Talk:Identity theft in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dtross165.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sony Pictures class action suit

Who represents the plaintiffs : There are two sources with two different law firms supposedly representing the plaintiffs in the case:

• the Washington Post says it is: San Francisco-based Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP but...
• BigClassAction.com says "plaintiffs are represented by Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Cari Campen Laufenberg and Amy N.L. Hanson of Keller Rohrback LLP".

Can anyone comment? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Section about the US Command's Twitter and YouTube Account

I have removed this section as this isn't a case of identify theft rather was a social media hack. No individual's identity was stolen or compromised. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree - identities were compromised.Ottawahitech (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

While they may have released information on these accounts the hack did no specifically involve identity theft. Furthermore the information is covered in United_States_Central_Command. If every instance of high profile identity theft was listed here it would turn into listcrud or a news paper. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What is your definition of Identity theft? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines it as "Identity theft is a form of stealing someone's identity in which someone pretends to be someone else by assuming that person's identity, usually as a method to gain access to resources or obtain credit and other benefits in that person's name." and the RCMP defines it as "Identity fraud is the actual deceptive use of the identity information of another person (living or dead) in connection with various frauds (including for example personating another person and the misuse of debit card or credit card data).". It involves individuals not government social media accounts. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Also from your own sources: "We are viewing this purely as a case of cybervandalism.

@Mrfrobinson: Is the unsigned comment directly above also yours? - it is difficult to follow discussion threads that are unsigned. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Military officials added in the statement that their initial assessment is that no classified information was posted, and that none of what was released came from Centcom’s server or social media sites." Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy note The redirect {{no redirect|Us military command hacked by ISIS is being discussed at WP:RFD#Us military command hacked by ISIS, should anyone like to contribute there. Si Trew (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Si Trew: Thanks for alerting readers to the redirect I created which has been deleted after being nominated for deletion by Mrfrobinson. Just thought I would also mention to you that my new article about Dan Lamothe (the Washington Post journalist who wrote the piece we are now debating) has also been nominated for deletion by Mrfrobinson. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I am almost at the point where a RFC a needs to be opened about your editing behaviour. Wikipedia is not a news paper and we have notability guidelines that you refuse to acknowledge and follow. Instead of trying to deflect something actually participate in discussion. Why should this be included? You have yet to address that.Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion of the news reports about the Central Command's social media accounts

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion above on this topic was considered in this RFC. There is no consensus for adding the information. AlbinoFerret 12:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

---

An editor has continued to add a section regarding the central command's social media accounts being hacked (note there was no data breach). 18:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Considering that no conversation has really happened on the topic for almost three months, it would appear there isn't consensus to add the material (though it's really not clear from this RfC what is being discussed without digging through the whole page). Seems fine to close this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Listing every security breach that involves identity theft would produce an absurdly long list. And someone has proposed adding a breach which did not even involve identity theft – no. Maproom (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment This RfC is unclear. Since it seems to be used to settle a dispute between two editors in a section above, I can point a much simpler way to settle it: WP:NOCONSENSUS. There is no agreement to include a new piece of content, so unless the editor that wishes to add it can gain consensus - it stays out. “WarKosign” 03:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Content does not belong Otherwise every form of security breach would be identity theft. It's silly. EEng (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.