LAT: Industry at Odds Over ID Theft Liability (retailers, not banks, lose)

[DeepModem Mom]

Industry at Odds Over ID Theft Liability
By Joseph Menn, Times Staff Writer


....It could be that financial institutions aren't hurrying to tighten standards because of a little-known fact: Retailers, not banks, generally absorb losses caused by identity thieves. That means the companies issuing credit cards have little incentive to scrutinize applications, critics contend....

***

The retail industry isn't happy about the situation, which is getting worse as electronic deals become more common. "Long term, we'd like to see a sharing in responsibility for those fraudulent orders," said Julie Fergerson, co-chair of the Merchant Risk Council, which advises online vendors on security.

That hasn't happened so far because of the balance of power in commerce and in Washington, where financial institutions spend more than triple the amount on lobbying that retailers do, according to the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics. Retailers have nowhere near the same clout and "they're just not organized," said Avivah Litan, a Gartner Inc. analyst who has followed information security practices for years....

***

The card associations and banks also oppose creating a national version of California's law requiring broad disclosure after security breaches....Lax security by merchants is another cause of fraud, according to privacy advocates and law enforcement. Many stores fail to encrypt the information they keep on their customers or don't keep their computers secured....


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-idtheft7mar07,0,3699951.story?coll=la-home-business

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. BWAHAHAHA!!!

These people who have sucked up to the repukes, through their Chamber of Commerce membership dues, think that the repukes are going to make it easier on them and harder on the banking industry?

BWAHAHAHA!!!

They really need to get the glue bags offn' their noses.

[patcox2]

2. Its not identity theft, thats propaganda, its credit fraud.

Its incredible how the Government's entire "Identity theft" policy is driven by the big lenders. The Safeguards Rule, designed to combat "Identity theft" places all the onus on the little retailers to prevent fraudsters from getting the information necessary (all you need is name address and social) and placing no obligation whatsoever on the big credit card lenders who willy nilly give out credit without doing one thing to ensure that the person they are loaning money to is the person they say they are.

Meanwhile, there is a tremendously succesful propaganda campaign designed to divert attention from the fact that this is, or should be, the lender's problem, and not the consumers' problem. Its not ID theft, its credit fraud. The only reason it creates any problem at all for the individual whose name was used is because the finanncial industry makes it a problem for the individual. Legally, you are not liable for any debts incurred in your name like this, but the lenders and the credit bureaus make it your problem with their practices. They could just make it easy for you to have an ID theft notation placed in your credit history, but they won't. (Supposedly the recent FACTA law will change this.) But really, this woman in the story who couldn't buy a house because someone used her identity, thats the bank's fault that wouldn't loan her the money. Whats their excuse? She was harmed as much by the 30 some credit card companies that gave an imposter credit in her name without checking, and by the stupid underwriting practices of the mortgage lender which denied her because of verifiably false information in her credit reports.

[Trillo]

3. little guy taking responsibility for big jerks lack of responsibility.

As a solution, I want 'my information' to be 'my property' in our new 'ownership society'. It's not an unreasonable demand.

[w4rma]

4. sales taxes, lessening of Americans' incomes, inflation all hurt retailers

also. Any retailer who sales to the general population more than the wealthy elite should be supporting the Democratic Party, not Republicans. Except for Walmart which is putting many of the rest of these retailers out of buisness through monopolistic tactics and therefore needs to be reigned in ... another reason that nearly all retailers, with the exception of Walmart, should support the Democratic Party.

[amazona]

5. but they don't

At least not in my parish. I'll sympathize when they come forward and stop having champagne brunches with the GOP. For now, it's too bad, so sad, you get what you worked for.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[w4rma]

6. You mean, in general, they don't vote Democratic.

There is much work, here, to be done, then. Time to plant seeds.

[htuttle]

7. Small business owners stupidly support Republicans

Been going on for too long. Case in point: My own father. As a small retailer, he voted Republican non-stop since before Nixon. He was involved with the local Chamber of Commerce, Kiwanis, JayCees, local government -- you name it.

Finally, WalMart came into town and crushed his business like a bug in less than 3 months.

He's a janitor now. Got nothing left to show for 4 decades in retail but a bunch of broken down old display racks in his basement.

[mongo]

9. Bingo

And any business regulation that gets passed is designed so that the largest competitors can comply with the least cost, while driving smaller companies out of business.

[Deja Q]

8. Some speaketh of corporate accountability. Wake me when they do.

I could use a few millenia's worth of sleep...