[emn13]

Honestly: I don't think the term "identity theft" is a good one. It's not clear at all what exactly that even means unless people have had it explained to them; and even then it's pretty vague and encompasses lots of things.

Identify theft is a kind of fraud or perhaps libel, but it's certainly not conventional theft.

Nevertheless, the term has taken on a life of its own, and that's just the way language works. The problem arises when people say inane things like "you wouldn't steal a car, would you?". That analogy is sort of like saying you shouldn't go on strike, after all, you wouldn't want somebody to strike you, right?

So, is it theft? Well, from a linguistic perspective: it's called whatever it's called. But it's simply deceptive to pretend that merely because the same word is used that the meaning must be equivalent too. It's particularly unfortunately that the manipulation of language is probably intentionally deceptive; the notion of intellectual property didn't arise amongst the average English speaker, but amongst a special interest group that stands to gain by causing this particular confusion.

[eric_h]

> Identify theft is a kind of fraud or perhaps libel, but it's certainly not conventional theft.

there is some argument that it is conventional theft. It does, essentially, render the original unfit for use until considerable time is spent repairing it.

[emn13]

Sure, if you squint just the right way, and ignore the fact that your identity isn't actually gone only partially vandalized. It's theft the same way your neighbor steals your house when he builds an ugly shed that blocks your view.

It really isn't the same thing. It's vaguely related, and that's fine, but pretending the two meanings are identical in an analogy (you wouldn't steal a car?) is still disingenuous.