Comments on: Debunking myths about identity fraud
Attorney Eric J. Sinrod finds that the facts belie the general belief that ID theft is rampant. Still, victory is a way off.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- In new ad, AT&T, Luke Wilson say Verizon is slow
December 5, 2009 4:54 PM PST
- @Uh-oh: Twoddler lets toddlers send tweets
December 5, 2009 2:35 PM PST
- DARPA's giant red balloons officially at large
December 5, 2009 1:11 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
The total lack of data security, mostly by large banks, credit account agents and the government makes us all at risk of this kind of theft.
These agencies take no responsibility except to notify the victims. Some times there is restoration of funds, but mostly it is (sorry we screwed up your life - have a nice day).
So far I have only seen the government protect these agencies.
If there is less identity theft in the past year, it is dumb luck.
The only way this will change is to make the
agencies criminally accountable for there lack of security.
I agree with you there, but the liklihood of that ever happening though is close to zero.
The total lack of data security, mostly by large banks, credit account agents and the government makes us all at risk of this kind of theft.
These agencies take no responsibility except to notify the victims. Some times there is restoration of funds, but mostly it is (sorry we screwed up your life - have a nice day).
So far I have only seen the government protect these agencies.
If there is less identity theft in the past year, it is dumb luck.
The only way this will change is to make the
agencies criminally accountable for there lack of security.
I agree with you there, but the liklihood of that ever happening though is close to zero.
1a) Via telephone interviews - if its online fraud, why use the phone? This is online fraud, stick to people online (apples and apples?),
1b) You're analyzing what amounts to a cotton candy phone poll. How about doing an in-depth survey of the three major credit reporting agencies and see what they have to say? They would, at least, have credible numbers. Scientists know what a random-sample survey is and how to conduct one. This poll was probably paid for by the Justice Department!
2) That was an awful lot of gobbledegook about fewer poor people being defrauded than rich people. S'pose that has anything to do with owning a computer and having an expensive broadband connection? What self-respecting thief would waste time waiting for some schmuck with dial-up access and an old x386 machine?
3) Maybe this phoney reduction has more to do with the criminals getting smarter? S'pose maybe they got tired of getting caught setting up new accounts and switched over to such things as "snatch-and-grab cash transactions?"
Their (and Mr Sinrod's) idea of online account monitoring is preventive only - it has NO deterrent affect, whatsoever. It would not have an impact on new fraud cases, though it would help stop the fraud once started.
These stupid polls are no better than the ones politicians and talking heads use to "forecast" the winners at an election. Mr Sinrod, please, we're smarter than this. Give us a little credit, will ya? Online fraud is not decreasing! It may be shifting and a bit harder to quantify now, but no more telephone polls, okay?
Thanks for all the fancy words and statistics, though. They were really cool. :-)
A former thief...
- Stick To Being A Lawyer
- by drdoolittle2800 February 7, 2007 2:57 PM PST
- I don't believe a single aspect of the notion that identity theft is down:
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(6 Comments)1a) Via telephone interviews - if its online fraud, why use the phone? This is online fraud, stick to people online (apples and apples?),
1b) You're analyzing what amounts to a cotton candy phone poll. How about doing an in-depth survey of the three major credit reporting agencies and see what they have to say? They would, at least, have credible numbers. Scientists know what a random-sample survey is and how to conduct one. This poll was probably paid for by the Justice Department!
2) That was an awful lot of gobbledegook about fewer poor people being defrauded than rich people. S'pose that has anything to do with owning a computer and having an expensive broadband connection? What self-respecting thief would waste time waiting for some schmuck with dial-up access and an old x386 machine?
3) Maybe this phoney reduction has more to do with the criminals getting smarter? S'pose maybe they got tired of getting caught setting up new accounts and switched over to such things as "snatch-and-grab cash transactions?"
Their (and Mr Sinrod's) idea of online account monitoring is preventive only - it has NO deterrent affect, whatsoever. It would not have an impact on new fraud cases, though it would help stop the fraud once started.
These stupid polls are no better than the ones politicians and talking heads use to "forecast" the winners at an election. Mr Sinrod, please, we're smarter than this. Give us a little credit, will ya? Online fraud is not decreasing! It may be shifting and a bit harder to quantify now, but no more telephone polls, okay?
Thanks for all the fancy words and statistics, though. They were really cool. :-)
A former thief...