Credit Monitoring Services Question

A few months back, I ended my subscription to Equifax's Credit Monitoring Service because I found out that they only monitor changes to your credit report on a monthly basis. That's not good if someone gets a hold of your credit card number early in the monthly cycle. I was lucky in that someone got a hold of my CC number ath the very end of the cycle. As a result, I was able to nip it in the bud.

In the book "Scam Proof Your Life", the author suggests signing up for one of two credit monitoring services which monitor your credit on a DAILY basis. (Identity Guard or Privacy Guard).

Reply to
BRH
Loading thread data ...

I am able to review my CC purchases online. I can do this as often as I like. What's wrong with being your own monitor?

Elizabeth Richardson

Reply to
Elizabeth Richardson

Certainly you can check your existing accounts. However, I think the bigger danger in identity theft is that someone opens a new account in your name but not using your address. Unless you monitor your credit report, you might not learn of the existence of the account until the credit card company locates you and contacts you for payment, at which point there might be a huge mess to clean up. The more frequently you can monitor it, the smaller the mess.

Dave

Reply to
Dave Dodson

BRH wrote on [Mon, 7 May 2007 14:51:41 -0500]:

Check over your statement, if you don't recognise a bunch of charges dispute them

ID theft rarely involves using an existing CC, it involves opening new lines on your ID.

Reply to
Justin

For monthly monitoring, you might as well use one of the free monitoring services, such as the one provided to Paypal accounts.

Reply to
bo peep

Thanks.

That's a very valid point - one worth considering. However, in addition to monitoring existing CC usage, the credit-monitoring services also (supposedly) notify you when a credit inquiry is made in your name or any new account/loan application etc is opened in your name.

So I still appreciate any others input to the original question.

Reply to
BRH

One free thing that helps is to put a fraud alert on your account with any of the three credit reporting services. It's free and you can do it by phone, and lasts 3 months. No one will be allowed to open a new line of credit on the account without extra verification. Joe Weinstein

Reply to
joe.weinstein

Go ahead if you are so inclined. If I had done that for the last 40 years i would have run into no problems and wasted a good amount of time. I would rather use my time for things I enjoy.

It's a personal choice. Thumper

Reply to
Thumper

Well, of course, you haven't been able to do that for the last 40 years. As another poster has said, monitoring your CC account won't catch identity theft, since an ID thief rarely uses a valid card. However, it does allow me to monitor my current spending. And, as the other poster said, it would identify a problem with your card if someone were to be using your card early in the billing cycle.

There are lots of things I like to do. Checking my cc purchases 2-3 times a month takes maybe 5 minutes. If there were charges I'd want to dispute, it would waste a lot more time than that.

Elizabeth Richardson

Reply to
Elizabeth Richardson

Call me dumb, but why is that not good enough? It's not like you are liable for the debt. When the monthly statement comes in that has an unauthorized account on it, just file the police report, then call them and let them know.

Reply to
Daniel T.

The problem is, if your identity is stolen, there won't *be* a monthly statement. The thief will usually open up a brand new credit card account that you don't know about, using a different address than yours. They also can take out car loans, etc.

Reply to
bo peep

The monthly statement in question is the one from the credit reporting bureau that the OP is getting. My question is, why is it so important to make that a daily report? Seems to me monthly is more than adequate.

The OP raised a concern about someone stealing his/her identity "near the beginning of the month" and it not getting caught until the statement comes in at the end of the month. I say "big deal" that's the banks problem, not the OPs.

Keep in mind "identity theft" is not a crime against you, it's a crime against the lending institution that may hurt you only if the lending institution is being obstinate and trying to push its problems into your lap. Your catching the fraud earlier, rather than later, is a nice thing you can do for them if you are so inclined, but unless the banks are willing to pay me for the service, I'm not going to expend a lot of effort in it.

Reply to
Daniel T.

"Daniel T." wrote

snip for brevity

The lending institutions will pass along the costs of ID theft to consumers one way or another. If everyone, or even just some are vigilant, all will be "paid" for their efforts.

Reply to
Elle

Unscrewing an identity theft can take considerable time and effort. You are essentially trying to prove a negative -- "I did not open that account." Strictly speaking, the burden of proof is on the institution, but practically speaking, it is on you. They can make a mess of your credit rating while you are chanting "Not me, not my signature, not my picture, I was not in that town."

Just ask my daughter.

-- Doug

Reply to
Douglas Johnson

FWIW, on average, once a person's identity is stolen, it takes about

600 hours of effort on that person's part to correct all of the consequences. The less consequences there are, the less time it should take to correct everything.
Reply to
bo peep

I can believe it. A couple of things about your comment above are inaccurate though. It would be more accurate to say, "Once someone has committed fraud against several banks using your name and SSN, many banks would rather make your life difficult in the hopes that you are willing to give them money instead of accepting the loss and making the insurance claim."

You see, "identity theft" is a misnomer perpetrated by the banks in an effort to make you feel responsible for their problems.

Reply to
Daniel T.

By all means then, simply pay the debt if someone defrauds the bank. That way we can all be "paid" for your efforts.

My basic point is: when someone defrauds the bank, you are not the victim until the bank attempts to collect from you. Then you are the victim, but it is the bank that is culpable. In marketing the crime as "identity theft" the bank is trying to make you feel like the defrauder has committed a crime against you instead of them.

[Note to Moderators: This is starting to feel like something that should be in a politics newsgroup rather than here. I'll stop now.]
Reply to
Daniel T.

"Daniel T." wrote Elle

This is like my saying to you to please make it easy for someone to steal your identity. Let's make these lending institutions pay!

The above two paragraphs represent neither of our viewpoints.

I do not agree with your promotion of people being less responsible when it comes to minimizing losses due to ID theft. Most people in the U.S. do not live in a vacuum. We have to try to get along with our neighbors, so AFAIC some consideration should be had for acting in all's interest, especially when the "cost" (a little time watching one's credit card accounts) is so low.

I am happy to agree to disagree and likewise will withdraw now.

Reply to
Elle

Does anyone have any first hand knowledge of the banking systems fee structuring that could provide some insight?

Daniel T., what I think Elle was getting at is that banks know they will be defrauded to some extent and incorporate that into their operating expenses. These expenses are then passed onto consumers by way of higher fees than would be present in the absence of fraud. "No free lunch" and all that.

However, if you're a bank to what extent do you actually try to prevent ID theft? At some point the marginal cost of security will outweight the marginal benefit of preventing ID theft. If the bank is economically rational they are providing ID security to the point that Marginal cost = Marginal benefit. So even in the presence of declining ID theft, the consumer still bears the new cost of ID theft security. Simply put, If the bank spends $100 million on security to prevent $100 million in fraud they come out smelling like roses (because of their consumer safety measures), but their operating expenses, and our fees, haven't changed a cent.

P.S. - avoid high interest credit card debt (this is my financial planning relevancy requirement)!!!

Reply to
kastnna

Which makes no difference to the OPs original point, as it was current issued ccs they knew about that they were worried about.

Reply to
Justin

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.