« Previous Post | Blog Home | Next Post »
PRC doubts key statistic from recent ID theft study
Posted on Mar 7, 2006 by Tom Fragala
From the Washington Post, a brief and important follow up story:
Some consumer advocates who specialize in privacy issues have written to complain about a blog item last week on a new identity theft study done by the Better Business Bureau and Javelin Strategy and Research, a consulting firm for the financial services industry.
Their complaints centered on the statement: "Almost half of all identity theft is perpetrated by someone the victim knows: friends, neighbors, family members, in-home employees, etc."
Beth Givens, Director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, said that statement "is only half correct." According to Givens: "The survey found that only 36% of victims know who the imposter is. Of that 36%, just over half are closely associated with the victim such as a family member, friend, neighbor or in-home employee. So, for the statement to be correct, it should be written something like this: 'Of those victims who know the identity of the perpetrator, which is 36% of victims surveyed, one half of those are closely associated with the victim such as family members, friends, or in-home employees. Thus, for 18% of the victims, or about one in six, the perpetrator is someone close to them.'"
Filed under: Identity Theft
Comments
James Van Dyke on Mar 13, 2006
I'm disappointed in how this issue is being reported, and am concerned that attention is being diverted from victims of identity fraud. Our data was initially cited in abbreviated form in this blog, and now the same blog is citing a few others’ concerns over its own omissions. Our company, a research firm *on* financial and payment topics (and not, as was stated, primarily a "consulting firm for the financial services industry"), has consistently stated the following related to the release of our 2006 Identity Fraud Survey Report: A small number of the large survey's questions are based on victims who can confidently state the perpetrator's methods or identity. Our study now reaches 5,000 US adults and 533 fraud victims per year through detailed phone interviews, and is based on a nationally-representative, independently auditable process of reaching a nationally representative audience. In phone and written releases related to this report, we have consistently prefaced certain results certain results with "Of the 36% who know the criminal's identity" or "of the 54% who know the criminal's methods". As a researcher, I cannot agree with Ms. Given characterization that "Thus, for 18% of the victims, or about one in six, the perpetrator is someone close to them". This statement is not accurate, as, mathematically speaking, the true value could be much higher than 18% but cannot be any lower than this amount. All victim-based crime research shares a common limitation: much about criminals can never be known in its entirety, and that's why we always provide full context for the report while not shrinking back from reporting about how individuals can protect themselves from this horrible crime. In closing, we do use a variety of other methods to corroborate the findings in the survey, such as information from corporate fraud investigators or news releases from independent law enforcement bureaus. The great majority of our study is based on interview questions that all ID fraud victims were able to respond to. And while observers might speculate about how the pattern of crimes might differ when the criminal's identity or methods is not known, victim's interests are best served by sticking with just the facts, reported accurately and in context.
Post a Comment