Monday, August 29, 2005

Identity Thief Steals House. From Plastic: James Cook left on a business trip to Florida, and his wife Paula went to Oklahoma to care for her sick mother. When the two returned to Frisco, Texas, several days later, their keys didn't work. The locks on the house had been changed. They spent their first night back sleeping in a walk-in closet, with a steel pipe ready to cold-cock any intruders. The next day, they met the man who thought he owned their house, because he had put a US$12,000 down payment to someone named Carlos Ramirez. The Cooks went to the Denton County Courthouse and checked their title. Someone had forged Paula Cook's maiden name, Paula Smart, and transferred the deed to Carlos Ramirez. Paula's identity was not only stolen, but the thief also stole her house. Even the police said they've never seen a case like this one, but suspect the criminal was able to steal the identity and the house with just Mrs. Cook's Social Security number, driver's license number and a copy of her signature. This is a perfect example of the sort of fraud issue that a national ID card won't solve. The problem is not that identity credentials are too easy to forge. The problem is that the criminal needed nothing more than "Mrs. Cook's Social Security number, driver's license number and a copy of her signature." And the solution isn't a harder-to-forge card; the solution is to make the procedure for transferring real-estate ownership more onerous. If the Denton County Courthouse had better transaction authentication procedures, the particulars of identity authentication -- a national ID, a state driver's license, biometrics, or whatever -- wouldn't matter. If we are ever going to solve identity theft, we need to think about it properly. The problem isn't misused identity information; the problem is fraudulent transactions. [Schneier on Security] 10:08:27 PM    comment []

Fine post by mnemonic on Runaround Suits, part of which quotes an appearance by an RIAA attorney apparently surprised at being required to make a case rather than passing go and collecting $200. MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center. THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court. MR. MASCHIO: Okay. THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything. MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card. THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits. [Godwin's Law - feed.rdf] Full exchange in the record here. 10:08:00 PM    comment []

Wes: These are two more example of identity serfdom; if your identity is in a domain that you don't own, then you are screwed (you just may not realize it yet). This is a basic law of Identity 1.0. If one of the giants wanted to innovate in a way that's guaranteed not to be evil, they'd set themselves up to manage customer-owned identities instead of trying to own users' identities. (In theory, people should be willing to pay more for the same service with no lock-in, but in reality they won't. Oh well.) 10:01:29 PM    comment []

Chirac Warns Iran of Penalty if It Continues Nuclear Work. The president of France warned Iran that it would face censure by the U.N. Security Council if it did not reinstate a freeze on nuclear activities. By ELAINE SCIOLINO. [NYT > International] 10:01:25 PM    comment []

Behind the Spectacle. Are the media turning our elections into freak shows? Alexandra Pelosi and Matt Taibbi offer some insight. And Johnette Howard considers the unique rivalry and friendship between Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. [WNYC New York Public Radio] 10:01:19 PM    comment []

Misunderstanding Philosophy of Biology: The Case of Professor Lloyd and Female Orgasm. Is the clitoral orgasm in women favored by natural selection?  Apparently not, according to Professor Elisabeth Lloyd, a leading philosopher of biology at Indiana University, Bloomington.  What is revealing about the culture of the blogosphere is the outpouring of ignorant denunciations this has produced.  Professor Lloyd responds generously and patiently here (for more generously than the stupid venality of a number of these comments warrant!).  An interesting question is whether her reply will stop the smears and distortions?  (Do also see Professor Millstein's apt comments at the same site.) [Leiter Reports] 10:01:14 PM    comment []

Verizon Wireless Cuts Price in Promotion. Verizon Wireless has cut the price of high-speed wireless service for laptop computer users by 25 percent in a promotion aimed at winning more customers. By REUTERS. [NYT > Business] 9:56:59 PM    comment []

Every transition known to man. ...can be seen here. It's the full catalog for video transitions. There's nothing like thoroughness to impress the viewer. [Napsterization] 9:56:55 PM    comment []

From Hoosiers Ate My Brain, news that: A new round of speculation has begun fueled by the release of John Minor's transcripts of Monroe's tapes intended for her psychologist, Dr. Ralph Greenson. Monroe had asked these tapes be kept confidential, although Greenson shared them with the Los Angeles prosecutor's office in hopes of discrediting the idea that she committed suicide. John Minor, then an assistant DA, made a transcript of the tapes, and has kept it confidential up to now. Greenson died many years ago. The LA Times has been reporting on them all week and today runs them in their entirety. 7:53:19 AM    comment []

JUDGE POURS COLD WATER ON DUI LAW: Virginia Jurist Finds an Unconstitutional Presumption of Guilt. By Margaret Graham Tebo, ABAJournal eReport. O’Flaherty found that the Virginia statute created a mandatory presumption of impairment for any defendant whose blood alcohol level was found to be .08 or above. The statute permits rebutting evidence, such as alternate reasons for the .08 result or improper administration of the test. But the court said the law unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof from the prosecutor to the defendant. 6:50:50 AM    comment []