On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 04:38:53PM -0800, Ed Gerck wrote:
So, you think that credit-cards deals would not need names or any real-life id, just assets?
I've never had to show ID to get a credit card; I also have two credit cards under names (mildly) different from that on my birth certificate. The issuers don't seem to care. Store clerks very rarely ask for ID, and they don't seem bothered by the minor discrepancy in textual form of my name(s), much less the possibility that there may be many other meat-things using the same text string as their identifier. (My name isn't that common, but there's at least one other person in California with it; people with more common names must run into this a lot more often.) I haven't done this myself, but I gather that it's really easy to get "the system" to adopt a wildly different last name than the one on your birth certificate, merely by mentioning that you've been married. It seems to be customary for some people (frequently women, but not exclusively) to adopt a different name at that time; nobody bats an eye about this. I'm aware of one person who's got at least 4 very different names which she uses in different social settings - one's the name she was born with, another is a name she assumed after one marriage, another is a name she assumed after another marriage, and the fourth is a combination of some of the above names. She doesn't have ID for all of those names - just uses the one that seems appropriate to the circumstances.
Surely, the merchant gets paid regardless, even if you use a false name. But this is not the end of id fraud. The bank still goes after the money...and uses the law against fraudulent practices to enforce the cardholder agreement, or criminal statues. If Mr. X uses his wife's credit-card, Mr. X is technically committing id fraud, and wire-fraud. Of course it works most of the time... But when it does not, and someone comes enforcing, someone will ask, did you Mr X, uses Mrs X's credit-card, and represent yourself thereby as Mrs X?
I'm not at all ready to accept your "id fraud" or "wire fraud" arguments - depending on the fact situation, maybe, but it sounds more like a variation on unauthorized use of another's credit card .. a charge which hinges on the *unauthorized* use, not on the difference in identities. It's not fraud at all for person X to use person Y's credit card, so long as person X has permission/authority, and doesn't misrepresent the transaction to third parties. Besides, that's got nothing to do with the different parties getting paid - on the outside, maybe the credit card company can recover some restitution from a fraudulent user in sentencing after a criminal conviction. The parties in the criminal action are the government and the accused, however, not the credit card company nor the merchant, so I still think that the identity of the parties does not turn out to be crucial to successful completion of the transaction. Plenty of people skip out on debts where there's no (extra) ambiguity about identity - and plenty of other people pay debts or fulfull obligations which are apparently not strictly speaking theirs, but those of a closely related entity. Most of the time, most people "do the right thing", and when they don't, the problem isn't likely to be one that's solvable with more intrusive "identity" practices on the part of one or the other of the counterparties. (Ed, I think this is your point about how most e-commerce "security" depends on a violation of privacy.) The "identity" bugaboo plugs straight into the "then you go to court and someone goes to jail" protocol debunked famously by Doug Barnes some years ago - I don't know if his discussion of that is still online, but it boils down to the insight that courts and litigation aren't very useful in a commercial context; it's faster and cheaper to either avoid bad trades proactively, or abandon them quickly in favor of other, good trades, and not cry over spilt milk. (And that runs straight into game theory and the Prisoners' Dilemma and the slow-moving background discussion/argument between Bob Hettinga who sometimes seems to be saying that anonymity is cheaper than not, and Wei Dai, who says the opposite.) -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604