Nicole S. van der Meulen’s scientific contributions

The introduction of identity theft into contemporary society caused considerable conceptual confusion. The mere terminology became the source of vivid discussions, especially since individuals with a legal background questioned the usage of the word `theft’ in association with identity. The main question from the legal front became: can someone steal an identity? Traditional definitions of theft in criminal law conflicted with the meaning of the term as used in the concept of identity theft. Certain sources therefore labelled identity theft a misnomer or referred to the concept as `awkward.’ Some even demonstrate a complete disdain for the term. Others, on the other hand, embrace the concept and its accuracy. Clare Sullivan supports the usage of the concept of identity theft and states ``[d]ishonest use of an individual’s token identity by another person is a denial of the individual’s right to the exclusive use of his/her transactional identity, and its use by another person fundamentally damages the integrity of the individual’s token identity.” The acceptance of identity theft as a concept requires a stretch of the term theft and also a more progressive approach to the idea of property, which is a considerable challenge due to traditional meanings in the legal arena. The availability of a popular alternative—identity fraud—provides those opposed to the use of identity theft as a concept an opportunity to circumvent the problem. However, the problems associated with the usage of identity theft as a concept only proved to be the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The much larger challenge remains. This is the challenge of the problem definition. To address this challenge, this chapter shifts the discussion from the ‘legal’ to the public policy arena in an effort to develop a more thorough understanding of the definitional dilemmas. This shift of arena provides for a more comprehensive approach to the issue of problem definitions since it surpasses the rigidity of legal debate.

Besides its function as protector of the people, the state also maintains a function as provider, at least since the early modern state (early nineteenth century). As provider, the state is responsible for the establishment of an identification infrastructure to serve as a framework for the provision of (social) services, and also to administer other aspects of daily life such as taxes, healthcare, education, employment of citizens, and others. Paul Schwartz captures the intricate connection between the service administration and its need for personal information. As Schwartz writes, “[t]he state gathers information because distribution of social services is impossible without detailed information on the citizen as client, customer, or simply person to be controlled.” Moreover, the identification infrastructure established by the state also becomes the framework used in, for example, the financial services sectors. This makes the identification infrastructure important for both the public and the private sector. This chapter provides an overview of the main components of the identification infrastructure in both the United States and the Netherlands. The main components include identification information, ‘identification’ numbers, identification documents, and instruments used for electronic identification or authentication.

The driving force behind financial identity theft is the acquisition of financial assets. Money is the main motivator. Perpetrators of financial identity theft predominantly acquire these financial assets from financial service providers. This demonstrates the vital value of financial service providers in the overall problem of financial identity theft. The significance of financial service providers is evident; yet, the role and associated responsibility of financial service providers is often a source of conflict and inconsistency. This conflict centers around the question of whether financial service providers embody the role of victim, villain, or both with respect to identity theft. Throughout the literature, especially in the past, financial service providers have received empathy due to financial losses suffered as a result of identity theft. To many, financial service providers are the true victims of financial identity theft. Through the rise of critical academics and interest groups, the potential facilitation, or the villain aspect, of financial service providers stepped out of the ‘victim’s’ shadow. Since the acknowledgement of the facilitation of financial identity theft by financial service providers gained more prominence, the business practices used to realize such facilitation also became the object of increased scrutiny. Financial service providers predominately include banks and credit card companies. Other relevant actors included in this chapter are supervisory organs and consumer reporting agencies since their involvement in the financial world, and therefore their inclusion in this chapter, assists in the development of a more comprehensive image of the relevant interactions in the financial services sector. Furthermore, their inclusion is also vital for the background descriptions of various developments with regard to business practices. This chapter reviews business practices based on three different phases including the acquisition of clients, the application process, and the account activity of existing clients. The first two aspects are particularly relevant for the potential facilitation of true name fraud, whereas the last phase predominantly concerns account takeover.

The idea of a jigsaw puzzle is a suitable metaphor for the problem of financial identity theft. The previous five chapters provide an in-depth and detailed overview of the individual pieces of the puzzle, or rather the facilitating factors of financial identity theft. This chapter, in contrast, takes a step back to observe the entire puzzle, or the broad picture, in an effort to develop an opportunity structure. Ronald V. Clarke uses the notion of a crime opportunity structure to demonstrate the interdependent relationship between crime opportunity and a variety of societal aspects. These include socio-economic structure, including demographics and geography, as well as lifestyle/routine activity and physical environment. All of these aspects influence the core of the crime opportunity structure which contains the victims, targets, and facilitators. Since the opportunity structure takes a comprehensive approach to the social context of crime, its construction for financial identity theft must contain both the overarching features of all facilitating factors as well as an understanding of the underlying mechanisms which nurture them. This is precisely why the usage of the process tracing approach was appropriate to gain valuable background information about the underlying mechanisms which established the (potential) facilitating factors as well as the process of facilitation of financial identity theft itself.

The result of nearly any categorization is a category that groups the leftovers together and calls them ‘others.’ This is a familiar concept for survey research, where questionnaires inquire about the participants’ age, ethnicity, income, etc. and generally provide a category labelled ‘others.’ The group of ‘others’ often consists of misfits who fail to claim membership of another category. The appealing aspect of the ‘others’ is the gathering of diverse actors. This, however, complicates the establishment of overarching conclusions about this category. Certain actors included in this chapter demonstrate considerable overlap with other actors covered in previous chapters, whereas other actors included demonstrate a unique position and original means of facilitation with respect to financial identity theft. This chapter is not comprehensive for all of the possible members of the ‘others’ category. Instead it aims to capture the most significant and influential others in relation to the facilitation of financial identity theft. Elucidating the facilitation of the ‘others’ besides the main actors of the previous chapters is essential to complete the picture of the opportunity structure of financial identity theft.

At its most fundamental level, the idea of the state as protector of the people can be traced back to Cicero’s salus populi suprema lex esto, which translates into ‘let the good of the people be the supreme law’ or ‘the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.’ John Locke, in the Second Treatise on Government, cites Cicero’s statement when he writes “Salus populi suprema lex is certainly so just and fundamental a rule, that he, who sincerely follows it, cannot dangerously err.” The role of protector, therefore, is often considered to be the fundamental function of government. Such protection can come about through various means. The diversity of means is in part a reflection of the variety of threats that people face in contemporary society. Simultaneously, such diversity is also a manifestation of the multi-faceted nature of the state, even in its function as protector of the people. For financial identity theft, this diversity is apparent, especially since identity theft is a versatile problem which implicates many different segments of the state. Throughout the literature on identity theft, nevertheless, certain aspects consistently return. Several sources discuss the legislative developments in the criminal law arena, whereas others place an emphasis on data protection mechanisms in connection with identity theft. Both of these elements of the state’s effort to protect its people shall therefore receive extensive attention in this chapter. Furthermore, other sources also review the activities of the state as protector through its regulatory initiatives and supervisory organs with regard to business practices in connection to identity theft.

On July 27, 2009, the Ministry of Justice of the Netherlands launched a large public awareness campaign to prevent citizens from falling victim to cybercrime. During 5 weeks, the campaign which features a fictional character ‘Sandra,’ was seen on television and heard on the radio. In the commercial used for the campaign, Sandra reveals all. Her bank account number, pin code, log-in name, and video tapes of her holiday at the beach are made public. Sandra herself watches and listens as people gather on the street to witness the publication of all her information. She appears flabbergasted. She is the perfect depiction of the unaware and naϊve citizen. Security on the Internet, the campaign claims, is in your hands. To consider consumers, or citizens, as facilitators of financial identity theft is controversial, especially since such considerations maintain the potential to enter a slippery slope into the realm of blaming the victim. As a result, this chapter features a different approach from the previous three due to its more normative character as a means to make a contribution to the ongoing discussion on consumers as facilitators of financial identity theft. The ongoing discussion focuses primarily on the degree to which consumers maintain both the ability and responsibility to ‘prevent’ or at least reduce the risk of financial identity theft. Fred H. Cate describes how the most basic privacy protection is personal judgment and how the vital role of consumers in privacy protection is mostly ignored in discussions about the topic. Cate uses this notion to expand his argument and claims how the actions of individuals may provide the best defense against identity theft. “Despite all of the bills that have been introduced to combat identity theft, many of the most effective means continue to be those that individuals take to protect themselves: keeping a close watch on account activity; reporting suspicious or unfamiliar transactions promptly; properly destroying commercial solicitations; storing valuable documents securely; protecting account names and passwords; and never disclosing personal information to unknown callers.” The research results provided by Javelin Strategy & Research are in turn used as a means to substantiate this argument.

The role consumers play in the facilitation of financial identity theft is an important topic of discussion. Academics often side with consumers and recognize them as victims rather than facilitators. Others, both in the public and the private sector, believe consumers play a more prominent role in the facilitation of financial identity theft. This is particularly apparent through the popularity of public awareness campaigns. Neither of these accounts manages to reflect the complexity of the overall picture. The following article demonstrates how the role consumers play is continuously changing as a result of the evolution of methods used by perpetrators of identity theft. This evolution requires a different response from both the public and the private sector as consumers lose more control over their potential indirect facilitation of financial identity theft.