How Well Do Consumers Protect Themselves from Identity Theft?

Author(s): GEORGE R. MILNE

Source: The Journal of Consumer Affairs , Winter 2003, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Winter 2003),
pp. 388-402
Published by: Wiley

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23860601

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of
Consumer Affairs

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 388 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

BITS, BRIEFS, AND APPLICATIONS

GEORGE R. MILNE

How Well Do Consumers Protect

Themselves from Identity Theft?
Identity theft is a serious and increasingly prevalent crime, and con
sumers need to take preventative measures to minimize the chance of
becoming a victim. In an effort to assess consumer preparedness, this
exploratory study measured the self-reported behavior of 61 college
students and 59 non-students on thirteen identity theft preventative ac
tivities that were suggested by the Federal Trade Commission. Con
sumer education appears to be adequate for several identify theft pre
ventative behaviors, but not for others. In addition, students and
non-students demonstrated some interesting divergencies in behavior.
Based on these preliminary findings, areas for increased consumer edu
cation and future research are recommended.

The Economist (2001) reports that identity theft, defined as the appro
priation of someone else's identity to commit fraud or theft, continues to
be one of the fastest growing white-collar crimes in the United States.
Identity theft can occur when another person, using a victim's personal in
formation (most often social security number, name and address), opens
up a credit card account (or other accounts such as a wireless phone) and
incurs expenses. The billing statement is often diverted to another billing
address so that the victim is not aware charges have been made and pay
ment is overdue, which results in a bad credit rating. Individuals' identities
can be obtained through theft of wallet, mail, trash, or online surveillance
(FTC 2001). Often the victim is not aware that his information was mis
appropriated, and when the crime is discovered, reclaiming one's identity
is a lengthy and costly experience.
The prevention of identity theft, as shown in Figure 1, depends upon the
collective actions of government, businesses, and consumers. The govern
ment has the ability to pass criminal and civil legislation to help directly
deter theft and influence business policy by requiring better information

George R. Milne is Associate Professor of Marketing in the Isenberg School of Management, Uni
versity of Massachusetts—Amherst.

The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 37. No. 2, 2003

ISSN 0022-0078

Copyright 2003 by The American Council on Consumer Interests

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WINTER 2003 VOLUME 37, NUMBER 2 389

FIGURE 1

Institutional System for Minimizing Identity Theft

Criminal Legislation

handling practices and record security, and educate consumers to better

protect their personal information. Historically, the Fair Credit Billing
Act, which limits the credit card holder to $50 liability for unauthorized
charges, was the primary consumer protection effort. Subsequently, the
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (1998), which designates a
maximum penalty of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, has been used
to prosecute offenders and act as a deterrent to thieves. In addition to fed
eral legislation, many state laws have been passed (www.consumer.gov/
idtheft/statelaw.htm). The Federal Trade Commission (www.consumer
.gov/idtheft/) and other advocacy groups have educated consumers about
how to prevent identity theft and how to recover if one is a victim of this
crime. In an effort to reduce privacy concerns businesses have made efforts
to shore up the security of their customer databases.
The effectiveness of the identity theft prevention efforts outlined in Fig
ure 1 has not been empirically investigated in the academic literature. The
purpose of this study is to begin exploring the effectiveness of the con
sumer education effort by measuring the extent to which consumers pro
tect themselves from identity theft. This exploratory research examines the
self-reported behaviors from two small samples: one of a cross section of
consumers and one of college students. The results indicate that for these
samples that some preventative behaviors are being followed while others
are not and that there may be differences among consumer segments. A

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
390 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

related purpose of this initial empirical effo

that need further investigation.
The article is organized in four sections. Th
ground about the scope of identity theft, h
how consumers can minimize its occurrenc
the study methodology. This includes samp
dures, and questionnaire and measurement d
reviews the results. The fourth section dis
findings.

BACKGROUND

The literature addressing the issue of identity theft is sparse. Law revie
articles have provided a general overview of the problem (e.g., Hoar 2
while others have evaluated the effectiveness of the courts and exis
statutes to provide a remedy to the victims of identity theft (e.g., A
2002; Saunders and Zucker 1999). In the marketing and public policy
erature, identity theft is not directly addressed. However, related res
has focused on privacy/security issues (Milne 2001; Miyazaki and
nadez 2001) and fraud (Lee and Geistfield 1999; Norrgard and Norrg
1998). The popular press, following the recent emergence of the iden
theft crime, has begun to write stories that can inform consumers. A
tronic search of the Lexis-Nexis major newspaper database for the t
"identity theft" returned 1,892 articles, 768 (40.6%) of which were
lished in 2001 (see Figure 2). Given the nascent stage of this phenome
this review will focus on describing how identity theft generally occ
how consumers are harmed, and what behaviors are recommended to m
imize the occurrence of identity theft.

How Identity Theft Occurs

While the rise in the crime rate corresponds with the growth of th
ternet, Jodie Bernstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer p
tion noted that less than 1% of identity theft cases can be linked to t
ternet (Verton 2001). Surprisingly, most appropriation of pers
identifying information has occurred through non-Internet based the
wallet, mail, or garbage. Personal identifying information can inclu
name, address, driver's license, social security number, telephone num
place of employment, employee identification number, mother's ma
name, demand deposit account number, savings account number, or c

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 o
o
CM

O
O
O
CM

cd
CD
CD

oo
CD
CD

8
CD

AJ
0
>

FIGURE 2
[

[
CO
NumberofIdentiyTheftAriclesPublishedbyYear* CD
CD

CM
CD
CD

O
CD
CD

OOOOOOOO
oooooooo
CDOOh-CDlOM"COCM

paqsnqnd sapqjvp JaqiunN

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
392 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

card number (Davis 2002). Accordingly, mu

has been directed toward minimizing the pr
victim to having their personal identifyin
propriated.

How Consumers Are Harmed

Consumers who fall victim to identity theft can be harmed by (1) hav
ing their privacy invaded, (2) suffering the psychological trauma of having
their reputation ruined, (3) incurring financial liabilities, and (4) undergo
ing tremendous transaction costs to restore their names.

How Consumers Can Protect Their Identities

In an effort to help educate consumers about the exposure risks to iden

tify theft, the Federal Trade Commission, in their publication, "When Bad
Things Happen to Your Name (FTC 2001)," has listed prevention behav
iors that consumers can engage in that can minimize the risk of becoming
a victim of identity theft. These behaviors include: finding out how infor
mation will be used before you reveal it to others; paying attention to credit
card billing cycles; guarding your mail from theft; placing strong pass
words on accounts and credit cards; minimizing the number of cards car
ried in your wallet; minimizing amount of information disclosed; keeping
personal information in a safe place; protecting social security numbers;
ordering credit reports annually.
Most of the recommendations to minimize the risk of identity theft per
tain to established business practices and do not focus on protecting one's
information online. Rather, the recommendations are approaches that most
consumers can undertake to manage their personal information wisely.
The next section describes the two studies that were conducted to explore
the extent to which consumers follow these practices.

METHOD

Samples and Data Collection Procedures

For this exploratory research, two small data samples were collecte
during fall 2001. The first sample was 61 junior and senior college stude
from across two sections of Internet Marketing at a large northeastern
versity. The students were asked to participate to help the school with

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WINTER 2003 VOLUME 37, NUMBER 2 393

research mission. A research assistant passed

instrument during the first 15 minutes of class
ipated and filled out the questionnaire comp
briefed later in the semester when the summ
class. The student group was 65% male, av
owned a computer, 84% had a credit card, 62
and 79% shopped using the Internet.
The second sample was a diverse non-studen
were recruited to attend commercial focus g
ducted by a lifestyle marketing organization
fill out the surveys while they were waiting
Sixty surveys were returned, of which 50 w
student group, compared to the student sam
years old), evenly split on gender (49% male
had some college). In addition, 66% owned
cards, 80% shopped by mail, and 39% shopped

Questionnaire and Measure Developm

Thirteen (yes /no) questions based on the F

minimizing risk were written specifically for
1, the thirteen items were worded so that eight
the probability and five would decrease the prob
theft victim. A summated index of preventa
first reverse scoring the items that would i
coming a victim of identity theft, and then
sponses across all 13 items. High numbers on
that minimizes the risk of being a victim an
son who is at risk. Overall, the average numb
practiced by students was 7.3. The average nu
iors practiced by non-students was 7.7.
To account for potential social desirability
the information practice questions, the Crow
included in the survey. This scale is a 33-item
scale. High scores indicate individuals who de
acceptable terms and attempt to gain social
individuals who do not respond in a socially d
in marketing often correlate new scales with
establish discriminant validity (Bruner and H
of the social desirability index with the summat

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 394 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

TABLE 1

Identity Theft Prevention Measures

Impact on Questionnaire Item

Likelihood Correlation with

of Being Social Desirability

Questionnaire Items Victim Index

Student Non-student

Sample Sample
I have ordered a copy of my credit report within
the last year. Decrease
When I order new checks I have the bank mail
them to me. Increase

I carry my social security card with

wallet or purse. Increase +
When asked to create a password, I have
either my mother's maiden name, or my
name, or my birth date, or the last four d
of my social security number, or a serie
consecutive numbers. Increase

I always deposit my outgoing mail in post office

collection boxes or at a local post office. Decrease
Before I reveal any personal identifying
information I always find out how marketers
are going to use it. Decrease
I carry more credit cards than I need in my wallet. Inc
I sometimes toss my credit card receipts in a
public trash container without shredding them
into tiny pieces. Increase —
I always check each item in my billing st
for mistakes and report these immediately. Decrease + +
If asked by a merchant, I provide my social
security number so they can write it on my check. Increase + —
I sometimes leave my mail in my mailbox
(at home) for a day or two before I pick it up. Increase
I always shred or tear up the credit card offers
I receive in the mail before throwing them in
the trash. Decrease +
I keep a copy of my PIN numbe
in my wallet or purse in case I forget them. Increase
Average Number of Preventative Measures
(out of 13) 7.3 7.7
Standard Deviation 2.1 1.9
Average Social Desirability Index (out of 33) 14.9 16.2
Standard Deviation 5.5 6.5
Reliability (KR-20). .79 .86
Correlation of Prevention Index with Social r =.062, =.209,
Desirability Index p > .05 p > .05r

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WINTER 2003 VOLUME 37, NUMBER 2 395

scale were not significant for both the non-s

student (r = .062, p > .05) samples, suggestin
identity prevention were not subject to a soc
as noted in Table 1, three of the items for th
the non-students had statistically significant
desirability index. The possibility of socia
with these individual items should be kept i
results.
In addition, background questions were incl
sumer's shopping experience and demograph
For the pretest, colleagues who had experien
construction reviewed the questionnaire,
made (Hunt, Sparkman, and Wilcox 1982).

RESULTS

The student and non-student responses to the 13 identity theft pr

tion behavior questions are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The
centage of respondents who are practicing preventative behavior is
sented in the right hand column. To better show the patterns of respo
the behaviors are grouped into three tiers; the first tier is preventativ
haviors most respondents practice, the second tier is preventative b
iors some respondents practice, and the third tier is preventative beha
few respondents practice.

Student Results

The students' responses to the identity theft prevention questions are

shown in Table 2. The first grouping represents behaviors that more than
two-thirds of students practiced. These include not keeping PINs and pass
words (90%), social security cards (74%), or extra credit cards (67%) in
their wallets; shredding credit card receipts (71%) and credit card offers
(71%); checking credit card bills for mistakes (70%). The second group
ing represents behaviors that less than two-thirds of students but more than
one-third practiced. These include creating non-obvious passwords (64%),
depositing outgoing mail in post office collection mailboxes (59%), pick
ing up mail from their mailbox the day it arrives (56%), and not writing so
cial security number on checks if asked by a merchant (48%). The third
grouping represents preventive behaviors that less than one-third of the
students practiced. These include picking up new checks at the bank (23%),

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 396 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

TABLE 2

Identity Theft Prevention for Student Groups

Percent
Percent

Response
ResponsePracticing
Practicing
to Theft

Questionnaire
Questionnaire Items Question Prevention
Items Question Prevention

Practices Most Students Followed

I keep a copy of my PIN number and passwords in my wallet or purse

in case I forget them. 10% 90%

I carry my social security card with me in my wallet or purse. 26% 74%

I sometimes toss my credit card receipts in a public trash container

without shredding
without shreddingthem
theminto
intotiny
tinypieces1.
pieces'. 29% 71%

I always shred or tear up the credit card offers I receive in the mail 71% 71%

before throwing them in the trash1. 71% 71%

I always check each item in my billing statements for mistakes and 70% 70%

report these immediately. 70% 70%

more credit
I carry more credit cards
cards than
than II need
need in
in my
my wallet1.
wallet'. 33% 67%

Practices Some Students Followed

When asked to create a password, I have used either my mother's

maiden name, or my pet's name, or my birth date, or the last four
36%
digits of my social security number, or a series of consecutive numbers. 64%

I always deposit my outgoing mail in post office collection boxes or at 59% 59%

a local post office. 59% 59%

I sometimes leave my mail in my mailbox (at home) for a day or two 44% 56%

before I pick it up. 44% 56%

If asked by a merchant, I provide my social security number so they 52% 48%

can write it on my check. 52% 48%

Practices Few Students Followed

When I order new checks I have the bank mail them to me. 77% 23%
have ordered
I have ordered aa copy
copyof
ofmy
mycredit
creditreport
reportwithin
within the
the last
last year'.
year1. 22% 22%
Before I reveal any personal identifying information I always find out 18% 18%

how
how marketers
marketers are
aregoing
goingtotouse
useit.it.

'Based on respondents who own a credit card.

ordering credit reports annually (22%), and finding out how personal in
formation will be used before providing it to marketers (18%).

Non-Student Results

The non-students' responses to the identity theft prevention questions

are shown in Table 3. The first grouping represents behaviors that more
than two-thirds of non-students practiced. These include not keeping PINs
and passwords (96%) in their wallets, shredding credit card offers (71%),

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WINTER 2003 VOLUME 37, NUMBER 2 397

TABLE 3

Identity Theft Prevention for Non-Student Groups

Percent
Percent

Response Practicing
Response Practicing
To
To Theft
Theft
Questionnaire
Questionnaire Items Items Question Prevention
Question Prevention

Practices Most Non-Students Followed

I keep a copy of my PIN number and passwords in my wallet or purse

in case I forget them. 4% 96%
I sometimes leave my mail in my mailbox (at
before I pick it up. 25% 75%
I always shred or tear up the credit card offer
before throwing them in the trash1. 75% 75%
If asked by a merchant, I provide my social security number so they
can
can write
write it check.
it on my on my check. 32% 68%

Practices Some Non-Students Followed

I always check each item in my billing statements for mistakes and

report these immediately.
I sometimes toss my credit card receipts in a public trash container
without shredding them into tiny pieces1. 36% 64%

I carry more credit cards than I need in my wallet1. 38% 62%

Before I reveal any personal identifying information I always find out

how marketers are going to use it. 57% 57%

I always deposit my outgoing mail in post office collection boxes or

at a local post office. 52% 52%

When asked to create a password, I have used either my mother's

maiden name, or my pet's name, or my birth date, or the last four
digits of my social security number, or a series of consecutive numbers. 49% 51%
51 %

Practices Few Non-Students Followed

I carry my social security card with me in my wallet or purse. 56% 44%

When I order new checks I have the bank mail them to me. 71% 29%

I have ordered a copy of my credit report within the last year1. 23% 23%

•Based on respondents who own a credit card.

picking mail from their mailbox the day it arrives (75%), and not writing so
cial security number on checks if asked by a merchant (68%). The second
grouping represents behaviors that less than two-thirds of non-students but
more than one-half practiced. These include checking credit card bills for
mistakes (66%), shredding credit card receipts (64%), not carrying extra
credit cards in wallet (62%), finding out how personal information will be
used before providing it to marketers (57%), depositing outgoing mail in
post office collection mailboxes (52%), and using non-obvious passwords
(51%). The third grouping represents preventative behaviors that less than

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
398 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

one-half of the non-students practiced. Th

security card in their wallet (44%), picking
(29%), and ordering credit reports annually

The Role of Background Variables

To examine whether background variab

overall preventative behavior within each s
across demographic subgroups. For the stud
tistical differences based on gender, credit c
havior. Likewise, for the non-student sampl
ferences in preventative behavior for these
or population of residence.

DISCUSSION

Preventative Behaviors Currently Practiced

Consumer education appears to be adequate for a couple of theft

vention practices. For example, both students and non-students have
well educated by banks not to carry their PIN and passwords with
wallet, and most consumers shred their credit card offers before du
them into the trash. However, both groups did not adhere to the sam
ventative practices. Non-students were less likely than students to p
their social security number to merchants when cashing checks. Her
likely that educational efforts were effective in reaching non-studen
educational efforts might not have had the impact on students since
time of the survey the student's school identification number was also th
social security number. On the other hand, students were more lik
shred their credit card receipts than non-students. Students might b
concerned with the card's $50 liability or perhaps they have not formed
habits (not shredding) since the card is relatively novel to them. D
characteristics of the student sample, not carrying extra credit ca
their wallets, and carefully checking billing statements were also m
likely to be practiced. Students do not have the luxury of having th
tiple credit cards due to their limited income and as such are more v
of billing mistakes. Thus, it is likely some practices are being follow
reasons other than identity theft prevention. Regardless of the reasons,
data suggest additional education is not needed to remind consumer
these practices but rather the efforts should be focused elsewhere.

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WINTER 2003 VOLUME 37, NUMBER 2 399

Preventative Behaviors That Need More Attention

More education is needed to encourage consumers to establish non

obvious passwords. Students, perhaps because of the greater computer ex
perience, are more likely to follow the practice than are non-students, yet
both groups need to be reminded of the importance of not using their
mother's maiden name, pet, birth date, or last four numbers of their social
security number. Another area that both groups could improve upon is de
positing their outgoing mail in post office drop boxes or at the post office.
It is possible that for this question, some of the respondents might have
locked mailboxes, which would provide the security against theft.
Educational efforts might be needed to remind non-students to check
their billing statements for mistakes and to shred their credit card receipts.
While these should be widely practiced, more than a third of the sample
did not. Early detection of irregularities in billing can minimize the dam
age from theft.
In these samples, students were more likely to provide their social se
curity numbers to merchants (56%) than non-students (32%). Interest
ingly, for students, providing merchants with a social security number for
check cashing was positively related to social desirability as some students
were conditioned to do this because of campus policy (their SSN was their
student id number). These data support the claims for the prohibition of us
ing the SSN for student, driver, insurance and other IDs (Givens 2000).

Preventative Behaviors That Need Critical Attention

First, for both the non-student and student groups, less than 25% of
those surveyed ordered a copy of their credit report once a year. (Note that
this behavior was not significantly correlated with socially desirable be
havior.) It is likely these low numbers reflect that individuals do not con
sider tracking the credit report as a preventative measure, in part, because
they are not aware. Research is needed to measure consumer awareness of
this strategy to thwart identity theft. If awareness is low, a communications
program is needed to alert consumers to be watchful of their credit records.
The price of the report might be another reason for the low percentage of
consumers who ordered credit reports. At the time this research was con
ducted, the top price of ordering a credit report from the three major credit
bureaus was $8.50 per report. To remove the barrier of high costs, some
states have lower prices. Moreover, in six states, including the state where
the student sample was collected, individuals by law can get a free copy

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
400 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

from each of the major credit bureaus (Equ

every year.
One possible solution, which has support from privacy advocates
(Givens 2000), would be to legislate that all states offer free annual credit
reports.
Second, many consumers are having new checks mailed to their homes.
More than 70% of both groups had their new checks mailed to them. (Note
that these items were not correlated with social desirability.) When com
bined with the fact that mail lingers in mailboxes, this makes it easier for
thieves to steal. This problem could be addressed if consumers picked up
their checks at the bank as suggested by the FTC (2001). Moreover, banks
could require consumers to pick up their checks in person. While the con
venience of mail would be lost, this does not seem to be an unreasonable
cost to minimize the risk of identity theft. Alternatively, people could in
stall locked mailboxes.
Third, too many non-students are carrying social security cards in their
wallets/purses. Fifty-six percent of the non-student sample carried their
social security card in their wallet. Curiously, this item, for non-students,
was positively correlated with social desirability, indicating some people
think keeping the card in their wallet or purse is the proper thing to do. This
could be corrected by a public service announcement from the Social Se
curity Administration to remind consumers to keep the card in a safe place.
There are institutional reasons older consumers might carry these cards.
For some elderly, the social security card is necessary to pick up prescrip
tions. Hence, for situations such as these, businesses could be encouraged
to not use the social security number as an identifier and not to collect this
information if it is not absolutely necessary. Others have also suggested
eliminating the social security number as an identifier used by businesses.
Finally, students need to be better informed about the dangers of pro
viding personal identifying information to merchants. While students have
less to lose by providing personal identifying information, it is important
for them to establish good personal data management practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the survey and discussion above, consumer

cation seems to be wanting for these two consumer sample groups. To
edy these shortcomings, consumers should continue to be encourag
reduce access to their personal data; closely monitor credit card act

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WINTER 2003 VOLUME 37, NUMBER 2 401

protect passwords, PINs, and social securi

sponsible information handling.
In closing, the data gathered for this resea
veys of students and non-students. Because
ploratory, the results should not generalize
both samples represent two distinct populati
shopping experience, and particular institut
personal information. The findings do sugge
differences, and thus these finding should p
sequent empirical research that tracks the ef
effort across market segments.
As the crime of identity theft becomes mo
be of value to measure the extent to which c
behaviors in cyberspace and with their wire
their identity. For example, will consumer
anonymizers, personal firewalls, or other t
themselves? Biometrics, in particular, seem
positively identify individuals (Wallich 200
In addition to educating and monitoring c
might also examine business responsibility i
Will businesses stop using the SSN as a reco
necessary information? Businesses can help
privacy policies to guide customer and client
network security, disposing of records in a
(shredding), and taking care with facsimile
sions. Changing business behavior will not b
collection practices that have been institutio
associations and the government can help ed
in preventing identity theft.

REFERENCES

Alwin, Janice A. 2002. Privacy Planning: Putting the Privacy Statutes to Work for You. DePa
ness Law Journal. 14 (Spring): 353-80.
Bruner, Gordon C., II, and Paul Hensel. 1992. Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation
Item Measures. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Crowne, Douglas P. and David Marlowe. 1960. A New Scale of Social Desirability Independ
Psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24 (August): 349-354.
Davis, Lance. 2002. With or Without Authorization, It's Still Identity Theft. McGeorge Law R
33 (Winter): 231-238.

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 402 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Economist. 2001. United States: Stealing People is Wrong

Federal Trade Commission. 2001. ID Theft: When Bad Th
.consumer.gov/idtheft/; accessed 2/13/2001.
Givens, Beth. 2000. Preventing Identity Theft: Industry Pra
Summit on Identity Theft, March 15-16, 2000. www.pri
cessed 10/24/01

Hoar, Sean. 2001. Current Development: Identity Theft—The Crime of the New Millennium. Oregon
Law Review, 80 (Spring): 1423-1447.
Hunt, Shelby D., Richard D. Sparkman, and James B. Wilcox. 1982. The Pretest in Survey Research:
Issues and Preliminary Findings. Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (May): 269-273.
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act. 1998. 18 U.S.C. S1028(a).
Lee, Jinkook and Loren V. Geistfield. 1999. Elderly Consumers' Receptiveness to Telemarketing
Fraud. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18 (2): 208-18.
Milne, George R. 2001. The Effectiveness of Self-Regulated Privacy Protection: A Review and Frame
work for Future Research. In Handbook of Marketing and Society, edited by Paul N. Bloom and
Gregory T. Gundlach (pp. 462-485). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miyazaki, Anthony D. and Ana Fernandez. 2001. Consumer Perceptions of Privacy and Security Risks
for Online Shopping. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35 (1): 27-44.
Norrgard, Lee E. and Julia M. Norrgard. 1998. Consumer Fraud: A Reference Handbook. Santa Bar
bara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Saunders, Kurt M and Bruce Zucker. 1999. Counteracting Identity Fraud in the Information Age: The
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act. International Review of Law, Computers & Tech
nology, 13 (2): 183-192.
Verton, Dan. 2001. Identity Theft Skyrockets, but Less Than 1% Occur Online. Computer World.
35 (7): 7.
Wallich, Paul. 2002. Who's Who? Scientific American. 287 (July): 19-22.

This content downloaded from

49.36.181.17 on Sun, 14 Jan 2024 13:10:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms