[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 142 (Wednesday, November 1, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S11491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          INTERNET FALSE IDENTIFICATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2000

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have worked 
with Senator Collins on Senate passage of S. 2924, the ``Internet False 
Identification Prevention Act of 2000.'' This legislation is an 
important step forward in the fight against identity theft.
  ``The Internet False Identification Prevention Act of 2000'' 
recognizes that the crime of identity theft has entered the Internet 
age, and that the Federal government has a responsibility to bring our 
identity theft laws up to speed. The primary law governing false 
identification documents was enacted in 1982, well before the advent of 
websites and e-mail.
  Specifically, this legislation prohibits individuals from knowingly 
producing, distributing, or offering for download from the Internet 
computer files or templates that are designed to make counterfeit 
identification documents.
  While the total number of false identification documents sold on the 
Internet is unknown, purveyors of false identification documents have 
used the Internet to sell their wares to a much broader market, and to 
distribute these documents as quickly as they can be downloaded from a 
website. According to a study by the Senate Committee of Government 
Affairs, one web site operator reported that he sold 1,000 fake IDs a 
month yielding $600,000 in annual sales.
  The ``Internet False Identification Prevention Act of 2000'' also 
closes a loophole in current law that permitted manufacturers of false 
identification documents to escape liability by displaying a 
disclaimer, ``Not a Government Document.'' These disclaimers, however, 
can be easily removed. The bill also directs the Attorney General and 
the Secretary of the Treasury to coordinate efforts to investigate and 
prosecute the distribution of false identification documents on the 
Internet.
  I would note that this bill contains an exemption from criminal 
liability for certain ``interactive computer services.'' This language 
reflects a narrow, one-time solution and I want it to be clear that 
this should not be considered as a precedent.
  Congress has debated the issue of whether the liability of certain 
Internet service providers should be limited with respect to particular 
activities of their subscribers or users of their services. This is a 
complicated question, requiring careful deliberation and evaluation of 
the short- and long-term consequences. A full debate on this issue is 
needed in the 107th Congress.

                          ____________________