Perhaps someone could explain to me a little about Identity Theft. Someone claiming to be John Smith applies for a credit card which the bank issues. Now the real John Smith gets his credit rating trashed because of this.Now what I don't understand, is that the bank failed to properly identify the person to whom it was extending credit. The real John Smith entered into no contract with the bank. The bank can provide no documents signed with John Smith's actual signature. There's a big problem here and a big crime, but how can the real John Smith be made a victim? It was the bank that was defrauded, not John Smith. It seems that the trashing of credit ratings is nothing more than a retalitory strike from the true victim (the bank) against an innocent person. There was a local case recently where a car dealer allegedly "stole" the identity of customers to obtain fradulent loans. Now the local DA is attempting to add "Fraud Alerts" to the credit records of the people whose identities were stolen. Seems Cool, but shouldn't there be a process whereby this sort of thing is actually removed? Or better yet, prevent these blotches from being added at all until true identity is confirmed. IMHO if creditors were held liable for properly establishing identity before issuing credit, then the incentives would be in the right place. We would very quickly find the creditors as a collective group establishing the proper protocols for securly identifying individuals. Anyone have insight?