Talk:Pretexting

Could be just call this what is is

identity fraud? I find the redefinition of commonly know bad terms rather doubleplus ungood.

68.148.105.60

Pretexting isn't the quite the same as identity fraud. Identity fraud, the person steals the information to then use it. Pretexting is stealing the data just for the information.

Or, you could think of pretexting as one way to steal the data, and identity fraud or identity theft as what you do with the data once stolen. Other ways of stealing the data could include, phishing, cracking or dumpster diving. Or you could use the full description of something like "the data was stolen under false pretense".

HP

The HP situation has given light to pretexting as a distinct phenomenon from either identity theft or using a pretext. That being the case, the merge with pretext is less clearly the correct option. Hackwrench 06:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first person - that what has happened is identity theft or identity fraud. See the wikipedia definition below:

Identity theft (or identity fraud, iJacking) occurs when someone wrongfully acquires or uses another person's personal data, typically for their own financial gain.

If I call up the phone company, claiming I am joe blow (and I am not), and want a copy of my phone records; that is straigt up identity fraud. Waldonnatise 23:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretexting is becoming common usage - Merge with pretext?

This should not be merged as the term is coming into common usage and is distinct from the term pretext. Bob 18:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - a "pretext" is certainly not the active term "pretexting" especially in its increasingly common use as a technique to illicitly obtain personal information over the phone. Pretext and Pretexting should not be merged. 24.126.126.105 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how can one sell without obtaining?

Is there a cite for this statement, and could it be clarified?

It is presently legal to sell phone records, but illegal to obtain them.

Does it mean an agent may sell records on behalf of another who has obtained them without the agent "obtaining"? -Wikianon 04:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between pretexting and social engineering? Merge with Social Engineering?

What's the difference between pretexting and plain old social engineering? I hadn't heard of this term before the HP stuff, but from all the definitions I can find it just sounds like social engineering. Can someone give a better explanation of the difference? -- N2f 18:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- In social engineering you may not be trying to doing any pretexting - you may, for example, simply talk to friends and colleagues of your target, or simple talk with your target themselves, and glean information that may be relevant to what you are trying to achieve. A closer equivalent would be Impersonation . Under the Wikipedia subject of Impersonation is specifically the definition "Illegally: As part of a criminal act such as Identity theft. This is usually where the criminal is trying to assume the identity of another in order to commit fraud such as accessing confidential information or to gain property not belonging to them.". Indeed, pretending to be somebody who they were not and obtaining confidential information (phone records) is exactly what happened and is, simply put, lying at best and fraud at worst. --65.198.139.162 19:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That's not really a distinction, it sounds like you're arguing to merge them. Pretexting and Social Engineering are one and the same. Lying on the telephone to get information from someone is Social Engineering at its essence: coming up with a pretext for someone to spill the beans. They're one and the same. I have put in a merge request. Anyone care to comment why this should not be done?

24.126.126.105 04:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should be merged. Social Engineering and Pretexting are both euphemisms for a variety of misleading conduct that has more accurate descriptions such as lying, tricking, deceiving, etc. We should boil entries down to their essence not confuse people by accepting new phrases and words that are really meant, themselves, to mislead. 75.35.2.125 16:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Word Pretexting as a PR Strategy to Conceal Plain Old Theft

It now seems likely that, in the H-P case at least, the use of the word "pretexting" -- which surfaced first in this instance in the SEC documents filed by H-P, may have been part of a deliberate public relations strategy designed to confuse the public about the commission of what were in fact more garden variety crimes of fraud and theft. Thus, I wonder if the entry for this item should appropriately include a discussion or reference to the use of euphemisms to conceal or disguise conduct? Here is a related blog post on this aspect of the topic. This may be important because of the current rush to pass new laws to "ban pretexting" -- when fraud and theft are already illegal, leading to the possibilities that these new laws may have unintended consequences. Excerpt from my post:

      "Quick, let's rush to the legislature to enact a new law against "stuff-lifting" before someone lifts our stuff!
       It's legal, you know, because there is no law specifically against "stuff-lifting."

       "Yeah," as the old Jon Lovitz character on Saturday Night Live might say, "That's the ticket."

75.35.2.125 20:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]