Re:Detailed Financial Histories Exposed for Thousands
by PeterisP on Sunday December 03, 2017 @05:38AM
(#15836988)
You can look at most first world countries outside the USA for inspiration, since the identity theft isn't a universal problem but one limited to USA and a few other places with similar policies. However, it's not a single change but requires a significantly different approach to things like credit.
Key components of such an approach are:
1) strong consumer protection legislation that removes consequences from consumers - mainly, that if a transaction is disputed the lender can't report such transactions to credit rating agencies and the credit agencies can't use such transactions in the credit rating. In essence the dispute resolution is that if you claim that it's not you, then they can either drop the claim (and marking that claim on your credit rating would be libel) or press criminal charges on you for fraud, with the usual due process and level of evidence required.
2) A secure nationwide, centralized physical photo/biometric ID issued to everyone (which is a no-no in USA for political reasons), so that organizations who actually want to verify your identity have a reasonable means to do so in a manner that doesn't rely solely on "something you know". My brother knows all my personal information and would be able to impersonate me in any knowledge-based access; however, but passing an ID check would require either theft or forgery; he can't claim lost/stolen documents and get ID in my name since the face/prints/etc wouldn't match the ones on file.
The immediate effect is that it makes it easier for fraudsters to operate in the current environment that relies solely on knowledge-based authentication (since one can simply take a loan and deny it, and get away with it since the lender now has no way of proving who was it if they followed processes currently popular in USA) so the next-to-immediate effect is that all the organizations "offering trust" either face huge costs or switch their policies to handle identity verification in a reasonable manner. It will mean a temporary slowdown in issuing credit - that's not an inherently bad thing, but it does mean that such a change has to be timed to occur during an economic boom/bubble (where a temporary slowdown in credit is useful) and not during a slump.
Key components of such an approach are:
1) strong consumer protection legislation that removes consequences from consumers - mainly, that if a transaction is disputed the lender can't report such transactions to credit rating agencies and the credit agencies can't use such transactions in the credit rating. In essence the dispute resolution is that if you claim that it's not you, then they can either drop the claim (and marking that claim on your credit rating would be libel) or press criminal charges on you for fraud, with the usual due process and level of evidence required.
2) A secure nationwide, centralized physical photo/biometric ID issued to everyone (which is a no-no in USA for political reasons), so that organizations who actually want to verify your identity have a reasonable means to do so in a manner that doesn't rely solely on "something you know". My brother knows all my personal information and would be able to impersonate me in any knowledge-based access; however, but passing an ID check would require either theft or forgery; he can't claim lost/stolen documents and get ID in my name since the face/prints/etc wouldn't match the ones on file.
The immediate effect is that it makes it easier for fraudsters to operate in the current environment that relies solely on knowledge-based authentication (since one can simply take a loan and deny it, and get away with it since the lender now has no way of proving who was it if they followed processes currently popular in USA) so the next-to-immediate effect is that all the organizations "offering trust" either face huge costs or switch their policies to handle identity verification in a reasonable manner. It will mean a temporary slowdown in issuing credit - that's not an inherently bad thing, but it does mean that such a change has to be timed to occur during an economic boom/bubble (where a temporary slowdown in credit is useful) and not during a slump.