Home > Identity Theft > After a Decline, Identity Fraud Rose in 2011

Comments 1 Comment

More than 11.5 million Americans became victims of identity fraud in 2011, a disappointing 12.6-percent increase after a dramatic decline the previous year, according to a new study released this week by Javelin Strategy & Research.

The study also found that users of popular social media websites are putting themselves at greater risk of identity fraud. The highest fraud rate was among LinkedIn users, 10.1 percent of whom had their identities stolen and used for fraud in 2011, according to the study.

Google+ users came in second, with a fraud rate of 7 percent. Next came Twitter and Facebook users, who suffered higher average rates of fraud than the 4.9 percent experienced by all consumers nationally. Identity fraud was also significantly higher among people who check into social media sites using the GPS function on their mobile devices, and people who click on new applications.

“Regardless of privacy settings, the Internet facilitates the dissemination of personal information that was previously difficult to obtain by fraudsters,” according to the report. “While the information on these profiles is often used for their intended purposes, fraudsters can also leverage information found on these profiles into spear phishing attacks against the user.”

Ever since Javelin started issuing reports on identity theft eight years ago, there was a consistent relationship between the economy and fraud: As the economy improved, identity fraud went down. But 2011 was the first year when that correlation didn’t hold. The incidence rate of fraud involving existing credit cards shot up 39 percent in 2011, even as the economy expanded somewhat, largely because unemployment remains high, according to Javelin.

Despite the fact that identity fraud hurt more people, the actual cost to the average victim went down, from $625 in 2010 to $472 last year, Javelin found. That’s at least partly because new account fraud declined, while existing account fraud increased.

Thieves are able to steal significantly more money by opening new accounts in victims’ names because it typically takes consumers longer to detect the scam, and companies longer to shut it down.

Hijacking existing accounts is easier to detect, and quicker to resolve, Javelin says. Many other types of fraud were not included in the study, including crime resulting from medical, criminal, tax or synthetic identity theft.

Victims of identity fraud are much more likely to have high incomes. The identity fraud rate among people with incomes over $150,000 was 7.7 percent, more than double the rate among people with incomes below $15,000.

Nevertheless, low-income people wind up paying a higher price out-of-pocket when their identities are used for fraud. High-income consumers paid just $82, on average, the lowest of all income groups, while people making below $15,000 paid $898, significantly more than any other income group.

That’s largely because high-income people are much more likely to have their identities stolen by way of their credit cards, which have significant protections against fraud. Many credit card issuers hold cardholders blameless in fraud, and eat the costs themselves. People with lower incomes are less likely to have credit cards, making them more vulnerable to identity frauds against which they have no protection.

“Those in the lowest income bracket are subjected to the most detrimental types of fraud: account takeover fraud and new account fraud,” the report found. “As a result, nearly half (47%) of victims with annual incomes less than $15,000 report that they are very affected or severely affected by fraud, compared to 18% of fraud victims overall.”

Image: psyberartist, via Flickr.com

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other sponsored content on Credit.com are Partners with Credit.com. Credit.com receives compensation if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any financial products or cards offered.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team