[tripzilch]

Right, and this is the point where we, as computer system / information security / software (whatever, but) professionals switch to using the word "authentication", and stop being obtuse about the ambiguity in the multiple definitions of the word "identity".

> For example, it is claimed that being able to say the DoB of Alice is an attribute that identifies Alice's body.

And then we say that the stating the DoB authenticates anyone to make changes to Alice's account.

And then we say this is a terrible idea. And then we are in agreement.

And then we don't have to say completely unhelpful nonsense like the following:

> Then, it is also claimed that somebody else saying Alice's DoB supposedly is an act of stealing her identity, and that the set of such people is non-empty. Which means that being able to say Alice's DoB is not actually an identity in the first place, much less one that could be stolen.

If these credit bureaus insist on conflating the word "identity" with "authentication" then it is up to us, computer / information / system / security professionals to correct this error and continue with more clarity.

Not not to start a one-sided (credit bureaus aren't listening) philosophical argument that nobody was really talking about in the first place. This isn't about ontology, and it never was.

(Ontology is the field of philosophy that asks the question what "is" is, a.k.a. "identity" and it's very interesting but also very much irrelevant to this incident and the problem it poses to badly designed authentication systems)

An important part of our jobs is being able to clearly explain such computer security and authentication concepts to a layman. That includes properly framing the question. Digging into a philosophical argument because you feel you can argue your way around a particular word that is used, only feeds pedantry.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> Right, and this is the point where we, as computer system / information security / software (whatever, but) professionals switch to using the word "authentication", and stop being obtuse about the ambiguity in the multiple definitions of the word "identity".

Except it's nonsensical to switch to "authentication" when the discussion is about how the term "identity theft" is misleading. It's not "authentication theft", it's "identity theft", and that is exactly why it is misleading.

[mfoy_]

The point is that it is NOT "identity theft", even if that's what people call it. It is more aptly "authentication theft/fraud".

The original point of this comment thread was that the credit reporting agencies want to keep it confusing so that it's not clear who exactly was the victim of the crime, so it's not obvious that the system sucks.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

Yes, I agree, and I might have slightly misread what tripzilch wrote to mean that we should avoid the term here in this discussion, which I objected to. Towards the general public, it totally should be framed as an authentication failure, yes, I agree.

[tripzilch]

I think my point would be that, by discussing the minute semantic / philosophical points of the concept of "identity", you're still letting them frame the discussion that way. It's a word that they choose to describe something which it isn't. First is to just not go along with it, not to dig in and try to beat them on their own territory (if you succeed, you won nothing).

For the same reason I won't go into discussions about the finer moral points when stealing is wrong or not, if the topic is copyright. Especially not get carried into far-fetched analogies such that it is okay if a starving family steals the blueprint for a 3D printed load of bread or whatever.

In that sense, the term "intellectual property" is actually similarly problematic as "identity theft". While it evokes the connotation of "property", intellectual_property is actually just a legal term that stands on its own and derives nothing from the common concept of "property" except where explicitly defined as such.

Except that identity_theft is, afaik, not a legal term. I believe it stems from the idea of the loss of an interconnected number of (mostly electronic) credentials, an adversary could use to, in a sense "become you", and wreck one's life. This then became a serious fear, that was (in the public) not quite blamed on terrible security practices of powerful entities, but on the ever-growing interconnectedness and electronicification of all aspects of our life. In fact literally about the fear that the large amount of data about us in these computer databases, would some day mistaken to be us and identify, regardless of its truth in the real world. But identify_theft has always been painted as a sort of "curse of the modern age", our penance for living in an ever automated society, kind of typical Hollywood morality story.

Except these credit companies seem to be just focusing on the "wreck your life" part, twisting the definition around, that suddenly a security failure with their authentication/credential system gets to be blamed on the general societal menace of identity_theft, mainly because their error has the capability to wreck one's life.

I'm pretty sure Baudrillard or some other person in critical theory / semiotics has written some interesting stuff about this. Now that is a philosophical discussion on this topic that I would actually find worthwhile.