State as Provider

van der Meulen, Nicole S.

doi:10.1007/978-90-6704-814-9_4

Nicole S. van der Meulen²

Part of the book series: Information Technology and Law Series ((ITLS,volume 21))

856 Accesses

Abstract

Besides its function as protector of the people, the state also maintains a function as provider, at least since the early modern state (early nineteenth century). As provider, the state is responsible for the establishment of an identification infrastructure to serve as a framework for the provision of (social) services, and also to administer other aspects of daily life such as taxes, healthcare, education, employment of citizens, and others. Paul Schwartz captures the intricate connection between the service administration and its need for personal information. As Schwartz writes, “[t]he state gathers information because distribution of social services is impossible without detailed information on the citizen as client, customer, or simply person to be controlled.” Moreover, the identification infrastructure established by the state also becomes the framework used in, for example, the financial services sectors. This makes the identification infrastructure important for both the public and the private sector. This chapter provides an overview of the main components of the identification infrastructure in both the United States and the Netherlands. The main components include identification information, ‘identification’ numbers, identification documents, and instruments used for electronic identification or authentication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 39.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 54.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 54.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Schwartz (1992): 1329.
2.
Ibid: 1332.
3.
Bennett (1992): 18.
4.
Ibid.
5.
Froomkin (2009a).
6.
Ibid: 1024.
7.
Froomkin (2009a): 1025, describes how personal data “… generally includes information that can be used to locate or identify an individual: name, address, telephone number, Social Security Number, driver’s license number, account number, or credit or debit card number. It also includes more sensitive information, such as income, personal health records, military records, law enforcement investigatory records, and multifarious disclosures made in connection with the application for government licenses or benefits.”
8.
Ibid: 1026.
9.
Identity Theft Resource Center (2010b).
10.
Schermer & Wagemans (2009).
11.
Ibid: 15.
12.
Kamerstukken II 1984–1985, 18 600 VII, nr. 23.
13.
Ibid.
14.
Commissie Modernisering GBA (2001).
15.
Ibid: 7.
16.
Ibid: 8.
17.
Ibid.
18.
Koops (2001).
19.
Ibid.
20.
Ibid.
21.
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en KoninkrijksRelaties (2007).
22.
Ibid.
23.
Staatssecretaris van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (2010). Brief aan de Tweede Kamer. Betreft Modernisering GBA, May 7, 2010.
24.
Ibid.
25.
Ibid.
26.
Ibid.
27.
Kamerstukken II 2005–2006, 30 514, nr. 3.
28.
Knopjes & Loogman (2008): 19.
29.
Ibid: 21.
30.
Smith (2000): 288.
31.
Ibid.
32.
Executive Order 9397 (1943). Numbering System for Federal Accounts Relating to Individual Persons.
33.
Smith (2000): 292.
34.
Ibid: 92–293.
35.
Health, Education, and Welfare Advisory Committee (1973).
36.
Ibid.
37.
Ibid: xxii.
38.
Ibid: 132.
39.
The Privacy Act of 1974 states “[i]t shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account number.”
40.
Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)(i) states “[i]t is the policy of the United States that any State (or political subdivision thereof) may, in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver’s license, or motor vehicle registration law within its jurisdiction, utilize the social security account numbers issued by the [HEW] Secretary for the purpose of establishing the identification of individuals affected by such law, and may require any individual who is or appears to be so affected to furnish to such State (or political subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having administrative responsibility for the law involved, the social security account number (or numbers, if he has more than one such number) issued to him by the Secretary.”.
41.
Government Accountability Office (2004b).
42.
General Accounting Offce (1999a).
43.
King (1991). She furthermore states during her testimony how “… the majority of the social security number records today, over 60%, still are based on the assertions a person made at the time he or she applied for a Social Security Number. That, of course, means that the Social Security Number simply cannot be used effectively as a means of identification. And yet today it is widely used for non-Social Security purposes in the both the public and the private sectors. This expanded use was hastened by the computer revolution in the 1960 s which combined with the simplicity of using a unique number that most people had already been issued, provided the major impetus for widespread use of Social Security numbers.”
44.
Ibid: 20.
45.
Ibid: 48.
46.
Ibid: 74.
47.
Government Accountability Office (2004b): 6.
48.
See for example Rotenberg (1991), Berghel (2000) and Solove (2003).
49.
Federal Trade Commission (2008).
50.
Ibid.
51.
Cate (2004): 7.
52.
In response to questions sent by Chairman Clay Shaw of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, Chris Jay Hoofnagle and Ed Mierzwinski described how “[w]e strongly disagree with the proposition advanced by Mr. Cate in oral and written testimony on June 15, 2004 that the Social Security Number (SSN) does not play a major role in identity theft. Common sense, the experience of identity theft clearinghouses, identity theft litigation, and the academic literature support the proposition that the SSN plays a primary role in identity theft. It is almost impossible to obtain credit without a SSN, making possession of the identifier a necessary condition for the commission of identity theft.”
53.
Acquisti & Gross (2009): 10980.
54.
Kamerstukken II 1984–1985, 18 383, nr. 2.
55.
Commissie Westerhout (1970).
56.
Ibid: 46.
57.
Commissie Simons (1968).
58.
Kuitenbrouwer (1991): 79–80.
59.
Kamerstukken II 1984–1985, 18 383, nr. 2.
60.
Ibid.
61.
Ibid.
62.
Ibid.
63.
Ibid.
64.
Kuitenbrouwer (1991): 88.
65.
Ibid: 89.
66.
Kamerstukken II 1988–1989, 21 178, nr. 1.
67.
Sociaal Economische Raad (1990).
68.
Tafel van Thijn (2002).
69.
Ibid.
70.
Ibid.
71.
Ibid.
72.
Ibid.
73.
See appendix of Ibid.
74.
Ibid.
75.
Actieprogramma Andere Overheid (2003).
76.
Memorie van Toelichting voorstel van Wet BSN (2007). Unofficial version. Available at: http://www.bprbzk.nl/BSN/Informatiebank/Juridisch (last accessed July 4, 2010).
77.
TILT (2007).
78.
Ibid.
79.
Ibid.
80.
Ibid: 3.
81.
College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens (CBP) (2005a).
82.
Ibid.
83.
Ibid.
84.
Ibid.
85.
Ibid.
86.
Prins (2003).
87.
Ibid.
88.
Kamerstukken I 2007, 38 1175.
89.
Ibid.
90.
Ibid. Translation van der Meulen.
91.
Ibid. Translation van der Meulen.
92.
Het Expertise Centrum (HEC) (2007).
93.
Ibid: 62.
94.
Ibid.
95.
Nederlandse Vereniging van Banken (NVB) (2005).
96.
Dubbeling (2008).
97.
Ibid.
98.
Ibid.
99.
Wet gebruik burgerservicenummer in de financiële sector (2009). Consultation version. Available at: http://www.minfin.nl/dsresource?objectid=77290&type=org (last accessed July 12, 2010).
100.
Ministerie van Financiën (2009).
101.
Ibid.
102.
College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens (CBP) (2010b).
103.
Ibid.
104.
Wet gebruik burgerservicenummer in de zorg. Stb. 2008, 164.
105.
College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens (CBP) (2005b).
106.
Ibid.
107.
Ibid.
108.
Interview Centraal Meldpunt Identiteitsfraude, October 30, 2009, Den Haag.
109.
UWV-GAK (2002).
110.
Groebner (2007): 174–175.
111.
Ibid: 183.
112.
Ibid: 201–202.
113.
Noiriel (1996).
114.
Torpey (2001).
115.
Egelman & Cranor (2006).
116.
Identity Theft Prevention and Identity Management Standards Panel (IDSP) (2009): 9.
117.
U.S. Const., amendment X.
118.
The same agencies, bureaus, or departments also issue a basic, non-driving identity card to those unable to drive.
119.
Egelman & Cranor (2006).
120.
Ibid.
121.
Ibid.
122.
Ibid: 169.
123.
Identity Theft Prevention and Identity Management Standards Panel (IDSP) (2009).
124.
Ibid.
125.
Kent & Millett (2003): 156.
126.
Ibid: 168.
127.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (2004): 390.
128.
Ibid.
129.
Pub. L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231.
130.
Ibid.
131.
Ibid.
132.
“In general,” the Act states, “… a State shall require, at a minimum, presentation and verification of the following information before issuing a driver’s license or identification card to a person:
1. (A)
  A photo identity document, except that a non-photo identity document is acceptable if it includes both the person’s full legal name and date of birth.
2. (B)
  Documentation showing the person’s date of birth.
3. (C)
  Proof of the person’s social security account number or verification that the person is not eligible for a social security account number.
4. (D)
  Documentation showing the person’s name and address of principal residence.”
133.
The Act therefore demands the States to “require, before issuing a driver’s license or identification card to a person, valid documentary evidence that the person--
1. (i)
  is a citizen of the United States;
2. (ii)
  is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent or temporary residence in the United States;
3. (iii)
  has conditional permanent resident status in the United States;
4. (iv)
  has an approved application for asylum in the United States or has entered into the United States in refugee status;
5. (v)
  has a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa status for entry into the United States;
6. (vi)
  has a pending application for asylum in the United States;
7. (vii)
  has a pending or approved application for temporary protected status in the United States;
8. (viii)
  has approved deferred action status; or
9. (ix)
  has a pending application for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States or conditional permanent resident status in the United States.”
134.
Harper (2006): 145.
135.
Froomkin (2009b): 252.
136.
Egelman & Cranor (2006).
137.
Department of Homeland Security (2009).
138.
See http://www.realnightmare.org/.
139.
Sobel (2002): 323.
140.
National Governors Association (2006).
141.
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) (2008): 21.
142.
Telephone Interview March 19, 2009, Washington, DC.
143.
Sobel (2002): 343.
144.
Ibid.
145.
Ibid.
146.
Froomkin (2009b): 18–19.
147.
Sobel (2002): 363.
148.
Carafano (2008).
149.
Kamerstukken II 1987–1988, 20 559, nr. 7.
150.
Ibid: 31.
151.
‘Parlementaire enquête paspoortproject (1984–1988)’ (n.d.). Available at:
http://www.parlement.com (last accessed July 14, 2010).
152.
Kamerstukken II 1987–1988, 20 559, nr. 7.
153.
Ibid.
154.
Ibid.
155.
Ibid.
156.
Ibid.
157.
Ibid.
158.
Ibid.
159.
Ibid.
160.
Ibid.
161.
Kamerstukken II 1987–1988, 20 559, nr. 8: 2.
162.
Ibid.
163.
TNO is an independent research organization.
164.
‘De fraudegevoeligheid van paspoorten’ (1999). Trouw. Available at: http://www.trouw.nl/krantenarchief/1999/10/06/2413428/De_fraudegevoeligheid_van_paspoorten.html (last accessed July 13, 2010).
165.
Ibid.
166.
Ibid.
167.
Ibid.
168.
Ibid.
169.
Interview ID Management Centre, October 21, 2009, Den Haag.
170.
Ibid.
171.
Ibid.
172.
Ibid.
173.
Kamerstukken II 1998–1999, 25 764, nr. 10.
174.
Kamerstukken II 1997–1998, 25 764, nr. 4.
175.
Kamerstukken II 1997–1998, 25 764, nr. 7.
176.
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (2003).
177.
Kamerstukken II 2003–2004, 25 764, nr. 22.
178.
Pub. L. No. 107-173 (H.R. 3525).
179.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2003).
180.
Council of the European Union (2004).
181.
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (2005).
182.
Kamerstukken I 2008–2009, 31 324 (R1844), C.
183.
Ibid.
184.
Ibid.
185.
Eligible travel documents include national passport, diplomatic passport, service passport, travel document for refugees, travel document for immigrants, emergency document, and any other document approved by the Minister of Justice of the Netherlands. The Dutch identification card which is accepted by all Member States within the European Union pursuant to the European Agreement on the movement of people between the Member States, which was signed on 13 December 1957 in Paris, is also considered among the classification of eligible travel documents.
186.
RDW (2009).
187.
Lütter & van Troost (2006).
188.
Ibid.
189.
RDW (2007).
190.
Ibid.
191.
Ibid.
192.
Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences.
193.
The focus on look-alike fraud is a central feature of the government in the Netherlands. The RDW states how as a result of the verification of the document as opposed to the verification of the person in possession of the document look-alike fraud is a rising means used to commit identity theft (RDW 2009).
194.
RDW (2009).
195.
Ibid.
196.
There is a certain irony about the ability of the United States to exert influence over the quality of identification documents in other countries in contrast to its ability to exert a similar influence within its own borders.
197.
RDW (2009).
198.
Kamerstukken II 2005–2006, 30 438, nr. 3.
199.
See also Ibid: 2–3.
200.
Koninklijke Marechaussee (2003).
201.
Ibid.
202.
Ibid: 23.
203.
Ibid.
204.
RDW (2009).
205.
Gemeente Amsterdam & Politie Amsterdam-Amstelland (2009).
206.
Ibid.
207.
Ibid.
208.
Ibid.
209.
Ibid.
210.
Hernon & Cullen (2006).
211.
Seifert (2006): 25.
212.
Hernon & Cullen (2006).
213.
Ibid.
214.
Cate (2008): 435–436.
215.
Fenwick et al. (2009).
216.
Ibid.
217.
Dutton et al. (2005).
218.
Prins (2007): 279.
219.
Lambrinoudakis et al. (2003): 1874.
220.
Salem (2003).
221.
Ibid.
222.
Office of the Vice President (1997).
223.
Seifert (2008).
224.
Ibid.
225.
Holden & Millett (2005).
226.
Senate Report 105–335.
227.
Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), Pub. L. No. 105-277, Title XVII.
228.
Office of Management and Budget (2000). Implementation of the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_gpea2/ (last accessed July 5, 2010).
229.
These are:
1. (1)
  Intra-agency transactions (i.e., those which remain within the same Federal agency).
2. (2)
  Inter-agency transactions (i.e., those between Federal agencies).
3. (3)
  Transactions between a Federal agency and state or local government agencies.
4. (4)
  Transactions between a Federal agency and a private organization such as: contractor, business, university, non-profit organization, or other entity.
5. (5)
  Transactions between a Federal agency and a member of the general public.
6. (6)
  Transactions between a Federal agency and a foreign government, foreign private organization, or foreign citizen.
230.
Ibid.
231.
Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 44 U.S.C. § 101, H.R. 2458/S. 803.
232.
Seifert (2008): 4.
233.
Interview, February 6, 2009, Washington DC.
234.
General Accounting Office (GAO) (2003).
235.
Ibid: 24.
236.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (2003).
237.
Ibid: 1.
238.
Ibid.
239.
Ibid.
240.
Dutch eGovernment Knowledge Centre (2005).
241.
Kamerstukken II 1994–1995, 23 900, nr. 20.
242.
Dutch eGovernment Knowledge Centre (2005).
243.
Ibid.
244.
Ibid: 2.
245.
Ibid.
246.
Kamerstukken II 1998–1999, 26 387, nr. 1.
247.
Ibid.
248.
Ibid.
249.
See for example De Digitale Delta: Nederland oNLine (1999); Kamerstukken II 1999–2000, 26 387, nr. 8.
250.
Kamerstukken II 2000–2001, 26 387, nr. 9.
251.
Ibid.
252.
The national government had already surpassed this percentage in 2000, since the national government already provided 32% of its services online to citizens and 45% to businesses. The lack of participation by municipalities therefore leads to a lower overall percentage of electronic service delivery.
253.
Kamerstukken II 2003–2004, 29 362, nr. 1.
254.
Ibid.
255.
Kamerstukken II 2003–2004, 26 387, nr. 23.
256.
Ibid.
257.
Ibid.
258.
Ibid.
259.
Ibid.
260.
These include de Belastingdienst, Informatie Beheer Groep (IB-Groep), Centrum voor Werk en Inkomen (CWI), het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen (UWV), de Sociale Verzekeringsbank (SVB) en het College voor Zorgverzekeringen (CvZ).
261.
Vicus (n.d.). DigiD. Available at: http://www.ketenauthenticatie.nl/digid.html (last accessed July 5, 2010).
262.
Ibid.
263.
Voortgangsrapportage e-overheid Najaar 2009 (2010). Available at: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2009/12/14/bijlage-1-voortgangsrapportage-e-overheid-najaar2009/voortgangsrapportagee-overheidnajaar2009.pdf (last accessed July 13, 2010).
264.
Wijndelts (2007).
265.
Ibid.
266.
Lodder (2007): 14.
267.
Feldmann (2006).
268.
De Koning (2006).
269.
Interview IB Groep, October 5, 2007, Tilburg.
270.
Welfing & Veugen (2008).
271.
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (n.d.). DigiD. Available at: http://www.logius.nl/producten/toegang/digid/ontwikkeling/planning/ (last accessed July 13, 2010).
272.
Stb. 2004, 214.
273.
All of these services and aspects are listed at: http://www.e-overheidvoorburgers.nl/producten,mijnoverheid-nl (last accessed July 13, 2010).
274.
Ernst & Young (2009).
275.
Osborne & Gaebler (1992).
276.
De Nationale Ombudsman (2009).
277.
Froomkin (2009a).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

The Centre of Expertise (HEC), van de Spiegelstraat 12, 2518, ET, The Hague, The Netherlands
Nicole S. van der Meulen

Authors

Nicole S. van der Meulen
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole S. van der Meulen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van der Meulen, N.S. (2011). State as Provider. In: Financial Identity Theft. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 21. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-814-9_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-814-9_4
Published: 30 September 2011
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-813-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-814-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

TMC Asser Press (opens in a new tab)