporation who carelessly lost your data through bad security (e.g. using insecure software, insecure passwords, insecure procedures, leaving data unencrypted, leaving data on laptops in the back seat of a convertable, using Active-X, etc) would be the ones to repay the customer, and the customer would be eligible for triple damages.
Pass a bill like this and the only identities that would be stolen would be from dumpster diving and stupid home computer users who fall victims to phishers and won't patch their home OSes and programs. Double Bizarro if the software manufacturer is liable for losses due to badly coded shitware (hello, Microsoft).
Of course, you will never ever see legislation like this in the US so long as (you can stop reading now, I've been preaching this fantasy for a long time and you've surely seen it by now) the US government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the foreign-owned Multinational Corporations. The two reforms that would acomplish this (that will of course never be passed, since the government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the MNCs):
Money should not be more powerful than a vote. Unfortunately we are not a Democratic Republic, we are a Plutocratic Republic.
</soapbox>
-mcgrew [mcgrew.info]