The Evolutional View of the Types of Identity Thefts - Research Paper Example

The Evolutional View of the Types of Identity Thefts In this 2011 study, Dr. Shun-Yung Kevin Wang (Assistant Professor of Criminology, University of South Florida St. Petersburg, USA ) and Dr. Wilson Huang (Professor of Criminal Justice, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, USA) aimed to examine identity theft from an analytic angle with a focus on the expanded versatilities of online crime. In this article, the mechanisms of individual identification was discussed, then followed by the definition and typology of identity theft. Elements and methods of identity theft were deconstructed for classification purposes. Subsequent discussions emphasized the recent variations in the online fraud. The study concluded with brief statements on the implications of the correlations between identity theft and the fast growing Internet. Suggestions were given to improve the means of protection from online fraud and identity theft. Operational Definitions In general, Wang and Huang (2011) stated that fraud refers to the act of taking advantage of others, largely motivated by economic reasons, via varied deceptive means. Intuitively, online fraud is said to refer to those conducted and/or facilitated using the Internet. Although identity theft is the inception of many fraudulent and criminal activities, it does not necessarily mean that it is the start of all online frauds. Online fraudulent acts committed by methods of stolen identification, phishing, advanced-fee schemes, or other electronic transactions fall largely within the arena of computer-assisted crimes (McQuade (2006) and Wall (2007), as cited by Wang and Huang, 2011). Wang and Huang (2011) wrote that the term identity refers to the unique and stable characteristics associated with an individual, and the aspect of self is based upon the interior state of awareness. However, it is argued that the culture shaped by the modern information media alleviates the term from consciousness and associates with the body (Poster (2006) as cited by Wang and Huang, 2011). furthermore, it has been assumed that a shift in the perspective of identifying individuals may discard the psychological portion of identity, thereby reflecting an emerging culture in the digital era. There are three general principles of identity verification to protect users‘ access to their personal belongings in the virtual space (Crume (2000) and Foster (2005), as cited by Wang and Huang, 2011). The first principle requires that a specific user knows some information to access the system. A pair of username and password is the most visible example of such information. The second principle of identity verification is to have something in physical form. These objects may include such material things as a key, a document, or a smart card. The third principle depends on what users must be biologically. Biological characteristics, such as the individual's fingerprints, voiceprint, iris, odor, and hand geometry may be used to verify one's identity. Identity theft is said to occur when an individual obtains a piece of personal identifying information which belongs to another individual, and uses that information without the owner‘s knowledge or approval; "Identity fraud" occurs when that stolen information is used to benefit the thief in some way (Wang and Huang, 2011; Identity Hawk, 2012). The legal definitions of identity theft are usually more precise, but this varies from state to state. A well-recognized legal definition is the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (ITADA) of October 30, 1998, making identity theft a federal crime. Under ITADA, anyone who knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable state or local law commits a federal offense. The official definition, among widely varied state legislations, is the one posted on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) web site. FTC defines identity theft as that which ...occurs when someone uses another personal identifying information, like one's name, Social Security number, or credit card number, without the person's permission, in order to commit fraud or other crimes. To facilitate the discussion in the manuscript, Wang and Huang (2011) adopted FTC‘s conceptual definition of identity theft. Specifically, they agreed with the notion that unauthorized possession of others‘ identities guarantees fraudulent intentions, and in some cases leads to criminal consequences with financial damages. Treating these two terms (identity theft and identity fraud) as interchangeable or using them to segregate one episode into a series of illegal acts may generate unnecessary confusion. It is assumed that to a great extent, the contemporary conceptual scope of identity theft must highly overlap with identity fraud, if no other criminal activities are committed or facilitated by means of the stolen identity. Wang and Huang (2011) noted that under “majority of circumstances, when obtaining another person‘s identity without authorization, the malicious intention is almost certain”. The term ―breed refers to the unauthorized use of identification means to generate and/or acquire additional fraudulent means of identification. Use of Inductive and Deductive Logic Inductive logic is used in this statement: “Biometric verification provides the most secure protection to the owners because of its heightened technical thresholds.” Deductive logic is applied in this statement : “The second principle of identity verification is to have something in physical form such as a key, a document, or a smart card” (Deductive and Inductive Reasoning, 2003) Findings of the Study This paper is a qualitative study on online frauds and identity thefts. It is qualitative- not quantitative- having no specific quantitative analysis done on data presented; its methodology did not include statistical analysis at all. However, the authors gave valuable information on some definitions of online fraud, identity, and identity theft. They discussed some priniciples of identity verifications; deconstructed theft into its horizontal and vertical dimensions including its elements; cited specific examples of methods used to implement identity theft and onlline fraud; and proposed approaches to prevent such online crimes. Examples of online fraud against individuals are phishing, spyware, transaction fraud, advanced fee fraud; examples of online fraud against institutions are pretexting, hacking, advertising fraud; physical crimes against individual include skimming, old fashioned stealing, changing address and dumpster diving. Similarly, examples of pysical crimes against institutions are old fashioned stealing, pretexting and dumpster diving. A number of approaches have been proposed and discussed to prevent identity thefts and frauds online. The authors cited the preventive approach. The main idea behind this approach is that identity theft can be minimized if suitable targets are removed or well protected, potential perpetrators are monitored, and guardians exist. In other words, the removal of any one of three crime components can significantly decrease the chance of identity theft incidents. Another significant discussion regarding identity theft prevention is the need for unifying laws for two reasons. First, the consistency across jurisdictions between the state and federal levels will improve preventive and interceptive efforts. Second, the physical boundary of jurisdiction becomes less significant, if not unimportant, on the Internet. Still another, and perhaps the most fundamental but not necessary the most welcome approach, is to increase the security level for accessing essential online property. A social-technical system of personal identity which grants a unique online identity for each resident may become an efficient alternative or even a necessity. To fundamentally protect the individual‘s rights online, administration should consider establishing a workable system that issues online IDs, similar to Social Security numbers, to each resident. Comments on Conclusion and Recommendation In the conclusion, Wang and Huang (2011) should have stated their specific answers to the objectives which they have set forth in the beginning of their article, rather than write statements which seem to be repetitions of some parts of their introduction. They should have included recommendations for further study related to their work, knowing that their paper appeared to be just an introduction to a deeper and more investigatory project on online fraud and identity theft. References Deductive and Inductive Arguments. (2003). In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/ on April 29, 2012 Identity Hawk. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.identityhawk.com/ on April 29, 2012 Shun-Yung Kevin Wang and Wilson Huang (2011). The Evolutional View of the Types of Identity Thefts and Online Frauds in the Era of the Internet. Internet Journal of Criminology 2011 ISSN 2045-6743 (Online). Read More