Low-Tech Methods Get The Blame For Most Identity Fraud
from the methodology dept
A new research study says that identity fraud rose 22 percent in 2008 from the previous year, blaming lost or stolen wallets, not data breaches, for the majority of incidents. It's important to note the terminology here: the group that conducted the research considers identity fraud -- when stolen information is actually used for financial gain -- as distinct from identity theft, which is simply when identity information is stolen. It stands to reason, then, that the occurrence of identity theft is actually far higher. Also, the numbers on how criminals obtained the information may be slightly skewed. Respondents to the survey were asked if they knew how their information was stolen, and only 35% responded that they did. Of that 35%, only 22% said it was stolen online or via a data leak. Again, it stands to reason that people whose information was stolen because their wallet was lifted or lost, or via some other noticeable method, would be more aware of it than if, say, a retailer gave up their credit card number or other info. Also, is it helpful to consider a pickpocket using a stolen credit card to be analogous to a massive data breach? While the end result might be similar for affected consumers, the method of the crime, as well as the reasons why it was allowed to happen, are very, very different. To equate pickpocketing to data breaches runs the risk of underemphasizing the risk that slack corporate or governmental security poses to large numbers of people. Gee, that doesn't sound familiar, does it?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: identity fraud, identity theft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Huh?
Do you think you might learn how to use a 'paragraph' once in awhile?
It might help improve the understanding of your poor writing skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Although if you look at the data differently
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Identity Theft
My reading of the original article is that they probably used the term "identity fraud" to mean victim's accounts were accessed, since the methods referenced wouldn't give the type of information needed for other types of identity theft.
It is important for the public to understand the differences, since the risk from having your accounts accessed is far less than the risks from other types of identity theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]