Identity theft as a term first appears in U.S.A and in U.K literature in the 1990s, leading to the drafting of the
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act.[1]
In 1998, The Federal Trade Commission appeared before the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information of
the Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate.[2]
The FTC highlighted the concerns of consumers for financial crimes exploiting their credit worthiness to commit loan fraud,
mortgage fraud, lines-of-credit fraud, credit card
fraud, commodities and services frauds. With the rising awareness of consumers to an international problem, in particular
through a proliferation of websites and coverage in the media, the term "identity theft" has
since morphed to encompass a much broader range of identification-based crimes. The more traditional crimes range anywhere from
deadbeat parents avoiding their financial obligations, to criminals providing the police
with stolen or forged documents, thereby avoiding detection, as well as money
laundering, trafficking in human beings, stock market manipulation, and even to terrorism.
According to the non-profit Identity Theft Resource Center, identity theft is "sub-divided into four categories: Financial
Identity Theft (using another's name and SSN to obtain goods and services), Criminal Identity Theft (posing as another when
apprehended for a crime), Identity Cloning (using another's information to assume his or her identity in daily life) and
Business/Commercial Identity Theft (using another's business name to obtain credit)."
The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (2003)[ITADA] amended the U.S. Code, s. 1028 - "Fraud related to activity in
connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information". The Code now makes possession of any "means
of identification" to "knowingly transfer, possess, or use without lawful authority" a federal crime, alongside unlawful
possession of identification documents.
Some people prefer the term "identity fraud" to describe when their means of identification has been exploited for an unlawful
purpose. Others believe the thief does deprive the owner of his identity by replacing his reputation with the thief's.
Both uses of the term focus on the act of acquiring the legally attributed personal identifiers and other personal information
necessary to perpetrate the impersonation.[3]
A classic example of consumer-dependent financial crime occurs when Bob obtains a loan from a financial institution
impersonating Peter. Bob uses Peter's personal identifiers that he has somehow acquired. These personal identifiers conform with
the data retained on Peter by national credit-rating services. The identifiers include surname, given names, date of birth,
Social Security number (U.S.), Social Insurance Number (Cda), current and former addresses etc. These data are all part of credit
header information retained by credit-rating services. For Bob, these crimes are non self-revealing, although authorities can
track Bob down unless he conceals his mailing address somehow. With consumers being credit-dependent, the onus shifts to them to
re-establish their credit-worthiness with the lending institutions and credit-rating services.
Less commonly understood outside criminal intelligence and law enforcement circles is the impact of identification-based
concealment crimes. As with credit-dependent consumer financial crimes, criminals acquire legally attributed personal identifiers
and then clone someone to them for concealment from authorities. Unlike credit-dependent financial crimes, they are non
self-revealing, continuing for an indeterminate amount of time without being detected.
The crimes include illegal immigration, terrorism and espionage, to mention a few. It may also be a means of
blackmail if activities undertaken by the thief in the name of
the victim would have serious consequences for the victim. There are cases of identity cloning to attack payment systems, such as
obtaining medical treatment.
Personal guardianship
The acquisition of legally attributed personal identifiers is made possible by serious breaches of privacy. For consumers it is usually due to personal naivete in who they provide their information to or
carelessness in protecting their information from theft (e.g. vehicle break-ins and home invasions). Guardianship of personal
identifiers by consumers is the most common intervention strategy recommended by the Federal Trade Commission, Canadian Phone
Busters and most sites that address "identity theft". Personal guardianship issues include recommendations on what consumers may
do to prevent their information getting into the wrong hands.
Agency guardianship
Governments trade off diligence in issuing both foundation and other means of identification documents providing access to
benefits, privileges and services, for delivery of smooth and efficient services to their clients because they are right
In their May 1998 testimony on Identity Theft before a subcommittee of the Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate,
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reported on their response to consumer concern about the sale of their Social Security numbers
and other personal identifiers by the individual reference service industry [credit-raters and data miners]. The FTC agreed to
the industry's draft of self-regulating principles restricting access to non-public information which includes "credit header"
information on credit reports. The credit header data typically includes the individual's name, address, aliases, Social Security
number, current and prior addresses and telephone number.[4] According the industry the restrictions vary according to the category of customer. Credit-rating
services gather and disclosure personal and credit information to a wide business client base.
Governments, in registering sole proprietorships, partnerships and corporations do not make an effort to determine if the
officers listed in the Articles of Incorporation are who they say they are, potentially allowing criminals access to personal
information through credit-rating and data mining services. Other poor corporate diligence standards include: i) a failure to
shred confidential information before throwing it into dumpsters; ii) the brokerage of personal information to other businesses
without ensuring that the purchaser maintains adequate security controls; and iii) the theft of laptop computers being carried
off-site containing vast amounts of personal information.
If corporate or government organizations do not protect consumer privacy,
client confidentiality and political
privacy, the acquisition of personal identifiers to commit unlawful acts will continue to be a prime target for
criminals.[5]
Legal response
In the United Kingdom personal data is protected by the Data Protection Act. The Act covers all personal data which an organization may hold, including
names, birthday and anniversary dates, addresses, telephone numbers, etc.
Under English law, the deception offenses under the
Theft Act 1968 increasingly contend with identity theft situations. In R v Seward
(2005) EWCA Crim 1941[6] the defendant was acting as the
"front man" in the use of stolen credit cards and other documents to obtain goods. He obtained goods to the value of £10,000 for
others who are unlikely ever to be identified. The Court of Appeal considered sentencing policy for deception offenses involving
"identity theft" and concluded that a prison sentence was required. Henriques J. said at para 14:"Identity fraud is a
particularly pernicious and prevalent form of dishonesty calling for, in our judgment, deterrent sentences."
In Australia, privacy law is the responsibility of the Office of the Privacy
Commissioner.[7]
In the USA, until 2003, dealing with consumer crimes involving legally
attributed personal identifiers was the jurisdictional responsibility of the local and state authorities. Identification
documents are a different story, addressed in Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 47 s.1028 of the U.S. Code. The unlawful use of
identification documents is historically a federal offence. In response to the consumer issue of "identity theft", the U.S.
Congress passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (2003) amending Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 47, s. 1028 to
include the unlawful use of a "means of identification" [s,1028 (d)(7)] making it a federal crime alongside identification
documents. The title of s.1028 is, "Fraud related to activity in connection with identification documents, authentication
features, and information". The Act also provides the Federal Trade Commission
with authority to track the number of incidents and the dollar value of losses. There figures relate mainly to consumer financial
crimes and not the broader range of all identification-based crimes.[8] Punishments for the unlawful use of a "means of identification" were strengthened in s.1028a,
allowing for a consecutive sentence under specific conditions of a felony violation defined in s. 1028c.
If used to commit another crime in the commission of identity theft in the United States (if charged federally) include:
- Class B Felony: 6-20 years in Jail and a fine up to $10,000
- Class C Felony: 2-8 years in Jail and a fine up to $10,000
If charges are brought by state or local law enforcement agencies, different penalties apply depending on the state.
In France, a person convicted of identity theft can be sentenced up to 5 years in prison and fined up to €75,000.[1]
Techniques for obtaining information
- Stealing mail or rummaging through rubbish (dumpster diving)
- Stealing payment or identification cards or the information on them (pickpocketing, "drive-by" scanning of RF-enabled
cards/tags)
- Eavesdropping on public transactions to obtain personal data (shoulder
surfing)
- Stealing personal information in computer databases (Trojan horses,
hacking)
- Infiltration of organizations that store large amounts of personal
information
- Impersonating a trusted organization in an electronic communication (phishing)
- Obtaining castings of fingers for falsifying fingerprint identification.
- browsing social network (MySpace,
Facebook, Bebo etc) sites, online for personal details
that have been posted by users
- Simply researching about the victim in government registers, at the internet, Google, and so on.
Spread and impact
Surveys in the USA from 2003 to 2006 showed a decrease in the total number of victims but an increase in the total value of
identity fraud to US$56.6 billion in 2006. The average fraud per person rose from $5,249 in 2003 to $6,383 in 2006.[9]
The 2003 survey from the Identity Theft Resource
Center found that :
- Only 15% of victims find out about the theft through proactive action taken by a business
- The average time spent by victims resolving the problem is about 40 hours
- 73% of respondents indicated the crime involved the thief acquiring a credit card
- The emotional impact is similar to that of victims of violent crimes
In a widely publicized account,[10] Michelle Brown, a
victim of identity fraud, testified before a U.S. Senate Committee Hearing on Identity Theft. Ms. Brown testified that: "over a
year and a half from January 1998 through July 1999, one individual impersonated me to procure over $50,000 in goods and
services. Not only did she damage my credit, but she escalated her crimes to a level that I never truly expected: she engaged in
drug trafficking. The crime resulted in my erroneous arrest record, a warrant out for my arrest, and eventually, a prison record
when she was booked under my name as an inmate in the Chicago Federal Prison."
In Australia, identity theft was estimated to be worth between AUS$1billion and AUS$4 billion per annum in 2001.[11]
In the United Kingdom the Home Office reported that identity fraud costs the UK economy £1.7 billion[12] although privacy groups object to the validity of these numbers, arguing
that they are being used by the government to push for introduction of national ID cards. [citation needed] Confusion over exactly what
constitutes identity theft has led to claims that statistics may be exaggerated.[13]
Cultural references
The public fascination with impostors has long had an effect on popular culture and
extends to modern literature.
- The story of Michelle Brown has been made into a film.[14]
- In Frederick Forsyth's novel The Day of
the Jackal the would-be assassin of General de Gaulle steals three identities.
Firstly, he assumes the identity of a dead child by obtaining the child's birth
certificate and using it to apply for a passport. He also steals the passports of a
Danish clergyman and an American tourist, and disguises himself as each of those persons in turn.
- In the 1995 movie The Net, Sandra
Bullock plays a computer consultant whose life is taken over with the help of computer assisted identity theft.
- In Jonathan Smith's novel Night Windows the
action is based on the horrific and real life theft of Smith's own identity.
- In the webcomic Kevin and Kell the character Danielle Kindle dies and is later
"replaced" by a double from a parallel world. After an attempt at taking over her predecessor's identity, Danielle Kendall
confesses her true nature and gets accepted by the predecessor's family - if not by all the readers.
- T. Coraghessan Boyle's 2006 novel Talk Talk describes the theft of Dana Halter's identity, and her and Martin Bridger's chase
of the thief across the country.
- In Susan Schaab's novel Wearing the Spider a female attorney
gets caught in a web of sexual harassment, identity theft and political intrigue.
See also
References
- ^ http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/itada/itadact.htm Public Law 105-318, 112 Stat. 3007 (Oct. 30,
1998)
- ^ http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/05/identhef.htm Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on "Identity
Theft" May 20, 1998
- ^ What Are Identity Theft and Identity Fraud?, United States
Department of Justice, retrieved June 30,2006
- ^ http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/05/identhef.htm Testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and
Government Information, Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate May 20, 1998 pp 5,6
- ^ Internet Identity Theft - A Tragedy for Victims, Software and Information Industry Association, retrieved June 30,2006
- ^ R v Seward (2005) EWCA Crim 1941
- ^ Privacy Commissioner, retrieved June 30,2006
- ^ Federal Trade Commission, retrieved June 30,2006
- ^ Recent Surveys and Studies, Privacy Clearing House, retrieved June
30,2006
- ^ Verbal Testimony by Michelle Brown, July 2000, U.S. Senate Committee Hearing on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information -- "Identity Theft: How to Protect and Restore Your Good
Name"
- ^ Identity Crime Research and Coordination, Australasian Centre for Policing Research, retrieved
June 30,2006
- ^ What is Identity theft?,Home Office,retrieved June
30,2006
- ^ Identity Theft
Over-Reported,Bruce Schneier, retrieved June
30,2006
- ^ Identity Theft: The Michelle Brown Story (2004)
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
