There are a couple of good articles today on how we're being scammed these days. The first is a nice piece from the NYT about how identity theft is the fault of credit card companies and the miracle of instant credit and the digitization of public records. It's nice to finally see a mainstream article about the problem of identity theft that actually puts some blame where it actually lies (besides with the criminals of course).

But the real problem, many officials and consumer advocates say, lies elsewhere. In recent years banks have campaigned energetically to extend more credit to more people with fewer hassles, and retailers and consumers have embraced instant, near-anonymous access to credit.

Last year a group of prosecutors, law enforcement officers and security executives from banks and credit card associations met to discuss ways of curbing identity theft. The group had plenty of ideas, including PIN numbers or fingerprint verification for all credit card purchases and a ban on mailings that include blank checks.

But all ran counter to the promotional campaigns of banks and, banks say, to the desires of consumers.

"There's a disconnect between corporate leadership at financial institutions and their security departments," said Brad H. Astrowsky, a former prosecutor who was part of the group. "Marketing people are ruling the day in banking. They can do things to fix the problem, but they have no incentive and motivation to do it. Preventing something from happening is a cost. What's the benefit? It's hard to quantify."

It's really easy to prevent identity theft, and that's giving people the option of freezing their credit, only to be opened when the consumer needs to open a new line for borrowing. There is no reason credit should be opened in someone's name without their explicit consent. Of course the banking industry says what they always do, that their criminal negligence is for the customers' "convenience."

"A credit freeze is one of those things that sounds like a good idea, but people don't realize how often they need to use their credit report," Ms. Feddis said. "There's a balance between security and convenience."

She continued, "We all want fraud to go away, but we don't want to take 20 extra minutes every time we do online banking. We like buying airline tickets online, but there's a risk."

This is a bullshit argument for many reasons. One, you do not need to open new lines of credit for every online purchase, only if you want to open a new line of credite. Second, the freezes are not mandatory, they are voluntary, and there is no "convenience" about having to shred thousands of pieces of mail a year so some dumpster-diving thief doesn't open credit in your name. Tearing them up is not adequate. Seems to make this sounds like bullshit.

Fritz M. Elmendorf, a spokesman for the Consumer Bankers Association, described a chess match with identity criminals. For example, banks now protect prescreened credit card offers with address-matching technologies that make it harder for thieves to have cards sent to a drop address, Mr. Elmendorf said.

Hmmm, the evidence seems to be to the contrary.

Anyway, the second article is brought to us by the LA Times and it's about how voters are scammed into privatizing their utilities with no benefit.

The City Council approved the $428-million contract with Suez and United Water in the hope that it would control costs and help the city comply with a federal consent decree aimed at stopping sewage overflows into the Chattahoochee River. The companies shifted hundreds of city water and sewer workers onto their payrolls.

Campbell called it "a great victory for the people of Atlanta," predicting that "every city in America will go to privately run water systems."

A few months later, Suez bankrolled a $12,000 holiday for Campbell and a companion in Paris, where the mayor posed for snapshots at Napoleon's Tomb and the Arc de Triomphe. Suez executives later said they'd intended Campbell's visit as a legitimate business trip, but Campbell met with company officials for just 2 1/2 hours during his five-day stay.

Meanwhile, complaints about water quality and unresponsive service proliferated, peaking in the summer of 2002.

Gordon Certain, president of a north Atlanta neighborhood association, said poor maintenance and equipment failures caused recurrent water main breaks and boil-water alerts, at times producing tap water "the color of very well-brewed tea."

Mayor Shirley Franklin, who succeeded Campbell in early 2002, said United Water and Suez neglected basic repairs, violated federal drinking water standards, failed to regularly flush impurities out of the system and billed the city for work not done.

Ahh, privatization. Because getting screwed by the inefficient bureaucracy of a giant for-profit conglomerate (not even an American one) is better than just getting screwed by the inefficient government bureaucracy. I'd prefer to have the accountability and transparency of the latter thank you.