[kiriakasis]

I cannot understand the lack of linguistic empathy in this kind of reply; many commenters are clearly using the term "identity theft" with a precise meaning, basically to descibe when somebody else is able to impersonate you. answering by a dictionary lookup of the words definition is entirely offtopic in my opinion.

And calling for a name to be changed is different from criticizing people who use it, some concept need to be expressed and sometimes the only way to meaningfully express them is with an improper term.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

Well, except that this (sub-)thread was about how "identity" is a misleading word to use in this context, which is why I read falcolas' comment as a justification for why it is actually not misleading, which is why I focused on how that justification falls short.

If that comment was not meant as a justification, the only interpretation I can come up with is that it's a description of what empirically happens nowadays when something commonly called "identity theft" occurs, in which case I agree it could charitably be read as a reasonably accurate description ... however then it seems like a completely pointless comment, as that is essentially just the premise of the whole discussion, restated in a context where it has no specific relevance whatsoever.

Did I miss something?

Though I also think that criticizing people who use misleading language is legitimate as well, even if the meaning of what they are saying is perfectly clear, as long as you don't confuse the criticism of the form with criticism of the content.

[marnett]

this whole thread is about the cognitive implications caused by the linguistics behind the term 'identity theft.' The GP is really digging deep into the real essence of this issue. Changing what it is called shows that the onus of responsibility to remediate the issue should be entirely on the credit issuing corporations.