Title: CONTENT COLLECTED IN THE FIRST YEAR

Content collected in the first year

In order to collect the samples to be input into the prototype, a network of correspondents was set up. This yielded the following correspondents (as of 30 April 2005):

1. Belgium, Hans Graux, KU Leuven

2. Canada, Shaun Brown, Industry Canada

3. Czech Republic, Vaclav Matyas, Masaryk University, Brno

4. Denmark, Henrik Udsen, University of Copenhagen

5. Finland, Tuomas Pöysti, Ministry of Finance and University of Helsinki

6. France, Cyril Murie, Eric Freyssinet, Forensic Research Institute of the Gendarmerie Nationale, Engineering & digital technologies division (IRCGN/DCIN)

7. Germany, Henry Kraseman, Independent Center for Privacy Protection, Schleswig-Holstein

8. Greece, Vagelis Papakonstantinou, Drakopoulos Law Firm

9. Hungary, Gábor Hontert, ISRI

10. Mexico, Cristos Velasco, North American Consumer Project on Electronic Commerce

11. Netherlands, Mark Dekker, Tilburg University

12. Slovakia, Jozef Vyskoc, VAF

13. Sweden, Helena Andersson, Stockholm University

14. United Kingdom, Peter Sommer, LSE

In the next workplan period, an effort will be made to extend the network of country correspondents with other EU countries not represented in FIDIS.  

Apart from the country correspondents, researchers at Tilburg University conducted a literature search for ID-related laws in other countries, including the US. 

Both sources yielded information on official ID documents and some information on ID theft-related laws. However, since ID theft was not found to be a category used in EU legislation (see FIDIS deliverable D5.1), relatively little input could so far be given for the categories B1 and B2. The main conclusion to be drawn from the first year is therefore that the initial categorisation of ID theft-related laws, based on the US legal system, is not a particularly good one to present information about European legislation related to ID theft. In fact, the term ‘ID theft’ is contested and inappropriate (see FIDIS deliverable D5.1), and the closely related term ‘ID fraud’ is also not a category that features in European legislation as such. As a consequence, the initial database structure should be adapted. In the following section, we present a new categorisation that will be more appropriate for the ID Law Survey.