California woman's identity taken by suspected illegal immigrants (81 people in 17 states)

This for Audra to give her some assistance:

The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998: How Effective Is It In Combating Identity Theft?
Introduction
From 1982 to 1984, Terry Rogan was arrested five times for a robbery and murder that he did not commit.(1)Unbeknownst to Rogan, his problems began when a man named McKandes escaped from Alabama state prison.(2)After obtaining a copy of Terry Rogan's birth certificate, McKandes was able to acquire a driver's license and other identifying documents in Rogan's name.(3) He was using Rogan's name when he committed a robbery and a murder in 1982.(4) An arrest warrant was issued and Rogan's information was placed into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), a national computer criminal information database which places every police department in the United States on notice of an outstanding warrant.(5) In 1982, Rogan was arrested in Michigan for a robbery and murder committed by McKandes in California.(6) Upon discovery that Rogan's fingerprints and physical characteristics did not match those recorded in the NCIC, Rogan was released, and the information was cleared from the database.(7) However, Rogan's information was again entered into the database and, after a car he was a passenger in was stopped for mere failure to use a turn signal, Rogan was arrested again at gunpoint.(8) He was searched, handcuffed and taken to jail where he was cuffed to the bars of his cell.(9) Of course, the police were eventually able to determine that the person wanted was not Terry Rogan, and they later released him.(10) However, Rogan was arrested at gunpoint and taken to jail three more times before the issue was finally resolved.(11)
Terry Rogan was a victim of identity theft. Identity theft occurs when a person's name, address, social security number, or other identifying information is stolen and used by another.(12) An identity thief may use such information in any number of ways: "To open a new [bank account or] credit card for his own use; take out loans in the victim's name; steal money from the victim's bank accounts; illegally secure professional licenses, drivers licenses, and birth certificates; ... submit false medical bills to private insurers;"(13) and, while the most common use is financial, identity thieves have even been known to commit traffic violations or crimes in the victim's name as in the above example.(14)
Traditionally, criminals gained access to a person's identifying information by stealing purses and wallets, stealing pre-approved credit applications from mailboxes, or "dumpster diving" (i.e. looking for discarded receipts and files in the victim's trash can).(15) Today, however, with the help of a cashless society and the Internet, a thief's job is made much easier and much further reaching.(16) A criminal can obtain vast amounts of information on any given person at merely the touch of a button by using people finders and information databases available on the Internet.(17) Moreover, in contrast to traditional "paper based" identity theft, the thief can steal many identities at the same time.(18) The anonymity of the Internet only magnifies these problems.(19) In addition, if the criminal has the requisite computer hacking skills, he or she can lift the desired information from any computer including ATM machines, gas pumps, cash registers, and cell phones.(20) Indeed, most prosecutors agree that fraudulent identity theft will be the hottest crime trend in the next century.(21)Identity theft crimes are clearly on the rise.(22) The Federal Trade Commission reported the following: In 1995, 93% of the United States Secret Service Financial Crimes Division arrests made involved identity theft resulting in individual and institutional losses of $442 million.(23) In 1996, the percentage rose to 94% and losses of $450 million.(24) While the percentage of arrests remained the same in 1997 (94%), the amount of loss related to identity theft crime doubled to nearly $745 million.(25) The Secret Service reported that the "dollar value of [identity theft] cases ha[d] nearly doubled [by 1999], and the Social Security Administration has seen a threefold increase in improper use of Social Security numbers" in recent years.(26)
So what recourse does the law provide a victim of identity theft? Not a lot, but it is better now than it has ever been. Historically, the law did not recognize the individual whose identity was actually stolen as the "victim."(27) Since the majority of identity thefts involved financial fraud instead of aliases for violent criminal conduct, the law viewed the financial institution (i.e. the bank, lender or retail facility) to be the victim.(28) This view was based on the rationale that since the majority of the financial loss was usually borne by the business establishments, the individual victim did not need any additional protection.(29) Thus, until 1998, individual victims of identity theft were left alone to clean up their lives, which, in some instances, could take several years.(30) Some of the problems a victim of identity theft could encounter are as follows: Trying to borrow money and being turned down because his/her credit report was bad; attempting to find employment and being denied a job opportunity because either his/her credit history was bad, or there were traffic or criminal violations on his record; having to prove to his creditors and/or business associates that he/she did not declare bankruptcy;(31) being arrested at gunpoint and thrown in jail for a crime that you did not commit... all while the identity thief is enjoying the fruits of his labor.(32) Unfortunately, it is not uncommon that a victim of identity theft not even realize that his information has been misappropriated until years have passed and much damage to his or her credit and/or his or her personal reputation has occurred.
Just as the individual victim of identity theft did not have much assistance under the old laws, the criminal did not have much fear of being caught or of a harsh punishment in the event he was caught. The theft of someone's identity was not even viewed as a crime under the law; it was the fraud that was committed using the stolen identity that was deemed criminal.(33) Furthermore, because the majority of identity theft frauds are relatively small in amount, federal agencies would not pursue them, and most state or local agencies ignored them.(34) However, in 1998, President Clinton signed into law the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, making the theft of identity information a crime and establishing restitution provisions for individual victims. Nevertheless, many victims of identity theft say that the law did not do enough. Section I of this paper will discuss the provisions of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. Section II will discuss the effectiveness of the current law. Section III will discuss pending legislation. Finally, Section IV will suggest possible changes to the current system.
I. The Federal Law A. The Creation of a New Crime
Making the actual theft or use of a person's information a crime was a key factor. Prior to the 1998 amendment, the federal law only addressed the fraudulent creation, use or transfer of identification documents and not the theft or criminal use of the underlying personal information.(38) Since it is the use of an individual's personal information which causes the identity theft victim the majority of his or her problems, and the theft of an "identity" does not necessarily entail the theft of an actual document, the 1998 amendment truly created a new federal crime. Development in this area of law is especially important today during the information age where all types of personal identifying information can be obtained over the Internet.(39)
B. Punishment for the Convicted Criminal(who used Audra's identity unlawfully)
Punishment for this newly created crime ranges from fines to imprisonment for three to 25 years depending on the amount of wealth or property aggregated in a one year period and whether or not the identity theft offense is committed in connection with drug trafficking, organized crime, a prior conviction under the statute, or terrorism.(40) Specifically, if the act involves the "transfer or use of one or more means of identification... [and] as a result of the offense, [the perpetrator] obtains anything of value aggregating $1,000 or more during any 1-year period," then the convicted criminal may receive a fine or imprisonment for not more than three years.(41) If the act involves the transfer of "an identification document issued under the authority of the United States," or of a birth certificate, driver's license or personal identification card, or the act involves creating false identification documents, the convicted criminal may be fined or may receive up to fifteen years imprisonment.(42) However, if the offense is committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime, in connection with a crime of violence, or after a prior conviction under this law, the punishment will range from a mere fine to up to 20 years imprisonment. Finally, if the "offense is committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism," then the perpetrator could be fined or be placed in prison for up to 25 years.(43) Actual sentencing is of course applied in accordance with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and any departure, either upward or downward, must be supported by mitigating factors or the lack thereof.(44)Thus, in addition to creating a new law whereby the thief of identifying information may be prosecuted, the Act provides for a heavy deterrence to would be violators.
C. Aid to Individual Victims of Identity Theft
In addition to providing federal prosecutors a vehicle to combat identity theft, the Act recognized the fact that the individuals whose identity had been stolen truly were victims and deserved some assistance in dealing with the aftermath of an identity theft experience.(45) Accordingly, the Act created a centralized complaint and consumer education service for the victims and placed the responsibility for developing and maintaining such service upon the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).(46) The Act directed the FTC to provide identity theft victims with a toll-free hotline, 1-877-ID THEFT (438-4338), for reporting identity theft to specially trained personnel.(47) The Act further required that each complaint be logged into the Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse, a centralized database used to improve the identification of underlying trends and patterns and thereby aid law enforcement agencies in combating the crime.(48) Information in the Data Clearinghouse is "available to law enforcement agencies nationwide via the FTC's secure law enforcement website, Consumer Sentinel."(49)However, most importantly, the Act instructed the FTC to provide identity theft victims with information and assistance regarding the appropriate steps to take to either avoid identity theft or to resolve credit related problems after they have become a victim.(50) A victim of identity theft is always "instructed to contact each of the three national consumer reporting agencies to obtain copies of their credit reports and request that a fraud alert be placed on their credit reports."(51)Callers are also informed of their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ,(52) the Fair Credit Billing Act ,(53)the Truth in Lending Act ,(54) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act .(55) Educational information is also distributed by the FTC in the form of print materials, media, mailings, interviews, and the FTC website, http://www.consumer.gov/idtheft .(56) In addition, the FTC refers complainants to the appropriate entities, including the major national consumer reporting agencies and applicable law enforcement agencies. II. Effectiveness of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act In essence, the Act made the FTC a manager of information regarding identity theft complaints and victims. However, most victims of identity theft have found that the Act does not reach far enough.(58) Essentially, the FTC merely refers victims to other agencies for assistance, and such assistance is not always forthcoming.(59) In fact, the financial amount involved in a typical identity theft case is so small that the federal agencies often refuse to prosecute at all and will instead refer the victim to yet another state or local agency for assistance. (60) However, while many States have enacted their own laws prohibiting identity theft, several have either not done so or the laws enacted address only very specific types of identity theft leaving major loopholes in legal enforcement.(61) In any case, it is the victim who is left to make numerous phone calls to contact multiple agencies and creditors in a desperate attempt to clear his or her good name; a process that often takes years and is only achieved at great expense, both financial and emotional, to the victim.(62) In addition, victims of identity theft point to the fact that the Act is reactive rather than proactive. The law does nothing to prevent identity theft from occurring; it only attempts to punish the wrongdoer after the crime has been committed.(63) This is true notwithstanding the fact that, along with the growth of the Internet, a lucrative market has developed in the ability to "collect, store, and disseminate" vast amounts of private, personal data referred to as "data mining" making it even easier for a identity thief to obtain identifying information.(64) Compounding this problem, many industries, such as banking, have long used personal identifying information such as the social security number as a security measure for transactions in an ironic attempt to protect the consumer and themselves from fraudulent transactions.(65)However, the fact that many security measures are keyed off of such personal identifying information as the social security number makes identity theft even easier now that the social security number of most any individual can now be obtained with the touch of a button. Thus, victims of identity theft argue that the legislature should enact proactive laws to prevent or limit the use and sale of personal identifying information.(66) However, supporters of such uses of personal information argue against any type of legislation insisting that their businesses will have to unfairly incur the cost of implementation;(67)they prefer self-regulation. Nevertheless, most would have to agree that, to date, the private sector's self-regulation is effectively nonexistent. Businesses continue to profit on the sale of such information, and consumers continue to suffer the consequences.(68)
III. Prospective New Laws
A. Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2000
On April 13, 2000, Representative Hooley of Oregon introduced House Report 4311 , titled the Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2000 (the "2000 Act").(69) The 2000 Act purports to "prevent identity fraud in consumer credit transactions and credit reports."(70) Essentially, if enacted, the 2000 Act would place the responsibility of preventing identity theft onto the credit issuers, credit reporting agencies, and other organizations that use sensitive personal identifying information.(71) Businesses using personal identifying information would be required to develop "uniform reporting requirements and effective fraud alerts to assist identity theft victims in repairing and protecting their credit."(72) Such reporting requirements would center around prompt notification to the consumer whenever either a change of address request or a request for an additional card was received.(73) For example, in the case of a credit card company, upon receipt by the card issuer of a request for a change in the consumer's address, the card issuer would be required to send notification to the cardholder at both the new address and the old address; this would allow the consumer to become aware of any fraudulent activity much earlier in the process, thereby providing him or her a better opportunity to prevent abuse of the account.(74) In addition, at the request of the consumer, a consumer reporting agency would be required to include a fraud alert on the consumer's account.(75) A fraud alert requires that the consumer be notified for authorization whenever a new credit account or extension of credit is attempted to be established in the consumer's name.(76)
In addition to the above, the 2000 Act would require the FTC to develop regulations instructing consumer reporting agencies "to investigate discrepancies between personal or identifying information contained in the file maintained by the agency with respect to a consumer and the personal and identifying information supplied... by the user of the consumer report."(77) Matching the identifying information would reduce the risk of fraudulent use tremendously. Further, the 2000 Act would require that the reporting agencies provide every consumer a free credit report on an annual basis at the consumer's request.(78) Most importantly, the Act prohibits, with only a few exceptions, the consumer reporting agency from furnishing consumer identifying information, other than the consumer's name, generational designation, and a current address, in any format other than a consumer report.(79) Additionally, the regulation would place responsibility on "individual reference service providers," defined as "any person who, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis regularly engages in the practice of creating, assembling, evaluating or providing information, either directly or as a supplier to others, with respect to any person regarding any 2 or more [of the following] items:" (1) Social Security number or other social security information; (2) Mother's maiden name; (3) Prior address; (4) Birth date; (5) Criminal history; (6) History of civil actions; (7) Driving records; (8) Vehicle information; (9) Past employment history; (10) Income level; (11) Tax records; (12) History of voter registration; or (13) Other similar information, as determined by the FTC.(80) Specifically, individual reference services providers would be required to disclose to the consumer, upon request, the "nature, content, and substance of all information" in the consumer's file.(81) Such a requirement would force consumers to become more aware of the vast amounts of personal information that has been gathered about them by such businesses and would allow them the opportunity to monitor the use and better prevent the abuse of such information. However, the individual reference services providers would have a tremendous increase in the amount of time and money spent monitoring their accounts and communicating information to consumers.
Despite widespread support by consumers for the passage of this bill, as is to be expected, the industries affected are vehemently opposed to its enactment. Industry experts argue that self-regulation regarding personal identifying information rather than legislation is the better route to take.(82) Obviously, their main complaint is the high increase in cost associated with implementing such a rigid reporting system, as well as, an overall desire to keep government from directing their business activities. Currently, it appears that the business lobbyists are winning because the bill was left sitting in the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services and has not been passed by the House during this session.(83)
B. Social Security Number Protection Act of 2000
Both the House and the Senate have introduced a version of a bill titled the Social Security Number Protection Act of 2000 .(84) House Report 4611 and Senate Report 2699 were introduced in the House and Senate, respectively, on June 8, 2000.(85) The stated purpose of the proposed bill is "to strengthen the authority of the Federal Government to protect individuals from certain acts and practices in the sale and purchase of social security numbers and social security account numbers."(86) Notably, the language of the proposed bill recognizes that "the inappropriate sale or purchase of a social security number[] is a significant factor in a growing range of illegal activities, including fraud, identity theft, and, in some cases, stalking and other violent crimes."(87) As such, the authors of the bill made the following observation:
The Federal Government requires virtually every individual in the United States to obtain and maintain a social security number in order to pay taxes, to qualify for social security benefits, or to seek employment. An unintended consequence of these requirements is that social security numbers have become tools that can be used to facilitate crime, fraud, and invasions of the privacy of the individuals to whom the numbers are assigned. Because the Federal Government created and maintains this system, and because the Federal Government does not permit individuals to exempt themselves from those requirements, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to take steps to stem the abuse of this system.(88)
Accordingly, the proposed law directs the FTC, after consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security and the Department of Justice, to dictate regulations "restricting the sale and purchase of the social security number[] and social security account numbers and any unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with the sale and purchase of social security numbers and social security account numbers."(89) However, the bill also directs that any such regulations written by the FTC be "no broader than necessary."(90) The bill directs the FTC to consider the following when writing the regulations: (1) Nature, likelihood, and severity of the anticipated harm; (2) Nature likelihood, and extent of any benefits that could be realized from the sale or purchase of the numbers; as well as any other relevant factors.(91) Any regulation written shall allow exceptions for the sale and purchase of social security numbers and social security account numbers in connection with (1) law enforcement or national security; (2) public health; (3) emergency situations; (4) a consumer's consent; or (5) for research conducted for the purpose of advancing public knowledge.(92) The researcher must provide assurance that the social security numbers or social security account numbers will not be used to harass, target, or publicly reveal information concerning any identifiable individual, or to make decisions that directly affect the rights, benefits, or privileges of specific individuals.(93) Further, "the researcher must have in place appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy and confidentiality of any information about identifiable individuals."(94) The pernalty for a violation of the new regulations shall be the same as a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices and/or criminal sanctions under the Social Security Act .(95) In addition, the attorney general for any state may bring a civil action as parens patriae on behalf of the residents of the State in an attempt to enjoin the act or practice, enforce compliance, obtain damages, or to obtain any other legal or equitable relief deemed appropriate.(96) Currently, the proposed bill remains in the House Committee on Commerce and the Ways and Means Committee, as well as, the Senate Committee on Finance. C. Privacy and Identity Protection Act of 2000 On July 14, 2000, both the House and the Senate introduced a bill titled the Privacy and Identity Protection Act of 2000 ("Privacy and Identity Act"). The Privacy and Identity Act purports to amend the Social Security Act "to enhance privacy protections for individuals, to prevent fraudulent misuse of the social security account number, and to provide additional safeguards for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries with representative payees."(97) While the majority of the provisions proposed in the Social Security Number Protection Act are also included within this proposed bill, the Privacy and Identity Act makes additional provisions which provide added privacy to individuals with regards to their social security numbers.(98) First, the Privacy and Identity Act specifically prohibits all agencies of the Federal Government from selling an individual's social security number unless specifically authorized to do so.(99) Further, a government agency may not display an individual's social security number to the general public.(100) Displaying is defined as "the intentional placing of such number or derivative in a viewable manner on an Internet site that is available to the general public or in material made available or sold to the general public."(101) In addition, the proposed bill requires that a study be performed by the Comptroller of the United States to identify the many uses that government agencies are making of an individual's social security number and determine the most effective means that such uses can be minimized.(102)
Perhaps most significantly, the proposed bill would prohibit the use of social security numbers on driver's licenses, motor vehicle registration, or any other document issued by a State or political subdivision to an individual for purposes of identification.(103) Presumably, this would also include state universities. In addition, the proposed bill states that any person who refuses to do business with an individual because he or she will not volunteer his or her social security account number, shall be considered to have committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of section five of the Federal Trade Commission Act .(104) Civil monetary penalties of not more than $5,000 per violation are also provided for if a person falsely identifies themselves as another by use of another person's social security number; knowingly alters a social security card; knowingly buys or sells a social security card; counterfeits a social security card; offers to acquire a social security card for another; or, if an employee of a government agency fails to enforce the provisions of the Act itself.(105) To date, the Privacy and Identity Act has passed the House, but now sits in the Senate Committee on Finance.(106) IV. Analysis and Suggestions for Improvement
The fact that the legislature has proposed several bills addressing identity theft confirms that the crime has been growing rapidly. The current Identity Theft Deterrence Act does not go far enough in combating this growing area of crime, and with the growth of the Internet, the potential for harm to innocent victims only increases. First and foremost, the current law should be amended to place the responsibility of cleaning up a victims's credit or criminal record on the FTC. Specifically, there should be personnel trained to assist the identity theft victim in every step of the process in order to ensure that his or her credit history is cleared of any fraudulent activity, bankruptcies filed are dismissed and cleared off of their record, and any criminal history compiled by the perpetrator is immediately erased. A person whose identity has been stolen has already been victimized by definition; there is no reason that the clean up process has to perpetuate this victimization.
Secondly, the current law should be amended to ensure that identity theft cases, no matter how small, are investigated thoroughly by law enforcement, either federal or state and local. Identity thefts notoriously involve small financial transactions. Identity thieves take advantage of the fact that current law enforcement authorities ignore crimes of a small monetary nature. However, with the advent of the Internet, one determined identity thief could literally victimized thousands of individuals even though each separate transaction was only a small amount. The current law allows for penalties if the identity thief obtains anything of value greater than $1,000 in the aggregate in a given year; however, in order to be penalized, the perpetrator must first be prosecuted. The lack of investigation and prosecution of identity theft is a grave problem which needs to be aggressively addressed..
Third, the provision of the Identity Theft and Protection Act of 2000 requiring credit reporting agencies to notify the consumer immediately upon any request for changes in their accounts should be enacted. Notification to the consumer at the new and old addresses after a request for a change in address has been made would provide the consumer an opportunity to identify a potential fraudulent transaction before it ever occurs thereby preventing much harm to him or herself as well as the financial institution. Granted, such notification requirements would necessarily entail in increase in personnel at the credit reporting agencies and a correlating increase in cost of operations, however, as prevalent as identity theft is becoming, this increase in cost could be recovered by reducing the amount of financial loss due to the criminal act. While the banking and financial industries are vehemently opposed to any regulation and continue to insist that self-regulation is a better route, the self-regulation offered to date has been insufficient to combat the growing crime.(107) Further, self-regulation offers third party victims no avenue of enforcement other than a possible civil contract action based on any privacy policies issued to the consumer.(108) Thus, the only answer is for the legislature to enact laws requiring businesses to act responsibly and providing for enforcement provisions if the laws are violated.
Fourth, it is well known that every United States Citizen has a social security number as required by the Federal Government for tax identification purposes. Originally, this was probably a good idea as it made the processing of millions of tax returns and claims much easier and probably more accurate. However, the social security number has now become a second name for every individual and is used by most every business entity to identify that the individual is who he or she claims. Ironically, such use by businesses began as an attempt to provide the consumer with an added sense of privacy and protection. For example, the bank uses the social security account number as verification that the person wishing to withdraw funds is the true account holder in an attempt to prevent fraud. The problem is that the social security number has become so commonly used by all businesses for these purposes that if an identity thief acquires someone's social security number, he then has access to almost every private account belonging to that person. As such, the provisions proposed in the Social Security Number Protection Act and the Privacy and Identity Protection Act of 2000 prohibiting the sale or purchase of a social security number should be enacted. Further, the social security number should not be displayed on a person's driver's license, an employee's checks, an employee's identification card, a college identification card, or any other publicly viewable device. In addition, the act of venders asking for a social security number prior to doing business with a consumer should be prohibited. Any vendor who refuses to do business with a consumer because that consumer does not want to share their social security number should lose their business license and/or be heavily fined. While in the past, one could argue that the use of the social security number actually helped to prevent fraud, current crime trends show that it now merely perpetuates the crime of identity theft. Thus, the usage of the social security number should be severely restricted and/or eliminated. Picture identification should be required with every transaction. Encrypted photo identification is a possible solution available to e-businesses; however, any file on the computer is also subject to theft and misuse. A study should be performed to identify the best possible way to provide accurate verification of identity during online transactions with only a minimum of risk of abuse.
Finally, most businesses now use computers in their daily operations which undoubtedly contain a database of every customer with each customer's name, address, telephone number, social security number, mother's maiden name, etc. Along with the growth in the development of technology has come the ability of many to break into these databases, steal the identifying information, and either sell it or use for fraudulent purposes. Indeed, some business actually exist solely to accumulate and sell personal identifying information. While there is clearly a market for such information, most consumers would argue that both the gathering of the information as well as the ultimate use of the information (i.e. marketers) is an invasion of privacy. Thus, the legislature should enact a law to prohibit the gathering and sale of personal identifying information. Business that deal only in the gathering and disseminating of personal information should be banned. There is no good purpose for having such information made available to any and everyone who wishes to acquire it. These information brokers argue that consumers actually benefit from the improved accuracy of information given to marketers because they receive less solicitation as every sales call is more targeted. Most consumers, however, would probably argue that even a well targeted sales call is harassment, and solicitations by mail are mere nuisances which ultimately only cause harm to the environment. Personal identifying information is just that - personal - and it should be kept that way unless a consumer chooses to release his information. Consent should not be assumed.
IV. Conclusion
With the advent of the Internet, identity theft has become the fastest growing crime today. Advocates of identity theft prevention insist that the development of data mining and on-line databases filled with personal information invite hackers as well as unethical employees to snoop and take all the personal information on unsuspecting individuals that they can download or print.(109) Accordingly, they insist that the best way to prevent identity theft is to legislate limitations on those profiting from selling personal information.(110) Indeed, most would have to agree that unrestricted trade of personal information in the private sector has helped create the identity theft epidemic. Nonetheless, current laws do nothing to prevent identity theft. In fact, the current Identity Theft and Deterrence Act has just now made identity theft itself a crime. Businesses who compile, use and sell personal identifying information admit that such technologically accessible databases are a growing source of the problem, but these same business argue that self-regulation is better than forced legislation. However, as is evident by the rapid increase in identity theft, self-regulation to date has not been sufficient to curb the growing crime. Thus, while everyone can agree on the source of the problem, not everyone agrees on the cure. However, one thing is certain, unless some action is taken to reduce the access and public sale of personal identifying information, including social security numbers, identity theft will continue to thrive, and no one will be safe from the devious criminal who rapes, steals, kills and lies all while claiming to be you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.