About That ID Card Bill II
More defeats in the Lords. This time the Lords voted in favour of amendments that would ensure the scheme remains truly voluntary and that the scheme won't become compulsary without a second vote in the house. Interestingly, I have a letter (editors, please note!) from Charles Clarke suggesting this last point anyway. Surely he knows the content of his own Bill? That old New Labour decision of incompentence or corruption rearing its ugly again.
The only thing that they seem to be selling the Bill on at the moment is that 21st Century bogie man, Identity Theft. However, when they say ID Theft, they're usually talking about credit card fraud - remember that? Most credit card fraud is in the form of cardholder not present transactions: i.e. internet and phone shopping. Thus the ID card scheme won't make any kind of impression on it, as most home computers don't have ID card readers; that's why we won't be able to check our medical records using the cards either, Tony. Where it might make an impression is in preventing people adopting other people's identities when applying for credit cards. Given that although hassle and irritation will befall the person whose "identity" has been "stolen" (such alarmist terms - it's not Blade Runner!), generally speaking it costs the credit card companies, rather than the individual. So why is it the individual who has to pay? Why don't the credit card companies come up with schemes for their credit cards that will make this more difficult? And isn't credit card fraud on the decrease in this brave new Chip & PIN world?
The fact is, identity theft is avoidable. All it takes is a bit of common sense when disposing of utility bills, bank statements, and the like. Not costly, not intrusive, and, hey! it even becomes the individual's responsibility!
As for credit card companies, why not make it legal that you can only give someone a credit card in a face-to-face transaction? Why not take a photo of the person being given the credit card, so that should they be faking it, then it will be a lot easier to prove after the fact? I know this still leaves you with the costs, but getting rid of anonymous credit card application and photographing the applicants will put off a hell of a lot of would be fraudsters. The thing is, credit card companies don't want to do that because it will put some people off. Given the number of times the companies are getting their knuckles rapped over aggressive advertising and irresponsible lending, don't you think maybe it would be a way of showing you're willing to behave?
The only thing that they seem to be selling the Bill on at the moment is that 21st Century bogie man, Identity Theft. However, when they say ID Theft, they're usually talking about credit card fraud - remember that? Most credit card fraud is in the form of cardholder not present transactions: i.e. internet and phone shopping. Thus the ID card scheme won't make any kind of impression on it, as most home computers don't have ID card readers; that's why we won't be able to check our medical records using the cards either, Tony. Where it might make an impression is in preventing people adopting other people's identities when applying for credit cards. Given that although hassle and irritation will befall the person whose "identity" has been "stolen" (such alarmist terms - it's not Blade Runner!), generally speaking it costs the credit card companies, rather than the individual. So why is it the individual who has to pay? Why don't the credit card companies come up with schemes for their credit cards that will make this more difficult? And isn't credit card fraud on the decrease in this brave new Chip & PIN world?
The fact is, identity theft is avoidable. All it takes is a bit of common sense when disposing of utility bills, bank statements, and the like. Not costly, not intrusive, and, hey! it even becomes the individual's responsibility!
As for credit card companies, why not make it legal that you can only give someone a credit card in a face-to-face transaction? Why not take a photo of the person being given the credit card, so that should they be faking it, then it will be a lot easier to prove after the fact? I know this still leaves you with the costs, but getting rid of anonymous credit card application and photographing the applicants will put off a hell of a lot of would be fraudsters. The thing is, credit card companies don't want to do that because it will put some people off. Given the number of times the companies are getting their knuckles rapped over aggressive advertising and irresponsible lending, don't you think maybe it would be a way of showing you're willing to behave?
posted by Hamilton's Brain | 9:44 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home