> If someone steals my car and kills someone with it, I'm not liable for murder. I just had a car stolen.
Right. You're a victim. And you'll probably be involved in the process of investigating and resolving the manslaughter.
> If someone who looks nothing like me steals my passport and convinces someone to loan them a bunch of money, I'm not liable for that money
Right. But you're obviously going to be involved in sorting out that mess, even if that begins and ends with "fuck off."
> If the bank does the above, suddenly it's my problem for "getting my identity stolen"
How? If someone opens a credit line in my name in a foreign country, and I'm never contacted about it, it's not my problem. It only becomes my problem if they try to take my stuff.
Identity theft is in the same category, from the victim's perspective, as a bank error. If a bank mistakenly initiates foreclosure proceedings against me, that's their mistake. But it's my problem. That's the basic reality of the situation. (For a lower-level analog, if you accuse the wrong person of a crime to a police officer, that's your mistake. But it's their problem.)
What you're recognising is how much more powerful the bank is than you or me. Given how common identity theft is, they shouldn't be given the benefit of doubt they (or anyone else) would if they had a piece of paper purporting to promise something from us to them. But we have to recognise this isn't a return to the status quo; we're creating an exception.
> point is that if the bank gives someone a loan in my name, I'll have to prove it wasn't me, it's not the bank who has to prove it was me
They do. When they file for e.g. foreclosure, they're submitting proof to competent authorities. You're disputing that proof because it's bad proof. But they--and the authorities--don't know that. It looks like regular proof. It's a conventional adversarial set-up. It's just incredibly unequal.
What I'm getting at is this isn't some weird switcheroo. It's how contracts work in general.
I think you two don’t really disagree, one of you is describing what ought to be and the other is describing how the system is currently rigged, unfortunately.
Right. You're a victim. And you'll probably be involved in the process of investigating and resolving the manslaughter.
> If someone who looks nothing like me steals my passport and convinces someone to loan them a bunch of money, I'm not liable for that money
Right. But you're obviously going to be involved in sorting out that mess, even if that begins and ends with "fuck off."
> If the bank does the above, suddenly it's my problem for "getting my identity stolen"
How? If someone opens a credit line in my name in a foreign country, and I'm never contacted about it, it's not my problem. It only becomes my problem if they try to take my stuff.
Identity theft is in the same category, from the victim's perspective, as a bank error. If a bank mistakenly initiates foreclosure proceedings against me, that's their mistake. But it's my problem. That's the basic reality of the situation. (For a lower-level analog, if you accuse the wrong person of a crime to a police officer, that's your mistake. But it's their problem.)
What you're recognising is how much more powerful the bank is than you or me. Given how common identity theft is, they shouldn't be given the benefit of doubt they (or anyone else) would if they had a piece of paper purporting to promise something from us to them. But we have to recognise this isn't a return to the status quo; we're creating an exception.