Identity Theft in the United Kingdom - Essay Example

Computers, Society and Law: Identity theft in the UK (Name) (Institution) (Course) (Module) (Instructor’s Name) Date of submission The Problem Of Identity Theft For UK Citizens Identity theft refers to stealing of another person’s identity in the most basic terms (Biegelman 2009). In addition, identity theft is pretending to be someone else by assuming his/her personal information such as driving license number, social security number, account information as well as financial cards in order to fraudulently access his/her resources, credit, loans, health services, rentals and mortgages as well as employment (Biegelman 2009). Another growing avenue for stealing personal information is impersonation; fraudsters impersonate employees of legit organization and enquire for personal details from an individual. In the past, third parties could only access such information through the carelessness of the individual including not taking the relevant precautions to safeguard their personal information. According to studies fraudsters used to get such information from companies, diaries, rubbish bins etc (Freeman & Piece 2004). Today, the thieves get such information from the internet. Biegelman (2009) opines that increased internet usage had resulted into increased identity theft as fraudsters have also sharpened their means and ways of illegally accessing other peoples’ personal information. The result has been losses amounting to billions of dollars. In fact it is reportedly the highest growing crime globally. According to the United Kingdom home office, identity theft costs the state’s economy around £1.7 billion and it accounts for 165 percent annually (Home office 2010). Other webs sources put the amount at more than £2.7 billion annually affecting more than 1.8 million people alone in the UK (Identity theft 2011). For the fraudsters, this represents a cash flow of £10 million daily (Home office 2010). As such, the monetary motivation in this crime is very high. Secondly, the existing laws might be strict but very hard to implement. Experts in this field argue that the government needs to be preemptive in cybercrime rather than reactive. The government needs to be ahead in its thinking and developing better security measures to detect fraudsters. This is critical at this present age where online trading has taken center stage making consumer information more vulnerable to cyber criminals and fraudsters (Home office 2010). Types of identity theft The major types of identity theft include: Financial identity theft –this is the ability of fraudsters to steal money, buy products and services using a credit card and/or obtain a loan using someone’s identity. Due to the fact that there is no proof of document in the United Kingdom, the fraudsters are looking for various pieces of personal information collectively, for instance date of birth, mother's maiden name, bank account number and sort code, utility bills with address details and so on (Wall 2007). Using these elements of a person’s identity, it becomes very easy to obtain other personal details from other sources. When a fraudster is using someone’s identity, the lenders cannot identify between the real person and the fraudster as the transaction is done online (Wall 2007). This makes it very difficult for the individuals to know what is happening and before they realize it is already too late. Business theft For business owners, this can be very damaging. It is apparent that credit cards as well as debit cards can be used wrongly use in the names of the company directors and managers. In addition, customer information can be stolen from the company. This could result to the loss of valuable customers as prospective customers fear their personal data is vulnerable to attack. According to mainstream media, reports pertaining to attacks on companies’ information technology systems and breaches on their security systems have been on the increase though some companies are unwilling to divulge such information to the public in a bid to protect their image and brand. Fraudsters are stealing consumers’ credit cards via sloppy internal management and as a result the customers are exposed to the threat of identity fraud (Wall 2007). With the huge explosion of the enterprise websites which currently provide suitable e-commerce, the fraudsters’ variety of opportunity to exploit the poorly protected information technology systems is increasing. Criminal identity This entails criminals obtaining genuine personal identity from the individual, by acquiring their personal information. This way the criminal is able to escape the law for they present the false identification of the victim. This presents a problem to the victim since their identity is tarnished and it becomes very hard for them to clear their good name from the criminal records. Synthetic identity This is the use of part of a person’s genuine identity blended with another so as to create a new but false identity. Legislation available in UK to protect individuals from identity theft It is apparent that identity theft is the most rapid growing theft in the United Kingdom (Home office, 2010) As a result, there are various legislations put in place to protect individuals from identity theft. One such legislation is the Data Protection Act of 1998 which protects United Kingdom individual data. The Act protects all individual data held by an organization encompassing names, anniversary dates, birthdays, telephone numbers and addresses amongst others (Wiewiorka 2002) The Data Protection Act 1998 is the principle legislation which governs the protection of individual data in the United Kingdom. Even though the Act does not declare privacy, the parliament enacted it in order to bring the United Kingdom law in order with the European Directive of 1995 that necessitated all member states to take measures of protecting individuals’ fundamental freedoms and rights and specifically, the right of privacy with regard to processing of personal information (Clough, 2010). In practice, the Act offers techniques to individuals on how they can control their personal information. All people or firms with access to other people’s personal information are obligated to abide by this Act, but are subject to a few exemptions. The Act also necessitates persons and companies to keep personal data to them securely and not to share (Hunton, 2009). The law offers stronger protection for sensitive data including political opinions, ethnic background, health, religious beliefs, criminal life or sexual history (Wiewiorka, 2002). The legislation is put into effect by an independent information commissioner, who usually takes the required actions for any organization or governmental body which fails to protect personal information or processes such information illegally. There is also the Theft Act 1968 aimed at protecting personal identity. The Act creates various offences against property in Wales and England. In the year 2007, the Fraud Act 2006 was enforced in order to redefine deception offences (Books Llc, 2010). The Theft Act 1968 was aimed at replacing the subsisting law of theft and other deception linked offences by the use of a single enactment, generating more logical body of principles which would permit the law to develop to meet novel situations (Books Llc 2010). An example of a case is in the R v Seward (2005) EWCA Crime 1941 “where the defendant was acting as the front man” in the employment of documents and a stolen credit card to acquire goods. The defendant acquired goods valued 10, 000 sterling pound for other individuals who were not identified. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal deemed sentencing policy for cheating offenses relating to identity theft. The court concluded that the defendant was to be given a prison sentence. Identity fraud is believed to be a harmful and widespread form of cheating and it calls for a deterrent judgment. Government bodies and other organizations must take better measures which will help in better protecting their users’ personal information. According to statistics produced by CIFAS- the United Kingdom’s Fraud Prevention Service indicate that in the year 2009, there were 85, 000 victims of identity crime compared to 2010, when there were approximately 89,000 victims. This indicates an increase in the number of identity crime committed by 4000 (Home office 2010). This may be linked with inefficiency of legislations available or inadequacy, or light punishments given to those who are involved in identity theft. The government of the United Kingdom has developed a proposal that is supposed to centralize information retention practices of communication companies in UK (Freeman & Peace 2004). Under the current law, the government necessitates communication providers to retain some sorts of information regarding their clients for a minimum of one year and such data should however be made available in reaction to government subpoenas. The novel proposal requires the communication companies to automatically submit these records to a national government database. Through this, the government deems that the information will be easily accessed by law enforcement, even though it necessitates a court order to access such data. The Identity Cards Act 2006 offered for National Identity cards, an individual identification document a travel document related to databases referred to as National Identity Register (NIR) (Great Britain 2006). The National Identity Register, as specified by the Act was to contain fingerprints, facial scans and past and recent United Kingdom places of residence and this was believed to permit the citizens to be connected. This Act also made it an unlawful to possess or process false identity cards, encompassing genuine documents which belong to other people (Great Britain 2006). However, this legislation was repealed by the Identity Document Act 2010 which mandated the destruction of National Identity Register. In addition to this, some consumer groups put forth that, the concerned bodies should take responsibilities of educating and informing individuals who in turn will take preventive measures to protect them from identity theft. The social and ethical problems caused by our increasing reliance on online systems that make identity theft easier to commit Back in the 1990s, internet was perceived as a unique medium. This is because it showed the fastest speed of diffusion in human history (Freeman & Peace 2004). In the contemporary society, different arguments have emerged as to whether the internet is beneficial or harmful to human beings. Those who support the technology say that it has enabled instantaneous sharing and exchange of information and as a result unprecedented benefits have been seen in commerce, education, and social interaction and entertainment fields. On the other hand, those against it say that it has only brought more harm than good. It is apparent that it has enhanced the opportunities for crime commissions. Information and technology enables the offenders to commit crimes on a large scale with much lesser risk of getting caught and no monetary cost (Clough 2010). As compared to the traditional crimes online criminals have no worry of getting into the hands of the law. The identity theft is easier to commit because the use of the internet services such as social networks encourages one to edit their profile. This entails providing such information as full name, personal interests, phone numbers and where one lives. The provision of such information is very dangerous as the fraudsters will easily use such information to impersonate an unsuspecting individual. In addition, the privacy setting on the network sites enhance personal fraud. Despite the fact that you can control the amount of information you want to share through the privacy settings, the settings are never default to enable the user to know how much information they are sharing with the rest of the universe. Moreover the lack of knowledge amongst the users enhances identity theft as digital identity can be easily hacked. Besides, in the last five years it has been ethical failure by managers especially in the United Nations. However, in today’s new legal environment, managers who breach the law face the law. It is evident that the managers used conspiracy to hide the crime (Freeman & Peace 2004). These crimes were made possible due to the fact that the perpetrators used the financial information displayed in the internet and before they could be caught the crime had already taken place. Ethics is a term used to refer aspects of doing right or wrong. It is apparent that online systems create ethical questions to both the society and individual because they offer opportunities for immense social change and as a result threaten the existing power distribution, obligations as well as rights. According to studies, ethical issues have been accorded a new sense of urgency due to the rise of internet and e –commerce. Evidently, the ability to place something on the global web has become very common and majority of the people have acquired it. The assimilation of new technology to many companies has not been smooth. As the internet grows, a multitude of issues related to it emerge too. In addition, a large percentage of the same issues remain unresolved. It is apparent that as the capability to reach out to millions of people across the globe instantaneously continues to grow, ethical issues will continue to arise unabated. Studies reveal that many companies have to deal with major kinds of ethical issues which include; freedom of speech in cyber space, privacy and personal information, and intellectual property as well as cybercrime (Wall 2007). Privacy is the claim of individuals to be left alone, free from surveillance or interference from other individuals or organizations, including the state. Apparently this claim is also common at the workplace. Past research indicate that millions of people are subject to high tech and electronic surveillance (Clough 2010). Moreover, information technology as well as systems poses a threat to personal claims to privacy by ensuring that the invasion of privacy is effective cheap and profitable. Although majority of the people agree that crime of whatever nature is morally and ethically wrong, laws must be enforced to protect innocent firms and civilians. The government has thus established legislations to curb the vice. The judicial system on the other hand should enforce harsher penalties on convicted fraudsters to discourage the crime. Additionally, forensic technology should be used more efficiently and effectively to bring fraudsters to justice to ensure that cyber activities achieve their desired potential. Bibliography Biegelman, M. Identity Theft Handbook: Detection, Prevention, and Security, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2009. Burden, K. & Palmer, C. ‘Internet crime: Cyber Crime — A new breed of criminal?’ Computer Law & Security Review, Vol, 19, Issue 3, 2003, p. 222 Books Llc, United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 1968: Theft Act 1968, Transport Act 1968, Trade Descriptions Act 1968, Theatres Act 1968 General Books LLC, 2010 Clough, J. Principles of Cybercrime, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2010 Fafinski, S. (n.d.) ‘UK cybercrime report’, Garlik Powerful stuff. n.d. (accessed November 5 2011) Freeman, L. & Peace, G. Information Ethics: Privacy and Intellectual Property, Information Science Publishing, Hersey, Pennsylvania, 2004 Great Britain, Identity Cards Act 2006: Elizabeth II, Part 15, The Stationery Office, London, 2006 Home office, Cyber crime Strategy, The Stationery Office, London, 2010. Hunton, P. ‘The Growing Phenomenon of Crime and The Internet: A Cybercrime Execution and Analysis Model’, Computer Law & Security Review, Vol, 25, Issue 6, 2009, p. 528. Timothy L. ‘UK to streamline identity theft with data retention proposal’, Tech Policy News, . 2008, (accessed November 5 2011) Wall, D. Cybercrime: The Transformation of Crime in the Information Age, Polity, London, 2007 Wiewiorka, E. Data Protection Act 1998, W. Green/Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2002   Read More