While reading the article, “Brits risk card fraud with slack security“, I was struck again by the confusion around the various types of fraud and what falls into the bin of “identity theft”.  The article holds no surprises for anyone that’s ever watched the general public interact with their cards on and offline.  Hence, it really isn’t worth reading, but hey, I gotta keep up and wading through some of this drivel is necessary.

The paragraph that raised my ire and prompted this post is:

A third of those surveyed by Which? said money had been fraudulently taken from their credit card or bank account. However the “vast majority” got all the stolen money back. The consumer group says this seems to suggest that ID theft insurance is “unnecessary for most people”.

At first reading I blamed the journalist for being a moron, then realized they were just channeling the stupidity of the “consumer group” representative.  Since when is my money my identity?  I have long said that I’d much rather a crook get into my account of whatever type and run up $3,000 worth of fun for themselves.  There’s lots of protections for me to get my money back, but even if there weren’t I’d much rather be out $3,000 than have that same crook steal enough identity data to go open brand new accounts with my name on them.  In the first theft, I’m out $3,000.  In the second theft, I’m out lots and lots of money, hours, sleep with lawyers involved, etc.  I’ve experienced the stolen card number case and really, that has been completely painless (thanks AmEx).  I definitely fear having my identity misappropriated (can’t really steal it, just abuse the heck out of it) and having my credit ruined with all the subsequent pains that follow.

It is completely irrational to state that because banks protect their users by reimbursing them for fraudulent account use that users shouldn’t protect themselves from a significantly higher impact theft with equally significant costs.