Identity Theft
I find this proposition of so called ‘Identity Theft’, that my identity can be ‘stolen’ to be hysterical, alarmist rubbish. As if your whole self, soul, spirit and DNA are simply like shoes, golf clubs or a camera bag that can be lifted from your car when you look the other way.
It’s simply ridiculous.
What we’re really talking about here is someone discovering some details about yourself, date of birth, credit card details and so forth, then using those details to fraudulently pretend to be you. To deceive others and misrepresent themselves as you. But this is a description of fraud - not theft. The fact that it happens with digital data doesn’t change the nature of the beast. And it is worth remembering there is a massive difference between theft and fraud.
It annoys me that the press buys into calling what is fraud ‘theft’, when it so obviously isn’t, because it recasts the wider debate in what is a false light.
On the one hand, if I was careless enough to let someone steal something from me, then what I’ll call the burden of stupidity falls largely on me.
On the other hand, it the bank was fooled by someone claiming to be me, clearly the burden of stupidity falls on them. How can I be held culpable for the lack of ability at the bank to recognise me?
Obviously banks have a strong vested interest to make it out to be all your fault and you don’t have to be too cynical to see why personal banking contracts blame you for anything and everything that might go wrong. So when they cry theft it isn’t much to do with the truth of what happened, but rather the banks desire to evade legal responsibility for it’s own incompetence in being taken in by the deception. And in the absence of corporate morals, this seems understandable if not particularly honest or right.
But what I do wonder is why the media take the same position?
Is it that banks spend enough advertising dollars to dictate what the press will say - or - are they just stupid?
Comments
Post new comment