Identity Theft Skeptic Ends Up As Fraud Victim

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?"

Will it lead to stricter regulation of credit?

[Reality Master 201]

It seems like making people paranoid about protecting their personal data is the wrong way to attack the problem, especially given the significant chance that whatever they do, some 3rd party will release that data and put them at risk.

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:If you give it away

[Jason Levine]

Identity Theft can lead to bad credit (and years wasted trying to restore your credit) which can mean loss of a house. It can even lead to criminal charges mistakenly being attributed to you [blogspot.com]. The thieves really are stealing your identity to commit their fraudulent and illegal activities. And even though you still have your identity for your own use, it becomes sullied by the actions of the thieves. (Just in case someone wants to claim that the "copying music online isn't stealing because they still have the music" argument applies to identity theft.)

Re:To answer the question

[raftpeople]

When it becomes "theft" is when someone steals an identifying document, such as a passport, social/national security card, or a driv[er's|ing] licen[c|s]e.

So, if they steal a document then it's identity theft, but if they create a false document using accurate information, then it's not identity theft?

Re:If you give it away

[ArsonSmith]

Copying music online isn't stealing because it's copyright violation.
Obtaining and using a persons identity isn't theft because it's impersonation fraud.

Please let's use the correct terms.

Re:They didn't have a lot of choices...

[ShieldW0lf]

This guy is a jackass.

"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?

Data protection act ?

[Alain Williams]

Why the F should the data protection act stop the bank investigating fraud ? What questions are the bank prohibited from asking ? In the UK the data protection act is often used by organisations as an excuse to not do something - quite often because the are too lazy to do a proper job.

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.

Re:Privacy Amendment

[radarjd]

We have a right to privacy, as the 4th Amendment says.

The 4th Amendment says: 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.

The 4th Amendment absolutely does not create a generalized right to privacy. The Supreme Court examined this issue in detail in Griswold v Connecticut (see the treatment [cornell.edu] at Cornell's website, the legal cite is 381 U.S. 479). In this case, the state of Connecticut had passed a law making it illegal to use a device or article to prevent conception, and doctor and the director of planned parenthood were convicted as accessories for advising a married couple on contraception. The Court overturned the conviction (and law) on the grounds that a generalized right of privacy may be found in the penumbra of several amendments, including the 4th, in the relationship of a married couple.

As an aside, I think it's arguable that the Court based even this decision on shaky legal ground, and that they should have upheld the law. That would hopefully have provided the public impetus for the passage of a Constitutional amendment which actually would specifically have dealt with the protection of privacy, but that's just me.

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".

The 13th Amendment says: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

In other words, slavery shall not exist in the US. There is no such legal condition. Had the writers of the Bill of Rights intended a generalized right of privacy, they easily could have stated "The right of privacy shall not be abridged" -- but of course that was not their intention. That the 4th amendment to the Constitution applies to the federal government is a matter of common law. Private parties are not allowed to search and seize, as that would be a trespass, especially in the world of the 1780s where searches and seizures involved a physical intrusion.

And as another aside, while you say "freedom is a right", those same people who wrote the 4th amendment also wrote the Constitution in such a way that slavery was legal. All rights have boundaries. The best law strikes the proper boundary, and some times it takes a while to get there.

Back to this particular instance, it seems like the "skeptic" should sue the fraudster in civil court. Likely there are criminal statutes involved as well. And lest we forget, this took place in the UK, where the US Constitution most certainly doesn't apply.

Re:Poetic justice

[teh kurisu]

I can refute both your points by referring to the episode where Clarkson declared the Peel P50 [wikipedia.org] to be the best car in the world. A bit of an extreme case, I'll admit, but they also have good things to say about a lot of regular cars (for example, the modern Fiat Panda), as long as they can turn it into an entertaining segment. They refer to the Ford Mondeo as a very good car, but it's rarely mentioned because it's just not entertaining.

Re:They didn't have a lot of choices...

[ultranova]

I believe the GP was pointing out that he was just as careless with his information as were "the idiots who lost the discs".

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.

It kind of proved his point

[geekoid]

He published is information, and the only thing that happened was an automatic withdraw?

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:Clarcson manages to be both an idiot and a geni

[dave420]

Not everyone likes the guy. Some folks realise he's intentionally an ass to get great reactions from folks. He does make great TV, but it's contrived. It's presented as non-scripted, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I like a lot of what he does, but I wouldn't trust him with anything important.