Abstract
Tears begin to well up in the corner of his eyes as the camera captures his gaze. He holds up his hand before he faintly whispers ‘a moment’ as he collects himself to continue the story. Several seconds later, the National Ombudsman of the Netherlands appears before the camera. He describes the story of a single citizen who stands powerless against a State which appears ignorant of its own actions. For more than thirteen years, Ron Kowsoleea was known as a dangerous drug criminal. At first, he received a phone call from the Amsterdam police in 1994, asking him to come to the station. Once there, Kowsoleea discovered how a former schoolmate of his used his identity to escape prosecution for drug charges. The police officers register his story, but to no avail. Despite repeated attempts to clear his records, the problems continue. Several years later, on October 6, 2003, 35 armed police officers barge into his house and push him up against the wall in an effort to arrest him. Time and again Kowsoleea tries to demonstrate his innocence and explain the story of how someone else is using his identity; yet, all the charges and interaction with the police lead to the detriment of his name and reputation. The caption below the excerpt of the episode captures the essence of the story. Identity theft, according to the caption, is no longer just an American problem. And there, at long last, was the victim to contradict those who considered identity theft a problem exclusively reserved for the United States.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
On October 23, 2008, EenVandaag, a daily current affairs show broadcast on public television, devoted part of its episode to the story of Ron Kowsoleaa, a victim of identity theft. Kowsoleea, who received media attention as a result of the response offered by the National Ombudsman, was falsely accused of 43 criminal offenses. The excerpt of the show is available online at http://www.eenvandaag.nl/buitenland/34037/tientallen_slachtoffers_identiteitsfraude (last accessed on July 4, 2010). For the full report of the National Ombudsman see http://www.nationaleombudsman.nl/rapporten/grote_onderzoeken/2007demonstreren/Dossier_hulp_voor_slachtoffer_fraude_metgestolenidentiteitskaart.asp (last accessed July 12, 2010).
- 2.
Biegelman (2009).
- 3.
Ibid: xix.
- 4.
Ibid: xix–xx.
- 5.
Hoar (2001).
- 6.
Shadegg (1999).
- 7.
Oldenburg (1997).
- 8.
O’Harrow (1998).
- 9.
Hansell (1996).
- 10.
Biegelman (2009): xx.
- 11.
Koops & Leenes (2006): 556.
- 12.
Newman & McNally (2005), have suggested that research should focus on each separate type of identity theft rather than attempt to understand, or empirically assess, identity theft as a solitary construct or singular phenomenon.
- 13.
This does not include the usage of a fictious ‘identity’ since this type of identity-related crime does not involve an individual victim whose identity has been ‘stolen.’
- 14.
Binder & Gill (2005).
- 15.
Perl (2003).
- 16.
Linnhoff & Langenderfer (2004).
- 17.
World Privacy Forum (n.d.). The Medical Identity Theft Information Page. Available at: http://www.worldprivacyforum.org/medicalidentitytheft.html (last accessed July 4, 2010).
- 18.
Dixon (2006).
- 19.
The World Privacy Forum emphasizes the applicability of the Red Flags rule for the Health Care sector. See Gellman & Dixon (2009).
- 20.
Newman & McNally (2005).
- 21.
There is another third stage which is rarely recognized or discussed. This is the stage where perpetrators of financial identity theft make the gains of the second stage liquid. Basically, perpetrators must turn credit cards or credit card numbers into actual financial gain, i.e., cash. This is generally a labor intensive process since credit cards can be used for purchases which must then in turn be sold again in an effort to actually make a financial as opposed to just a material profit. For more information see http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-01/ff_max_butler (last accessed October 24, 2010).
- 22.
Katel (2005).
- 23.
Federal Trade Commission (2003).
- 24.
Federal Trade Commission (2001).
- 25.
Until 2004, the GAO was known as the General Accounting Office. Throughout the main text in the book (excluding footnotes), I refer to the agency as the GAO regardless of the year in which the report was published.
- 26.
General Accounting Office (GAO) (2002).
- 27.
The Federal Trade Commission also receives other (fraud) complaints from consumers.
- 28.
This estimation is based on a representative sample of respondents of which 16% reported being a victim of identity theft in the past.
- 29.
Harris Interactive (2003).
- 30.
The 1998 and 1999 surveys asked respondents the following question: “Have you or any member of your family ever been the victim of identity fraud? This is where someone uses a lost or stolen credit card or false identification to obtain merchandise, open credit or bank accounts or apply for government benefits in someone else’s name?” In 1998, 20% provided an affirmative answer and the following year the percentage (21) was nearly identical.
- 31.
Gartner (2003).
- 32.
Synovate (2003).
- 33.
Ibid.
- 34.
Javelin Strategy & Research (2005a).
- 35.
Lenard & Rubin (2006): 44.
- 36.
Javelin Strategy & Research (2006).
- 37.
Javelin Strategy & Research (2007a).
- 38.
Gartner (2007).
- 39.
CheckFree, an electronic payment company, is a sponsor of Javelin’s research and in its reports Javelin recommends consumers to transfer to electronic banking, as a means to reduce the risk of financial identity theft. This recommendation, however, does not appear to be based on the actual data collected and analyzed by Javelin.
- 40.
Hoofnagle (2007): 119.
- 41.
Javelin Strategy & Research (2009).
- 42.
Javelin Strategy & Research (2010).
- 43.
Ibid: 7.
- 44.
Hoofnagle (2007): 100.
- 45.
Cate (2004), for example, stated during his testimony for the U.S. House Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means how “[w]hile we do not know as much as we need to know about identity theft, thanks to the efforts of FTC and others, one important fact we are learning is that much—perhaps most—identity theft is not committed by a stranger but by a family member, friend, or co-worker.”
- 46.
Crenshaw (1996).
- 47.
Australasian Centre for Policing Research (ACPR) (2006).
- 48.
Important to note is the selection bias present in the studies since the victims who contact the respective organizations tend to be worse off than most.
- 49.
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (2000).
- 50.
Identity Theft Resource Center (2004).
- 51.
Ibid.
- 52.
Identity Theft Resource Center (2005).
- 53.
Identity Theft Resource Center (2010a).
- 54.
Ibid: 2.
- 55.
Sharp et al. (2004).
- 56.
Ibid: 132.
- 57.
Ibid: 133–134.
- 58.
Identity Theft Resource Center (2009).
- 59.
Ibid.
- 60.
Pontell et al. (2008): 58.
- 61.
Van der Meulen (2007).
- 62.
United Kingdom Cabinet Office (2002).
- 63.
See for example Cavoukian (1997).
- 64.
Cuganesan & Lacey (2003).
- 65.
Kamerstukken II 2001–2002, 17050, nr. 234.
- 66.
Europol (2003); Mitchison et al. (2004).
- 67.
The United Nations Crime Commission has established an Intergovernmental Expert Group on Fraud and the Criminal Misuse and Falsification of Identity.
- 68.
Gercke (2007).
- 69.
Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2009). See also Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development OECD (n.d.).
- 70.
Van der Meulen & Koops (2008).
- 71.
Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance System (CIFAS) (2010).
- 72.
United Kingdom Home Office (2006).
- 73.
United Kingdom Cabinet Office (2002).
- 74.
Home Office Statistical Bulletin (2007).
- 75.
Ibid.
- 76.
Perrin (2006).
- 77.
Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Criminal Intelligence Analytical Unit (2010).
- 78.
Rabobank Groep (2009): 32.
- 79.
Maatschappelijk Overleg Betalingsverkeer (MOB) (2006); Kamerstukken II 2003–2004, 29 200 VI, nr. 166; Openbaar Ministerie (OM) (2006).
- 80.
Grijpink (2006).
- 81.
See for example De Witt (2006).
- 82.
Directoraat-Generaal Rechtspleging en Rechtshandhaving (2006).
- 83.
Centraal Meldpunt Identiteitsfraude (2010).
- 84.
Ibid.
- 85.
Ibid.
- 86.
Fellowes (2009).
- 87.
Ibid.
- 88.
See Prins (2003, 2006b).
- 89.
Clarke (1980): 137.
- 90.
Garland (2001): 127.
- 91.
Ibid: 128.
- 92.
Clarke (1995): 101.
- 93.
Felson & Cohen (1980): 393.
- 94.
Cohen & Felson (1979): 590.
- 95.
Ibid.
- 96.
Felson (1986).
- 97.
Hirschi (1969).
- 98.
Felson (1986): 121.
- 99.
Felson (2006): 71.
- 100.
Clarke (1995): 101.
- 101.
Felson & Cohen (1980): 393.
- 102.
This connection is eloquently demonstrated by Daniel J. Solove through his description of the architecture of vulnerability. See Solove (2003).
- 103.
Clarke (1980).
- 104.
Ibid.
- 105.
Clarke (1995).
- 106.
Clarke (1992).
- 107.
Ibid: 13.
- 108.
Clarke (1997).
- 109.
Ibid: 18.
- 110.
Clarke & Newman (2006).
- 111.
Newman & Clarke (2003).
- 112.
Newman (2009): 275.
- 113.
Newman & Clarke (2003): 24.
- 114.
George & Bennett (2005).
- 115.
Ibid: 151.
- 116.
To avoid confusion, a case here refers to a country.
- 117.
Ibid: 179.
- 118.
Ibid: 181.
- 119.
Ibid: 206.
- 120.
Hall qtd. in Ibid: 206.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 T.M.C.ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors/editors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van der Meulen, N.S. (2011). Introduction. In: Financial Identity Theft. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 21. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-814-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-814-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-813-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-814-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
