|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
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]
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 GuardianshipThe unlawful 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 GuardianshipGovernments 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. 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 responseIn 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:
If charges are brought by state or local law enforcement agencies, different penalties apply depending on the state. Techniques for obtaining information
Spread and impact of consumer-based "identity theft"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 Centre found that :
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] In popular culture
See also
References
fr:Usurpation d'identité hr:Krađa identiteta nl:Identiteitsfraude ja:個人情報漏洩 pl:Kradzież tożsamości fi:Identiteettivarkaus
|
Sites |
Searched sites for "Identity theft" |
|
No sites found. |
Sorry, no matching site records were found. |
Want your site listed here?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
