<prompt> Human: Hi, rpersonalfinance!Maybe this is more ELI5 Personal Finance edition...I see so many posts where parents have used a childs identity to rack up huge amounts of debt. Obviously this is fraud and identity theft. Why dont we just lock the credit of individuals under the age of 18 to avoid these types of things? I just dont understand why we dont use the easiest solution to these problems.EDIT: Okay, I get why one might add an authorized user, etc. for credit building purposes. My question is in reference to the people who turn 18, check their credit for the first time, and realize they are underwater on bills that their parents paid in a credit card in their name only. Most people are responding to the authorized user route, which is irrelevant because the AU wouldnt be liable for any of that debt.Assistant: Personally, I believe everybody should lock their credit and only unlock it when necessary. It should be difficult to borrow money.Why dont we do it? Because the credit bureaus make money off it.Human: But dont tons of large and small businesses have to eat the costs when this identity theft and fraud is reported? Arent we all paying for the costs of parents doing this when the problem is easily avoidable?  <response>: Yes and Yes. 