CDR: Non-Repudiation in the Digital Environment (was Re: First

[petro]

>Tony Bartoletti wrote:

>>  >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
>>  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.
>Well, you have not lost it nor has it has been "stolen".  You are 
>simply barred
>from using it.  This is the result of impersonation, since now the 
>other person
>is the one that has access to it.
>
>The use of "identity theft" instead of impersonation is thus utterly 
>misleading,
>even though lawyers and lawmakers are the ones perpetrating such use.  No
>legally relevant conclusions can be drawn from the misuse of the technical
>term "theft" in the soundbite.

	I believe a more accurate term would be "credentials fraud", 
a more sound biteable term might be "credentials theft", which is 
fairly accurate.
-- 
A quote from Petro's Archives:   **********************************************
Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government 
of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? 
Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let 
history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural