Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1999/RRE.identity.theft.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
[RRE]identity theft
``` [This person's story about a case of identity theft being ignored by the police is not unusual. But why? One theory says that the police, being behind the technological curve, are ill-equipped in terms of both concepts and skills to deal with these new-fangled crimes. But I have another theory, which is that the police get points for solving crimes, and so they have a huge incentive to refuse to accept reports of crimes that they don't think they will be able to solve. This theory explains the evidence: if the police don't know how to solve identity-theft crimes, say for example because the magnitude of the problem hasn't been recognized well enough to motivate appropriate legislation, say for example because the official statistics based on police reports grossly underestimate it, then they will give you some double-talk and send you on your way. But it also explains much more. In fact, I first came up with this theory a couple of years ago when a moving company stole everything I own of any value. (Fortunately, not being a person who is oriented to material things, that wasn't much. After some hassle the insurance company paid off, but I never got around to replacing any of it.) Three separate police departments repeatedly refused to take a report of the theft. One of them even insisted at great length that no crime had taken place. This one guy finally agreed that he would take a report of the crime -- I am not making this up -- if the moving company itself were to file it. In any case, I have also enclosed full details on the Computer Privacy Digest, on which the message appeared. I have reformatted it.]
---
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html or send a message to requests@lists.gseis.ucla.edu with Subject: info rre
---
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 99 07:38:21 EST
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator
Computer Privacy Digest Sat, 12 Jun 99 Volume 14 : Issue: 020
---
Date: 26 May 1999 22:05:37 -0700
From: Charlene Blake
My husband's two major credit cards were taken from his wallet very selectively on Saturday, May 22. The cards were inside a very small wallet which was located in a box in the car. It was not clearly visible and the car was locked. The car was parked in a school parking lot while my husband and daughter were at a soccer game.
Within two hours, the thief had generated a fake ID with a fake address and phone number. My husband's driver's license was not taken but his SSN could have been stolen. He had an ATT calling card in the wallet, too, which was not taken. Within three hours, the Discover credit card security department called and left a message at our home about suspicious purchases. Nonetheless, the thief managed to spend over $6800 on high-end laptop computers in less than four hours!
We don't yet know the extent of the financial damage as we do not know if checks have been written or new accounts opened in my husband's name. We are going to call all the credit bureaus tomorrow. We have notified all the card companies and our credit union. We believe the thief attempted to use our Visa card but was rejected because the balance went over our limit.
I was SHOCKED to find all local authorities do nothing about this type of crime. They even sigh about filing a police report. I am NOT the type to give up, however, and I plan to take this thing as far as I can. I will involve media if given the opportunity.
As soon as I saw that I had to take the matter in my own hands, I called the credit card company and got the details of the purchases made. I went to each and every store (a total of 3 so far) and spoke with EVERYONE involved. I took notes on just what each person told me. I asked questions about surveilance and I asked for copies of all of the thiefs transactions, including his signature. Through my work today (with the help of my 12-year-old daughter), I found eight people who can match the physical identification of the imposter!! One lady noted very fine details about the man's face and clothing!
My next step is to notify the appropriate fraud units locally. The theft of the cards occurred in the Northern Virginia area while the fraud occurred some 15+ miles away in Maryland (two different suburbs there). I managed to corroborate the stories of the different COMPUSA and Circuit City employees. I have details for the local authorities to go on. I am going to INSIST that action be taken by ALL. I have had enough of the "Gee, ma'am, you have to consider the extent of this problem. It is the credit card company's responsibility to investigate". WHAT???!!! The credit card company is based in Delaware! You mean I can't get someone here to look into LOCAL crime?! "But, ma'am, you don't understand.....we get hundreds of these cases a week". EXACTLY my point! Why can't I work as one to help STOP this?
This imposter isn't EXPECTING anyone to follow his trail. He KNOWS he can get away with it. He will continue to stalk potential victims at family sports events. He will continue to tarnish the credit of others. I, on the other hand, plan to stop him as best I can. I havealerted all the stores he apparently frequents. Someone at one store prevented him from charging an additional $3,000 because he said something "just didn't fit". The salesperson asked a lot of questions and it scared the fellow off. The salesperson has "seen the guy before". Unfortunately, one salesperson allowed a sale with a fake ID. The salesperson did say that when she asked for his address, he had to pull his fake ID out first! The salesperson at the other store said that the zip code did not match the city but the thief said, "I forgot it....I just moved here". Unfortunately, the salesperson did not match up the address the thief gave with the one written on the fake ID. If he had, he would have found that the zip code was ok but the thief stupidly messed up the city!!
I have found eight people who could ID this man. I have the faked signatures of the thief. I have been told that at one of the stores, the man is on the tape without doubt.
If the authorities CHOOSE to do nothing now, I will implore the media to take my case to the public. I expect such super leads to be followed to the fullest. I expect the local businesses to be alerted by the police so that this man can be apprehended when he tries to commit the same crime against another.
Will it all pan out? I don't know. I spent time gathering the evidence in order to protect myself and others. If apathy prevails, I will become more vocal. Perhaps you can advise me on potential resources to use to be heard. Police are aware of this crime daily. They even know where it occurs. They have washed their own hands of any responsibility to resolve it, however. They even imply that the credit card authorities will not be interested because it isn't "corporate theft" or some other high-level crime. They are basically saying, "Sorry, ma'am, there isn't a thing you can do really".
Hogwash! I can make fliers. I can contact local businesses that have yet to be targeted. I can write to my lawmakers. I can contact the media. Don't expect me to "lie down and take it". As many report on the websites like this, the nightmare is not always over when you take steps.
Why should I start off with the police department's attitude?? It is MY CREDIT that is being blasted, not theirs!! Tenacity....I have that, too!
Please share my story. Please offer assist. I will help others if I can in the end.
---
Charlene Blake cblake@erols.com
---
Date: 12 Jun 1999 12:00:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine"
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of technology on privacy or vice versa. The digest is moderated and gatewayed into the moderated USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy. Submissions should be sent to comp-privacy@uwm.edu and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu.
This digest is a forum with information contributed via Internet eMail. Those who understand the technology also understand the ease of forgery in this very free medium. Statements, therefore, should be taken with a ton of salt and it should be clear that the actual contributor might not be the person whose email address is posted as the author. Any user who openly wishes to post anonymously should inform the moderator at the beginning of the posting. He will comply.
To subscribe, or to unsubscribe, send an appropriate single line message to the moderator at comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu . Since the group is manually controlled, nearly any reasonable message can be handled.
If you read this from the comp.society.privacy newsgroup and wish to contribute a message, you should simply post your contribution. As a moderated newsgroup, attempts to post to the group are normally turned into eMail to the submission address above.
On the other hand, if you read the digest eMailed to you, you generally need only use the Reply feature of your mailer to contribute. If you do so, it is best to modify the "Subject:" line of your mailing to correctly indicate the subject of your posting and to trim away all inappropriate material from your posting.
Contributions to CPD should be submitted, with appropriate, substantive SUBJECT: line. The contributions must be relevant, sound, in good taste, objective, cogent, coherent, concise, and nonrepetitious. Diversity is welcome, but not personal attacks. Do not include entire previous messages in responses to them. Most posters include their name & legitimate Internet From: address. All contributions are considered as personal comments; usual disclaimers apply. All reuse of CPD material should respect stated copyright notices, and should cite the sources explicitly; as a courtesy, publications using CPD material should obtain permission from the contributors.
Contributions generally are acknowledged within 24 hours of submission. If selected, they are printed within two or three days.
The moderator reserves the right to delete extraneous quoted material. He may change the SUBJECT: line of an article in order to make it easier for the reader to follow a discussion. He will not, however, alter or edit the text of normal contributed material except for purely technical or typographical reasons. He will not correct the spelling, as that is often an indication of the intent and/or education level of the author. In the case of long announcements of future meetings he will remove detailed parts of the announcement, intending to leaving enough so that an interested person can get the message and, hopefully, can find the rest.
A library of back issues is available on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18].
Web browsers will find it at http://www.uwm.edu/org/comp-privacy/
People with only gopher capability can most easily access the library at gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Ftp users should Login as "ftp" with password identifying yourid@yoursite. The archives are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy".
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------- Leonard P. Levine | Moderator of: Computer Privacy Digest Professor of Computer Science| and comp.society.privacy Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | Post: comp-privacy@uwm.edu Box 784, Milwaukee WI 53201 | Information: comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu | Gopher: gopher.cs.uwm.edu levine@cs.uwm.edu | URL: http://www.uwm.edu/org/comp-privacy/ -----------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
End of Computer Privacy Digest V14 #020
--- ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.