The problem goes beyond simple impersonation in that the victims subsequently find it difficult to convince large institutions that they are who they say they are. My understanding is that the term comes from victims' statements that they felt as if their identities had been stolen. See http://www.consumer.gov/idtheft/. The question is relevant here, not as just another parallel question of semantics, but because exactly how the legal system treats "non-repudiation" can make the identity theft problem much better or much worse.
No. The fact that people like to talk in dumbed down soundbites like "identity theft", instead of using well-established words like "impersonation", does not mean that any legally relevant conclusions can be drawn from the misuse of technical terms like "theft" in the soundbite.
Other choices? Identity Theft Identity Pollution Identity Vandalism Identity Assault Identity Misappropriation (Slander in the First Person :) Would it matter if we substitute "reputation" for "identity". Is my identity (to others) any different than the reputation with which it is associated? Call it what you will. If institutions that once recognized me fail now to do so, I have lost something-in-general. Name that something-in-general. Cheers! ___tony___ Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@llnl.gov> Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, CA 94551-9900