[LINK] "Identity Theft" [was: Copyright Infringement as Stealing: Pfft!]
Stephen Wilson
swilson at lockstep.com.au
Tue Oct 28 08:55:16 AEDT 2008
Stilgherrian wrote:
> In the case of what is called "identity theft", I never could
> understand what was wrong with the good old words "impersonation" and
> "impersonation with intent to commit fraud" and "fraud" and so on. You
> know, the actual words which accurately describe the crime being
> committed.
At the risk of being accused of "spin", I'd like to suggest that the
deliberate choice of words "identity theft" serves a useful rhetorical
purpose. After all, words are powerful (which is an important principle
to remember when people decry "spin" without qualification -- that is,
"spin" is used for good as well as bad).
Using "Identity theft", in contrast to the "fraud", draws attention to
several pertinent points, including:
- in its current forms, impersonation on the Internet is indeed novel,
for it involves avenues of attack and a scale of attack that are
unprecedented; so it demands a set of responses that are quite
different from other anti-fraud measures to date
- we are known on the Internet (as opposed to the real world) according
to very discrete digital identities that are quite often very easy to
copy; while I take others' point about the uncertain semantics of
"steal" vs copy, it is still very interesting and noteworthy that
digital identities can be co-opted, in ways that the mundane term
"fraud" doesn't really capture
- there is a compelling argument that in the digital world, we have
multiple digital personae, and not just one organic identity;
accordingly, it's useful to draw attention to the fact that these
personae are vulnerable separately to takeover, or "theft"
- in the particular case of biometrics, where crazy claims are made
about their 1:1 correspondence to "unique" biological traits and
their *assumed* resistance to takeover, I feel it is rhetorically
very useful to employ the term "identity theft" to describe what
happens when someone copies and replays a template, or spoofs the
measurement.
Some prefer "identifier theft" (or "identity takeover") to "identity
theft" but I think that's splitting hairs. I subscribe to the view that
I possess a plurality of digital identities (bank accounts, memberships,
personal mail accounts, employment episodes, avatars etc.) and I
certainly feel that each of them is susceptible to theft.
Speaking of avatars -- don't they push the boundaries of the semantic
argument concerning 'stealing' of identities (or IP for that matter)?
If someone takes over my avatar in Second Life, and I lose control of
it, and it is altered in ways that I don't approve of (as an extreme
example, that avatar kills another) then surely I have "lost" it? The
same consideration might also apply to "reputation". At a high level of
abstraction, it seems to me that these intangibles start to behave like
they do have physical properties, and that it is therefore sensible to
talk in terms of 'possession' and 'theft'. Yes, one can always employ
low level functional language to describe what is 'really' going on when
someone takes over an avatar, but then we run the risk of losing the
richness of the virtual experience. So it seems to me that we cannot on
the one hand celebrate virtual reality and other epiphenomena of the
Internet, while on the other hand, complain about bending real world
language like "theft" to describe the richness of the new world.
Cheers,
Steve Wilson.
More information about the Link
mailing list