http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee-talk/stealing_a_dead_babys_identity_for_financial_gain/ca180bf4


so im probably behind on this and theres probably already a topic on this (or maybe theres not?) just clicked home and thats what was on the home page ...

any one care to discuss o.0 ?

This is just disturbing. Why do humans have to svck? At least some of them? :sadvaultboy:

I don't see how it's supposedly worse than regular identity theft, personally. At least the dead baby has nothing to lose, unlike the average living advlt victim who has a lot of room to suffer for it.

This.

This.

Your canadain so I assume your system is much like the UK, the law will be in the guys favor, and he may have his identity kept secret.

But yes its a ded baby, how is that wose than a lving middle aged persons identity being stolen ? Alteast the baby cant have any problems, a living person can.

How about the deceased person's surviving relatives, don't they have the right to keep their deceased that way? In fairness, it is likely that those relatives would be none the wiser, but it is still wrong, perhaps even more so.

This particular example happens to be one country. Its happened everywhere else too. Let's leave off the alleged jokes, please.

They have a right, but the dead wont suffer like the living. Identity theft is bad regaurdlss, it being a baby or a dead person dont make it any worse becuase at the end of the day identity theft is identity theft. The only difference is who is effected, one hand babies family will be sad, on the other the person and thier family will be sad, and have financial issues.

The way I look at it is that it's more about the right of those still living than it is about the fact that the dead won't suffer from this crime; IMO that is a poor argument.

The fact that it was a baby may not make it any more of a crime in legal terms isn't the issue. The issue is on moral and ethical grounds. either way, identity theft is not only illegal, but also immoral and unethical, especially since we are talking about a baby.

It's all about respect. If you can't respect the dead, how can anyone respect the living? A baby died, so first off, it's very tragic that a baby died in the first place. So now wwe have a person who had to take this tragedy and use it for self gain. It's about the memory of the baby. It is sacred. How about if someone could do the same say, Mother Teresa, or Martin Luthur King, or anyone who has done great deads. Do we deminish thier death by using thier ID for self profit or what ever? So it's ok someone to become Martin King all of a sudden? I do not know what is Mother Teresa's real name was, but would it be ok for someone to use her name as well?

Again, if you can't respect the dead, how would anyone respect the living?

All I can say is wow. Some people have no morals.

Morally no, same to me. Morals differ, dead or alive the theif is still robbing someone, he is hardly grave robbing.
Hypotheticaly I die and have my identity stolen, it dosent make it any worse than if he stolen a living persons, hell its better that person could be struggleing to pay the bills and feed thier family, atleast they wont all suffer, I on the other hand am dead, Have no needs and am ot effected by what living people do. I imagine people would see it as disrespectful, but again thats them, I wont (becuase I am dead) and its better than actual people suffering becuase of the crime.

I always thought that was standard practice if you were looking to forge a new identity, less existing paperwork and such.

And you are dead, someone takes your idenity, and commits an atrocious crime. Maybe bomb a few civilians, or steal other people's live savings. All done in your name, and people would be none the wiser. You would be blammed. It could have been your name that commits the next World Trade Centers Masacers, or Subway bombing. It could be your name that stole other peoples life savings and they have to suffer with no money because it was all stolen. Yes you may be dead and not effect you, but then your name will live on.

How will that effect your family that lives on? Again, will not effect you, but it can effect your family. Do you think your family wants to be linked to a terrorist or bomber, or someone who stole millions of dollars from people life savings and ruined thier lives?

It effects the living. What about the paresnts of this dead baby? This will bring up more pain and hardship for you? How about you? Would you like someone using your dead baby's name? Your baby is dead, so it's perfectly fine? How about your mother or father? Sister or brother? They are dead, but would you like someone using thier names? It effects the living.

To say it just effects me is just selfish.

Bold. Sorry but I fail to see how this is worse than a living person having thier identity stolen.

bold.



No I would rather someone use a peice of paper pretending to be me than dig up my grave. So no.
No not really, identity theft is identity theft. The action is the same, it being a dead man or a dead child dosent change anything for me.
I am on about the living victims losing all that money, not the criminal gaining it.
Yes they do, but criminals dont care about rights, they were going to steal someones, I would rahter it be me and limit the damage done.
I never said there are no vicims, but being dead lessens the damage done, if it lesses suffering.

I doubt, if that happened, that your child would be linked. Identity theft wouldn't hold up if press magnitude of the size that would follow events like this would start investigating. Identity theft works for covert stuff, such as minor thefts, scams and such. You can't just delete every registry of your existance and restart...


And what about identity theft aimed at living people? That, if anything, can destroy a persons life for decades while they fix the damage wrought on it. Just as Ratslayer, I'm definitely not defending the crime, but fail to see the difference in harm you seem to see.

I guess it would be too much to link to the Alice Cooper song eh?

they're using the identity of babies who have died several decades ago, so the whole baby thing wears thin as a hype word for me

Its jam packed with buzz words. Also [insert post explaining my amoral disposition].

This.

As for the rest of those not bothered:
Not only does the family have to deal with the loss of an infant, but to have its' identity stolen is adding insult to injury. Imagine what it must feel like to have your infant die, then have some scumbag steal their identity. The family must spend time and money to clear the deceased's name. Children are actually at a higher risk of identity theft because they don't check credit reports. Imagine applying for a credit card when you turn eighteen, only to find someone has stolen your identity, and you have a substandard credit rating!
It happens!
As for whether it was from the death of a child a year ago, a decade ago, a century ago, it's still wrong. Wrong to steal the identity of anyone, child or advlt.
I hope she gets a good long prison sentence. The [censored].

But you're not providing an answer to why this case is so much worse in this post. Why is it worse stealing a dead babys identity? Your post starts off with:



but then you write:

We're all in agreement that identity theft is bad, the question is why it's worse in this specific case. The last quote here goes directly against the argument that it would be worse to steal the identity of a dead child. A dead child will not have an issue with substandard credit rating! But living children do, and advlts could also end up in ruin because of schemes like this. That is mainly why I don't see this as that big news.
But at the same time, the second quote in this post seems to suggest that you DO consider it worse to steal a dead infants identity than other peoples identity. So you'll have to provide more than what you did in your post. We all agree it's a bad crime. But WHY IS IT WORSE THAN OTHER FORMS OF IDENTITY THEFT?

*shrug*