Cited on HN 20 times, 2014–2025, never outright recommendedscore 0
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
HN posts it as the obligatory joke link in threads about data breaches, credit bureaus and bank security failures.
A sketch from That Mitchell and Webb Sound in which a caller learns that identity theft is, in effect, a bank robbery in which the bank blames the customer. It runs about two minutes.
Did the world become a much worse place when the internet arrived, or did the positives end up outweighing the negatives? There were a few years where Nigerian scammers could convince grandma they were a prince who needed a bank transfer, but eventually grandma figured out the scam. I don't see why AI would be any different - sure, there may be an increase in new scams for a few years, but people will learn and adapt, like they always have. And meanwhile the positive aspects of AI will have a positive impact on society. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater because we can imagine all the ways to abuse new technology. Maybe instead of freaking out and trying to restrict innovation, we should be working on insurance products to mitigate the financial risk of scams, and educational content to reduce their effectiveness. The fact that many scams are even possible in the first place stems from the absurd idea that "identity theft" is your fault [0], so maybe we could start there. If my bank uses my voice as my password, or if my phone company is willing to present fraudulent caller ID telling me it really is my son calling to ask for money, then is the problem really the scammers, or is it the easily defraudable systems with no incentives to reduce abuse of their platforms? [0] [this video]
"No, you see, it was your identity ... they said they were you." "And you believed them?" "Yes they stole your identity." "Well, I don't know because I think I have my identity, whereas you seemed to have lost several thousands of pounds..." [this video]
> how can they justify blacklisting you with a credit check bureau On the last Anthem story, someone linked this Mitchell & Webb audio clip: [this video] which completely nails it.
A comedic explanation is given by Mitchell & Webb: [this video] "Some logged in on the bank website and committed identity theft electronically." "I see, did they take anything else?" "Uh, no." "Oh, good, so all the money's still there?" "What?" It's just my identity that's gone. None of your money?"
> “It’s not a best practice to share that information publicly,” said Eva Velasquez, the president and chief executive of the Identity Theft Resource Center. “If you don’t have protections in place, there are sophisticated schemes and ways someone could access those funds knowing the account and routing number and the individual person it belongs to.” Ah yes, identity theft. Otherwise known as bank robbery. [0] [0] [this video]
> “I don’t know of anyone who has come close to causing more material harm than Ngo did to the average American,” O’Neill said. > Throughout the court proceedings, Ngo sat through story after dreadful story of how his work had ruined the financial lives of people harmed by his services. He made it easier for people to steal money from banks and credit card companies. Its a pretty stupid system that forces the "average American" to be on the hook for that. We shouldn't even be calling it "Identify Theft", this is just bank fraud. [this video]
Or make “identity theft” a problem for the banks and institutions that want to use digitally entered 9 digits and birthdate as some sort of authentication. If a bank or whoever gets defrauded by someone claiming they are someone else, that should be the bank’s problem. Everyone has a smartphone today with a video camera and data. Why is a video of you giving a thumbs up and announcing your authorization for entity X to borrrow or purchase with Y dollars not the standard? [this video]
There is a great comedy routine about identity theft. It's by Mitchell and Webb. Here is the link: [this video] Don't keep reading if you don't want a spoiler. . . . . The gist of it is that the customer says "this sounds like a bank robbery, not identity theft. I have my identity, but you don't have the money, so it sounds like they stole your money, not my identity".
Indeed, it's an incentive problem. Banks create shitty systems because when their systems fail someone else suffers. Even the phrase "identity theft" is a misleading attempt to shift the blame, as humorously depicted in this Mitchell & Webb comedy sketch: [this video]
Credit scams and identity theft are a problem for us because right now the banks don't have to pay any cost of those mistakes. The most direct way to solve the problem of credit scams and identity theft is to put the onus on the bank who opened up the account incorrectly to assume responsibility for the debt, not on the person whose account details were spoofed to create the account. This is quite humorously illustrated by a "That Mitchell and Webb Sound" skit: [this video]
> Yes, and that point is most likely SAE level 5 Hard disagree. This is the same as identity theft, where it becomes your responsibility instead of a failure on the part of the bank to protect your account, and the burden gets shifted entirely onto the consumer. Relevant Michell and Webb: [this video] If Tesla sells a SAE Level 2 lane following / accident avoidance feature which should be able to stop and avoid rear end collisions, yet it causes rear end collisions, they must be liable for that failure. They can't just write words and shift all liability onto the consumer for the software failing to work properly. Nice try though. And I don't care if the consumer technically agreed to that. If someone smacks into me with Autopilot enabled, I never consented to that technology and didn't give up my rights to sue Tesla.
At least partly because they're not allowed to do that because there are specific rules about it. If banks could just say "so sad, too bad", they absolutely would. I know someone who had to resort to the financial ombudsman to get their money after a hack because the "bank" (Revolut or Monzo) would not engage with them to even acknowledge anything had happened. Pretty much this is what banks try if they can: [this video]
Classic Mitchell and Webb skit[0]: Bank: "No, you see it was your identity that they stole!" Customer: "Well I don't know because I seem to have my identity whereas you seem to have lost several thousands of dollars. I'm not clear why you think it's my identity that was stolen rather than your money." 0: [this video]
Identity theft is a very clever term to shift blame from the company to the consumer. [this video] It’s a comedy bit but I take its point seriously: if the bank gives away money, it’s the bank’s job to make sure it is repaid. Not mine, unless I was actually a party to the agreement.
> I hate the term stealing identity, because it implies the victim made some mistake to allow it to happen. When what really happened is the company was lazy to verify that the person they're doing business with is actually who they say they are. The onus and liability should be on the company involved. You may enjoy this sketch: [this video]
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
20 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Read more
Read more