Fraud
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Criminal law
Part of the common law series
Elements
Actus reus · Mens rea
Causation · Concurrence
Scope of Criminal Liability
Complicity · Corporate · Vicarious
Inchoate offenses
Attempt · Conspiracy · Solicitation
Crimes against people
Assault · Battery
False imprisonment · Kidnapping
Mayhem · Sexual assault
Homicide Crimes
Murder · Felony murder
Manslaughter
Negligent homicide
Vehicular homicide
Crimes against property
Arson · Blackmail · Burglary
Embezzlement · Extortion
False pretenses · Larceny
Receiving stolen property
Robbery · Theft
Crimes against justice
Compounding · Misprision
Obstruction · Perjury
Malfeasance in office
Perverting the course of justice
Defenses to Liability
Defense of: (Self · Others · Property)
Consent · Diminished capacity
Duress · Entrapment · Ignorance
Infancy · Insanity · Intoxication
Justification · Mistake (Fact · Law)
Necessity · Provocation
Other common law areas
Contracts · Evidence · Property
Torts · Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Criminal justice · Law
v • d • e
Tort law
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault · Battery
False imprisonment
Intentional infliction of
emotional distress (IIED)
Property torts
Trespass (land · chattels)
Conversion
Detinue · Replevin · Trover
Defenses
Consent · Necessity
Defense of: (Self · Others · Property)
Negligence
Duty of care · Standard of care
Proximate cause · Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence
Rescue doctrine · Duty to rescue
Specific types
Negligent infliction of
emotional distress (NIED)
Employment-related · Entrustment
Malpractice (legal · medical)
Liability torts
Product liability
Ultrahazardous activity
Nuisance
Public nuisance
Rylands v. Fletcher
Dignitary torts
Defamation · Invasion of privacy
False light · Breach of confidence
Abuse of process
Malicious prosecution
Alienation of affections
Economic torts
Fraud · Tortious interference
Conspiracy · Restraint of trade
Liability, defences, remedies
Comparative / contributory negligence
Last clear chance · Eggshell skull
Vicarious liability · Volenti non fit injuria
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Neutral reportage · Damages
Injunction · Torts and conflict of laws
Duty to visitors
Trespassers · Licensees · Invitees
Attractive nuisance
Other common law areas
Contracts · Criminal law · Evidence
Property · Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Law
v • d • e
In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent "discoveries" in art, archaeology, and science.
Contents [hide]
1 Definition
2 Notable frauds
3 Different legal traditions
3.1 Jewish law: Geneivat da'at
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Definition
In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them – usually, to obtain property or services unjustly. [1] Fraud can be accomplished through the aid of forged objects. In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception," or something similar.
Fraud for profit involves industry professionals. There are generally multiple loan transactions with several financial institutions involved. These frauds include numerous gross misrepresentations including: income is overstated, assets are overstated, collateral is overstated, the length of employment is overstated or fictitious employment is reported, and employment is backstopped by conspirators. The borrower's debts are not fully disclosed, nor is the borrower's credit history, which is often altered. Often, the borrower assumes the identity of another person (straw buyer). The borrower states he intends to use the property for occupancy when he/she intends to use the property for rental income, or is purchasing the property for another party (nominee). Appraisals almost always list the property as owner-occupied. Down payments do not exist or are borrowed and disguised with a fraudulent gift letter. The property value is inflated (faulty appraisal) to increase the sales value to make up for no down payment and to generate cash proceeds in fraud for profit.
Marriage Fraud can take several forms and is the act of entering a marriage for personal gain rather than a genuine desire to enter into a sincere marital relationship. Marriage Fraud is usually associated with obtaining immigration benefits. In the United States, marriage fraud for immigration purposes is punishable under INA §204(c)(1) and the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986. Possible criminal penalties include $250,000 and 5 years in prison as well as deportation and a permanent bar against receiving future immigration status. Marriage Fraud can be either unilateral or bilateral Unity and Immigration Policy in the United States. In a unilateral marriage fraud, only one party is aware of the fraud and the fraud is against both the immigration service as well as the other party. The innocent party may file a lawsuit and/or annulment of the marriage. In a bilateral fraud, both parties are aware of it and both parties are subject to criminal penalties.
In academia and science, fraud can refer to academic fraud – the falsifying of research findings which is a form of scientific misconduct – and in common use intellectual fraud signifies falsification of a position taken or implied by an author or speaker, within a book, controversy or debate, or an idea deceptively presented to hide known logical weaknesses. Journalistic fraud implies a similar notion, the falsification of journalistic findings.
Fraud can be committed through many methods, including mail, wire, phone, and the internet (computer crime and internet fraud). The difficulty of checking identity and legitimacy online, the ease with which hackers can divert browsers to dishonest site and steal credit card details, the international dimensions of the web and ease with which users can hide their location, all contribute to making internet fraud the fastest growing area of fraud.
Acts which may constitute criminal fraud include:
bait and switch
bankruptcy fraud, is a US federal crime that can lead to criminal prosecution under the charge of theft of the goods or services,
charlatanism (psychic and occult),
confidence tricks such as the 419 fraud, Spanish Prisoner, and the shell game
creation of false companies or "long firms"
embezzlement taking money which is under your control, but not yours,
false advertising
false billing
false insurance claims
forgery of documents or signatures,
health fraud, selling of products of spurious use, such as quack medicines,
identity theft
investment frauds, such as Ponzi schemes
marriage fraud to obtain immigration benefits INA §204(c)(1),
securities frauds such as pump and dump
taking payment for goods sold online, by mail or phone, such as tickets, with no intention of delivering them.
Fraud, in addition to being a criminal act, is also a type of civil law violation known as a tort. A tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. A civil fraud typically involves the act of intentionally making a false representation of a material fact, with the intent to deceive, which is reasonably relied upon by another person to that person's detriment. A "false representation" can take many forms, such as:
A false statement of fact, known to be false at the time it was made;
A statement of fact with no reasonable basis to make that statement;
A promise of future performance made with an intent, at the time the promise was made, not to perform as promised;
A statement of opinion based on a false statement of fact;
A statement of opinion that the maker knows to be false; or
An expression of opinion that is false, made by one claiming or implying to have special knowledge of the subject matter of the opinion. "Special knowledge" in this case means knowledge or information superior to that possessed by the other party, and to which the other party did not have equal access.
Common law fraud has nine elements: (1) representation of an existing fact; (2) its materiality; (3) its falsity; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity; (5) the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff; (6) plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity; (7) plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation; (8) plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and (9) consequent damages suffered by plaintiff. Most jurisdictions in the United States require that each element be proved with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence (very probable evidence) to establish a claim of fraud. The measure of damages in fraud cases is to be computed by the "benefit of bargain" rule, which is the difference between the value of the property had it been as represented, and its actual value. Special damages may be allowed if shown proximately caused by defendant's fraud and the damage amounts are proved with specificity.
In the UK a report concluded that the total costs of fraud and dealing with fraud in the year 2005-2006 was at least 13.9 Billion GBP.
Notable frauds
Frank Abagnale Jr., US impostor who wrote bad checks and falsely represented himself as a qualified member of professions such as airline pilot, doctor, and attorney. The film Catch Me If You Can is based on his life.
Eddie Antar, founder of Crazy Eddie, who has about $1 billion worth of judgements against him stemming from fraudulent accounting practices at that company.
Ramón Báez Figueroa, banker from the Dominican Republic and former president of Banco Intercontinental. Sentenced on October 21, 2007 to ten years in prison for a US$2.2 billion fraud case that drove the Caribbean nation into an economic crisis in 2003.
Cassie Chadwick, who pretended to be Andrew Carnegie's daughter to get loans.
Charles Dawson, an amateur British archeologist who claimed to have found the Piltdown man.
Richard Eaton, an English businessman who was business partners with mobster Paul Vario and Jimmy Burke and was involved in the Lufthansa heist.
Bernard Ebbers, founder of WorldCom, which inflated its asset statements by about $11 billion.
Martin Frankel is a former U.S. financier, convicted in 2002 of insurance fraud worth $208 million, racketeering and money laundering.
Konrad Kujau, German fraudster and forger responsible for the "Hitler Diaries".
Kenneth Lay, the American businessman who built energy company Enron. He was one of the highest paid CEOs in America until he was ousted as Chairman and was convicted of fraud and conspiracy, although as a result of his death, his conviction was vacated.[1]
Nick Leeson, English trader whose unsupervised speculative trading caused the collapse of Barings Bank.
James Paul Lewis, Jr., ran one of the biggest ($311 million) and longest running Ponzi Schemes (20 years) in US history.
Gregor MacGregor, Scottish conman who tried to attract investment and settlers for the non-existent country of Poyais.
Bernard L. Madoff, creator of a $50 billion Ponzi scheme -- the largest investor fraud ever attributed to a single individual.
Colleen McCabe, British headmistress who stole £½ million from her school.
Gaston Means, a professional conman during U.S. President Warren G. Harding's administration.
Michael Milken, "The Junk Bond King".
Barry Minkow and the ZZZZ Best scam.
Michael Monus, founder of Phar-Mor, which ultimately cost its investors more than $1 billion.
Lou Pearlman, former boy-band manager indicted by a federal grand jury in Orlando on charges that he schemed to bilk banks out of more than $100 million.
Frederick Emerson Peters, US impersonator who wrote bad checks.
Charles Ponzi and the Ponzi scheme.
Alves Reis, who forged documents to print 100,000,000 PTE in official escudo banknotes (adjusted for inflation, it would be worth about US$150 million today).
Christopher Rocancourt, a Rockefeller impersonator who defrauded Hollywood celebrities.
John Spano, a struggling businessman who faked massive success in an attempt to buy out the New York Islanders of the NHL.
John Stonehouse, the last Postmaster-General of the UK and MP who faked his death.
Richard Whitney, who stole from the New York Stock Exchange Gratuity Fund in the 1930s.
Different legal traditions
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (November 2008)
Jewish law: Geneivat da'at
Main article: Geneivat da'at
In Jewish law, the tenant of geneivat da'at (גניבת דעת, literally "mind theft") covers various forms of deception and fraud. One Midrash states that geneivat da'at is the worst type of theft, because it directly harms the person, not merely their money.
See also
Look up fraud in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Accounting scandals
Advance fee fraud
Affinity fraud
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
Bank fraud
Benefit fraud, falsely claiming money from the government.
Benford's law
Bribery
Caper stories (such as The Sting)
Charity fraud
Click fraud
Corporate abuse
Corruption
Contract fraud
Creative accounting
Credit card fraud
E-mail fraud
Electoral fraud
Employment fraud
Extrinsic fraud
False Claims Law
Financial crimes
Force-initiation
Forex scam
Fraud deterrence
Fraud in the factum
Fraud in parapsychology
Fraud Squad
Friendly Fraud
Front running
Geneivat da'at
Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814
Guinness share-trading fraud, famous British business scandal of the 1980s
Hoax
Identity and Access Management
Impersonator
Insider trading
Inspector General
Internet fraud
Intrinsic fraud
Journalism fraud
Mail fraud
Missing trader fraud
Paternity fraud
Per minas
Phishing, attempt to fraudulently acquire sensitive information
pious frauds, a form of fraud in religion motivated by sincere zeal
Phone fraud
Political corruption
Ponzi scheme
Quatloos.com
Questioned document examination
Real estate trends
SAS 99
Scam
Securities fraud
Spin
Swampland in Florida
Telemarketing fraud
The National Council Against Health Fraud
Tobashi scheme, concealing financial losses
Tunneling (fraud)
Vanity gallery
Vanity press
Verisimilitude
Visa fraud
Welfare fraud
Wine fraud
Wire fraud
References
1.^ Lozano, Juan A. (17 October 2006). "Judge vacates conviction of Ken Lay", Associated Press.
Fred Cohen Frauds, Spies, and Lies - and How to Defeat Them. ISBN 1-878109-36-7 (2006). ASP Press.
Review Fraud - Alex Copola Podgor, Ellen S. Criminal Fraud, (1999) Vol, 48, No. 4 American Law Review 1.
The Nature, Extent and Economic Impact of Fraud in the UK. Feb,2007.
External links
www.fightfraudamerica.com
Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986
Marriage for a Green Card
The strict rules regarding marriage fraud
[show]v • d • eLaw
Core subjects Administrative law · Comparative law · Conflict of laws · Constitutional law · Contract · Criminal law · Equity · Private law · Property law · Public international law · Public law · Supranational law · Tort · Trust law
Other subjects Admiralty law · Aviation law · Banking law · Bankruptcy · Commercial law · Competition law · Consumer protection · Corporate law · Environmental law · Evidence · Family law · Human rights · Immigration law · Intellectual property · International criminal law · Labour law · Media law · Military law · Monopoly law · Procedure (Civil · Criminal) · Product liability · Restitution · Space law · Tax law · Unjust enrichment · Wills
Legal systems Canon law · Civil law · Common law · Halakha law · Religious law · Roman law · Socialist law · Sharia law
Legal theory Economic analysis · History · Philosophy · Sociology
Legal institutions Bureaucracy · Civil society · Executive · Judiciary · Legal profession · Legislature · Military · Police
Category · Portal
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud"
Categories: Crimes | Deception | Fraud | Torts
Hidden categories: Wikipedia semi-protected pages | Articles to be expanded since November 2008 | All articles to be expandedViews
Article Discussion View source History Personal tools
Log in / create account Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Search
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page
Languages
Česky
Dansk
Deutsch
Esperanto
Français
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
Latina
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk (bokmål)
Polski
Português
Русский
Српски / Srpski
Simple English
Suomi
Svenska
中文
This page was last modified on 16 December 2008, at 05:35. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
identity theft
Identity theft is a term used to refer to fraud that involves someone pretending to be someone else in order to steal money or get other benefits. The term is relatively new and is actually a misnomer, since it is not inherently possible to steal an identity, only to use it. The person whose identity is used can suffer various consequences when he is held responsible for the perpetrator's actions. In many countries specific laws make it a crime to use another person's identity for personal gain.
Contents [hide]
1 Types
2 Elaboration
2.1 Financial identity theft
2.2 Identity cloning and concealment
2.3 Criminal identity theft
2.4 Synthetic identity theft
2.5 Medical identity theft
3 Techniques for obtaining personal information
4 Individual identity protection
5 Identity protection by organizations
6 Legal response
6.1 Australia
6.2 Canada
6.3 France
6.4 Hong Kong
6.5 India
6.6 United Kingdom
6.7 United States
7 Spread and impact
8 Famous Identity Thieves
9 Cultural references
10 See also
11 References
12 External links
[edit] Types
According to the non-profit Identity Theft Resource Center[1], and other sources identity theft is sub-divided into five categories:
business/commercial identity theft (using another's business name to obtain credit)
criminal identity theft (posing as another when apprehended for a crime)
financial identity theft (using another's identity to obtain goods and services)
identity cloning (using another's information to assume his or her identity in daily life)
medical identity theft (using another's information to obtain medical care or drugs)
Identity theft may be used to facilitate crimes including illegal immigration, terrorism, and espionage. Identity theft may also be a means of blackmail. There are also cases of identity cloning to attack payment systems, including online credit card processing and medical insurance[2].
Some individuals may impersonate others for non-financial reasons - for instance, to receive praise or attention for the victim's achievements. This is sometimes referred to as identity theft in the media.[3]
[edit] Elaboration
[edit] Financial identity theft
A classic example of credit-dependent financial crime (bank fraud) occurs when a criminal obtains a loan from a financial institution by impersonating someone else. The criminal pretends to be the victim by presenting an accurate name, address, birth date, or other information that the lender requires as a means of establishing identity. Even if this information is checked against the data at a national consumer reporting agency, the lender will encounter no concerns, as all of the victim's information matches the records. The lender has no easy way to discover that the person is pretending to be the victim, especially if an original, government-issued id can't be verified (as is the case in online, mail, telephone, and fax-based transactions). This kind of crime is considered non-self-revealing, although authorities may be able to track down the criminal if the funds for the loan were mailed to them. The criminal keeps the money from the loan, the financial institution is never repaid, and the victim is wrongly blamed for defaulting on a loan he/she never authorized.
In most cases the financial identity theft will be reported to the national Consumer credit reporting agency or Credit bureaus (U.S.) as a collection or bad loan under the impersonated person's record. The victim may discover the incident by being denied a loan, by seeing the accounts or complaints when they view their own credit history, or by being contacted by creditors or collection agencies. The victim's credit score, which affects one's ability to acquire new loans or credit lines, will be adversely affected until they are able to successfully dispute the fraudulent accounts and have them removed from their record.
Other forms of bank fraud associated with identity theft include "account takeovers", passing bad checks, and "busting out" a checking or credit account with bad checks, counterfeit money orders, or empty ATM envelope deposits. If withdrawals or checks are made against the impersonated person's real accounts, that person may need to convince the bank that the withdrawal was fraudulent or file a court case in order to retrieve lost funds. If checks are written against fraudulently opened checking accounts, the person receiving the checks will suffer the financial loss. However, the recipient might attempt to retrieve money from the impersonated person by using a collection agency. This action would appear in the victim's credit history until it was shown to be fraud.
[edit] Identity cloning and concealment
In this situation, a criminal acquires personal identifiers, and then impersonates someone for the purpose of concealment from authorities. This may be done by a person who wants to avoid arrest for crimes, by a person who is working illegally in a foreign country, or by a person who is hiding from creditors or other individuals. Unlike credit-dependent financial crimes, concealment can continue for an indeterminate amount of time without ever being detected. Additionally, the criminal might attempt to obtained fraudulent documents or IDs consistent with the cloned identity to make the impersonation even more convincing and concealed.
[edit] Criminal identity theft
When a criminal identifies himself to police as another individual it is sometimes referred to as "Criminal Identity Theft." In some cases the criminal will obtain a state issued ID using stolen documents or personal information belonging to another person, or they might simply use a fake ID. When the criminal is arrested for a crime, they present the ID to authorities, who place charges under the identity theft victim's name and release the criminal. When the criminal fails to appear for his court hearing, a warrant would be issued under the assumed name. The victim might learn of the incident if the state suspends their own drivers license, or through a background check performed for employment or other purposes, or in rare cases could be arrested when stopped for a minor traffic violation.
It can be difficult for a criminal identity theft victim to clear their record. The steps required to clear the victim's incorrect criminal record depend on what jurisdiction the crime occurred in and whether the true identity of the criminal can be determined. The victim might need to locate the original arresting officers, or be fingerprinted to prove their own identity, and may need to go to a court hearing to be cleared of the charges. Obtaining an expungement of court records may also be required. Authorities might permanently maintain the victim's name as an alias for the criminal's true identity in their criminal records databases. One problem that victims of criminal identity theft may encounter is that various data aggregators might still have the incorrect criminal records in their databases even after court and police records are corrected. Thus it is possible that a future background check will return the incorrect criminal records.[4]
[edit] Synthetic identity theft
A variation of identity theft which has recently become more common is synthetic identity theft, in which identities are completely or partially fabricated. The most common technique is combining a real social security number with a name and birthdate other than the ones associated with the number. Synthetic identity theft is more difficult to track, as it doesn't show on either person's credit report directly, but may appear as an entirely new file in the credit bureau or as a subfile on one of the victim's credit reports. Synthetic identity theft primarily harms the creditors that unwittingly grant the fraudsters credit. Consumers can be affected if their names become confused with the synthetic identities, or if negative information in their subfiles impacts their credit.[5]
[edit] Medical identity theft
Medical identity theft occurs when someone uses a person's name and sometimes other parts of their identity -- such as insurance information -- without the person's knowledge or consent to obtain medical services or goods, or uses the person’s identity information to make false claims for medical services or goods. Medical identity theft frequently results in erroneous entries being put into existing medical records, and can involve the creation of fictitious medical records in the victim’s name. [6]
[edit] Techniques for obtaining personal information
In most cases, a criminal needs to obtain personally identifiable information or documents about an individual in order to impersonate them. They may do this by:
Stealing mail or rummaging through rubbish containing personal information (dumpster diving)
Retrieving information from redundant equipment, like computer servers that have been disposed of carelessly, e.g. at public dump sites, given away without proper sanitizing etc.
Researching about the victim in government registers, internet search engines, or public records search services.
Stealing payment or identification cards, either by pickpocketing or surreptitiously by skimming through a compromised card reader
Remotely reading information from an RFID chip on a smart card, RFID-enabled credit card, or passport
Eavesdropping on public transactions to obtain personal data (shoulder surfing)
Stealing personal information in computer databases (Trojan horses, hacking)
Data breach that results in the public (i.e. posted on the internet) or easily-obtainable (i.e. printed on a mailing label) display of sensitive information such as a Social Security number or credit card number.
Advertising bogus job offers (either full-time or work from home based) to which the victims will reply with their full name, address, curriculum vitae, telephone numbers, and banking details
Infiltration of organizations that store large amounts of personal information
Impersonating a trusted company/institution/organization in an electronic communication to promote revealing of personal information (phishing)
Obtaining castings of fingers for falsifying fingerprint identification.
Browsing social network (MySpace, Facebook, Bebo etc) sites, online for personal details that have been posted by users
Changing your address thereby diverting billing statements to another location to either get current legitimate account info or to delay discovery of fraudulent accounts.
Using false pretenses to trick a business (usually through a customer service representative) into disclosing customer information (pretexting)
[edit] Individual identity protection
The acquisition of personal identifiers is made possible through serious breaches of privacy. For consumers, this is usually due to personal naiveté about who they provide their information to. In some cases the criminal obtains documents or personal identifiers through physical theft (e.g. vehicle break-ins and home invasions). Guardianship of personal identifiers by consumers is the most common intervention strategy recommended by the US Federal Trade Commission, Canadian Phone Busters and most sites that address identity theft. Personal guardianship issues include recommendations on what consumers may do to prevent their information getting into the wrong hands.
The strongest protection against identity theft is not to identify at all - thereby ensuring that information cannot be reused to impersonate an individual elsewhere. As such, identify theft is often a question of too little privacy or too much identification. Many activities and organizations in a modern society require people to provide personal identifiers (Social Security number, national identification number, drivers license number, credit card number, etc), and in some cases the knowledge of personal identifiers is treated as proof of identity. This is sometimes done as a convenience or to enable transactions by telephone or the internet, however it can also make it more difficult for individuals to protect themselves from identity theft.
In some cases an identity thief will attempt to impersonate a deceased individual. Frequently credit checks or other types of verification are not cross referenced with death certificates, so the crime may go unchecked for some time unless the deceased's family detects it and takes steps to prevent further fraud.[7]
In recent years, many commercial identity theft protection services have been started by companies in the United States. These services purport to help protect the individual from identity theft or help detect that identity theft has occurred in exchange for a monthly or annual membership fee.[8] The services typically work either by setting fraud alerts on the individual's credit files with the three major credit bureaus or by setting up credit report monitoring with the credit bureaus. While identity theft protection services have been heavily marketed, their value has been called into question.[9]
[edit] Identity protection by organizations
In their May 1998 testimony before the United States Senate, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) discussed the sale of Social Security numbers and other personal identifiers by credit-raters and data miners. The FTC agreed to the industry's self-regulating principles restricting access to information on credit reports.[10] According to the industry, the restrictions vary according to the category of customer. Credit reporting agencies gather and disclose personal and credit information to a wide business client base.
Poor stewardship of personal data by organizations, resulting in unauthorized access to sensitive data, can expose individuals to the risk of identity theft. The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse has documented over 900 individual data breaches by US companies and government agencies since January 2005, which together have involved over 200 million total records containing sensitive personal information, many containing social security numbers.[11] Poor corporate diligence standards which can result in data breaches include:
failure to shred confidential information before throwing it into dumpsters
failure to ensure adequate network security
the theft of laptop computers or portable media being carried off-site containing vast amounts of personal information. The use of strong encryption on these devices can reduce the chance of data being misused should a criminal obtain them.
the brokerage of personal information to other businesses without ensuring that the purchaser maintains adequate security controls
Failure of governments, when registering sole proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations, to determine if the officers listed in the Articles of Incorporation are who they say they are. This potentially allows criminals access to personal information through credit-rating and data mining services.
The failure of corporate or government organizations to protect consumer privacy, client confidentiality and political privacy has been criticized for facilitating the acquisition of personal identifiers by criminals.[12]
Using various types of biometric information, such as fingerprints, for identification and authentication has been cited as a way to thwart identity thieves, however there are technological limitations and privacy concerns associated with these methods as well.
[edit] Legal response
[edit] Australia
In Australia, each state has enacted laws that dealt with different aspects of identity or fraud issues.
On 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,
“ 135.1 General dishonesty
(3) A person is guilty of an offence 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.
”
Likewise, each state has enacted their own privacy laws to prevent misuse of personal information and data. Federal Privacy Act is applicable only to Commonwealth and ACT government agencies.
[edit] Canada
Under the section 403 of the Criminal Code of Canada,
“ Every one who fraudulently personates any person, living or dead,
(a) with intent to gain advantage for himself or another person, (b) with intent to obtain any property or an interest in any property, or (c) with intent to cause disadvantage to the person whom he personates or another person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction.[13]
”
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.
[edit] France
In France, a person convicted of identity theft can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to €75,000.[2]
[edit] Hong Kong
Under HK Laws. Chap 210 Theft Ordinance, sec. 16A Fraud
“ (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.
”
Under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, it established the post of Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data and mandate how much personal information one can collect, retain and destruction. This legislation also provides citizens the right to request information held by businesses and government to the extent provided by this law.
[edit] India
Under the Information Technology Act 2000 Chapter IX Sec 43 (b)
“ If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a computer, computer system or computer network,
(b) downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium;
he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation not exceeding one crore rupees to the person so affected.
”
[14]
[edit] United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom personal data is protected by the Data Protection Act. The Act covers all personal data which an organization may hold, including names, birthday and anniversary dates, addresses, telephone numbers, etc.
Under English law (which extends to Wales but not necessarily to Northern Ireland or Scotland), the deception offences under the Theft Act 1968 increasingly contend with identity theft situations. In R v Seward (2005) EWCA Crim 1941[15] the defendant was acting as the "front man" 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 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."
Increasingly, organizations, including Government bodies will be forced to take steps to better protect their users' data[16].
[edit] United States
The increase in crimes of identity theft lead to the drafting of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act.[17] In 1998, The Federal Trade Commission appeared before the United States Senate.[18] 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 and Assumption Deterrence Act (2003)[ITADA] amended 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 18 U.S.C. § 1028(c). Punishment can be up to 5, 15, 20, or 30 years in federal prison, plus fines, depending on the underlying crime per 18 U.S.C. § 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).
The Act also provides the Federal Trade Commission with authority to track the number of incidents and the dollar value of losses. There figures relate mainly to consumer financial crimes and not the broader range of all identification-based crimes.[19]
If charges are brought by state or local law enforcement agencies, different penalties apply depending 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. These plans must be adopted by each organization's Board of Directors and monitored by senior executives.[20]
Identity theft complaints as a percentage of all fraud complaints decreased from 2004-2006.[21] The Federal Trade Commission reported that fraud complaints in general were growing faster than ID theft complaints.[21]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.[22][23] 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.[24]; the figure comprises $47.6 billion lost by businesses and $5 billion lost by consumers.
According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a report released in 2007 revealed that 8.3 million American adults, or 3.7 percent of all American adults, were victims of identity theft in 2005.[25]
Two states, California and Wisconsin have created an Office of Privacy Protection to assist their citizens in avoiding and recovering from identity theft. [26][27]
[edit] Spread and impact
Surveys in the USA from 2003 to 2006 showed a decrease in the total number of victims and a decrease in the total value of identity fraud from US$47.6 billion in 2003 to $15.6 billion in 2006. The average fraud per person decreased from $4,789 in 2003 to $1,882 in 2006.
The 2003 survey from the Identity Theft Resource Center found that:
Only 15% of victims find out about the theft through proactive action taken by a business
The average time spent by victims resolving the problem is about 330 hours
73% of respondents indicated the crime involved the thief acquiring a credit card
The emotional impact is similar to that of victims of violent crimes
In a widely publicized account,[28] Michelle Brown, a victim of identity fraud, testified before a U.S. Senate Committee Hearing on Identity Theft. Ms. Brown testified that: "over a year and a half from January 1998 through July 1999, one individual impersonated me to procure over $50,000 in goods and services. Not only did she damage my credit, but she escalated her crimes to a level that I never truly expected: she engaged in drug trafficking. The crime resulted in my erroneous arrest record, a warrant out for my arrest, and eventually, a prison record when she was booked under my name as an inmate in the Chicago Federal Prison."
In Australia, identity theft was estimated to be worth between AUS$1billion and AUS$4 billion per annum in 2001.[29]
In the United Kingdom the Home Office reported that identity fraud costs the UK economy £1.2 billion annually[30] (experts believe that the real figure could be much higher)[31] although privacy groups object to the validity of these numbers, arguing that they are being used by the government to push for introduction of national ID cards. Confusion over exactly what constitutes identity theft has led to claims that statistics may be exaggerated.[32]
[edit] Famous Identity Thieves
Radovan Karadžić
Jocelyn Kirsch and Edward Anderton
[edit] Cultural references
The public fascination with impostors has long had an effect on popular culture and extends to modern literature.
The story of Michelle Brown has been made into a film.[33]
In Frederick Forsyth's novel The Day of the Jackal the would-be assassin of General de Gaulle steals three identities. Firstly, he assumes the identity of a dead child by obtaining the child's birth certificate and using it to apply for a passport. He also steals the passports of a Danish clergyman and an American tourist, and disguises himself as each of those persons in turn. The assumption of a dead person's identity is now generally known as "Jackal Fraud".[34]
In the 1995 movie The Net, Sandra Bullock plays a computer consultant whose life is taken over with the help of computer assisted identity theft.
In Jonathan Smith's novel Night Windows the action is based on the horrific and real life theft of Smith's own identity.
In the webcomic Kevin and Kell the character Danielle Kindle dies and is later "replaced" by a double from a parallel world. After an attempt at taking over her predecessor's identity, Danielle Kendall confesses her true nature and gets accepted by the predecessor's family - if not by all the readers.
T. Coraghessan Boyle's 2006 novel Talk Talk describes the theft of Dana Halter's identity, and her and Martin Bridger's chase of the thief across the country.
In Susan Schaab's novel Wearing the Spider a female attorney gets caught in a web of sexual harassment, identity theft and political intrigue.
In the Family Guy episode "Back to the Woods", James Woods, having gotten his hands on Peter's wallet, steals Peter's identity, so Peter retaliates by stealing Woods' identity and angering people.
Contents [hide]
1 Types
2 Elaboration
2.1 Financial identity theft
2.2 Identity cloning and concealment
2.3 Criminal identity theft
2.4 Synthetic identity theft
2.5 Medical identity theft
3 Techniques for obtaining personal information
4 Individual identity protection
5 Identity protection by organizations
6 Legal response
6.1 Australia
6.2 Canada
6.3 France
6.4 Hong Kong
6.5 India
6.6 United Kingdom
6.7 United States
7 Spread and impact
8 Famous Identity Thieves
9 Cultural references
10 See also
11 References
12 External links
[edit] Types
According to the non-profit Identity Theft Resource Center[1], and other sources identity theft is sub-divided into five categories:
business/commercial identity theft (using another's business name to obtain credit)
criminal identity theft (posing as another when apprehended for a crime)
financial identity theft (using another's identity to obtain goods and services)
identity cloning (using another's information to assume his or her identity in daily life)
medical identity theft (using another's information to obtain medical care or drugs)
Identity theft may be used to facilitate crimes including illegal immigration, terrorism, and espionage. Identity theft may also be a means of blackmail. There are also cases of identity cloning to attack payment systems, including online credit card processing and medical insurance[2].
Some individuals may impersonate others for non-financial reasons - for instance, to receive praise or attention for the victim's achievements. This is sometimes referred to as identity theft in the media.[3]
[edit] Elaboration
[edit] Financial identity theft
A classic example of credit-dependent financial crime (bank fraud) occurs when a criminal obtains a loan from a financial institution by impersonating someone else. The criminal pretends to be the victim by presenting an accurate name, address, birth date, or other information that the lender requires as a means of establishing identity. Even if this information is checked against the data at a national consumer reporting agency, the lender will encounter no concerns, as all of the victim's information matches the records. The lender has no easy way to discover that the person is pretending to be the victim, especially if an original, government-issued id can't be verified (as is the case in online, mail, telephone, and fax-based transactions). This kind of crime is considered non-self-revealing, although authorities may be able to track down the criminal if the funds for the loan were mailed to them. The criminal keeps the money from the loan, the financial institution is never repaid, and the victim is wrongly blamed for defaulting on a loan he/she never authorized.
In most cases the financial identity theft will be reported to the national Consumer credit reporting agency or Credit bureaus (U.S.) as a collection or bad loan under the impersonated person's record. The victim may discover the incident by being denied a loan, by seeing the accounts or complaints when they view their own credit history, or by being contacted by creditors or collection agencies. The victim's credit score, which affects one's ability to acquire new loans or credit lines, will be adversely affected until they are able to successfully dispute the fraudulent accounts and have them removed from their record.
Other forms of bank fraud associated with identity theft include "account takeovers", passing bad checks, and "busting out" a checking or credit account with bad checks, counterfeit money orders, or empty ATM envelope deposits. If withdrawals or checks are made against the impersonated person's real accounts, that person may need to convince the bank that the withdrawal was fraudulent or file a court case in order to retrieve lost funds. If checks are written against fraudulently opened checking accounts, the person receiving the checks will suffer the financial loss. However, the recipient might attempt to retrieve money from the impersonated person by using a collection agency. This action would appear in the victim's credit history until it was shown to be fraud.
[edit] Identity cloning and concealment
In this situation, a criminal acquires personal identifiers, and then impersonates someone for the purpose of concealment from authorities. This may be done by a person who wants to avoid arrest for crimes, by a person who is working illegally in a foreign country, or by a person who is hiding from creditors or other individuals. Unlike credit-dependent financial crimes, concealment can continue for an indeterminate amount of time without ever being detected. Additionally, the criminal might attempt to obtained fraudulent documents or IDs consistent with the cloned identity to make the impersonation even more convincing and concealed.
[edit] Criminal identity theft
When a criminal identifies himself to police as another individual it is sometimes referred to as "Criminal Identity Theft." In some cases the criminal will obtain a state issued ID using stolen documents or personal information belonging to another person, or they might simply use a fake ID. When the criminal is arrested for a crime, they present the ID to authorities, who place charges under the identity theft victim's name and release the criminal. When the criminal fails to appear for his court hearing, a warrant would be issued under the assumed name. The victim might learn of the incident if the state suspends their own drivers license, or through a background check performed for employment or other purposes, or in rare cases could be arrested when stopped for a minor traffic violation.
It can be difficult for a criminal identity theft victim to clear their record. The steps required to clear the victim's incorrect criminal record depend on what jurisdiction the crime occurred in and whether the true identity of the criminal can be determined. The victim might need to locate the original arresting officers, or be fingerprinted to prove their own identity, and may need to go to a court hearing to be cleared of the charges. Obtaining an expungement of court records may also be required. Authorities might permanently maintain the victim's name as an alias for the criminal's true identity in their criminal records databases. One problem that victims of criminal identity theft may encounter is that various data aggregators might still have the incorrect criminal records in their databases even after court and police records are corrected. Thus it is possible that a future background check will return the incorrect criminal records.[4]
[edit] Synthetic identity theft
A variation of identity theft which has recently become more common is synthetic identity theft, in which identities are completely or partially fabricated. The most common technique is combining a real social security number with a name and birthdate other than the ones associated with the number. Synthetic identity theft is more difficult to track, as it doesn't show on either person's credit report directly, but may appear as an entirely new file in the credit bureau or as a subfile on one of the victim's credit reports. Synthetic identity theft primarily harms the creditors that unwittingly grant the fraudsters credit. Consumers can be affected if their names become confused with the synthetic identities, or if negative information in their subfiles impacts their credit.[5]
[edit] Medical identity theft
Medical identity theft occurs when someone uses a person's name and sometimes other parts of their identity -- such as insurance information -- without the person's knowledge or consent to obtain medical services or goods, or uses the person’s identity information to make false claims for medical services or goods. Medical identity theft frequently results in erroneous entries being put into existing medical records, and can involve the creation of fictitious medical records in the victim’s name. [6]
[edit] Techniques for obtaining personal information
In most cases, a criminal needs to obtain personally identifiable information or documents about an individual in order to impersonate them. They may do this by:
Stealing mail or rummaging through rubbish containing personal information (dumpster diving)
Retrieving information from redundant equipment, like computer servers that have been disposed of carelessly, e.g. at public dump sites, given away without proper sanitizing etc.
Researching about the victim in government registers, internet search engines, or public records search services.
Stealing payment or identification cards, either by pickpocketing or surreptitiously by skimming through a compromised card reader
Remotely reading information from an RFID chip on a smart card, RFID-enabled credit card, or passport
Eavesdropping on public transactions to obtain personal data (shoulder surfing)
Stealing personal information in computer databases (Trojan horses, hacking)
Data breach that results in the public (i.e. posted on the internet) or easily-obtainable (i.e. printed on a mailing label) display of sensitive information such as a Social Security number or credit card number.
Advertising bogus job offers (either full-time or work from home based) to which the victims will reply with their full name, address, curriculum vitae, telephone numbers, and banking details
Infiltration of organizations that store large amounts of personal information
Impersonating a trusted company/institution/organization in an electronic communication to promote revealing of personal information (phishing)
Obtaining castings of fingers for falsifying fingerprint identification.
Browsing social network (MySpace, Facebook, Bebo etc) sites, online for personal details that have been posted by users
Changing your address thereby diverting billing statements to another location to either get current legitimate account info or to delay discovery of fraudulent accounts.
Using false pretenses to trick a business (usually through a customer service representative) into disclosing customer information (pretexting)
[edit] Individual identity protection
The acquisition of personal identifiers is made possible through serious breaches of privacy. For consumers, this is usually due to personal naiveté about who they provide their information to. In some cases the criminal obtains documents or personal identifiers through physical theft (e.g. vehicle break-ins and home invasions). Guardianship of personal identifiers by consumers is the most common intervention strategy recommended by the US Federal Trade Commission, Canadian Phone Busters and most sites that address identity theft. Personal guardianship issues include recommendations on what consumers may do to prevent their information getting into the wrong hands.
The strongest protection against identity theft is not to identify at all - thereby ensuring that information cannot be reused to impersonate an individual elsewhere. As such, identify theft is often a question of too little privacy or too much identification. Many activities and organizations in a modern society require people to provide personal identifiers (Social Security number, national identification number, drivers license number, credit card number, etc), and in some cases the knowledge of personal identifiers is treated as proof of identity. This is sometimes done as a convenience or to enable transactions by telephone or the internet, however it can also make it more difficult for individuals to protect themselves from identity theft.
In some cases an identity thief will attempt to impersonate a deceased individual. Frequently credit checks or other types of verification are not cross referenced with death certificates, so the crime may go unchecked for some time unless the deceased's family detects it and takes steps to prevent further fraud.[7]
In recent years, many commercial identity theft protection services have been started by companies in the United States. These services purport to help protect the individual from identity theft or help detect that identity theft has occurred in exchange for a monthly or annual membership fee.[8] The services typically work either by setting fraud alerts on the individual's credit files with the three major credit bureaus or by setting up credit report monitoring with the credit bureaus. While identity theft protection services have been heavily marketed, their value has been called into question.[9]
[edit] Identity protection by organizations
In their May 1998 testimony before the United States Senate, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) discussed the sale of Social Security numbers and other personal identifiers by credit-raters and data miners. The FTC agreed to the industry's self-regulating principles restricting access to information on credit reports.[10] According to the industry, the restrictions vary according to the category of customer. Credit reporting agencies gather and disclose personal and credit information to a wide business client base.
Poor stewardship of personal data by organizations, resulting in unauthorized access to sensitive data, can expose individuals to the risk of identity theft. The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse has documented over 900 individual data breaches by US companies and government agencies since January 2005, which together have involved over 200 million total records containing sensitive personal information, many containing social security numbers.[11] Poor corporate diligence standards which can result in data breaches include:
failure to shred confidential information before throwing it into dumpsters
failure to ensure adequate network security
the theft of laptop computers or portable media being carried off-site containing vast amounts of personal information. The use of strong encryption on these devices can reduce the chance of data being misused should a criminal obtain them.
the brokerage of personal information to other businesses without ensuring that the purchaser maintains adequate security controls
Failure of governments, when registering sole proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations, to determine if the officers listed in the Articles of Incorporation are who they say they are. This potentially allows criminals access to personal information through credit-rating and data mining services.
The failure of corporate or government organizations to protect consumer privacy, client confidentiality and political privacy has been criticized for facilitating the acquisition of personal identifiers by criminals.[12]
Using various types of biometric information, such as fingerprints, for identification and authentication has been cited as a way to thwart identity thieves, however there are technological limitations and privacy concerns associated with these methods as well.
[edit] Legal response
[edit] Australia
In Australia, each state has enacted laws that dealt with different aspects of identity or fraud issues.
On 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,
“ 135.1 General dishonesty
(3) A person is guilty of an offence 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.
”
Likewise, each state has enacted their own privacy laws to prevent misuse of personal information and data. Federal Privacy Act is applicable only to Commonwealth and ACT government agencies.
[edit] Canada
Under the section 403 of the Criminal Code of Canada,
“ Every one who fraudulently personates any person, living or dead,
(a) with intent to gain advantage for himself or another person, (b) with intent to obtain any property or an interest in any property, or (c) with intent to cause disadvantage to the person whom he personates or another person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction.[13]
”
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.
[edit] France
In France, a person convicted of identity theft can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to €75,000.[2]
[edit] Hong Kong
Under HK Laws. Chap 210 Theft Ordinance, sec. 16A Fraud
“ (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.
”
Under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, it established the post of Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data and mandate how much personal information one can collect, retain and destruction. This legislation also provides citizens the right to request information held by businesses and government to the extent provided by this law.
[edit] India
Under the Information Technology Act 2000 Chapter IX Sec 43 (b)
“ If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a computer, computer system or computer network,
(b) downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium;
he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation not exceeding one crore rupees to the person so affected.
”
[14]
[edit] United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom personal data is protected by the Data Protection Act. The Act covers all personal data which an organization may hold, including names, birthday and anniversary dates, addresses, telephone numbers, etc.
Under English law (which extends to Wales but not necessarily to Northern Ireland or Scotland), the deception offences under the Theft Act 1968 increasingly contend with identity theft situations. In R v Seward (2005) EWCA Crim 1941[15] the defendant was acting as the "front man" 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 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."
Increasingly, organizations, including Government bodies will be forced to take steps to better protect their users' data[16].
[edit] United States
The increase in crimes of identity theft lead to the drafting of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act.[17] In 1998, The Federal Trade Commission appeared before the United States Senate.[18] 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 and Assumption Deterrence Act (2003)[ITADA] amended 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 18 U.S.C. § 1028(c). Punishment can be up to 5, 15, 20, or 30 years in federal prison, plus fines, depending on the underlying crime per 18 U.S.C. § 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).
The Act also provides the Federal Trade Commission with authority to track the number of incidents and the dollar value of losses. There figures relate mainly to consumer financial crimes and not the broader range of all identification-based crimes.[19]
If charges are brought by state or local law enforcement agencies, different penalties apply depending 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. These plans must be adopted by each organization's Board of Directors and monitored by senior executives.[20]
Identity theft complaints as a percentage of all fraud complaints decreased from 2004-2006.[21] The Federal Trade Commission reported that fraud complaints in general were growing faster than ID theft complaints.[21]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.[22][23] 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.[24]; the figure comprises $47.6 billion lost by businesses and $5 billion lost by consumers.
According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a report released in 2007 revealed that 8.3 million American adults, or 3.7 percent of all American adults, were victims of identity theft in 2005.[25]
Two states, California and Wisconsin have created an Office of Privacy Protection to assist their citizens in avoiding and recovering from identity theft. [26][27]
[edit] Spread and impact
Surveys in the USA from 2003 to 2006 showed a decrease in the total number of victims and a decrease in the total value of identity fraud from US$47.6 billion in 2003 to $15.6 billion in 2006. The average fraud per person decreased from $4,789 in 2003 to $1,882 in 2006.
The 2003 survey from the Identity Theft Resource Center found that:
Only 15% of victims find out about the theft through proactive action taken by a business
The average time spent by victims resolving the problem is about 330 hours
73% of respondents indicated the crime involved the thief acquiring a credit card
The emotional impact is similar to that of victims of violent crimes
In a widely publicized account,[28] Michelle Brown, a victim of identity fraud, testified before a U.S. Senate Committee Hearing on Identity Theft. Ms. Brown testified that: "over a year and a half from January 1998 through July 1999, one individual impersonated me to procure over $50,000 in goods and services. Not only did she damage my credit, but she escalated her crimes to a level that I never truly expected: she engaged in drug trafficking. The crime resulted in my erroneous arrest record, a warrant out for my arrest, and eventually, a prison record when she was booked under my name as an inmate in the Chicago Federal Prison."
In Australia, identity theft was estimated to be worth between AUS$1billion and AUS$4 billion per annum in 2001.[29]
In the United Kingdom the Home Office reported that identity fraud costs the UK economy £1.2 billion annually[30] (experts believe that the real figure could be much higher)[31] although privacy groups object to the validity of these numbers, arguing that they are being used by the government to push for introduction of national ID cards. Confusion over exactly what constitutes identity theft has led to claims that statistics may be exaggerated.[32]
[edit] Famous Identity Thieves
Radovan Karadžić
Jocelyn Kirsch and Edward Anderton
[edit] Cultural references
The public fascination with impostors has long had an effect on popular culture and extends to modern literature.
The story of Michelle Brown has been made into a film.[33]
In Frederick Forsyth's novel The Day of the Jackal the would-be assassin of General de Gaulle steals three identities. Firstly, he assumes the identity of a dead child by obtaining the child's birth certificate and using it to apply for a passport. He also steals the passports of a Danish clergyman and an American tourist, and disguises himself as each of those persons in turn. The assumption of a dead person's identity is now generally known as "Jackal Fraud".[34]
In the 1995 movie The Net, Sandra Bullock plays a computer consultant whose life is taken over with the help of computer assisted identity theft.
In Jonathan Smith's novel Night Windows the action is based on the horrific and real life theft of Smith's own identity.
In the webcomic Kevin and Kell the character Danielle Kindle dies and is later "replaced" by a double from a parallel world. After an attempt at taking over her predecessor's identity, Danielle Kendall confesses her true nature and gets accepted by the predecessor's family - if not by all the readers.
T. Coraghessan Boyle's 2006 novel Talk Talk describes the theft of Dana Halter's identity, and her and Martin Bridger's chase of the thief across the country.
In Susan Schaab's novel Wearing the Spider a female attorney gets caught in a web of sexual harassment, identity theft and political intrigue.
In the Family Guy episode "Back to the Woods", James Woods, having gotten his hands on Peter's wallet, steals Peter's identity, so Peter retaliates by stealing Woods' identity and angering people.
defamation
cases involving: LIBEL, SLANDER, INVASION OF PRIVACY, PREJUDICIAL PUBLICITY,,,Defamation · Topic #231
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Libel" and "Slander" redirect here. For other uses, see Libel (disambiguation) and Slander (disambiguation).
"Vilification" redirects here. For the hate crime, see racial vilification.
Tort law
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault · Battery
False imprisonment
Intentional infliction of
emotional distress (IIED)
Property torts
Trespass (land · chattels)
Conversion
Detinue · Replevin · Trover
Defenses
Consent · Necessity
Defense of: (Self · Others · Property)
Negligence
Duty of care · Standard of care
Proximate cause · Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence
Rescue doctrine · Duty to rescue
Specific types
Negligent infliction of
emotional distress (NIED)
Employment-related · Entrustment
Malpractice (legal · medical)
Liability torts
Product liability
Ultrahazardous activity
Nuisance
Public nuisance
Rylands v. Fletcher
Dignitary torts
Defamation · Invasion of privacy
False light · Breach of confidence
Abuse of process
Malicious prosecution
Alienation of affections
Economic torts
Fraud · Tortious interference
Conspiracy · Restraint of trade
Liability, defences, remedies
Comparative / contributory negligence
Last clear chance · Eggshell skull
Vicarious liability · Volenti non fit injuria
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Neutral reportage · Damages
Injunction · Torts and conflict of laws
Duty to visitors
Trespassers · Licensees · Invitees
Attractive nuisance
Other common law areas
Contracts · Criminal law · Evidence
Property · Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Law
v • d • e
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. Or an untruthful oath.[1] "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[2]
False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[3] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[3]
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Types of torts
2.1 Slander and libel
2.2 Criminal defamation
3 Defenses
3.1 Truth
3.2 Privilege and malice
3.3 Other defences
3.4 Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)
4 Defamation and freedom of speech
5 Defamation laws by jurisdiction
5.1 Europe
5.1.1 England
5.1.2 Scotland
5.1.3 Germany
5.2 United States
5.2.1 Slander per se
5.3 Singapore
5.4 Australia
5.5 Canada
5.6 Religious law
6 Related torts
7 References
8 External links
9 See also
[edit] History
In the later Roman jurisprudence, from which many of modern laws descend, verbal defamations are dealt within the edict under two heads. The first comprehended defamatory and injurious statements made in a public manner (convicium contra bonos mores). In this case the essence of the offense lay in the unwarrantable public proclamation. In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the unnecessarily public and insulting manner in which they had been made. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offense lay in the imputation itself, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was therefore a sufficient defense, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation. Even belief in the truth was enough, because it took away the intention which was essential to the notion of injuria.[citation needed]
The law thus aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal defamation was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and which, although vindictive in its character, doubtless included practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity. At the same time increased importance attached to the publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli famosi, from which we derive our modern use of the word libel; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils, the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matter contained in them were true or false.
[edit] Types of torts
[edit] Slander and libel
The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel[4][5] (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.
"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[6] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel." The debate whether Internet blogs or Bulletin Boards are publishers is a key subject being addressed, whereas an Internet based community is more akin to conversations in a bar or pub, with content being written as an ongoing dialog which is generally not edited or regulated such as in the publishing industry. "out-law.com" (August 8th, 2008).
[edit] Criminal defamation
Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression, has published global maps[7] charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe. The law is used predominantly to defend political leaders or functionaries of the state.
In Britain, the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912.
In Canada, the law has been applied on only six occasions in the past century, and all of those cases involve libellants attached to the state (police officers, judges, prison guards). In the most recent case, Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were charged with criminal libel for publicly accusing six prison guards of the racially motivated murder of a black inmate.[8]
[edit] Defenses
Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.
[edit] Truth
In many legal systems, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as fact must be proven false to be defamatory or slanderous/libel. Proving adverse, public character statements to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel and/or defamation. Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense. The use of the defense of justification has dangers, however; if the defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defense of truth and fails, he may be said to have aggravated the harm.
Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. In order to win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second that these statements were false. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.
In some systems, however, notably the Philippines, truth alone is not a defense.[9] Some U.S. statutes preserve historical common law exceptions to the defense of truth to libel actions. These exceptions were for statements "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or "expose the natural defects of one who is alive".[10]
It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures. Public interest is generally not "that which the public is interested in", but rather "that which is in the interest of the public".[11] [12]
See also: Substantial truth
[edit] Privilege and malice
Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted.
There are two types of privilege in the common law tradition:
"Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it were made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).
"Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent.
[edit] Other defences
Defences to claims of defamation include:
Truth is an absolute defence in the United States as well as in the common law jurisdictions of Canada. In some other countries it is also necessary bringing the information brought to light serves a public good.
Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
Privilege is a defense when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or statements made by a person to his spouse, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.
Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[13]
Fair comment on a matter of public interest, arguments made with an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest (such as regarding official acts) are defendable against a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.
Consent is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement.
Innocent dissemination is a defense available when a defendant had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence. Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter.
Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement.
In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous. Also, the public figure doctrine, also called the absence of malice rule, may be used as a defense.
[edit] Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)
Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).[14]
Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.
The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.
[edit] Defamation and freedom of speech
Defamation laws may come into tension with freedom of speech, leading to censorship or chilling effects where publishers fear lawsuits, or loss of reputation where individuals have no effective protection against reckless or unfounded allegations. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech which are necessary for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others.[15]
Jurisdictions resolve this tension in different ways, in particular in determining where the burden of proof lies when unfounded allegations are made. The power of the internet to disseminate comment, which may include malicious comment, has brought a new focus to the issue.[16]
There is a broader consensus against laws which criminalize defamation. Human rights organizations, and other organizations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have campaigned against strict defamation laws which criminalize defamation.[17][18] The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. One notable case was Lingens v. Austria (1986).
[edit] Defamation laws by jurisdiction
[edit] Europe
[edit] England
Main article: English defamation law
Modern libel and slander laws as implemented in many but not all Commonwealth nations, in the United States, and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure. Civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent so far back as the reign of Edward I (1272–1307),[citation needed] though it is unknown whether any generally applicable criminal process was in use. The first fully-reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law was tried during the reign of James I.[citation needed] From that time we find both the criminal and civil remedies in full operation.
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
[edit] Scotland
In Scots law, as in other jurisdictions which base themselves on the civil law tradition, there is no distinction between libel and slander, and all cases are simply defamation. The equivalent of the defence of justification is "veritas".
[edit] Germany
In German law, there is no distinction between libel and slander. German defamation lawsuits are increasing.[19] The relevant sections of Germany's law are §90 (Denigration of the President of State), §90a (Denigration of the State and its Symbols), §90b (Unconstitutional denigration of the Organs of the Constitution), §185 ("insult"), §186 (Defamation of character), §187 (Defamation with deliberate untruths), §188 (Political defamation with increased penalties for offending against paras 186 and 187), §189 (Denigration of a deceased person), §190 (Defamation by means of a non-proven criminal conviction), §192 ("insult" with true statements), §193 (Claim to defamation by rightful interests), §194 (The Application for a criminal prosecution under these paragraphs), §199 (Cases of exchange of verbal abuse), and §200 (Method of proclamation). Paragraph 188 has been criticized for allowing certain public figures additional protection against criticism.
[edit] United States
Main article: United States defamation law
The origins of US defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger established some precedent that the truth should be an absolute defense against libel charges. (Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate publishers' "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or are involving opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.
Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense.
Most states recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.[clarification needed][citation needed]
[edit] Slander per se
The four (4) categories of slander per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct her business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct (especially the chastity of a woman). Once again, all you would have to prove is that someone had published the statement to a third party. No proof of special damages is required.
[edit] Singapore
Owners of cybercafes may be held liable for libelous statements posted or possibly viewed in their establishments.[20]
In 2001, a Singapore bank was fined SG$2 million (approx. 1 million euros or 1 million US$ at the time) for accidentally publishing a mildly libelous statement during the heated discussion of a takeover bid. The mistake was corrected very quickly, and there was no intent to do harm. In fact, it was reported that no harm seems to have been done. Nevertheless, the offended parties were awarded SG$1 million each. Apparently confirming the stringency of Singapore’s defamation law, Business Times declined to report on the matter because one of the libeled parties objected.[21]
[edit] Australia
Australian law tends to follow English law on defamation issues, although there are differences introduced by statute and by the implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature established in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Association (1997).
Since the introduction of the uniform defamation laws in 2005 the distinction between slander and libel has been abolished.
A recent judgment of the High Court of Australia has significant consequences on interpretation of the law. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v Dow Jones. The judgment, which established that Internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in his or her Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian libel law, has gained worldwide attention and is often (although inaccurately, see for example Berezovsky v Forbes in England[22]) said to be the first of its kind; the case was subsequently settled.
Slander has been occasionally used to justify (and with some success) physical reaction, however usually the punishment for assault is only slightly reduced when there is evidence of provocation.
Among the various common law jurisdictions, some Americans have presented a visceral and vocal reaction to the Gutnick decision.[23] On the other hand, the decision mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, France, Canada and Italy.
Controversial uniform legislation was passed in Australia in 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see, eg, Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). The only corporations excluded from the general ban are those not for profit or those with less than 10 employees and not affiliated with another company.
[edit] Canada
Main article: Canadian defamation law
As is the case for most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (although the law in the province of Quebec has roots in both the English and the French tradition). At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public.[24] Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the actual malice test adopted in the US case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail him or herself to a defense of justification (the truth), fair comment, or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defense of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent.
In Quebec, defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France. To establish civil liability for defamation, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of an injury, a wrongful act, and of a causal connection between the two. A person who has made defamatory remarks will not necessarily be civilly liable for them. The plaintiff must further demonstrate that the person who made the remarks committed a wrongful act. Defamation in Quebec is governed by a reasonableness standard, as opposed to strict liability; a defendant who made a false statement would not be held liable if it was reasonable to believe the statement was true.[25]
[edit] Religious law
Main articles: Lashon hara and Detraction
[edit] Related torts
Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of "verbal injury," "intentional infliction of emotional distress," "ourageousness", or "convicium," involving the making of a statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of "invasion of privacy" in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". Some jurisdictions also have the tort of "false light", in which a statement may be technically true, but so misleading as to be defamatory. There is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of "misrepresentation", involving the making of a statement which is untrue even though not defamatory; thus if a surveyor states that a house is free from the risk of flooding, he or she has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house in reliance on this statement. Other increasingly common claims similar to defamation in U.S. law are claims that a famous trademark has been diluted through tarnishment, see generally trademark dilution, "intentional interference with contract," and "negligent misrepresentation."
Criminal laws prohibiting protests at funerals, sedition, false statements in connection with elections, and the use of profanity in public, are also often used in contexts similar to criminal libel actions.
The boundaries of a court's power to hold individuals in "contempt of court" for what amounts to alleged defamatory statements about judges or the court process by attorneys or other people involved in court cases is also not well established in many common law count
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Libel" and "Slander" redirect here. For other uses, see Libel (disambiguation) and Slander (disambiguation).
"Vilification" redirects here. For the hate crime, see racial vilification.
Tort law
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault · Battery
False imprisonment
Intentional infliction of
emotional distress (IIED)
Property torts
Trespass (land · chattels)
Conversion
Detinue · Replevin · Trover
Defenses
Consent · Necessity
Defense of: (Self · Others · Property)
Negligence
Duty of care · Standard of care
Proximate cause · Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence
Rescue doctrine · Duty to rescue
Specific types
Negligent infliction of
emotional distress (NIED)
Employment-related · Entrustment
Malpractice (legal · medical)
Liability torts
Product liability
Ultrahazardous activity
Nuisance
Public nuisance
Rylands v. Fletcher
Dignitary torts
Defamation · Invasion of privacy
False light · Breach of confidence
Abuse of process
Malicious prosecution
Alienation of affections
Economic torts
Fraud · Tortious interference
Conspiracy · Restraint of trade
Liability, defences, remedies
Comparative / contributory negligence
Last clear chance · Eggshell skull
Vicarious liability · Volenti non fit injuria
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Neutral reportage · Damages
Injunction · Torts and conflict of laws
Duty to visitors
Trespassers · Licensees · Invitees
Attractive nuisance
Other common law areas
Contracts · Criminal law · Evidence
Property · Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Law
v • d • e
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. Or an untruthful oath.[1] "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[2]
False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[3] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[3]
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Types of torts
2.1 Slander and libel
2.2 Criminal defamation
3 Defenses
3.1 Truth
3.2 Privilege and malice
3.3 Other defences
3.4 Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)
4 Defamation and freedom of speech
5 Defamation laws by jurisdiction
5.1 Europe
5.1.1 England
5.1.2 Scotland
5.1.3 Germany
5.2 United States
5.2.1 Slander per se
5.3 Singapore
5.4 Australia
5.5 Canada
5.6 Religious law
6 Related torts
7 References
8 External links
9 See also
[edit] History
In the later Roman jurisprudence, from which many of modern laws descend, verbal defamations are dealt within the edict under two heads. The first comprehended defamatory and injurious statements made in a public manner (convicium contra bonos mores). In this case the essence of the offense lay in the unwarrantable public proclamation. In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the unnecessarily public and insulting manner in which they had been made. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offense lay in the imputation itself, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was therefore a sufficient defense, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation. Even belief in the truth was enough, because it took away the intention which was essential to the notion of injuria.[citation needed]
The law thus aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal defamation was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and which, although vindictive in its character, doubtless included practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity. At the same time increased importance attached to the publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli famosi, from which we derive our modern use of the word libel; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils, the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matter contained in them were true or false.
[edit] Types of torts
[edit] Slander and libel
The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel[4][5] (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.
"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[6] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel." The debate whether Internet blogs or Bulletin Boards are publishers is a key subject being addressed, whereas an Internet based community is more akin to conversations in a bar or pub, with content being written as an ongoing dialog which is generally not edited or regulated such as in the publishing industry. "out-law.com" (August 8th, 2008).
[edit] Criminal defamation
Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression, has published global maps[7] charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe. The law is used predominantly to defend political leaders or functionaries of the state.
In Britain, the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912.
In Canada, the law has been applied on only six occasions in the past century, and all of those cases involve libellants attached to the state (police officers, judges, prison guards). In the most recent case, Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were charged with criminal libel for publicly accusing six prison guards of the racially motivated murder of a black inmate.[8]
[edit] Defenses
Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.
[edit] Truth
In many legal systems, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as fact must be proven false to be defamatory or slanderous/libel. Proving adverse, public character statements to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel and/or defamation. Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense. The use of the defense of justification has dangers, however; if the defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defense of truth and fails, he may be said to have aggravated the harm.
Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. In order to win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second that these statements were false. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.
In some systems, however, notably the Philippines, truth alone is not a defense.[9] Some U.S. statutes preserve historical common law exceptions to the defense of truth to libel actions. These exceptions were for statements "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or "expose the natural defects of one who is alive".[10]
It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures. Public interest is generally not "that which the public is interested in", but rather "that which is in the interest of the public".[11] [12]
See also: Substantial truth
[edit] Privilege and malice
Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted.
There are two types of privilege in the common law tradition:
"Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it were made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).
"Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent.
[edit] Other defences
Defences to claims of defamation include:
Truth is an absolute defence in the United States as well as in the common law jurisdictions of Canada. In some other countries it is also necessary bringing the information brought to light serves a public good.
Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
Privilege is a defense when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or statements made by a person to his spouse, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.
Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[13]
Fair comment on a matter of public interest, arguments made with an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest (such as regarding official acts) are defendable against a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.
Consent is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement.
Innocent dissemination is a defense available when a defendant had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence. Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter.
Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement.
In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous. Also, the public figure doctrine, also called the absence of malice rule, may be used as a defense.
[edit] Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)
Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).[14]
Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.
The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.
[edit] Defamation and freedom of speech
Defamation laws may come into tension with freedom of speech, leading to censorship or chilling effects where publishers fear lawsuits, or loss of reputation where individuals have no effective protection against reckless or unfounded allegations. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech which are necessary for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others.[15]
Jurisdictions resolve this tension in different ways, in particular in determining where the burden of proof lies when unfounded allegations are made. The power of the internet to disseminate comment, which may include malicious comment, has brought a new focus to the issue.[16]
There is a broader consensus against laws which criminalize defamation. Human rights organizations, and other organizations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have campaigned against strict defamation laws which criminalize defamation.[17][18] The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. One notable case was Lingens v. Austria (1986).
[edit] Defamation laws by jurisdiction
[edit] Europe
[edit] England
Main article: English defamation law
Modern libel and slander laws as implemented in many but not all Commonwealth nations, in the United States, and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure. Civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent so far back as the reign of Edward I (1272–1307),[citation needed] though it is unknown whether any generally applicable criminal process was in use. The first fully-reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law was tried during the reign of James I.[citation needed] From that time we find both the criminal and civil remedies in full operation.
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
[edit] Scotland
In Scots law, as in other jurisdictions which base themselves on the civil law tradition, there is no distinction between libel and slander, and all cases are simply defamation. The equivalent of the defence of justification is "veritas".
[edit] Germany
In German law, there is no distinction between libel and slander. German defamation lawsuits are increasing.[19] The relevant sections of Germany's law are §90 (Denigration of the President of State), §90a (Denigration of the State and its Symbols), §90b (Unconstitutional denigration of the Organs of the Constitution), §185 ("insult"), §186 (Defamation of character), §187 (Defamation with deliberate untruths), §188 (Political defamation with increased penalties for offending against paras 186 and 187), §189 (Denigration of a deceased person), §190 (Defamation by means of a non-proven criminal conviction), §192 ("insult" with true statements), §193 (Claim to defamation by rightful interests), §194 (The Application for a criminal prosecution under these paragraphs), §199 (Cases of exchange of verbal abuse), and §200 (Method of proclamation). Paragraph 188 has been criticized for allowing certain public figures additional protection against criticism.
[edit] United States
Main article: United States defamation law
The origins of US defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger established some precedent that the truth should be an absolute defense against libel charges. (Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate publishers' "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or are involving opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.
Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense.
Most states recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.[clarification needed][citation needed]
[edit] Slander per se
The four (4) categories of slander per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct her business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct (especially the chastity of a woman). Once again, all you would have to prove is that someone had published the statement to a third party. No proof of special damages is required.
[edit] Singapore
Owners of cybercafes may be held liable for libelous statements posted or possibly viewed in their establishments.[20]
In 2001, a Singapore bank was fined SG$2 million (approx. 1 million euros or 1 million US$ at the time) for accidentally publishing a mildly libelous statement during the heated discussion of a takeover bid. The mistake was corrected very quickly, and there was no intent to do harm. In fact, it was reported that no harm seems to have been done. Nevertheless, the offended parties were awarded SG$1 million each. Apparently confirming the stringency of Singapore’s defamation law, Business Times declined to report on the matter because one of the libeled parties objected.[21]
[edit] Australia
Australian law tends to follow English law on defamation issues, although there are differences introduced by statute and by the implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature established in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Association (1997).
Since the introduction of the uniform defamation laws in 2005 the distinction between slander and libel has been abolished.
A recent judgment of the High Court of Australia has significant consequences on interpretation of the law. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v Dow Jones. The judgment, which established that Internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in his or her Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian libel law, has gained worldwide attention and is often (although inaccurately, see for example Berezovsky v Forbes in England[22]) said to be the first of its kind; the case was subsequently settled.
Slander has been occasionally used to justify (and with some success) physical reaction, however usually the punishment for assault is only slightly reduced when there is evidence of provocation.
Among the various common law jurisdictions, some Americans have presented a visceral and vocal reaction to the Gutnick decision.[23] On the other hand, the decision mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, France, Canada and Italy.
Controversial uniform legislation was passed in Australia in 2005 severely restricting the right of corporations to sue for defamation (see, eg, Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), s 9). The only corporations excluded from the general ban are those not for profit or those with less than 10 employees and not affiliated with another company.
[edit] Canada
Main article: Canadian defamation law
As is the case for most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (although the law in the province of Quebec has roots in both the English and the French tradition). At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public.[24] Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the actual malice test adopted in the US case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail him or herself to a defense of justification (the truth), fair comment, or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defense of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent.
In Quebec, defamation was originally grounded in the law inherited from France. To establish civil liability for defamation, the plaintiff must establish, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of an injury, a wrongful act, and of a causal connection between the two. A person who has made defamatory remarks will not necessarily be civilly liable for them. The plaintiff must further demonstrate that the person who made the remarks committed a wrongful act. Defamation in Quebec is governed by a reasonableness standard, as opposed to strict liability; a defendant who made a false statement would not be held liable if it was reasonable to believe the statement was true.[25]
[edit] Religious law
Main articles: Lashon hara and Detraction
[edit] Related torts
Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of "verbal injury," "intentional infliction of emotional distress," "ourageousness", or "convicium," involving the making of a statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of "invasion of privacy" in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". Some jurisdictions also have the tort of "false light", in which a statement may be technically true, but so misleading as to be defamatory. There is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of "misrepresentation", involving the making of a statement which is untrue even though not defamatory; thus if a surveyor states that a house is free from the risk of flooding, he or she has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house in reliance on this statement. Other increasingly common claims similar to defamation in U.S. law are claims that a famous trademark has been diluted through tarnishment, see generally trademark dilution, "intentional interference with contract," and "negligent misrepresentation."
Criminal laws prohibiting protests at funerals, sedition, false statements in connection with elections, and the use of profanity in public, are also often used in contexts similar to criminal libel actions.
The boundaries of a court's power to hold individuals in "contempt of court" for what amounts to alleged defamatory statements about judges or the court process by attorneys or other people involved in court cases is also not well established in many common law count
sex offenses
What Is A Sex Offense?
Sex offenses include all forms of illegal sexual activity, ranging from the serious crime of rape, usually defined as sexual penetration without consent, to the less serious crime of prostitution, usually defined as sex for hire. The most serious crimes involve the sexual assault of children or include physical injury. Other sex offenses include public indecency, voyeurism, prostitution, solicitation, pornography, date rape, lewd acts, pandering, pimping, statutory rape, and unlawful sodomy.
G
Sex offenses include all forms of illegal sexual activity, ranging from the serious crime of rape, usually defined as sexual penetration without consent, to the less serious crime of prostitution, usually defined as sex for hire. The most serious crimes involve the sexual assault of children or include physical injury. Other sex offenses include public indecency, voyeurism, prostitution, solicitation, pornography, date rape, lewd acts, pandering, pimping, statutory rape, and unlawful sodomy.
G
psychopaths
How Psychopaths View Their World
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most psychopaths are very arrogant and cocky. However, when charming a potential victim, they say all the "right" things and make you believe they are kind-hearted souls; not always, but often enough. The truth is, psychopaths are not altruistic and do not really care about friendships or ties. Guggenbuhl-Craig states that they are very talented at appearing much more humble than the average person, but are hardly so. Some are also able to feign concern about the lower classes and profess that they are on the side of the underdog, the poor, and so forth. A psychopath may claim, for instance (if he's from a low socio-economic class), that he dislikes rich people intensely, but at the same time, he will inwardly yearn and envy what they have. He is like the narcissist, desiring to reflect a false image of himself through his possessions. Among his possessions are included human beings: girlfriends, wives, and children. Some psychopaths can even very fond of animals (contrary to the common viewpoint), but still view them as objects in relation to themselves.
The psychopath is filled with greed inside, relating to the world through power, even though, as I said, on the outside he can claim to be on the side of the disenfranchised or the downtrodden. I knew one who liked to repeat phrases such as "they have to stop keeping my brothers down" but he didn't mean a word of it. He was actually a racist. The psychopath can also often identify himself as a revolutionary.
On the flip side, the psychopath also often paints a picture of himself as the downcast anti-hero (his "own worst enemy type") and some like to see themselves as lone-wolves. The psychopath may even claim he is sensitive and profound, but inside he is nothing but emptiness and greed. Whether or not the psychopath is aware of his behaviour is something that is often debated. I do believe that psychopaths usually know exactly what they are doing, although others suggest that psychopaths are "born, not made." [1]
I believe that psychopathy is primarily genetic. A son with a psychopathic father often will be psychopathic as well, especially if the father was abusive and/or abandoned the family as well.
As mentioned, psychopaths often claim to settle for second best (being their own worst enemy) and then think they deserve better. This may be manifested in the way they seek power -- either through money (i.e. material goods), manipulation and/or treating people as objects. By enacting such behaviours, the psychopath is also trying to "get back" at society and the world, in order to gain retribution. They will spend their entire lives doing this, whether they are rich or poor, or whatever their social background may be, although studies have shown that they often come from an impoverished or lower socio- economic background and/or social status. (In one of Dr. Donald Black's studies, many of the men were "overwhelmingly white, blue collar, lower middle class, and married, and most had not graduated from high school." [Black, 14]). (Let me add, despite Dr. Blacks' studies, psychopaths can still exist in any social class. Do not be misled). I also wanted to point out that I will be using "he" and "him" for the term psychopath throughout this website; let it not be forgotten, yes, female psychopaths exist as well; however, according to the Sixth Edition of Abnormal Behavior, printed in 2000 by three male professors, David, Derald, and Stanley Sue, the rates do differ by gender. Included in their excellent text is a report by the The American Psychiatric Association that the general estimate is 3% for men, and less than 1% in women [Personality Disorders and Impulse Control Disorders, 238].
What is very disturbing about psychopaths, besides their sense of special entitlement, is the complete lack of empathy for normal people, for "antisocials (psychopaths) seem to lack a conscience, feeling little or no empathy for the people whose lives they touch...the antisocial effortlessly resists all regulation, unable to see beyond his self-interest or to adopt standards of right versus wrong." [Black, XIII].
Not all psychopath are uneducated low-class misfits. Some of them are quite handsome and have good careers, and use this all the more to their benefit. Take a look at Ted Bundy; my friend's mother once went on a double-date with him and claimed he was the nicest person. His mother said he was the "best son any mother could have." Bundy was also apparently quite good-looking, which made him even more dangerous. So not all psychopaths are derelict, low-class, high school drop-outs, there are many who also work in professional occupations; the fact remains that there are just more psychopaths who come from impoverished backgrounds than not.
Also, not all psychopaths are calm, cool, and collected. Some of them appear strange or odd, and their behaviour can be eccentric or unusual. I believe this is what can confuse victims most often. Psychopaths often appear [see pictures here]: intense and "electrifying". Do not be misled if someone appears harmless, "foolish", or seems offbeat. An "angelic" visage can also often fool people. Just picture John Wayne Gacy in his "clown costume" as he entertained children as one example. Another example which someone on the "Victims of Psychopathy" board came up with was Bill Clinton and his "goofy" yet loveable demeanour (so is Clinton really a psychopath? Many believe he is).
A psychopath (he was diagnosed anti-social) I knew used the harmless cover-up quite well. Everyone thought he was very funny. I did too, at first. Then, little by little, I realised there was something "not right" about him. At first his seemingly harmless pranks were charming, but after a while, he became more of a nuisance and disrupted our work environment, which created havoc and tension between employees. I've learned, a psychopath can use these disguises for his own hidden purpose.Regardless of race, social class, or occupation, however, the psychopath is dangerous to society, for "the nature of ASP (psychopathy) implies that it wreaks more havoc on society than most other mental illnesses do, since the disorder primarily involves reactions against the social environment that drag other people into its destructive web...The despair and anxiety wrought by antisocials (psychopaths) tragically affects families and communities, leaving deep physical and emotional scars..." [Black, 5].
There is much to the psychopathic personality which is baffling and disturbing. 1 in about 25-30 people are psychopathic (also known as sociopaths or anti-social -- the correct title being psychopath.) Since the majority or them are men, I wrote this site in part, to warn women about the dangers, especially women online, which I believe is a favourite "new medium" which appeals to psychopaths. I have personal experience with this subject as well. This is because "antisocials (psychopaths) are not just characters in our fictional or true-life entertainments. They are family members, friends, co-workers, neighbors, or strangers we may encounter every day." [Black, 10]. Pamela Jayne, M.A., writes that "30% of men are sociopathic." If about every three out of ten men I may meet are psychopathic, I would assume this is not something to take lightly. According to these statistics, that would mean every three out of ten men and maybe every one out of ten females. The truth is, we do not really know exactly how many individuals are psychopathic; however, there seems to be a rise in the prevalence of psychopathy and that is why some claim that numbers are higher. Dr. Black claims that psychopathy leads right behind depression, along with schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder, which is an astounding fact.
The Psychopath as Physician from Hervey Cleckley's The Mask of Sanity
The Inner Landscape of the Psychopath from Hervey Cleckley's The Mask of Sanity
Our Sincere Thanks to the Owner of the website on Psychopathic Personality Disorder for kind permission to quote her research in assembling this report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The owners and publishers of these pages wish to state that the material presented here is the product of our research and experimentation in Superluminal Communication. We invite the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an Open, but skeptical mind. We do not encourage "devotee-ism" nor "True Belief." We DO encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in all fields of endeavor as the best way to be able to discern lies from truth. The one thing we can tell the reader is this: we work very hard, many hours a day, and have done so for many years, to discover the "bottom line" of our existence on Earth. It is our vocation, our quest, our job. We constantly seek to validate and/or refine what we understand to be either possible or probable or both. We do this in the sincere hope that all of mankind will benefit, if not now, then at some point in one of our probable futures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most psychopaths are very arrogant and cocky. However, when charming a potential victim, they say all the "right" things and make you believe they are kind-hearted souls; not always, but often enough. The truth is, psychopaths are not altruistic and do not really care about friendships or ties. Guggenbuhl-Craig states that they are very talented at appearing much more humble than the average person, but are hardly so. Some are also able to feign concern about the lower classes and profess that they are on the side of the underdog, the poor, and so forth. A psychopath may claim, for instance (if he's from a low socio-economic class), that he dislikes rich people intensely, but at the same time, he will inwardly yearn and envy what they have. He is like the narcissist, desiring to reflect a false image of himself through his possessions. Among his possessions are included human beings: girlfriends, wives, and children. Some psychopaths can even very fond of animals (contrary to the common viewpoint), but still view them as objects in relation to themselves.
The psychopath is filled with greed inside, relating to the world through power, even though, as I said, on the outside he can claim to be on the side of the disenfranchised or the downtrodden. I knew one who liked to repeat phrases such as "they have to stop keeping my brothers down" but he didn't mean a word of it. He was actually a racist. The psychopath can also often identify himself as a revolutionary.
On the flip side, the psychopath also often paints a picture of himself as the downcast anti-hero (his "own worst enemy type") and some like to see themselves as lone-wolves. The psychopath may even claim he is sensitive and profound, but inside he is nothing but emptiness and greed. Whether or not the psychopath is aware of his behaviour is something that is often debated. I do believe that psychopaths usually know exactly what they are doing, although others suggest that psychopaths are "born, not made." [1]
I believe that psychopathy is primarily genetic. A son with a psychopathic father often will be psychopathic as well, especially if the father was abusive and/or abandoned the family as well.
As mentioned, psychopaths often claim to settle for second best (being their own worst enemy) and then think they deserve better. This may be manifested in the way they seek power -- either through money (i.e. material goods), manipulation and/or treating people as objects. By enacting such behaviours, the psychopath is also trying to "get back" at society and the world, in order to gain retribution. They will spend their entire lives doing this, whether they are rich or poor, or whatever their social background may be, although studies have shown that they often come from an impoverished or lower socio- economic background and/or social status. (In one of Dr. Donald Black's studies, many of the men were "overwhelmingly white, blue collar, lower middle class, and married, and most had not graduated from high school." [Black, 14]). (Let me add, despite Dr. Blacks' studies, psychopaths can still exist in any social class. Do not be misled). I also wanted to point out that I will be using "he" and "him" for the term psychopath throughout this website; let it not be forgotten, yes, female psychopaths exist as well; however, according to the Sixth Edition of Abnormal Behavior, printed in 2000 by three male professors, David, Derald, and Stanley Sue, the rates do differ by gender. Included in their excellent text is a report by the The American Psychiatric Association that the general estimate is 3% for men, and less than 1% in women [Personality Disorders and Impulse Control Disorders, 238].
What is very disturbing about psychopaths, besides their sense of special entitlement, is the complete lack of empathy for normal people, for "antisocials (psychopaths) seem to lack a conscience, feeling little or no empathy for the people whose lives they touch...the antisocial effortlessly resists all regulation, unable to see beyond his self-interest or to adopt standards of right versus wrong." [Black, XIII].
Not all psychopath are uneducated low-class misfits. Some of them are quite handsome and have good careers, and use this all the more to their benefit. Take a look at Ted Bundy; my friend's mother once went on a double-date with him and claimed he was the nicest person. His mother said he was the "best son any mother could have." Bundy was also apparently quite good-looking, which made him even more dangerous. So not all psychopaths are derelict, low-class, high school drop-outs, there are many who also work in professional occupations; the fact remains that there are just more psychopaths who come from impoverished backgrounds than not.
Also, not all psychopaths are calm, cool, and collected. Some of them appear strange or odd, and their behaviour can be eccentric or unusual. I believe this is what can confuse victims most often. Psychopaths often appear [see pictures here]: intense and "electrifying". Do not be misled if someone appears harmless, "foolish", or seems offbeat. An "angelic" visage can also often fool people. Just picture John Wayne Gacy in his "clown costume" as he entertained children as one example. Another example which someone on the "Victims of Psychopathy" board came up with was Bill Clinton and his "goofy" yet loveable demeanour (so is Clinton really a psychopath? Many believe he is).
A psychopath (he was diagnosed anti-social) I knew used the harmless cover-up quite well. Everyone thought he was very funny. I did too, at first. Then, little by little, I realised there was something "not right" about him. At first his seemingly harmless pranks were charming, but after a while, he became more of a nuisance and disrupted our work environment, which created havoc and tension between employees. I've learned, a psychopath can use these disguises for his own hidden purpose.Regardless of race, social class, or occupation, however, the psychopath is dangerous to society, for "the nature of ASP (psychopathy) implies that it wreaks more havoc on society than most other mental illnesses do, since the disorder primarily involves reactions against the social environment that drag other people into its destructive web...The despair and anxiety wrought by antisocials (psychopaths) tragically affects families and communities, leaving deep physical and emotional scars..." [Black, 5].
There is much to the psychopathic personality which is baffling and disturbing. 1 in about 25-30 people are psychopathic (also known as sociopaths or anti-social -- the correct title being psychopath.) Since the majority or them are men, I wrote this site in part, to warn women about the dangers, especially women online, which I believe is a favourite "new medium" which appeals to psychopaths. I have personal experience with this subject as well. This is because "antisocials (psychopaths) are not just characters in our fictional or true-life entertainments. They are family members, friends, co-workers, neighbors, or strangers we may encounter every day." [Black, 10]. Pamela Jayne, M.A., writes that "30% of men are sociopathic." If about every three out of ten men I may meet are psychopathic, I would assume this is not something to take lightly. According to these statistics, that would mean every three out of ten men and maybe every one out of ten females. The truth is, we do not really know exactly how many individuals are psychopathic; however, there seems to be a rise in the prevalence of psychopathy and that is why some claim that numbers are higher. Dr. Black claims that psychopathy leads right behind depression, along with schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder, which is an astounding fact.
The Psychopath as Physician from Hervey Cleckley's The Mask of Sanity
The Inner Landscape of the Psychopath from Hervey Cleckley's The Mask of Sanity
Our Sincere Thanks to the Owner of the website on Psychopathic Personality Disorder for kind permission to quote her research in assembling this report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The owners and publishers of these pages wish to state that the material presented here is the product of our research and experimentation in Superluminal Communication. We invite the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an Open, but skeptical mind. We do not encourage "devotee-ism" nor "True Belief." We DO encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in all fields of endeavor as the best way to be able to discern lies from truth. The one thing we can tell the reader is this: we work very hard, many hours a day, and have done so for many years, to discover the "bottom line" of our existence on Earth. It is our vocation, our quest, our job. We constantly seek to validate and/or refine what we understand to be either possible or probable or both. We do this in the sincere hope that all of mankind will benefit, if not now, then at some point in one of our probable futures.
death threats
Death threat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the band, see Death Threat (band).
A death threat is a threat, often made anonymously, against a person to kill him or her. These threats are usually designed to intimidate victims in order to manipulate their behavior, in which case a death threat is a form of coercion. For example, a death threat could be used to dissuade a public figure from pursuing a criminal investigation or an advocacy campaign.
In many jurisdictions, death threats are a criminal offense. Death threats are often covered by coercion statutes. For instance, the coercion statute in Alaska says:
A person commits the crime of coercion if the person compels another to engage in conduct from which there is a legal right to abstain or abstain from conduct in which there is a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in the person who is compelled a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the person who makes the demand or another may inflict physical injury on anyone....[1]
A death threat can be communicated via a wide range of mediums, among these letters, newspaper publications, telephone calls, internet blogs,[2] and e-mail. If the threat is made against a political figure, it can also be considered treason. Sometimes death threats are part of a wider campaign of abuse targeting a person or a group of people (see terrorism, mass murder).
[edit] Notes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the band, see Death Threat (band).
A death threat is a threat, often made anonymously, against a person to kill him or her. These threats are usually designed to intimidate victims in order to manipulate their behavior, in which case a death threat is a form of coercion. For example, a death threat could be used to dissuade a public figure from pursuing a criminal investigation or an advocacy campaign.
In many jurisdictions, death threats are a criminal offense. Death threats are often covered by coercion statutes. For instance, the coercion statute in Alaska says:
A person commits the crime of coercion if the person compels another to engage in conduct from which there is a legal right to abstain or abstain from conduct in which there is a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in the person who is compelled a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the person who makes the demand or another may inflict physical injury on anyone....[1]
A death threat can be communicated via a wide range of mediums, among these letters, newspaper publications, telephone calls, internet blogs,[2] and e-mail. If the threat is made against a political figure, it can also be considered treason. Sometimes death threats are part of a wider campaign of abuse targeting a person or a group of people (see terrorism, mass murder).
[edit] Notes
Thursday, January 22, 2009
liar
Proverbs 17:4-A liar listens eagerly to a spiteful tongue.Proverbs 17:11-Therefore a cruel messenger will be sent against him.Proverbs 17:20-He who has a perverse tongue falls into evil.{perversewillfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary.
2. characterized by or proceeding from such a determination or disposition: a perverse mood.
3. wayward or cantankerous.
4. persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.
5. turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1325–75; ME < L perversus facing the wrong way, askew, orig. ptp. of pervertere. See pervert ]
2. characterized by or proceeding from such a determination or disposition: a perverse mood.
3. wayward or cantankerous.
4. persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.
5. turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1325–75; ME < L perversus facing the wrong way, askew, orig. ptp. of pervertere. See pervert ]
spirits
Proverbs 16:2-The Lord weighs the spirits.Proverbs 16:30-He winks his eye to devise perverse things.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
treasures
Proverbs 10:2-Treasures of wickedness profit nothing.Proverbs 10:3-He casts away the desire of the wicked.
light
Proverbs 6:23-The law is light.Proverbs 8:21-I may fill their treasuries.Proverbs 8:23-I have been established from everlasting,From the beginning,before there was ever an earth.Proverbs 8:26-While as yet He hath not made the primeval dust of the world.
january 21,2009
Proverbs 5:22=His own iniquities entrap the wicked man.Proverbs 6:11-So shall your poverty come on you like a robber,And your need like an armed man.Proverbs 6:13-He shuffles his feet,He points with his fingers.Proverbs 6:14-Perversity is in his heart,He devises evil continually,He sows discord.Proverbs 6:15-Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
enigma and riddles
Proverbs 1:6-To understand an enigma[1. a puzzling or inexplicable occurrence or situation: His disappearance is an enigma that has given rise to much speculation.3. a saying, question, picture, etc., containing a hidden meaning; riddle],The wise and their riddles.
complaint and trouble
Psalm 141:1-Lord,I cry out to You,Make haste to me! Give ear to my voice when I cry out to You.Psalm 142:1-I cry out to the Lord with my voice;With my voice to the Lord I made my supplication.Psalm 142:2-I pour out my complaint before Him,I declare before Him my trouble.Psalm 142:6-Attend to my cry.Psalm 143:1-Hear my prayer,O Lord,Give ear to my supplications! In Your faithfulness answer me,And in Your righteousness.Psalm 143:7-Answer me speedily.O Lord.
arm
Psalm 136:4-To Him that by wisdom made the heavens.Psalm 136:7-To Him who made great lights.Psalm 136:12-With an outstretched arm.Psalm 139:19-Depart from me,therefore,you bloodthirsty men.Psalm 140:1-Preserve me from violent men.Psalm 140:11-Let evil hunt the violent man to overthrow him.
prayers
Psalm 118:6=The Lord is on my side.Psalm 119:29-Grant me Your law graciously.Psalm 119:146-I cry out to You,Save me,and I will keep Your testimonies.Psalm 119:154-Revive me,according to Your word.Psalm 119:161-Let my cry come before You,O Lord,Give me understanding according to Your word.Psalm 126:1-We were like those who dream.Psalm 132:8-You and the ark of Your strength.Psalm 132:14-Here I will dwell.
January 20,2009
Psalm 109:10-Let his children continually be vagabonds,and beg,Let them seek their bread also from their desolate places.Psalm 109:17-As he loved cursing,so let it come to him.Psalm 113:4-His glory above the heavens.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
barack obama
Congratulations !!!!!!Tears run down my eyes as I saw you and your wife today...God Bless You !!!!!!!!
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
regarded their cry
Psalm 106:44-Nevertheless He regarded their affliction,When He heard their cry.Psalm 107:27-They stagger like a drunken man,And are at their wits' end.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
prayer
Psalm 63:9-Those who seek my life to destroy it,Shall go into the lower parts of the earth.Psalm 64:7-Suddenly shall they be wounded.Psalm 69:12-I am the song of the drunkards.
prayer
Psalm 46:4-The holy place of the tabernacle of the Most High.Psalm 50:18-You have been partaker with adulterers.Psalm 52:5-He shall take you away.and pluck you out of your dwelling place.Psalm 55:9-Destroy,O Lord,and divide their tongues.Psalm 56:9-God is for me.Psalm 62:4-They curse inwardly.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
prayer
Psalm 45:4-Your right hand shall teach you awesome things.Psalm 45:12-The daughter of Tyre will be there with a gift,The rich among the people will seek Your favor.Psalm 45:13-The royal daughter is all glorious within the palace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)