16.08.2010
12.22 It has been argued that criminalising identity theft may be ineffective because it is difficult to detect[41] and prosecute successfully.[42] Other responses to identity theft can be divided into responses aimed at preventing identity theft and responses aimed at remedying its adverse effects after it has occurred.
12.23 Initiatives aimed at preventing identity theft generally aim to:
educate individuals about how to minimise the risk of identity theft;[43]
enhance the security features of identification documents so that they cannot be altered or forged; and
strengthen the procedures used to authenticate the identity of individuals engaging in transactions with agencies or organisations.[44]
12.24 Initiatives aimed at minimising the harm of identity theft tend to focus on assisting victims of identity theft to remedy the adverse effects of the theft and to regain control over the use and disclosure of their personal information.
[41] D Solove, ‘The Legal Construction of Identity Theft’ (Paper presented at Symposium: Digital Cops in a Virtual Environment, Yale Law School, New Haven, 26–28 March 2004).
[42] Ibid; N Dixon, Identity Fraud: Research Brief No 2005/03 (2005) Parliament of Queensland—Parliamentary Library, 10.
[43] The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has published guidance on ways to avoid identity theft. For example, see Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Scanning ‘Proof of Identity’ Documents, Information Sheet 20 (2007).
[44] For example, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), and the rules issued under s 229 of the Act, describe the customer identity verification procedures that must be followed by a reporting entity that delivers to a customer a service that is designated by the Act. See, eg, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) pts 2, 7 and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No 1) 2007 (Cth) chs 4, 6–7.