The way it usually works is that the criminals use the child’s Social Security number to open lines of credit; after all, that number is all that’s needed to steal an identity. The crooks eventually leave the child’s credit history in shambles. The child probably won’t know any of this, however, until he or she decides to open his or her own credit line as an adult, at which point the credit report will already show the damage (which might have accumulated over 10 or 15 years). In short, the child begins his or her adult life with lots of debt that they had nothing to do with acquiring. Not a great way for a child-turned-adult to start experiencing grown-up finances! Other ways that this problem can materialize before adulthood include collection agencies calling or sending letters regarding accounts that the child allegedly opened, or even a 16-year-old being told at the Driver’s License office that another license already exists with their Social Security number.   

It’s hard to tell how widespread this problem is, since most identity theft reports don’t track it. “We don’t ask for age in our identity-theft surveys,” said Claudia Bourne Farrell, spokeswoman for the Federal Trade Commission (as quoted in the Dallas Morning News). “Our self-reported, anecdotal data indicates that about 5 percent of the complaints last year were for people 18 and under.” It’s possible that the actual number of identity thefts involving children is higher, since many victims don’t learn about and report the theft until they are no longer minors.

Shouldn’t the credit card company know not to give credit to someone who is using a minor’s Social Security number? Not necessarily. Credit issuers don’t usually check the age of applicants for accuracy. It’s difficult to verify things like age on a credit application, so much of the information given on those applications is simply assumed to be correct.

So how can we protect kids from identity theft? The responsibility lies, of course, with the parents. First, parents need to make sure that all sensitive documents concerning their children (such as Social Security cards) are filed away safely and securely. Parents should never carry those numbers around with them. If anyone asks for the child’s Social Security number, the parents must ask why it is needed and whether another piece of information can be substituted.

Second, parents need to be vigilant in protecting the child’s information; for example, if they open a bank account or college fund for their child, they must tell the bank to remove the child’s name from any mailing lists. 

Third, the parents must be observant and watch for the possible signs of identity theft, such as the child receiving credit card offers in the mail (some of these offers are just age-unaware marketing, but they can also be indicative of something far more sinister). If the child does receive such offers, or if parents simply want to be thorough in their protection, they should check their child’s credit report to make sure there’s nothing on it. This doesn’t apply if, for example, a parent puts a teenage child on their credit card for spending purposes, but in general, minors don’t have a credit history because they don’t have any activity on their record.

If a parent looks into the child’s credit history and actually FINDS activity, what should he or she do? First, ask to have all of those fraudulent accounts removed from the report. This may mean going through the dispute process with the credit companies. Once the credit issuer learns that the account is in a minor’s name, they will usually cooperate with fixing the problem. Also, report the identity theft to all three of the credit reporting bureaus: Experian, TransUnion and Equifax (for Equifax, you can write directly to their Minor Child Department at P.O. Box 105139, Atlanta, Georgia 30348).

The ideal situation, of course, is to prevent any problems before they arise. Aside from the need for parents to be vigilant in protecting their children’s information, parents must also teach children not to give out sensitive information online or over the phone. Children frequently don’t grasp the importance of maintaining privacy and security, especially when it comes to information that they don’t entirely understand. When I was 13, I knew my Social Security number, but I also probably would have told anyone who asked me what it was. I didn’t know how important it was to my financial future. I’m just lucky that no one ever asked.

Side note: Sometimes, the parents are the ones who steal the child’s identity. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a case of family law. If you know or suspect that someone is using their child’s identity for credit purposes, report the case to the police immediately. A police report is necessary for credit companies to take the case seriously. Cooperate with any investigation, as well.

Sources for this article: The Dallas Morning News, FraudGuides.com, ConsumerAffairs.com, Identity Theft Resource Center

COPA is the Child Online Protection Act, enacted in 1998 (not to be confused with COPPA, which we posted about before). According to the COPA Commission, which was the Congressional panel formed along with the law, “The purpose of the Act is to prohibit online sites from knowingly making available to minors material that is ‘harmful to minors’ (sexually explicit material meeting definitions set forth in the Act).” In essence, COPA would punish U.S. providers who post material that is “harmful to minors” online for commercial purposes without providing some sort of age verification system, such as requiring a credit card number, in order to keep children from viewing it. COPA was designed to be a narrower law than it’s predecessor, the much-derided Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, which was struck down on constitutional grounds in 1997 by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If COPA were enforced, those who did not take adequate measures to keep children from viewing sexually explicit material on their websites would be subject to fines of up to $50,000 per offense, prison terms of six months, or both. But COPA is not enforced; it has been inactive almost since its inception because of challenges to its constitutionality by the ACLU and other plaintiffs. In the past, appeals courts have struck down the law for being in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has upheld the injunction on enforcement because of the likelihood that the law is unconstitutional. The case was referred back to the district court in 2006, and a ruling in 2007 once again saw the law struck down.

Now for the latest news: Despite defenses of the law from the Justice Department, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld the lower court’s decision to strike down COPA as unconstitutional. It’s another blow for the government in this drawn-out battle over how to legislate online protection for minors. As the Center for Democracy and Technology put it, “Congress has spent twelve years attempting to use criminal laws to censor protected online speech on the Internet that is lawful for adults to access. That approach to protect children online has been an utter failure.” 

So just what is the problem with COPA? Protecting kids from harmful material is a great idea, right? The intent may be good, but the law itself is flawed. For one thing, the standards for defining “harmful material” are far too loose and open to interpretation as COPA is written. Even mainstream movies, TV shows, artwork and other socially-valuable speech viewed via the internet could fall under the definition of “harmful materials.” The law’s critics point out that COPA infantilizes the internet and places the burden of responsibility on websites for preventing minors from seeing material directed at adults; even a news site that contains a very small amount of adult material would fall under the umbrella of COPA. The law, as the judges wrote in this latest opinion, “effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and address to one another…and thus is overbroad. These burdens would chill protected speech.”

In addition, when dealing with free speech rights, the best legal course of action is always to take the least-restrictive means, which COPA does not (filters that parents could install at home would be more effective and less restrictive than COPA). And in the end, COPA can’t stop kids from seeing harmful material that originates on websites outside of the U.S., or on non-commercial sites.

So how can we protect kids from seeing harmful content online? The responsibility lies with the parents, not with the websites. Sites like this one offer tips for parents to maintain control over their children’s internet surfing habits and offer ways to tell if your child might be viewing something they shouldn’t be. Tips include monitoring kids’ internet access, educating them on the dangers of giving out personal information, restricting the use of online chat forums, and using filtering software in order to control the flow of information that the children receive. All of this is far more reasonable and effective than a broad-spectrum, speech-limiting law like COPA. 

Just like in other forms of media, parents are required to be the ultimate gatekeepers to what the children can access. The government cannot force websites to be parents to the detriment of society’s free speech. A free exchange of information and ideas, even at the adult level, is the very definition of the freedom of speech described in the First Amendment. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did the correct thing in coming down on the side of rights, not restrictions.

Sources for this article: ABC News, The COPA Commission, Child Online Protection Act, Online Child Privacy Tips for Parents, the Center for Democracy and Technology