[mysterypie]

> banks needs to be liable for loans they write in your name fraudulently

Is this not the case already? I know that it could be an incredible hassle to prove that you didn't take out the loan and that someone else has stolen your identity. (There's also the question of who has the onus of proof -- you or the bank.) But if it's a fraudulent loan and you could prove it was fraudulent (which I agree could be difficult to prove), can you be held responsible?

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> But if it's a fraudulent loan and you could prove it was fraudulent (which I agree could be difficult to prove), can you be held responsible?

The simple answer to this is "no." Identity theft can take time and, occasionally, a small amount of money to clean up. This has a very real cost if you happen to be a person that has little of these resources. But you can never* be held responsible for a loan you didn't take out.

This is also the core reason why Equifax has not suffered many consequences: it's because the real world harm of their negligence simply wasn't that significant. I don't even know if there is any data to show that the number of identity thefts has increased in the wake of their breach.

*Unless I guess you receive a summons to a court date and don't show up and someone gets a default judgment against you. "Never," here, as usual, means "extremely rarely."

[mingee]

From a quick Google search I got "Online fraud attack rates have increased by 13% since the start of 2017, according to a new study from e-commerce fraud-prevention provider Forter. Digital goods—including gift cards, gaming and music—experienced the sharpest increase in online fraud in the wake of the Equifax breach, soaring 167% between the first quarter of 2017 and the same period a year later, Forter said. E-commerce sellers of electronics saw a 66% increase in online fraud over the same period, and online fraud in food and beverage also showed a sudden surge." though who knows how reliable that is.

One thing I hate about massive corporations is that there's no semblance of accountability. I'm not looking for Hamurabi's law, but as long as companies can act with impunity in the face of the law we're in for a rough future :[

[gpm]

The burden of proof is wrong here though. You shouldn't have to prove you didn't take the loan out. The bank should have to prove that you did.

[odbol]

The thing is, the burden of proof shouldn't be on the victim to prove that the loan was fraudulent. The bank should have to prove that it was valid otherwise it's automatically ruled in the victim's favor. You know, innocent until proven guilty and all that.