addison rose bookworm bitches …

Unfortunately, insurance fraud is a reality, regardless whether we like it or not.

By taking such possibilities into consideration, there is a higher lilelihood of structuring victim compensation in a way that may minimize such fraud, and channel more money to victims rather than fraudsters.

This is a controversial article, because many have not made the distinction between inflating “identity theft reports” (which is what the article says), as opposed to “increasing identity theft” which the article does not say.

Perhaps by reading the article that immediately followed this one, readers can understand better how we feel about this issue, and why it is important to bring such issue into the open.

Your comment is greatly appreciated, and your comments are mostly true. However, it is not a “silly article” when the article is read properly, and interpreted properly. To help readers do so, we had published the follow-up article: “Making Identity Theft Victim Compensation Effective”

First, although insurance fraud generally is a significant problem, no one suggests that therefore insurance should not exist. Instead, they look for ways to detect and deter fraud.

Second, ID theft insurance has been in existence for years, providing reimbursement for recovery expenses, and with many millions of customers. There has been very little incidence of fraud, but customer satisfaction is fairly high — insurance payments have been made with relatively little trouble.

Third, appropriate compensation for the full scope of recovery costs would hardly incent major ID theft crime. That would only occur if fraudsters could split reimbursement of losses from high-value frauds, which no one is proposing on a wide scale.

Peter Marshall
CEO, ID Theft Defense Center
www.idtheftdefensecenter.com