Report - Guardian

102 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005While the Federal Trade Commission and other government agencies are researchingand informing the US public on the nature of the problem and means of controllingaccess to their personal information, in the United Kingdom the response has been morelimited. The Home Office’s initiatives on combating identity theft seem to rely solely onthe proposed identity documents, 279 rather than the multi-faceted approach emergingfrom the US including better regulatory enforcement. In fact, the Home Officeannounced its identity theft initiative in tandem with the introduction of the draft bill inApril 2004. 280According to the Home Office’s Identity Theft Website, located at www.identitytheft.org.uk:“Identity theft occurs when your personal information is used bysomeone else without your knowledge. It may support criminalactivity, which could involve fraud, deception, or obtaining benefitsand services in your name.”This definition is not precise, however. The Cabinet Office produced a more rigorousanalysis in its Identity Fraud report of July 2002. 281 The Cabinet Office report notes thatthere is no offence of identity theft or fraud per se, but that it exists in conjunction withother offences. The reasons for identity fraud are usually connected with concealing anexisting identity, accruing a financial benefit or avoiding a financial liability. For thesepurposes, an identity is either stolen or fabricated, and there are myriad ways in whichthis might happen.The Cabinet Office report distinguishes three elements of identity:- attributed identity, such as name, date and place of birth;- biographical identity, which builds up over time and includes details ofeducation, employment, personal circumstances, electoral registrations, tax paidand benefits claimed, private sector financial details and transactions; and- biometric identity, such as fingerprints, iris, retina and DNA profile.The report notes that attributed identity is the easiest to assume, and is usually based onfabricated or stolen documents. Assuming a biographical identity is more difficultbecause details can only be registered in the appropriate public and private sectordatabases through a degree of social interaction using a fraudulent persona.According to the Cabinet Office report, biometric identity cannot be assumed byanother individual. However, the report acknowledges that genuine biometricinformation could be inserted into otherwise fraudulent identity documents. Thereforethe risk with this type of identifier lies in the issuing process. Whilst it may have beenthe case in 2002 when the report was written that biometric identity cannot be assumedor forged, the report is no longer accurate in this respect: as our section on biometrics279 ‘What is being done’, The Home Office, 2004, http://www.identity-theft.org.uk/html/whatisbeingdone.html.280 ‘David Blunkett: National ID card scheme is the key to the UK’s future’, Home Office Press Release, April 26,2004, Reference 159/2004.281 Cabinet office, Identity Fraud: a study, July 2002, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/id_fraud-report.pdf