Editing Identity theft (section)

== Legal responses ==

=== International ===

In March 2014, after it was learned two passengers with stolen passports were on board [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 370]], which went missing on 8 March 2014. It came to light that [[Interpol]] maintains a database of 40 million lost and stolen travel documents from 157 countries, which Interpol makes available to governments and the public, including airlines and hotels. The Stolen and Lost Travel Documents (SLTD) database, however, is rarely used. ''Big News Network'' (which is based in the [[UAE]]) reported that Interpol Secretary-General [[Ronald Noble|Ronald K. Noble]] told a forum in [[Abu Dhabi]] in the previous month, "The bad news is that, despite being incredibly cost-effective and deployable to virtually anywhere in the world, only a handful of countries are systematically using SLTD to screen travelers. The result is a major gap in our global security apparatus that is left vulnerable to exploitation by criminals and terrorists."<ref name="InterpolSLTD">{{cite news|title=Airlines and governments not checking stolen passports register|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10686319/Interpol-warned-of-danger-posed-by-stolen-passports.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10686319/Interpol-warned-of-danger-posed-by-stolen-passports.html |archive-date=2022-01-12 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=11 September 2014|newspaper=The Daily Telegraph}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

=== Australia ===
In [[Australia]], each state has enacted laws that deal with different aspects of identity or fraud issues. Some states have now amended relevant criminal laws to reflect crimes of identity theft, such as the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), Crimes Amendment (Fraud, Identity and Forgery Offences) Act 2009, and also in Queensland under the Criminal Code 1899 (QLD). Other states and territories are in states of development in respect of regulatory frameworks relating to identity theft such as Western Australia in respect of the Criminal Code Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill 2009.

At the Commonwealth level, under the ''Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery & Related Offences) Act 2000'' which amended certain provisions within the ''Criminal Code Act 1995'',

{{Blockquote|'''135.1 General dishonesty'''
(3) A person is guilty of an offense if
a) the person does anything with the intention of dishonestly ''causing a loss to another person''; and
b) the other person is a Commonwealth entity.
Penalty: ''Imprisonment for 5 years''.}}

Between 2014 and 2015 in Australia, there were 133,921 fraud and deception offences, an increase of 6% from previous year. The total cost reported by the Attorney General Department was:<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/IdentitySecurity/Documents/Identity-crime-and-misuse-in-Australia-2016.pdf|title=Identity crime and misuse in Australia|access-date=8 February 2018}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|+Total costs<ref name=":4" />
!Fraud category
!Cost per incident
!Total direct cost
|-
|Commonwealth fraud
|$2,111
|$353,866,740
|-
|Personal fraud
|$400
|$656,550,506
|-
|Police recorded fraud
|$4,412 per unrecorded incident

$27,981 per recorded incident
|$3,260,141,049
|}
There are also high indirect costs associated as a direct result of an incident. For example, the total indirect costs for police recorded fraud is $5,774,081.<ref name=":4" />

Likewise, each state has enacted its own privacy laws to prevent the misuse of personal information and data. The Commonwealth ''Privacy Act'' applies only to Commonwealth and territory agencies and to certain private-sector bodies (where, for example, they deal with sensitive records, such as medical records, or they have more than $3 million in turnover PA).

=== Canada ===
Under section 402.2 of the ''[[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]],''
{{Blockquote|Everyone commits an offense who knowingly obtains or possesses another person's identity information in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference that the information is intended to be used to commit an indictable offense that includes fraud, deceit, or falsehood as an element of the offense.
is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction.}}

Under section 403 of the ''[[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]],''
{{Blockquote|(1) Everyone commits an offense who fraudulently personates another person, living or dead,
(a) with intent to gain advantage for themselves or another person;
(b) with intent to obtain any property or an interest in any property;
(c) with intent to cause disadvantage to the person being personated or another person; or
(d) with intent to avoid arrest or prosecution or to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction.}}

In Canada, ''Privacy Act'' (federal legislation) covers only federal government, agencies and [[crown corporations]]. Each province and territory has its own privacy law and privacy commissioners to limit the storage and use of personal data.
For the private sector, the purpose of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (2000, c. 5) (known as PIPEDA) is to establish rules to govern the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information; except for the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia where provincial laws have been deemed substantially similar.

==== Proposed legislation ====
* [[Bill C-27 (39th Canadian Parliament, 2nd Session)]]

=== France ===
In France, a person convicted of identity theft can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to [[euro|€]]75,000.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.journaldunet.com/juridique/juridique040309.shtml|title=Usurpation d'identité : la loi ou la technique pour se protéger ?|website=www.journaldunet.com|accessdate=25 December 2023}}</ref>

=== Hong Kong ===
Under HK Laws. Chap 210 ''Theft Ordinance'', sec. 16A Fraud:
{{Blockquote|(1) If any person by any deceit (whether or not the deceit is the sole or main inducement) and with '''intent to defraud''' induces another person to commit an act or make an omission, which results either-
(a) in '''benefit to any person''' other than the second-mentioned person; or
(b) in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to any person other than the first-mentioned person,
the first-mentioned person commits the offense of fraud and is liable on conviction upon indictment to '''imprisonment for 14 years'''.}}

The ''Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance'' (PDPO) regulates the collection, use and retention of personal information in Hong Kong.  It also provides citizens the right to request information held by businesses and the government to the extent provided by this law. The PDPO establishes the [[Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data]] which enforces the law and advises on the use of personal data.

=== India ===
Under the Information Technology Act 2000 Chapter IX Sec 66C:
{{Blockquote|SECTION 66C
PUNISHMENT FOR IDENTITY THEFT
Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of the electronic signature, password, or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be  punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one [[lakh]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://nicca.nic.in/pdf/itact2000.pdf |title=The Information Technology Act 2000 |access-date=2013-08-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130724123617/http://nicca.nic.in/pdf/itact2000.pdf |archive-date=2013-07-24 |url-status=dead }}</ref>}}

=== Philippines ===
Social networking sites are one of the most famous spreaders of ''posers'' in the online community, giving the users the freedom to post any information they want without any verification that the account is being used by the real person.{{clarify|date=April 2021}}

The Philippines, which ranks eighth in the numbers of users of [[Facebook]] and other social networking sites (such as [[Twitter]], [[Multiply (website)|Multiply]] and [[Tumblr]]), has been known as a source of various identity theft problems.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.techunblocked.org/2015/06/facebook-users-by-country-wise.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160310213502/https://www.techunblocked.org/2015/06/facebook-users-by-country-wise.html|url-status=dead|title=List of Facebook Users by Country Wise Top ranking 2016 - Tech Unblocked|archive-date=10 March 2016}}</ref>  Identities of people who carelessly put personal information on their profiles can easily be stolen just by simple browsing. Some people meet online, get to know each other through Facebook chat, and exchange messages that share private information.  Others get romantically involved with online friends and end up sharing too much information (such as their social security number, bank account, home address, and company address).

This phenomenon leads to the creation of the [[Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012]] (Republic Act No. 10175). Section 2 of this act states that it recognizes the importance of [[communication]] and [[multimedia]] for the development, exploitation, and dissemination of information{{clarify|date=April 2021}}, but violators will be punished by the law through imprisonment or a fine upwards of ₱200,000, but not exceeding ₱1,000,000, or (depending on the damage caused) both.

=== Sweden ===
Sweden has had relatively few problems with identity theft because only Swedish [[identity document]]s were accepted for identity verification. Stolen documents are traceable by banks and certain other institutions{{which|date=April 2021}}. Banks are required to check the identity of anyone withdrawing money or getting loans. If a bank gives money to someone using an identity document that has been reported as stolen, the bank must take this loss. Since 2008, any EU passport is valid in Sweden for identity verification, and Swedish passports are valid all over the EU. This makes it harder to detect stolen documents, but banks in Sweden still must ensure that stolen documents are not accepted.

Other types of identity theft have become more common in Sweden. One common example is ordering a credit card to someone who has an unlocked letterbox and is not home during the daytime. The thief steals the letter with the credit card and the letter with the code, which typically arrives a few days later. Usage of a stolen credit card is difficult in Sweden since an identity document or a PIN code is normally demanded. If a shop does not demand either, it must take the loss from accepting a stolen credit card. The practice of observing someone using their credit card's PIN code, stealing the credit card, or [[skimming (credit card fraud)|skimming]] it, and then using the credit card has become more common.

Legally, Sweden is an open society. [[Freedom of information legislation|The Principle of Public Access]] states that all information (e.g. addresses, incomes, taxes) kept by public authorities must be available for anyone, except in certain cases (for example, the addresses of people who need to hide are restricted). This makes fraud easier.

Until 2016, there were no laws that specifically prohibited using someone's identity. Instead, there were only laws regarding any indirect damages caused. Impersonating anyone else for financial gain is a [[type of fraud]] in the [[Criminal Code]] ({{langx|sv|brottsbalken}}). Impersonating anyone else to discredit them by hacking into their social media accounts and provoke{{clarify|date=April 2021}} is considered [[libel]]. However, it is difficult to convict someone of committing this crime. In late 2016, a new law was introduced which partially banned undetermined{{clarify|date=April 2021}} identity usage.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://rkrattsdb.gov.se/SFSdoc/16/160485.PDF|title=SFS 2016:485 Lag om ändring i brottsbalken|accessdate=25 December 2023}}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===
In the United Kingdom, personal data is protected by the [[Data Protection Act 1998]]. The Act covers all personal data which an organization may hold, including names, birthday and anniversary dates, addresses, and telephone numbers.

Under [[English law]] (which extends to [[Wales]] but not to [[Northern Ireland]] or [[Scotland]]), the [[Deception (criminal law)|deception]] offences under the [[Theft Act 1968]] increasingly contend with identity theft situations. In ''R v Seward'' (2005) EWCA Crim 1941,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/1941.html|title=Seward, R. v [2005] EWCA Crim 1941 (11 July 2005)|accessdate=25 December 2023}}</ref> the defendant was acting as the "frontman" in the use of stolen credit cards and other documents to obtain goods. He obtained goods to the value of £10,000 for others who are unlikely ever to be identified. The Court of Appeal considered a sentencing policy for deception offenses involving "identity theft" and concluded that a prison sentence was required. Henriques J. said at para 14: "Identity fraud is a particularly pernicious and prevalent form of dishonesty calling for, in our judgment, deterrent sentences."

Statistics released by [[CIFAS]] (UK's Fraud Prevention Service) show that there were 89,000 victims of identity theft in the UK in 2010 and 85,000 victims in 2009.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cifas.org.uk/identity_fraud |title=CIFAS: your identity  }}, CIFAS</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://id-theft-uk.blogspot.com/2010/02/uk-fraud-prevention-agency-say-id-theft.html |title=UK Fraud Prevention Agency Say ID Theft Increase of 32% in 2009 |access-date=2010-02-03 |archive-date=2012-07-01 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120701/http://id-theft-uk.blogspot.com/2010/02/uk-fraud-prevention-agency-say-id-theft.html |url-status=dead }}, Identity Theft UK Blog, 3 February 2010</ref>{{Unreliable source?|date=December 2015}} Men in their 30s and 40s are the most common victims.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blog.protectmyid.co.uk/index.php/the-most-likely-victims-of-identity-fraud-men-in-their-late-30s-and-early-40s/ |title=The most likely victims of identity fraud: men in their late 30s and early 40s |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120708/http://blog.protectmyid.co.uk/index.php/the-most-likely-victims-of-identity-fraud-men-in-their-late-30s-and-early-40s/ |archive-date=8 July 2012 }}, Protect MY ID Blog, 21 January 2011</ref>{{Unreliable source?|date=December 2015}} Identity fraud now accounts for nearly half of all frauds recorded.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cifas.org.uk/press_release_twentyeleven_c |title=Fraudscape: report reveals the UK's fraud landscape in 2010  }}, CIFAS</ref>

=== United States ===
{{See also|Identity theft in the United States}}
The increase in crimes of identity theft led to the drafting of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/itada/itadact.htm |title=FTC.gov |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120801/http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/itada/itadact.htm |archive-date=1 August 2012 }}, Public Law 105-318, 112 Stat. 3007 (30 October 1998)</ref> In 1998, The Federal Trade Commission appeared before the United States Senate.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/05/identhef.htm |title=Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on "Identity Theft" |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120801/http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/05/identhef.htm |archive-date=1 August 2012 }}, 20 May 1998</ref> The FTC discussed crimes which exploit consumer credit to commit loan fraud, [[mortgage fraud]], lines-of-credit fraud, [[credit card fraud]], commodities and services frauds. The Identity Theft Deterrence Act (2003)[ITADA] amended [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028A- U.S. Code Title 18, § 1028] ("Fraud related to activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information"). The statute now makes the possession of any "means of identification" to "knowingly transfer, possess, or use without lawful authority" a federal crime, alongside unlawful possession of identification documents. However, for federal jurisdiction to prosecute, the crime must include an "identification document" that either: (a) is purportedly issued by the United States, (b) is used or intended to defraud the United States, (c) is sent through the mail, or (d) is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce. ''See'' {{usc|18|1028}}(c). Punishment can be up to 5, 15, 20, or 30 years in federal [[prison]], plus fines, depending on the underlying crime per {{usc|18|1028}}(b). In addition, punishments for the unlawful use of a "means of identification" were strengthened in § 1028A ("Aggravated Identity Theft"), allowing for a consecutive sentence under specific enumerated felony violations as defined in § 1028A(c)(1) through (11).<ref>Doyle, Charles. (2013). [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42100.pdf Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: Federal Aggravated Identity Theft.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161011031227/https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42100.pdf |date=11 October 2016 }} Washington, D.C.: [[Congressional Research Service]].</ref>

The Act also provides the [[Federal Trade Commission]] with authority to track the number of incidents and the dollar value of losses. Their figures relate mainly to consumer financial crimes and not the broader range of all identification-based crimes.<ref>[http://www.consumer.gov/idtheft/ Federal Trade Commission]. Retrieved 30 June 2006.  {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060131210801/http://www.consumer.gov/idtheft/ |date=31 January 2006 }}</ref>

If charges are brought by state or local law enforcement agencies, different penalties apply to depend on the state.

Six Federal agencies conducted a joint task force to increase the ability to detect identity theft. Their joint recommendation on "red flag" guidelines is a set of requirements on financial institutions and other entities which furnish credit data to credit reporting services to develop written plans for detecting identity theft. The FTC has determined that most medical practices are considered creditors and are subject to requirements to develop a plan to prevent and respond to patient identity theft.<ref>Michael, Sara {{cite web |url=http://www.physicianspractice.com/index/fuseaction/newsletterArticles.view/articleID/87.htm |title=Getting Red Flag Ready |access-date=2009-07-02 |archive-date=2012-09-11 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120911/http://www.physicianspractice.com/index/fuseaction/newsletterArticles.view/articleID/87.htm |url-status=dead }} PhysiciansPractice.com, 21 May 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2009.</ref> These plans must be adopted by each organization's board of directors and monitored by senior executives.<ref>[http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/2007/december/071213factafurnisheraccuracy.pdf 72 Fed. Reg. 70944 ] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130217151554/http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/2007/december/071213factafurnisheraccuracy.pdf |date=17 February 2013 }} (PDF). Retrieved 29 January 2008.</ref>

Identity theft complaints as a percentage of all fraud complaints decreased from 2004 to 2006.<ref name="autogenerated1">{{Cite web|url=http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft/downloads/clearinghouse_2006.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080911044319/http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/idtheft/downloads/clearinghouse_2006.pdf|url-status=dead|title=Law Enforcement Contact1 January 1 December 31, 2001|archive-date=11 September 2008}}</ref> The Federal Trade Commission reported that fraud complaints in general were growing faster than ID theft complaints.<ref name="autogenerated1" /> The findings were similar in two other FTC studies done in 2003 and 2005. In 2003, 4.6 percent of the US population said they were a victim of ID theft. In 2005, that number had dropped to 3.7 percent of the population.<ref name=SR_1>{{cite web| title=Federal Trade Commission – Identity Theft Survey Report| url=https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-identity-theft-program/synovatereport.pdf| publisher=[[Federal Trade Commission]]| date=September 2002| access-date=5 January 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ftc.gov/reports/federal-trade-commission-2006-identity-theft-survey-report-prepared-commission-synovate|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080911044311/http://www.ftc.gov/os/2007/11/SynovateFinalReportIDTheft2006.pdf|url-status=dead|title=Federal Trade Commission: 2006 Identity Theft Survey Report: Prepared for the Commission by Synovate|date=1 November 2007|archive-date=11 September 2008|website=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref> The commission's 2003 estimate was that identity theft accounted for some $52.6 billion of losses in the preceding year alone and affected more than 9.91 million Americans;<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/09/idtheft.shtm |title=FTC.gov<!-- Bot generated title --> |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120731/http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/09/idtheft.shtm |archive-date=31 July 2012 }}, releases Survey of Identity Theft in U.S. 27.3 Million Victims in past 5 Years, Billions in Losses for Businesses and Consumers</ref> the figure comprises $47.6 billion lost by businesses and $5 billion lost by consumers.

According to the [[Bureau of Justice Statistics|U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics]], in 2010, 7% of US households experienced identity theft - up from 5.5% in 2005 when the figures were first assembled, but broadly flat since 2007.<ref name="Bureau of Justice Statistics">{{cite web | url=http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/itrh0510.pdf | title=Identity Theft Reported by Households, 2005-2010 | publisher=Bureau of Justice Statistics | year=2011 | access-date=24 June 2013}}</ref> In 2012, approximately 16.6 million persons, or 7% of all U.S. residents age 16 or older, reported being victims of one or more incidents of identity theft.<ref>Harrell, Erika and Lynn Langton. (2013). [http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit12.pdf Victims of Identity Theft, 2012.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160907043423/http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit12.pdf |date=7 September 2016 }} Washington, D.C. [[United States Department of Justice|U.S. Department of Justice]], [[Bureau of Justice Statistics]].</ref>

At least two states, [[California]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.privacyprotection.ca.gov/ |title=California Office of Identity Protection |access-date=2009-01-08 |archive-date=2012-08-05 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120805/http://www.privacyprotection.ca.gov/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> and [[Wisconsin]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://datcp.wi.gov/Pages/Programs_Services/IdentityTheft.aspx|title=DATCP Home Identity Theft Protection|website=datcp.wi.gov|accessdate=25 December 2023}}</ref> have created an Office of Privacy Protection to assist their citizens in avoiding and recovering from identity theft.

In 2009, Indiana created an Identity Theft Unit within their Office of Attorney General to educate and assist consumers in avoiding and recovering from identity theft as well as assist law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting identity theft crimes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title4/ar6/ch13.pdf |title=Indiana General Assembly |access-date=3 October 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131004215445/http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title4/ar6/ch13.pdf |archive-date=4 October 2013 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral/2853.htm |title=Attorney General: ID Theft Prevention |publisher=In.gov |date=6 December 2013 |access-date=24 January 2014 |archive-date=11 January 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140111062848/http://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral/2853.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In Massachusetts in 2009–2010, Governor [[Deval Patrick]] committed to balancing consumer protection with the needs of small business owners. His Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation announced certain adjustments to Massachusetts' identity theft regulations that maintain protections and also allow flexibility in compliance. These updated regulations went into effect on 1 March 2010. The regulations are clear that their approach to data security is a risk-based approach important to small businesses and might not handle a lot of personal information about customers.<ref>[http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocatopic&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Consumer&L2=Identity+Theft&sid=Eoca "Consumer Identity Theft"]. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2010  {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111105045936/http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocatopic&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Consumer&L2=Identity+Theft&sid=Eoca |date=5 November 2011 }}</ref><ref>[http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR17faqs.pdf "Frequently Asked Question Regarding 201 CMR 17.00"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110811054640/http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR17faqs.pdf |date=11 August 2011 }}, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, 3 November 2009</ref>

The [[Internal Revenue Service|IRS]] has created{{when|date=August 2017}} the IRS Identity Protection Specialized Unit to help taxpayers' who are victims of federal tax-related identity theft.<ref>{{cite web|title=Taxpayer Guide to Identity Theft|url=https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=251501,00.html|work=IRS.gov|publisher=US Internal Revenue Service|access-date=29 June 2012 }}</ref> Generally, the identity thief will use a stolen SSN to file a forged tax return and attempt to get a fraudulent refund early in the filing season. A taxpayer will need to fill out Form 14039, [https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f14039.pdf ''Identity Theft Affidavit''].<ref>{{cite web|title=Form 14039|url=https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f14039.pdf|work=IRS website|publisher=US Internal Revenue Service|access-date=29 June 2012}}</ref><ref name="ALERT: Beware of Phishing Scam Mentioning TAS">{{cite web | url=http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/Individuals/Identity-Theft | title=ALERT: Beware of Phishing Scam Mentioning TAS | publisher=Taxpayer Advocate | access-date=18 December 2014 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141218162516/http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/Individuals/Identity-Theft | archive-date=18 December 2014 }}</ref>

As for the future of medical care and Medicaid, people are mostly concerned about [[cloud computing]]. The addition of using cloud information within the United States medicare system would institute easily accessible health information for individuals, but that also makes it easier for identity theft. Currently, new technology is being produced to help encrypt and protect files, which will create a smooth transition to cloud technology in the healthcare system.<ref>Hyde, J. (2017). Preventing Identity Theft and Strengthening the American Health Care System. Policy & Practice (19426828), 75(5), 26–34.</ref>

==== Notification ====
Many states followed California's lead and enacted mandatory [[data breach notification laws]]. As a result, companies that report a data breach typically report it to all their customers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.naag.org/states-offer-data-breach-protection.php |title=States Offer Data Breach Protection |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120913/http://www.naag.org/states-offer-data-breach-protection.php |archive-date=13 September 2012 }}</ref>