Cyber Crime: Identity Theft Katie A Farina, Cabrini College, Radnor, PA, USA Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Abstract Identity theft is considered to be ‘one of the fastest growing crimes in America.’ Due to the technological advancements and the almost ubiquitous use of computers and the Internet, identity theft is a crime that can occur practically anywhere. This article explores the various types of identity theft including medical identity theft, financial identity theft, and child identity theft. Additionally, this article highlights the prevalence of identity theft and its costs to victims both monetarily and in relation to physical and emotional stress. Finally, this article examines the recent strides of legislation to identify and combat identity theft.
Introduction Many argue that identity thefts and cybercrimes involving fraud are considered the “fastest growing crime in America” (Cole and Pontell, 2006, p. 125). However, it is difficult for researchers and scholars to truly understand the prevalence, cost, and type of identity theft and fraud that occur, because there is not a universally agreed-upon definition (Allison et al., 2005). This varied and vague definition leads to a lack of reliable data that makes it difficult to capture the true numbers regarding the commission of this crime. This article explores several aspects of identity theft, including how practitioners and scholars define identity theft, as well as the various offenses that are considered identity theft. Additionally, current estimates of both the prevalence and costs of these crimes are considered as well as the target demographics of both victims and offenders. Moreover, a brief discussion of one of the most well-known international identity theft scams is included. Finally, this article explores the evolution of legislation meant to safeguard victims from identity thefts and assist those who are victimized.
What Is Identity Theft? While there is no singular definition, a common theme of identity theft offenses revolves around “the misuse of another individual’s personal information to commit fraud” (The President’s Identity Task Force, 2008, p. 2). Crimes that have fallen under the umbrella of identity theft include, but are not limited to, checking and credit card fraud, counterfeiting, forgery, mortgage fraud, human trafficking, terrorism, passport fraud, and social security fraud. According to the United States General Accounting Office (2002), personal identifying information that can be used to commit fraud includes an individual’s name, address, social security number, date of birth, alien registration number, taxpayer identification number, passport number, driver’s license number, mother’s maiden name, or even biometric information such as one’s fingerprint, voice print, or retina image. A recent report issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has been documenting consumer complaints and experiences for years, highlighted identity theft as the most common reported fraud among
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 5
consumers. However, nearly two thirds of those who reported the victimization to the FTC did not report to local law enforcement (Federal Trade Commission, 2009).
Types of Identity Theft According to Allison et al. (2005), the methods employed by identity thieves can best be defined based upon the degree of technology utilized. The authors first distinguish those offenders who utilize ‘low technology.’ Low-technology methods tend to be the most common mostly due to their relative ease. Examples include theft of wallets or purses and going through someone’s trash looking for personal identifying information. A second method used by offenders is termed ‘high technology.’ Criminals who use high-technology methods must possess a certain degree of expertise and skill set. Their methods include the use of the Internet, skimming, and pretext calling. Skimming is the act of using computers to read and store information that is encoded onto the magnetic strip of a credit card or an automated teller machine (ATM) card. Once the offender has stolen this information, they can then place it onto a blank card thus allowing them to access the victim’s bank account. Pretext calling is when offenders make contact with the victim under false pretenses with the purpose of obtaining personal information directly from the victim (Newmann, 1999). A variation of pretext calling occurs when offenders email victims pretending to be their Internet service provider and request an update to their account information and credit card accounts (Allison et al., 2005). Offenders can also obtain personal identifying information from businesses or institutions that maintain customer, employee, patient, or even student records. Identity thieves may work in jobs that allow them access to others’ credit records. Offenders may pretend to offer a victim a loan, a job, or an apartment and require that the individual reveal personal information in order to ‘qualify.’ There are a variety of crimes that identity thieves carry out once they have a victim’s information. These include taking out loans, opening credit cards, taking out cash advances and credit applications, establishing a cell phone service in the victim’s name, opening a new bank account, and writing bad checks (Allison et al., 2005; Newmann, 1999).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.45054-3
633
634
Cyber Crime: Identity Theft
In addition to financial identity theft, there is also medical identity theft. Medical identity theft occurs when an individual uses a victim’s information to obtain medical treatment without his/her knowledge or consent. The Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) cautions that this type of identity theft is particularly easy as it may only require the use of an individual’s name, date of birth, and address. It is also dangerous because hospitals are required to take in any emergency patients and the patient’s information may not be verified as accurate before being sent to the billing department. An additional aspect of medical identity theft is related to an individual’s medical history. If an offender is using a victim’s information for a medical situation, the treatment, prescription drugs, or surgery the offender received will appear on the victim’s medical records. As a result, the victim whose medical history has been compromised may now find it difficult to receive prescription medications or receive proper diagnoses and treatment if they require emergency attention. Once a victim of medical identity theft is contacted about these fraudulent charges, it can take months to facilitate changes or updates with insurance providers, Medicare, and/ or the hospital’s billing department to work out the incorrect billing (Rocha, 2013). A subset of financial and medical identity theft is child identity theft. Child identity theft is any of the above types of theft or fraud that is perpetrated against a child. This type of theft is particularly troubling, because it often goes undiscovered for many years because children rarely have independent finances (Beltran, 2013). Children are a suitable target for identity thieves for a number of reasons. First, parents rarely check a child’s credit history. Because children are unable to enter into a legal contract and should not have established credit histories, parents have little reason to suspect fraud. Second, the use of a child’s identity provides offenders with a ‘blank slate.’ As such, offenders are presented with a wide range of fraudulent activity that they will be able to commit without raising any red flags (Beltran, 2013).
Prevalence of Identity Theft The use of varied definitions of identity theft by official agencies has made it difficult to calculate the extent and patterns of this crime. However, both the FTC and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (sponsoring the National Crime Victimization Survey, NCVS) have each collected data in an attempt to elucidate the prevalence, costs, and forms of identity theft. Both the FTC (2007) and the NCVS (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011) have observed a rise in the victimization of identity theft since the new millennium. Recently, the NCVS announced that 7.0% of all households in the United States, or approximately 8.6 million households, had at least one member aged 12 or older who experienced at least one form of identity theft in 2010. This represented an increase from 5.5% of households, or 6.4 million households, that were victims of identity theft in 2005. According to the NCVS, this increase was due to a rise in the misuse of existing credit card accounts (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011). Similarly, the FTC (2009) claimed that identity theft was the most prevalent form of fraud committed in the United States. The most
commonly reported identity thefts included credit card fraud, government documents and benefits fraud, employment fraud, phone/utilities fraud, and bank fraud. In fact, the FTC (2009) highlighted that in the past decade, credit card complaints and automobile-related complaints have nearly doubled. The ITRC tracks data breaches by monitoring and confirming media reports of identity theft. A data breach is defined as “an event in which an individual’s name plus Social Security Number (SSN), driver’s license number, medical record, or a financial record/credit/debit card is potentially put at risk – either in electronic or paper format” (Identity Theft Resource Center, 2013, p. 95). In 2012, the ITRC reported 470 data breaches in the United States resulting in 17 491 690 records being exposed. It is important to note that this number is low, because not all incidents of identity theft report the amount of records exposed (Identity Theft Resource Center, 2013). Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that a breach does not necessarily indicate that an individual is a victim of identity theft. A breach signifies that an individual’s information (name, address, social security number, etc.) has been compromised, exposed, and places the individual at greater risk for identity theft than the average consumer. AllClear ID Alert Network, a privately funded organization dedicated to providing identity theft protection, released a report detailing the trends of child identity theft. In 2012, they uncovered that 10.7% of children were victims of identity theft, this number corresponding with the FTC’s finding that 8% of identity theft complaints involved someone 19 years old and younger (May, 2012). The report found that children are 35 times more likely to become a victim of identity theft than an adult and that the rate of identity theft among victims aged 5 and younger has increased tremendously in the past decade (May, 2012).
Costs of Identity Theft The inconsistent use of a definition for identity theft has made it difficult for scholars and government agencies to gauge a true count of the prevalence of identity theft. Additionally, these varying definitions hinder the ability to garner the emotional and monetary costs of identity theft to victims. It is difficult to garner a true assessment of costs incurred by victims for a variety of reasons. Usually the individual whose information has been misused is not legally responsible for any costs associated with the theft. Additionally, victims may incur expenses when they are dealing with the ramifications of having their identity stolen. For instance, identity theft victims may need to close existing accounts, open new ones, monitor credit reports, and pay higher interest rates on loans and credit accounts as a result of the theft. The individual may not have suffered a monetary cost as a direct result of the identity theft, but as a means to deal with the victimization. In fact, it took victims an average of 175 h over a span of 2 years to regain sound financial standing following a theft (Copes et al., 2010). According to Pontell et al. (2008), victims who miss work to deal with identity theft lose an average wage of $4000. Furthermore, this process of dealing with the ramifications of identity theft can take a multitude of hours and even years to overcome and consumers often experience
Cyber Crime: Identity Theft
consequences in the interim. For instance, the consumer’s credit history may be scarred leading to a denial of mortgages, loans, and bank accounts. The NCVS and the FTC have attempted to identify both the frequency and the monetary effects of identity theft on victims, sometimes with conflicting accounts. According to the FTC (2007), over 8 million people were affected by identity theft and lost nearly $16 billion dollars. The NCVS (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011) surveyed victims directly and uncovered that, on average, victimized households lost $1830, while the FTC (2007) highlighted that businesses lost an average of $4800. It is important to note that this monetary loss may differ based upon the type of victimization. For instance, consumers who experience the misuse of personal information reported an average loss of $5650, while those experiencing fraud of existing accounts lost on average $1140 and finally victims of existing credit card fraud lost about $1300 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011). In addition to the loss of money and time, victims may also experience physical and emotional stress such as anger, helplessness and mistrust, disturbed sleeping patterns, and a feeling of lack of security (Davis and Stevenson, 2004). The ITRC conducted a study of victims who reported mental health consequences of identity theft. In the short term, victims report feeling betrayed, defiled, and powerless; 30% of the sample experienced long-term consequences of feeling distrustful of others and 4% experienced suicidal ideations.
Identity Theft Victims and Offenders Demographic characteristics are somewhat helpful in determining who is at risk for identity theft. According to the NCVS (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011), households headed by an individual 65 years or older reported the lowest rate of identity theft. Additionally, those residing in married households and households with high income levels ($75 000 or above) reported higher rates of victimization. Other studies found that the risk of victimization is highest for consumers between the ages of 25 and 54 (Anderson, 2006). However, age has become a point of contention among researchers. Recently, the NCVS has uncovered an increase in identity theft victimization among those aged 18–24. Households headed by whites, Asians, and those reporting ‘two or more races’ also reported the highest rates of identity theft victimization. Most victims do not know their offenders and the majority of victims believe that their information was stolen during a purchase or other transaction (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011). In addition to these demographic variables, analysis of the FTC’s data found that households headed by women with three or more children were more likely to be victims of identity theft (Anderson, 2006). There may also be regional variation among identity theft victims. In 2011, the FTC (2012) reported that Colorado reported the highest per capita rate of fraud followed by Delaware and Maryland, while Florida reported the highest per capita rate of identity theft complaints, followed by Georgia and California. The lack of reliable data also impacts what we know about identity theft offenders. Demographics about offenders are typically revealed through police reports and closed case files.
635
These data revealed that nearly half of all offenders are between the ages of 24 and 34 and one-third are between 35 and 49 years old. In terms of race and ethnicity, over half were black while whites and Hispanics account for nearly 40% of offenders (Copes and Vieraitis, 2012). While research has made strides in understanding the risks of victimization, scholars have only recently attempted to understand the motivations of identity theft offenders. In one of the first studies that interviewed these offenders in federal prisons, Copes and Vieraitis (2009) examined how an offender’s experiences and life circumstances affected their decision to commit identity theft. The primary motivation for committing this type of fraud was a desire for money. Offenders often viewed identity theft as an easy crime that was extremely rewarding. Often, these individuals perceived their risk of capture to be extremely low, because of their supposed advanced skills and the perceived incompetence of law enforcement. Finally, it is of interest to note that many of these offenders justified their crimes by claiming that no real harm was caused to any of their victims.
Identity Theft Legislation Identity theft officially became a criminal act in the United States when Arizona passed the first state statute in 1996, followed by California in 1997 (Pontell, 2009). Following this legislation, the federal government passed the Identity Theft Assumption and Deterrence Act in 1998. This was the first piece of federal legislation that made identity theft a distinct crime against the individual whose identifying information was stolen. Additionally, the act declared that identity theft was punishable for up to 15 years of imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250 000. Furthermore, the US Sentencing Commission has outlined a sentence of 10–16 months of imprisonment that can be imposed regardless of an offender’s previous criminal record or lack of monetary loss suffered by the victim (Copes and Vieraitis, 2009). As the rate of identity theft continues to rise, crime control agencies have established laws that aim to increase penalties against offenders or to help victims of identity theft. In 2003, the United States Congress passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). Specifically, this act was aimed to protect consumers from identity thieves and to help those who report victimization. As a result of this act, FACTA grants all consumers the right to one free credit report each year. Additionally, the act requires merchants to leave all but the last five digits of a customer’s credit card number off store receipts and lenders and credit agencies to take action against identity thieves even if a consumer has not realized they have been victimized. FACTA also mandated the creation of several national systems. The first is a system of fraud detection to increase the likelihood of discovering identity thieves. Furthermore, a nationwide system has been created that allows fraud alerts to be placed on credit files so that consumers may be notified of any unusual activity on their account. As part of this National Fraud Alert System, consumers are now allowed to place three types of fraud alerts on their credit files. The first, an initial alert, is for individuals who suspect they are, or about to become, victims of identity theft. An extended alert may be
636
Cyber Crime: Identity Theft
placed on an account for an individual who has been a victim of identity theft and has filed a report with law enforcement. This extended alert lasts for 7 years wherein credit agencies may not use the consumer’s name for prescreened credit or insurance offers. Finally, military personnel can now place an ‘active duty alert’ on their credit files when they are either serving active duty or are assigned to service away from their typical station (Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, 2003). These initiatives serve as a place to assist an individual who has become a victim of identity theft. As scholars and researchers learn more about identity theft and the various forms it may take, legislators must adjust to this changing arena. In 2004, the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act enacted stiffer penalties for those convicted of an array of identity theft-related crimes as well as codified a new crime known as aggravated identity theft. Aggravated identity theft occurs when an individual “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person” during and/or in relation to a list of over 100 felony offenses (Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, 2004, p. 1). These include, but are not limited to, embezzlement, mail, bank and wire fraud, immigration fraud, passport and visa violations, social security fraud, and specified terrorism violations. Convictions of aggravated identity theft mandate enhanced penalties. According to the act, if an individual participates in identity theft during the commission of one of these listed felonies, a minimum of 2-years in prison must be served consecutively with the sentence for the underlying felony. If the identity theft occurs during and in relation to one of the more than 40 federal terrorism-related felonies, then the penalty is a mandatory minimum of an additional 5 years in prison to be served consecutively to the underlying felony (Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, 2004). In May of 2006, President George Walker Bush established a Presidential Task Force in hopes of coordinating government agencies to more effectively fight identity theft. The hopes of the task force were to identify components to make the government more adept at the awareness, prevention, detection, and prosecution of identity theft. After a 2-year investigation, the task force released a report with 31 recommendations to better assist victims and combat the crime of identity theft. They highlighted four areas where improvements should be made: data protection, avoiding data misuse, victim assistance, and deterrence. In relation to data protection, the task force called for a new culture of security among the private and public sectors. The task force called on the government to do a better job of protecting personal information, especially in relation to social security numbers, while calling on the private sector to do the same. In fact, in 2008, the United States Postal Service delivered mailings to over 146 million residences and businesses with advice on how to protect oneself from identity theft. Second, the task force also worked to make the misuse of consumer data more difficult for potential criminals. In terms of assisting victims, the task force provided identity theft training to over 900 law enforcement officers from over 250 agencies as well as victim assistance counselors to be better equipped to deal with the unique issues related to a victim of identity theft. Additionally, the task force provided grants to organizations to directly help victims while also working closely with the American Bar Association to provide pro bono legal assistance to victims of identity
theft. Finally, in relation to detection and punishment, the task force proposed tougher legislation and worked with foreign law enforcement agencies to better detect, prosecute, and punish offenders (The President’s Identity Task Force, 2008). Above all, the task force highlighted the ever-evolving nature of identity theft and a need for legislation and protection to evolve along with new techniques of identity theft. Such policies that are aimed at detecting and deterring identity theft are often varied and complicated due to a lack of resources for investigation and prosecution. Additionally, identity theft is a unique crime in that cross-jurisdictional problems can often arise. For instance, it is often possible for victims and offenders to live in different states due to the use of technology. Someone’s identity can be stolen remotely with the use of a computer. The nature of these crimes can lead to issues where law enforcement agencies eschew their responsibility onto another agency (White and Fisher, 2008). Partly in response to this dilemma, a second Presidential Task Force was convened in November 2009 by President Barack Obama. The Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF) is the broadest coalition of law enforcement agencies and regulatory services ever assembled to combat fraud. The FFETF is tasked with improving efforts between the government, state, and local crime control partners to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for financial crime related to fraud. In order to assist victims of identity theft, credit card fraud, and mortgage fraud, the FFETF launched a government-run website (www.stopfraud.gov) to teach the American public about financial fraud and help victims regain any losses. In fact, the task force’s Distressed Homeowner Initiative assisted over 73 000 homeowners who were the victims of mortgage and loan frauds and charged over 530 criminal defendants (Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, 2010). When the 2012 legislative sessions came to a close, every state had a law that specifically outlawed identity theft or impersonation. Additionally, 29 states along with Guam, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia had specific restitution provisions in place for victims of identity theft, while five had forfeiture provisions set up for crimes of identity theft (Morton, 2012). While legislation to protect and assist victims of identity theft continues to grow, recent research by Piquero et al. (2011) surveyed nearly 30 000 respondents, half of which reported they would be willing to pay an additional tax if it would go toward identity theft prevention. This research finding highlights the public’s growing concern with identity theft and their willingness to pay for protection.
Identity Theft: An International Example With the increasing use of technology in identity theft offenses, this phenomenon is not confined to merely one area. The use of the Internet allows for an individual’s identity and private data information to be shared instantly and over any geographical area. In fact, identity theft offenders may take advantage of different levels of law enforcement that exist between local, state, federal, and national agencies (Levi, 2008). One of the most well-known international identity theft syndicates is ‘The Nigerian Letter’ or ‘419,’ so named after the criminal code against it in Nigeria (Atta-Asamoah, 2009; Levi, 2008).
Cyber Crime: Identity Theft
While these crimes can take various forms, 419s are essentially money scams that affect individuals all over the world. Before the increased use of the Internet, those who perpetrated this offense would send letters to various residential addresses to build a relationship with a potential target and then swindle money. However, the use of technology has led to enhanced 419s wherein the offender uses a variety of tools to discover information about the target online, such as hacking into sites, scanning web pages for email addresses, and targeting victims in online chat rooms (Atta-Asamoah, 2009). Once this information has been procured, the scammer then uses the identity of the victim to scam and exploit him/her. The continued use of this tactic to commit identity fraud, money laundering, and theft has permeated West African nations so much so that it has moved from incidents committed by individuals into loosely organized networks.
Conclusion Identity theft may not be a new phenomenon, but the prominence of the Internet and our reliance upon technology has not only allowed for an increase in such offenses, but has also changed how this crime is perpetrated. Child identity theft, medical identity theft, social security fraud, credit card fraud, and data breaches affect over 8.6 million American households yearly. The costs of these offenses are staggering. Monetary losses number in the billions and victims report feelings of betrayal, distrust, and powerlessness. The rapid development of technology and increasing use of the Internet has allowed offenders to target victims from anywhere on the globe. Scholars and practitioners alike are grappling with understanding this ever-changing phenomenon. By lacking a common definition of these crimes, it is not only difficult to measure the prevalence and costs of these offenses, but lawmakers are faced with the arduous task of creating effective legislation. Both legislators and academics have turned their interest on these crimes and are seeking to understand not only the crime itself, but how to deter such victimizations.
See also: Crime: Knowledge about and Prevalence; Crime: Whitecollar; Deterrence: Sanction Perceptions; Prevention of Crime and Delinquency; Property Crime: Victimization and Trends; Victimless Crime.
Bibliography Allison, S.F.H., Schuck, A.M., Lersch, K.M., 2005. Exploring the crime of identity theft: prevalence, clearance rates and victim/offender characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice 33, 19–29. Anderson, K.B., 2006. Who are the victims of identity theft? The effect of demographics. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 25, 160–171. Atta-Asamoah, A., 2009. Understanding the West African cyber crime process. African Security Review 18, 105–114. Beltran, G., 2013. Trends in Child Identity Theft. Identity Theft Resource Center. http:// www.idtheftcenter.org/Child-ID-Theft/trends-in-child-identity-theft.html (accessed 15.08.13.). Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011. Identity Theft Reported by Households, 2005–2010. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
637
Cole, S.A., Pontell, H., 2006. Don’t be low hanging fruit: Identity theft as moral panic. In: Monahan, T. (Ed.), Surveillance and Security. Routledge, London, pp. 125–147. Copes, H., Kerley, K.R., Huff, R., Kane, J., 2010. Differentiating identity theft: an exploratory study of victims using a national victimization survey. Journal of Criminal Justice 28, 1045–1052. Copes, H., Vieraitis, L.M., 2009. Bounded rationality of identity thieves: using offender-based research to inform policy. Criminology & Public Policy 8, 237–262. Copes, H., Vieraitis, L.M., 2012. Identity Thieves: Motives and Methods. Northeastern University Press, Boston. Davis, K., Stevenson, A., 2004. They’ve got your numbers. Kiplinger’s Personal Finance 58, 72–77. Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, 2003. Bills and Statutes (PL 108-159, December 4, 2003). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ159/pdf/PLAW108publ159.pdf (accessed 08.08.13.). Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, 2010. First Year Report: Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. http://www.stopfraud.gov/docs/FFETF-Report-LR.pdf (accessed 08.08.13.). Federal Trade Commission, 2007. 2006 Identity Theft Report. http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 2007/11/SynovateFinalReportIDTheft2006.pdf (accessed 08.08.13.). Federal Trade Commission, 2009. Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book for January–December 2008. Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC. Federal Trade Commission, 2012. Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book for January–December 2011. Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC. Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, 2004. (PL 108-275, July 15, 2004). Bills and Statutes. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ275/pdf/PLAW-108publ275. pdf (accessed 08.08.13.). Identity Theft Resource Center, 2013. 2012 Breach List. http://www.idtheftcenter.org/ images/breach/Breach_Report_2012.pdf (accessed 15.08.13.). Levi, M., 2008. Organized fraud and organizing funds: unpacking research on networks and organization. Criminology and Criminal Justice 8, 289–419. May, J., 2012. Child Identity Theft Report 2012. Identity Thieves Target Young Children: What Parents Need to Know to Protect Their Kids. AllClear ID Alert Network. http:// www.idtheftcenter.org/Child-ID-Theft/trends-in-child-identity-theft.html (accessed 15.08.13.). Morton, H., 2012. Identity theft state statutes. National Conference of States Legislatures. http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/banking/identity-theft-state-statutes. aspx (accessed 08.08.13.). Newmann, Q.J., 1999. Identity Theft: The Cybercrime of the Millennium. Loompanics Unlimited, Port Townsend, WA. Piquero, N.L., Cohen, M.A., Piquero, A.R., 2011. How much is the public willing to pay to be protected from identity theft? Justice Quarterly 28, 437–459. Pontell, H.N., Brown, G.C., Tosouni, A., 2008. Stolen identities: a victim survey. In: Newman, G., McNally, M. (Eds.), Crime Prevention Studies: Identity Theft and Opportunity. Criminal Justice Press, New York, pp. 57–86. Pontell, H.N., 2009. Identity theft: bounded rationality, research and policy. Criminology & Public Policy 8, 263–270. The President’s Identity Task Force, 2008. The President’s Identity Theft Task Force Report. http://www.idtheft.gov/reports/IDTReport2008.pdf (accessed 08.08.13.). Rocha, K., 2013. Medical Identity Theft: The Basics. The Identity Theft Resource Center. http://www.idtheftcenter.org/Medical-ID-Theft/medical-identity-theft.html (accessed 15.08.13.). United States General Accounting Office, 2002. Identity Fraud: Greater Awareness and Use of Existing Data Needed. Publication No. USAGAO-02–766. http://www.gao. gov/assets/240/234959.pdf (accessed 08.08.13.). White, M.D., Fisher, C., 2008. Assessing our knowledge of identity theft. Criminal Justice Review 19, 3–24.
Relevant Websites http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty¼tp&tid¼42 – Bureau of Justice Statistics: Identity Theft. http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-0014-identity-theft – Federal Trade Commission Consumer Information. http://www.stopfraud.gov/ – Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. http://www.idtheftcenter.org/ – Identity Theft Resource Center. http://idtheft.gov/ – The President’s Task Force on Identity Theft. https://www.privacyrights.org/Identity-Theft-Data-Breaches – Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
