"Identity theft" isn't real. It's a term the banks et al. use so that they can have less responsibility.

Example: Someone opens a bank account using your information. That's fraud. Someone lied to the bank, and the bank believed them. That's the bank's problem. But by pointing at you and saying "Your identity was stolen" (using the term "stolen" to make it seem like this is similar to the theft of a physical object), it suddenly seems like it's your problem.

> It's a term the banks et al. use so that they can have less responsibility.

I agree that it's misleading, but have to concede that whoever first came up with that term must have been an expert in framing and spin. There are few words that so effectively distort the discussion as "identity theft".

Indeed. When one thinks of "identity theft victims", one doesn't think of a bank.

But it is the bank, it should be! When a bank is robbed, its clients aren't the victims. The bank is. The clients aren't giving money to the bank for nothing in return; what they get in return is assurance of safety and availability (otherwise, that would be a loan, not a deposit). Spinning the failure to deliver on that obligation as the client's problem is indeed great PR work.

Fraud is only half of the "identify theft" reframing. The term also attempts to excuse libel/slander by the credit agency.

Fraud is the one and only word needed.

Via https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fraud: The crime of stealing or otherwise illegally obtaining money by use of deception tactics.

Legally speaking

> Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements:

> (1) a false statement of a material fact ["I am John Doe"],

> (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue [they are not John Doe],

> (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim [they want money],

> (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement [bank credit approves access based on identity], and

> (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result [bank loses customer money].

(https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud)

I like the term "bank slander"[1]. The company that gave a loan to fraudster (a bank) lies to the credit bureau (slander) and now you have to spend a bunch of time trying (and usually failing) to get those lies off your credit report.

[1]previous HN comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15657887

Love this one and I am going to start using it in real life, peace!

Maybe "credit slander"? Including the added bonus of expanding the set of possible perpetrators.

If the credit agency is harming your reputation with an incorrect credit report then the proper term for what they're doing is libel and you can sue them for it.

I'd like to see a startup or non-profit that automates libel civil lawsuits against the reporting agencies. At least then maybe we'd get some responsibility from them.

IANAL but banks have a lot of cash to throw at legal teams. AFAIK you’d have to show evidence of material damages. Seems very hard to automate...might be better for class-action.

Ya I agree. It seems these firms are relying on the fact that each individual suing them would have to put up considerable time and money, and so most don't .

But if some economy of scale could be provided in filing these lawsuits, like those boilerplate will in a box products, then the business of credit reporting in its current form may be made non-viable.

I wonder how many of the major US banks have binding arbitration clauses? I don't claim to know one way or the other, though I thought I heard that one major bank did & it had been standing up in court recently, but I may be mistaken. I also have no idea if they'd hold up in general -- but I'd be curious how many of the T&Cs that you sign have these clauses...

Probably all of them. So you would just have to find someone who had never opened a legitimate line of credit, but for whom a fraudulent line of credit had been opened.

I’ve heard “bank fraud” used here.

Credit fraud. The banks were defrauded, not you.

> Indeed! I have recently been trying to come up with a new term to use instead of "identity theft" (open to suggestions). As the term itself seems almost Orwellian to me.

I'll have a stab at coining the new word.

The concept is referring to attempted or successful deceit of the bank. Let's take the Latin word for deceit, fraudem, and modernize it so it won't sound so quaint. I think that "fraud" would do.

> identity theft

Impersonation.

No, this implies that the victim is the end user, not the bank.

Negligence