Identity
taker is a term first appearing in U.S. literature in the 1990s,
leading to the drafting of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence
Act.
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. 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 web sites and the media, the term "identity
theft" has since morphed to encompass a much broader range
of identification-based crimes. The more traditional crimes range
from dead beat dads avoiding their financial obligations, to providing
the police with stolen or forged documents thereby avoiding detection,
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.
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. The crimes are
self-revealing. When Peter defaults on payments the lenders become
aware. 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.