A recent story by the Boston Globe highlighted how a painful case of identity theft can lead to years of even greater suffering because of seeming indifference to the plight of victims by the credit bureaus.

The story looked at the plight of two couples whose identity had either been stolen, mistaken, or manipulated - nobody seems quite sure. In both cases, the harassment of the victims by debt collectors was compounded by the indifference of the credit bureaus and the lack of any real action by law enforcement.

One victim discovered that he a home, a wife, and a pile of bills he never heard of, while another battled for six years to clear debts that were not his. In both cases the victims suffered through years of effort to clear their name, denied credit, and constant threats of legal action. Not to mention the humiliation of constantly being accused (even subtly) of being the thief and not the victim, and compounded by lack of interest and co-operation from the credit bureaus and law enforcement.

While the article focused mainly on the indifference of the credit bureaus and deby collectors to the plight of victims, it also highlights the real cost of identity theft to the victims. If you think that "zero liability" means that you have nothing to lose as a victim of identity theft, and that your bank or credit card companies will carry all the losses, then maybe these stories will change your mind.

The biggest costs to identity theft victims are rarely covered by banks or credit card companies - costs like endless legal battles, denied or even ruined credit, frustration at the indifference of law enforcement and incompetence of the credit bureaus, and the overal emotional impact of years of effort to undo someone else's wrongdoing.

Zero liability is little more than marketing spin by the financial industry to persuade consumers not to worry so much about identity theft. You should worry, a lot, or you could end up with a lot more to worry about.