Barclay card activation measures

[longtimelurker]

---

@GoldSorata wrote:

---

@Spider15 wrote:

---

@longtimelurker wrote:

Is having a stolen activated card a better path to identify theft than an unactivated one?    Don't really see how as the info is the same in both cases, but if someone knows better, let us know!

Obviously it's much easier to place fraudulent charges with an activated card, but that's the bank's problem, not the consumer, so presumably the banks that send out activated cards have decided it is cheaper/better for them.    I expect some portion of people receive a card, don't activate it, and then at some stage try to use it, potentially costing the issuer a transaction (I have also heard stories of people successfully using unactivated cards, but don't know from personal experience)

---

Say what? It is the bank's problem! How many people have posted on this site and others the effect of stolen identities and the devastation it beings to their lives?! Many. It is certainly way more than the banks. Unreal!

---

Since the consumer has zero liability for unauthorized charges, how is it anything but the banks problem? As far as identify theft, if someone steals your card in the mail, how does the thief obtaining an activated card vs an unactivated card allow them to do anything more than use the card (which again, the card owner is NOT liable for).

---

Yes.   OP has a bigger issue if her mail is getting diverted, which can lead to identity theft depending what documents are obtained.   But the initial complaint is over activation vs non-activation and no-one has explained what difference that makes to identity theft.

"Identiy Theft: is an easy term to use in emotional appeals like "Unreal!" but is there a real difference?

And if we are talking # of posts, look at all the posts about fraudulent charges that were reversed without issue

[Anonymous]

I don't think it is a good idea to send out cards that are already activated. That's just plain common sense. A lot of banks must think so too of they would not require activation.

It's also more than just an issue of other mail being stolen- easy access to anything of mine or yours through an already activated card is unwise.

[GoldSorata]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I don't think it is a good idea to send out cards that are already activated. That's just plain common sense. A lot of banks must think so too of they would not require activation.

It's also more than just an issue of other mail being stolen- easy access to anything of mine or yours through an already activated card is unwise.

---

But what other info can one obtain from you or me from an activated card other than using it (which we aren't liable for)?

I'm not defending the banks practice but trying to understand the concern of sending an already activated card. I think most banks send them unactivated for their own protection, doesn't protect us any further.

[GoldSorata]

---

@longtimelurker wrote:

---

@GoldSorata wrote:

---

@Spider15 wrote:

---

@longtimelurker wrote:

Is having a stolen activated card a better path to identify theft than an unactivated one?    Don't really see how as the info is the same in both cases, but if someone knows better, let us know!

Obviously it's much easier to place fraudulent charges with an activated card, but that's the bank's problem, not the consumer, so presumably the banks that send out activated cards have decided it is cheaper/better for them.    I expect some portion of people receive a card, don't activate it, and then at some stage try to use it, potentially costing the issuer a transaction (I have also heard stories of people successfully using unactivated cards, but don't know from personal experience)

---

Say what? It is the bank's problem! How many people have posted on this site and others the effect of stolen identities and the devastation it beings to their lives?! Many. It is certainly way more than the banks. Unreal!

---

Since the consumer has zero liability for unauthorized charges, how is it anything but the banks problem? As far as identify theft, if someone steals your card in the mail, how does the thief obtaining an activated card vs an unactivated card allow them to do anything more than use the card (which again, the card owner is NOT liable for).

---

Yes.   OP has a bigger issue if her mail is getting diverted, which can lead to identity theft depending what documents are obtained.   But the initial complaint is over activation vs non-activation and no-one has explained what difference that makes to identity theft.

"Identiy Theft: is an easy term to use in emotional appeals like "Unreal!" but is there a real difference?

And if we are talking # of posts, look at all the posts about fraudulent charges that were reversed without issue

---

We are on the exact same page.

[Anonymous]

As the police officer put it having an activated credit card is opening the front door to access for someone to commit crimes.  Why would anyone want that?

He has seen people's identities stolen with very little to start with and so I'll go with that expert's opinion and be safe rather than sorry, thanks!

[longtimelurker]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I don't think it is a good idea to send out cards that are already activated. That's just plain common sense. A lot of banks must think so too of they would not require activation.

It's also more than just an issue of other mail being stolen- easy access to anything of mine or yours through an already activated card is unwise.

---

"Plain commone sense" doesn't mean much more than "In my opinion"    Yes, a lot of banks send out unactivated cards, others send some of their cards activated and others not.   For example, Chase sends their "high-value" Palladium card activated, to avoid inconveniencing their valuable customers.

Issuers and corporations in general do things that at least appear to make sense to them at the time, and can be driven by internal divisions.  Marketing probably wants to send activated cards to almost everyone, security would want the card to be activated only at the company offices in person with DNA matching on 5 confirming witnesses, and the loss prevention group would want only secured cards where you have to deposit 10x the CL.

So there (presumably) is some business justification why some cards are sent activated, we just don't know the data.

[longtimelurker]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

As the police officer put it having an activated credit card is opening the front door to access for someone to commit crimes.  Why would anyone want that?

He has seen people's identities stolen with very little to start with and so I'll go with that expert's opinion and be safe rather than sorry, thanks!

---

ANd as in my other response, this is one set of priorities.   Of course activated cards can let someone commit a crime and the police don't want that.   But the banks don't want profitable usage, which leads to a different evaluation.

And I agree that you can do identiy theft with fairly limited information.   The question remains: does activated vs unactivated make any difference to this?   If the police officer said it does, that would be interesting, but I doubt if any non-specialist would know.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps from the business perspective. But from the real-world perspective, when the police officer tells me he has had a number of situations where a credit card was taken and the person later seemed surprised that the thief was able to steal their identity, saying " but he only had my credit card and I canceled that"........

Yep. I'm going to go with his expertise on this one.

[GoldSorata]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Perhaps from the business perspective. But from the real-world perspective, when the police officer tells me he has had a number of situations where a credit card was taken and the person later seemed surprised that the thief was able to steal their identity, saying " but he only had my credit card and I canceled that"........

Yep. I'm going to go with his expertise on this one.

---

But if they cancelled the card and the thief just had the card itself suggests that if someone steals your card in the mail whether activated or unactivated it's a concern. NOT the fact that the issuer sent an activated card.

[longtimelurker]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Perhaps from the business perspective. But from the real-world perspective, when the police officer tells me he has had a number of situations where a credit card was taken and the person later seemed surprised that the thief was able to steal their identity, saying " but he only had my credit card and I canceled that"........

Yep. I'm going to go with his expertise on this one.

---

OK, last time as we don't seem to be getting anywhere.

I AGREE that having a credit card is a useful source to start identiy theft.   With other diverted mail as in your case it can be even easier, but a stolen credit card with name, address and card is a good start.

The ONLY question is: does it matter if it is activated or not?