Not calling anyone out, for the few that think it's ok or not understanding, I am not trying to be mean here, but do you have a heart? Have you ever lost a loved one? Is any of your brother or sisters, mother or father, child passed away? I pray that is not the case, but for anyone who doesn't understand or say it's ok, have you lost a loved one? Now would you like someone else to use thier identy?

How about say you childs name is Blue Yellow. (sorry trying to think of a name that nobody would be named.) So say you child is named Blue Yellow. Now 10, 20 years later, youi see something in the news of Blue Yellow doing something. This would just be a name that is the same but the person was your Blue Yellow. How would you feel that you child is suppose to be alive? Wouldn't you be mortified? More pain comes back after you have healed so long ago. The wound can be ripped open again.

While I can see your point, the person who died, can not be effected from the bills piling up caused by the person who wracked them up, BUT if it's a spouce, that spouce could be effected, and would have the burded to prove that he or she doesn't owe that money. So yes while the person's whos identity was stolen, will not be effected, anyone who is alive can still be effected. So any person alive, could theoretically depending where they live, and the Law, could still owe money what ever is in that person's name.

So yes, besides emotional burden is brought apont the living, physical expenses are also brought as well. Again, theft is theft. Who is going to pay for the crime commited? Now the person is arrested, We the people have to pay for court fees, have to pay for incareration (jailing) fees, so yes we still have to pay even though we don't know these people.

So everyone suffers when this happens.

So one day me and my family was talking about death and what we want to happen after.

I asked if they could shoot my body into space, away from the Sun, or freeze and preserve me, and if those options are not possible just throw me into the ocean or something of the sort. No need to drop $20,000 for a funeral.
After I told em to just throw my dead body into the ocean they looked at me weird, and then my girlfriend said "What the [censored] is wrong with you", and I laughed. I dont think they think I'm serious. Talk about respect for the living and for the dead.. Can't respect a living/dead mans wishes.

I'm dead. *shrug*

What would be really nice is if at the moment I die my good body parts get harvested and then they feed me to bears or lions while I'm still fresh so that I'm not wasted.

No one's saying 'IT'S TOTALLY COOL THAT THESE PEOPLE STOLE A BABY'S IDENTITY LOL', the point we're making is that logically it's better for someone who will never need money to have their identity stolen than someone's poor old mother or something. Because it's a dead baby everyone gets all teary-eyed, but the fact is it's better than someone living having their life screwed over.

dont you see that they are using a family's loss to fuel their news article?

My thoughts excatly, except i want to be fed to wolves :hehe:

They're dead and buried. No amount of name stealing is going to change that. You'd think they'd dug 'em up and were dragging their corpse around the way that article puts it.

Re-read our posts. You're completely missing the point.


...
ONCE AGAIN, no-one here says it's okey to steal a dead childs identity. We're just saying that we don't understand why it's WORSE to steal a dead child's identity than a living child or a living advlt's.
AGAIN: No-one thinks it's all right, so you can drop sentences like these.


Do I need to repeat myself? This goes for all cases of identity theft, but the likelihood of this happening is way bigger with living victims. Hence this part is, if anything, an argument FOR the opinion that stealing a dead child's identity isn't a worse crime.

So, if you DO think that it's worse to steal a dead child's identity than another person's, please explain why, instead of saying "This is not okey!" because no-one here thinks it is okey.

And if you don't, then we have nothing to argue about, do we?

It's worse to steal the identity of a dead infant because not only did it die, but it's parents now suffer the loss of the child, and the added aggravation of having to clear the deceased baby's identity. What part of that did you not comprehend? It's not alive to defend itself. Its' very individuality has been stolen. An advlt can at least fight to reclaim it. A GRIEVING PARENT SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS ON TOP OF THEIR BABY DYING.
Also, the second quote began another paragraph, which does not mean it is connected to the first. It is a warning, that children, who don't check credit reports yearly, but do have social security/national health id/ other forms of identification which establishes their individuality, are more at risk of identity theft.

I disagree with saying it's individuality has been stolen. A dead child's name and social security number isn't it's individuality. The individuality is who she was during the short time she was alive.

In the case of identity theft of an advlt, then yes the advlt can fight to reclaim it. But the identity he/she would fight to reclaim wouldn't be their real identity (in the interpretation that an identity is that which makes you you), but only government information about him/her. What care is numbers to a dead child? What purpose would there be for a family to "reclaim" such data? Why does one put value in government numbers surronding a dead person?

I'd consider it much worse defiling someone's memory by for example painting opinions on a dead person which that person may not have shared in life, or claim someone did someone illegal which they didn't, rather than stealing the governmental idea of that person.



Fair enough =)

I disagree. It's identity is not only that which the law has assigned it, but in its life, what it developed. Because it's life has been cut short, the theft of it's identity is a double blow.
The parents are now not only grieving, but clearing the name, the debts, and the negative repurcussions that the thief has caused.
It's not just about a dead child, it's about the relatives who survive it.
Part of our identity is who survies us, who remembers us. And to have those brief, tender memories of an innocent child sullied by a lowlife criminal scum who sought to profit from the child's death, is not only criminal, but morally reprehensible.

One can remember an advlt, and what they stood for. A baby had potential unrecognized, all the parent's hopes and dreams for it, cut short by it's death.