Advertisement

Risks and Societal Implications of Identity Theft

  • Tarmo KalvetEmail author
  • Marek Tiits
  • Pille Ubakivi-Hadachi
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 947)

Abstract

Transactions that involved identity theft are becoming increasingly popular in today’s society. Identity theft causes not only a violation of privacy for the victim, but also raises the possibility of increased stress for the victim and potential financial and/or legal consequences. Due to this, it is important to understand the nature and extent of the problem in detail so that novel identity management systems may be developed and eventually accepted. The focus of current exploratory research is to understand the spread and consequences of identity theft and fraud in Europe. A census representative on-line survey was carried out in Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and, for comparative purposes, in the United States of America. The research found that 25–30% of the adult population in the surveys countries experienced some form of misuse or attempted misuse of their personal information within the past three years. Extrapolating from the initial results, it is expected that around 100 million European citizens have dealt or experienced misuse of their personal information within the last 3 years and close to 40 million EU citizens had, because of the misuse of their personal information, incurred significant personal consequences ranging from debt collection to legal problems. Government issued electronic identity cards for on-line transactions are needed for electronic authentication and signatures, and their use in the private and public sector should become more widespread. Mobile ID can also service as a convenient and secure alternative to more traditional electronic identity cards.

Keywords

Identity theft Identity documents European Union 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the European Commission through the project “Harmonized framework allowing a sustainable and robust identity for European Citizens” (EKSISTENZ, grant 607049) funded from FP7 and a grant “Public sector innovation: The case of modern identity management technologies” (PUT773) from Estonian Science Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Piquero, N.L., Cohen, M.A., Piquero, A.R.: How much is the public willing to pay to be protected from identity theft? Justice Q. 28, 437–459 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reyns, B.W.: Identity-related crimes. In: Reichel, R., Randa, R. (eds.) Transnational Crime and Global Security, pp. 161–179. Praeger Security International (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Langton, L., Planty, M.: Victims of identity theft, 2008. The U.S. Department of Justice (2010). https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit08.pdf
  4. 4.
    Harrell, E., Langton, L.: Victims of identity theft 2012. The U.S. Department of Justice, Washington (2013). https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit12.pdf
  5. 5.
    Federal Trade Commission. Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book for January-December 2013. Federal Trade Commission (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harrell, E.: Victims of identity theft. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2015). https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit14.pdf
  7. 7.
    Oudekerk, B.A., et al.: Building a National Data Collection on Victim Service Providers: A Pilot Test. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2018). https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/251524.pdf
  8. 8.
    Javelin Strategy and Research. Identity Fraud Report: Card Data Breaches and Inadequate Consumer Password Habits Fuel Disturbing Fraud Trends (2014). https://www.javelinstrategy.com/coverage-area/2014-identity-fraud-report-card-data-breaches-and-inadequate-consumer-password-habits
  9. 9.
    Javelin Strategy and Research. Identity Fraud: Fraud Enters a New Era of Complexity (2018). https://www.javelinstrategy.com/coverage-area/2018-identity-fraud-fraud-enters-new-era-complexity
  10. 10.
    European Central Bank. Third Report on Card Fraud. European Central Bank, Frankfurt (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Central Bank. Fourth Report on Card Fraud. European Central Bank, Frankfurt (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    TNS Opinion & Social. Cyber security, Special Eurobarometer 390 (2012). http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_390_en.pdf
  13. 13.
    TNS Opinion & Social. Europeans’ attitudes towards cyber security, Special Eurobarometer 464a (2017). http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/79734
  14. 14.
    Tiits, M., Ubakivi-Hadachi, P.: Common use patterns of identity documents, EKSISTENZ D9.1. Institute of Baltic Studies, Tartu (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalvet, T., Tiits, M., Laas-Mikko, K.: Public acceptance of advanced identity documents. In: Ojo, A., Kankanhalli, A., Soares, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. ACM, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moore, T., Clayton, R., Anderson, R.: The economics of online crime. J. Econ. Perspect. 23, 3–20 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McAfee. Net Losses: Estimating the Global Cost of Cybercrime (Economic Impact of Cybercrime II). McAfee Center for Strategic and International Studies (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holt, T.J., Smirnova, O., Chua, Y.T.: Exploring and estimating the revenues and profits of participants in stolen data markets. Deviant Behav. 37(4), 353–367 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shapland, J., Hall, M.: What do we know about the effects of crime on victims? Int. Rev. Victimology 14, 175–217 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Golladay, K., Holtfreter, K.: The consequences of identity theft victimization: an examination of emotional and physical health outcomes. Vict. Offenders 12(5), 741–760 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cross, C., Richards, K., Smith, R.G.: The reporting experiences and support needs of victims of online fraud. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Report no. 518, Canberra, Augustus (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van de Weijer, S.G.A., Leukfeldt, R., Bernasco, W.: Determinants of reporting cybercrime: a comparison between identity theft, consumer fraud, and hacking. Eur. J. Criminol. (2018, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brandtzæg, P.B., Heim, J., Karahasanovic, A.: Understanding the new digital divide – a typology of Internet users in Europe. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 69(3), 123–138 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    U.S. Government Accountability Office. Identity theft: Additional Actions Could Help IRS Combat The Large, Evolving Threat of Refund Fraud, Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO-14-633 (2014). https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665368.pdf
  25. 25.
    Tiits, M., Kalvet, T., Laas-Mikko, K.: Social acceptance of ePassports. In: Brömme, A., Busch, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Biometric Special Interest Group. IEEE, Piscataway (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kalvet, T., Karlzén, H., Hunstad, A., Tiits, M.: Live enrolment for identity documents in Europe. In: Parycek, P., et al. (eds.) EGOV 2018. LNCS, vol. 11020, pp. 29–39. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98690-6_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tarmo Kalvet
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marek Tiits
    • 2
  • Pille Ubakivi-Hadachi
    • 3
  1. 1.Tallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.Institute of Baltic StudiesTartuEstonia
  3. 3.Tallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations