Identity theft

About: Identity theft is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 2284 publications have been published within this topic receiving 31700 citations.

Privacy and Access to Public Records in the Digital Age

Abstract: Online public record access brings a wealth of benefits ranging from greater government access and accountability to increased cost-savings and efficiencies. However, due to the presence of highly sensitive, personal data, an increase in public records access also brings potential dangers, including heightened risk of identity theft and frivolous snooping into the affairs of others. Historically, public records have had some measure of public accessibility in order to empower citizens with the ability to observe the goings-on of government, leading to greater government accountability. Until the rise of the internet, citizens have had their privacy protected through practical obscurity (the notion that to actually look at public records, a person would have to physically visit the record holder's office to see a record). Expanding on lessons learned from the experiences of the Privacy and Public Access Sub-Committee of the Supreme Court of Ohio Advisory Committee on Technology and the Courts, this paper will discuss the controversies surrounding online access to public records. In addition, it will offer recommendations as to how government can, by modifying public records laws and rules so that public record information is the same online and off-line, embrace the opportunities provided by online public records while securing the privacy of its citizens.

Are You "Red Flag" Ready? the Nov. 1 Deadline for Compliance with New ID Theft Rules Is Fast Approaching. Read This to Be Sure You're Ready

Abstract: Last October, six federal agencies issued final rules imposing anti-identity-theft requirements on financial institutions, creditors, credit and debit card issuers, and users of consumer credit reports. The new "red flags" regulation enacts sections 114 and 315 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA) and calls for every financial institution or creditor to develop and implement a written "identity theft prevention program." (See "Basics of the new rules," p. 54) The final rules became effective on Jan. 1, 2008, and full compliance is required by Nov. 1, 2008. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The identity theft prevention program is at the heart of the new rules. Each financial institution or creditor must establish a program that sets policies and procedures to identify which key indicators of possible identity theft are relevant; detects them when they occur; and responds appropriately when they are detected. As the environment changes, either through internal changes in the organization or the development of new techniques on the part of identity thieves, the program must be updated. Though complying with these rules may be challenging to some affected organizations, like car dealers or retailers, the policies and procedures required won't be new to most banks and savings institutions. Obtaining and verifying identifying information about a person opening an account should be second nature to them, given such factors as the customer identification program requirements they must already fulfill in the Bank Secrecy Act/antimoney-laundering area. Authenticating customers, monitoring transactions, and verifying the validity of change of address requests for existing accounts should be business-as-usual. What's new in these rules is their specificity. The regulations include guidelines listing 26 patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity that should raise a "red flag" signaling a possible risk of identity theft. But the list is not intended to be comprehensive. Rather, in the words of the regulators, "when identifying red flags, financial institutions and creditors must consider the nature of their business and the type of identity theft to which they may be subject." Each organization might do well to consider this guidance in developing internal controls, structuring a program that is specific to the business lines it is in, and that complies with the regulations, while maintaining a high level of vigilance (to see changes in the environment) and flexibility (to evaluate and adjust procedures to respond to those changes). Identifying relevant red flags The indicators listed in the guidelines are classified into five categories: 1. Alerts, notifications or warnings from a consumer reporting agency. If a fraud or active duty alert is included with a consumer's credit report, or a credit reporting agency provides a notice of credit freeze in response to a request for a consumer report, this is the most obvious type of red flag. 2. Suspicious documents. Do the documents provided for identification appear to have been altered or forged? Is information on the identification inconsistent with information provided by the person presenting it, whether an existing client or a new customer? 3. Suspicious personal identifying information. When compared against external information sources, is personal identifying information inconsistent? Some examples include cases where the address does not match any address in the credit report, the Social Security Number has not been issued, or the Social Security Number is listed on the Social Security Administration's Death Master File. Another example would be failure to provide all the information required on an application, even when asked twice. If the phone number provided by an applicant is invalid, or is an answering service or a pager, this could raise suspicion. …

An Innovative Framework for the Detection andPrediction of Phishing Websites

Abstract: With the advent of internet, various online attacks has been increased and among them the most popular attack is phishing.Phishing is an attempt by an individual or a group to get personal confidential information such as passwords, credit card information from unsuspecting victims for identity theft, financial gain and other fraudulent activities. In recent years phishing is a technique used for cyber crimes. Spoofing is a new type of cyber crime in this globalisation era. Spoofing refers tricking computer systems or computer users by hiding one‟s identity or faking the identity of another user on the Internet.E-mail spoofing means sending messages from a bogus e-mail address or faking the e-mail ID of another user. This paper employs back propagation network for identifying malicious URL‟s in a network .It has been observed that the method predicts the phishing website more accurately when compared to any other learning algorithms.