Our class has been discussing how to identify people and the reasons to document individuals and analyze their appearance. In our last class credit scores and Social Security numbers came up. In recent times people in America have become whatever their credit score allows them to be. Before you buy anything or open various types of accounts, either cell phone or signing a lease, your credit score is checked. The individual in America is now whoever has a social security number attached to a credit report. This article from the New York Times is about a new form of crime involving social security numbers. People are stealing the social security numbers of random people, to file the taxes before their victim can so they can get the cash refund. What stood out most to me was the author of the piece, Lizette Alvarez, makes a point of stating “some violent criminals have traded their guns for laptops.” It was interesting that Ms. Alvarez felt the need to emphasize that a certain type of criminal is committing this crime. Later on in the article she writes “The criminals, some of them former drug dealers…” I do not understand the need to qualify the crime by stating that criminals of other crimes do this. The article explains the vulnerability of people’s identity and the way in which criminals use social security numbers and other information to commit the crime of Identity Theft. It is interesting to me because this is a crime based on the idea that we all need a number to identify who we are and how vulnerable we are because of it.
Andrew Conyers
I definitely agree that we are vulnerable because of our Social Security numbers. However, I think the Social Security number is absolutely essential to maintaining the order within society, and cannot think of an alternative to the identification system we currently have in place. The Simon A. Cole literature that we read and discussed in class (Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification) gives examples of just how chaotic life was before proper identification was introduced, and eventually mandated. There was no absolute, foolproof way to effectively identify someone. The case of Martin Guerre’s true identity was determined by a pair of wooden shoes, “tests of memory, evaluations of dialects, and the confused and divided recollections of eyewitnesses.” If that is not a testament to the need for proper, documented identification, I don’t know what is.
As for the way Alvarez described the perpetrators – she’s just a member of the media that is going for shock value, in my opinion. Furthermore, many of writers and reporters have been using such language to describe this specific point lately. They’re exaggerating in order to prove the point that there is no stereotypical “criminal” anymore—not that there ever was—but instead, crime itself has gone through somewhat of an evolution. Members of the media have been known to embellish a little. The “guns for laptops” statement is pretty ridiculous, though. I think it’s safe to say that most individuals that are smart/skilled enough to hack the computers, files, and information of others, are not very familiar with guns and drug dealing.