Emily Finch analyses the clash of real and virtual worlds

The apparent rise of identity theft in recent years has been well charted by the media. The government has used the problem as part of its justification for the introduction of identity cards.

However, before we can evaluate how successful its proposals will be in tackling the problem, we need a more complete understanding of the nature of identity theft and what it means for one’s identity to be stolen.

Components of identity

Identity has three inter-related facets: personal, social and legal. Personal identity relates to how an individual views themselves; it is based on self-reflection and has a symbiotic relationship with social identity.  This second facet is based on how individuals are viewed by others.  Each person has numerous social identities that correspond to the multiplicity of roles they have in the social world.  Personal and social identity cannot be the subject of identity theft, as they cannot be assumed or appropriated by others.

Legal identity is an amalgamation of a spectrum of personal information that begins at birth, is expanded as the individual journeys through life and ends at death.  However, legal identity goes beyond the mere collection of documentary and factual information about an individual; its principal concern is to establish an indelible and unmistakable link between this information and the individual to whom it relates.

In general, the preoccupation of legal identity is to answer the question: ‘Is this person who they purport to be?’  This question has two components: firstly, to establish that the personal information used by any individual is accurate, i.e. that individuals do not mislead or misrepresent in relation to aspects of their legal identity; and secondly, to ensure that the information is not assumed by the incorrect person, i.e. to prevent the misappropriation of another’s identity by impostors.

Role of information

Legal identity is, in essence, a collection of information about an individual that may or may not be supported by documentary evidence.  As most of this (excluding most biometric information) can be known and acquired by others, it is legal identity that can be assumed by another; so it is legal identity that is crucial for identity theft.

Information, then, is the currency of identity theft. Without it, the impersonation of another would be impossible.  Part of the reason that identity theft has emerged as a pressing social problem in recent years is the ease with which one person can have access to personal information about another.

Real and virtual worlds

The huge rise in the use of the internet provides unparalleled opportunities for the acquisition of identity information. Fraudsters have perfected the art of compiling a complex mosaic of individual components to construct a complete legal identity using information from many different websites.  This information-gathering process always existed, but has been made infinitely faster and easier as the internet has obviated the need for physical searches of archives and records.

Moreover, fraudsters use the informality of internet chatrooms to induce a false sense of intimacy and trust in which they can harvest the personal information others disclose.

Paradoxically, as people become more guarded with their personal information in the real world, the virtual world – with altered rules of social interaction – creates a forum within which people freely exchange personal information.  This paradox is echoed in the current proposals for identity cards, which aim to fix each individual with one single and inescapable identity. Online, however, the shielding of identity and the use of multiple identities is commonplace and accepted.

Government proposals

It is within this context of ready access to the personal information of others that the government seeks to impose a single and durable legal identity on each individual by introducing identity cards.

How successful this measure will be, particularly given the framework of the current proposals contained in the Identity Cards Bill, requires close scrutiny.  It is questionable whether measures to cement legal identity in a physical environment can address the challenges of the fluidity of identity in a virtual environment, especially given the ongoing growth of transactions at a distance.

The recent growth in identity theft can, in part at least, be attributed to the ease of accessing information online, the changed nature of personal interaction in a virtual environment and the (relative) anonymity provided by online transactions, in which people do not meet in space or time.  Any attempts to counteract identity theft that focus exclusively on the fixity of physical identity are only partly addressing the problem. They will inevitably result in an incomplete and imperfect solution.

Dr Emily Finch is Reader in Law at the University of East Anglia. She was recipient of the 2005 Joseph Lister BA Award Lecture.