[jdironman]

So the only way around this is to disregard information about a person other than information that 100% without a doubt identifies that person making a purchase is who they say they are? I am just genuinely curious.

[sowbug]

No. It's to accept liability when you make a mistake. If a criminal tricks a bank into giving away money and debiting some random account, the victim is the bank, not whoever happened to own the account.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

Around what? The fact that the term "identity theft" is nonsensical? There is no way around that, it just is.

As for fraud: There probably is no easy way around it. But that doesn't mean it's not fraud.

[jdironman]

I was not saying either really. I was asking what sure fire way we have other than a number / name for identity.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

Well, there is biometry, with the simplest form being a picture, if you want to somewhat reliably identify people.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

While I thoroughly agree with everything you've said on the subject thus far...

How does being in possession of a picture, or any other biometric data, help? These data are reproducible, like any other attribute that supposedly identifies only-Alice.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

Checking the possession of a picture is not biometry (that would be possession-of-a-picture-metry). Making a picture is biometry (measuring the body, essentially).

The hard problem with biometry is proving to a third party that a certain identity is responsible for a contract, but identification with biometry (convincing yourself that the person before you is the same person that you enrolled earlier) at least works a lot better than asking for essentially public information.