I had been away for a week, and when I got back home there was a message on my voicemail from a collection agency. I get these from time to time – usually they ask if they can speak with Joe or Frank or Dave, and because I am none of these people, I can tell the collection agency they are after the wrong guy and that's the end of it. So I called back this collection agency (CA, for the purpose of this story), expecting a similar outcome. But this time the agent at the other end of the line used my correct name, and added the correct last four digits of my SNN. And then he asked me if I ever purchased cable TV services in Chicago. As I live on one of the Left Coasts, I knew we were not talking about something I had bought. But the coincidence about the SSNs caught my attention, and I asked her to tell me the full SSN. She could not do so because the collection agency wasn't given the whole SSN by the large media conglomerate that was seeking to close this delinquent account. The agent advised me that I could call the large media conglomerate (LMC) and they could tell me the full SSN of the account holder. I ended the call with the collection agency after telling them I never lived in Chicago, had never purchased any services from the LMC, that I was not responsible for the delinquent account, and I would be happy to send them a written document to that effect.
And that's how my trip through the looking glass into the corporatocracy's crazy world of credit in the age of ID theft began.
Warning: this is a fairly lengthy article, so those of you wishing instant gratification or suffering from ADD or MDAADS (Mobile Device Associated Attention Deficit Syndrome), are advised to read elsewhere.
The first thing I did was to start a log. I needed a place to record all the information I had just learned from CA, and all the information this kind of problem generates: names, companies involved, telephone numbers, addresses, who needs what copy of which document, what date I spoke to which representative, etc.
I then called the LMC. We were able to confirm that my name and full SSN were used to purchase services over a year ago in a town thousands of miles away from where I live. I explained again that I had not made those purchases and was not responsible for the delinquent account. We exchanged contact information, and they asked me to send them a letter of dispute and please include copies of past utility bills to prove my actual place of residence. I am compulsive enough that I keep old information like that, and was able to send them the documents they requested.
Next stop: the Social Security Agency. I called the local office of the SSA and explained to them that someone was using my name and SSN fraudulently. I was informed that the SSA does not investigate or involve itself in cases of fraudulent use of a SSN: their mission is to give out those numbers, and what happens with those numbers after that is not their concern. I was told (incorrectly, it turns out) that I should report my complaint about the fraudulent use of my SSN to the state Attorney General. The agent I spoke to said that if I wanted, I could come to the offices and they would query their database to find all the people receiving paychecks using my name and SSN. Which led me to a couple of interesting realizations: anyone receiving a paycheck using my name and SSN is paying into a fund that is supposed to come back to me. And I like the idea of someone else adding to my SS account; I'm not sure I want to stop that. But, and perhaps more auspicious, any person receiving a paycheck having my name and SSN is also eligible to receive from that same account that is meant for me. And I definitely don't want that to happen. Given that the SSA does not concern itself with fraudulent use of the SSNs, I was tempted to ask the agent when it comes time to make that reimbursement, how the SSA ensures the money it sends out goes to the correct recipient? But I was having trouble understanding the agent's thick accent, and I didn't get the impression the agent was informed and knowledgeable on the subject, so I figured that question could wait for a later time. For the record, the SSA tells us that SSNs are not to be used as personal IDs, and we should not be revealing our SSNs to others. Keep that in mind next time you book an airline ticket or rental car, or call those people about their low rates for car insurance, or wish to purchase an online service.
My next stop was to the police to report a crime. I wanted to report the fraudulent use of my name and SSN, and start an official paper trial. My home town is so tiny, it has no police department, so I went to the state police. The local state police barracks is not staffed at all times (smaller government is SO much better than the alternative), so I had to call them and then wait for an officer to show up. I told the officer my story, and showed him the dispute letter I had just sent off to LMC, with the old utility bills showing my local residence. I also brought along – just in case! - my valid passport, and my original paper SS card that my father turned over to me back in the the 1960s which still bears my original cursive signature made by my seven-year old hand. Believe me, I felt plenty nervous walking around with those two documents (what would I do should I lose one?!?!?). The officer was interested only in my state-issued driver's license though, and seemed satisfied that I was who I claimed I was.
Here's what I learned from the state police. First, in all likelihood the state police would not investigate the crime, because the crime took place in another state, outside of their jurisdiction. The officer informed me I might have better luck with the police in Chicago, where the crime took place. If you, like I, imagined that the state police would pass along highly detailed information about a crime to the local investigative bureau having jurisdiction, you would be wrong. The state police officer told me his office is not obliged to pass along information about a crime occurring in Chicago to the police in Chicago, but he would be sure to give me a telephone number and information about how to file a complaint with the police in Chicago. I pointed out that indeed a crime was occurring right here in our state when a company wants to take money from me that is not theirs to take. Here, the officer informed me it was not illegal for the CA and LMC to demand money from me that I do not owe them, or even to threaten me with consequences if I do not give them the money I do not owe them. As the officer explained it to me, the CA and LMC have a right to seek redress for a debt owed, even though I was not the one who created the debt. In fairness, the officer went on to tell me that seeking payment on a debt from the wrong party is not a criminal offense, but may represent a civil offense, and that I could seek redress through the civil courts if I so chose. So imagine that: you are free to stroll down the street and tell everyone you meet that you think they owe you $20 dollars and that if they do not give it to you, you will cause them all kinds of problems, and the police will apparently do nothing to stop you (though I advise readers not to try this). It was during this second part of our conversation that I learned a third interesting facet of this issue: as the person bringing information about a crime to the police, and highly detailed information at that, I was prime suspect #1, #2, and # 3, right off the bat. Of course, it's MY fault, even when it's not!!!
The business about the police not investigating this crime kind of turns out to be important. The CA and LMC and various other organizations want a copy of the police report showing that a crime has been reported, and according to the officer I spoke with, if the state police do not mount an investigation, there will be no police report per se. However, the state police will provide me with written confirmation that I spoke to them about this issue. Let's hope that documentation satisfies the various corporate powers. Otherwise, it will be on me to contact the police in Chicago, and seek a police report from them – I wonder how long that will take?!?!. Apparently, it is not the responsibility of LMC, the company that actually had services stolen from it, to report this matter to the police. After all, the law says that LMC has the right to seek payment on a debt from me, even if I was not the one who incurred the debt. So why should they bother wasting time with the Chicago police when there is a defenseless ordinary citizen to exploit? No, wasting time with the police a thousand miles away is going to fall on me, even though the crime happened to another. And, call me cynical, but I have a sneaking suspicion that I will get no more satisfaction trying to report a fraudulent use of my SSN to the police in Chicago than I did from the state police in my own locale - I wonder if the Chicago police will even pick up the phone!!
Next up, the credit reporting agencies. The three credit reporting agencies (Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian) make money by collecting lots of financial and other personal information about you and me and selling it to interested parties – like banks, credit-granting businesses, insurance agencies, potential employers, marketeers, and others. You might think that such a business model would only be successful if the information they sell is highly accurate and reliable. But such a supposition neglects a second aspect of the business model of these credit rating agencies: selling you and me services so we can review and check on the accuracy of the information about us that these companies sell to others. It turns out that the companies that make it their business to sell information about us to others have no way to vouch for or verify that any of the information they are selling is accurate. They can and do give out bogus information about us, AND GET PAID TO DO SO! As far as I can tell, these credit rating agencies make no claims about the accuracy of the information about you that they sell to others. It seems to me that banks, lenders, and others would only want highly accurate information, but it appears that I am wrong about this. I suppose the banks and lenders are only concerned about one kind of inaccuracy – where an unreliable individual is wrongly given a favorable rating. And given that the whole idea of the credit rating agencies is to identify blemishes on the individual's record, those kinds of errors are rare. Far more likely are the errors where a reasonable petitioner is given a downgraded rating. In which case, the bank or lender believes they have saved themselves from a future loss, and they don't need to answer to the wishful debtor anyways. So if the credit rating agencies are to give out accurate information about you, it becomes your responsibility to check on that information and correct their mistakes (despite your efforts on their behalf, the credit rating agencies will retain all money they collect using your now-accurate information for themselves). Disputing those inaccuracies about yourself that the credit rating agencies give out to others is free (requiring only many pages of documentation and the patience of Job), but if you want to regularly review what information a given credit rating agency has about you, you can purchase a subscription from that agency. So the business model of the credit rating agencies is: sell information (accurate or otherwise) about you to others, and collect a fee from you to review and verify the accuracy of that information.
As my name and associated SSN has been used by another to purchase cable TV services, I am worried that person could apply for a line of credit using my name and SSN, and I could get stuck with a debt I did not accrue. Indeed, the purchase of cable TV services occurred more than a year previously, so I wondered how many lines of credit I never opened existed under my name. I instituted a 90 Fraud Alert, which I believe notifies anyone who reviews my credit rating that an instance of ID theft has been reported, and alerts potential creditors to double-check identity documentation. For $30, I purchased a one-time report listing all the information the three credit rating agencies report on me. I was relieved to find no lines of credit I could not identify as my own. While the 90 Day Fraud Alert is in place, I am researching placing an Extended Fraud Alert with the credit rating agencies: this functions as a Fraud Alert but continues for up to seven years.. None of the credit card I currently hold said such an action would effect my day-to-day use of my credit card, though it would mean extra hoops to jump through should I apply for another line of credit or a bank loan.
I suppose I am in many ways fortunate in this game. I did not create the delinquent account, and the LMC and CA can not get money from me unless they take me to court, where I can easily prove their false claims. The only financial fallout on me may be a possible downgrade of my credit rating. However, I currently have no mortgage, no school debt, and I pay off my credit card in full every month, so I do not have to worry about ballooning monthly payments. So far neither LMC nor CA have explicitly made such threats to me, but they would not carry much weight for me even if they did. The biggest danger to me is that someone could open up a line of credit with my name, rack up a bunch of debts and then hide, and I would be left holding the bag. Now that I know this is a real possibility, I can take steps to prevent it. I am hopeful that LMC and CA will in time realize that I own them no money and will correct the negative report they have made about me to the credit reporting agencies.
And if LMC and CA do not, I retain the power of the lawsuit. I used to look down my nose at people who threatened lawsuits, but these days I see this as one of the strongest tools the individual has when battling a corporation that is backed by the full power of the corporatocracy. I can sue LMC and CA should they aggressively and irresponsibly cause harm my name and financial life. Of course, the reality is that LMC and CA can out-lawyer me, and drag out even a losing case for years if need be: my protection is that they do not want to have to do so. So even my strong defense is easily overrun. Despite that, the conservative apologists for the corporatocracy are given to advocating greater restrictions on the ability of the individual such as myself to bring suit against corporations under the rubric of “tort reform” and “stopping frivolous lawsuits”. Nothing could be more frivolous to the corporatocracy than individuals working to protect their good name, good financial standing, and rightfully-earned financial resources.
And gee, can anyone tell me why every-time I look at DailyKos these days, ads for Equifax cover the side-bars?