Identity Theft [women in social media - part 1]

(Based on the movie "Catfish".)

Identity theft, according to Saounders and Zucker (2010), is usually associated with illegally obtaining one's personal data in order to use their credit card or bank account. Accordingly, it might also refer to collecting a person's ID to perform various actions (from buying adult beverages to taking a loan) in their name. Whereas such definitions are still the most commonly used and accurate, as technological advancement progresses, people have started to share their identity online.
        Blazka (2017) further links the concept to its traditional form by explaining legal consequences behind such activity:
“As online impersonations are a relatively new concept legally speaking, there are not always specific laws in place. Furthermore, with Section 33.07 of the Texas Penal Code under fire, it would be wise to consider whether existing laws, on either a state or federal level, might be positioned to provide relief. Each case being different, and the specific laws as written varying by jurisdiction, some of these legal theories might be seen as applying in the general sense.” (p. 37)
        Communities like Facebook require providing real name and surname in order to use it correctly, although Mark Zuckerberg's Internet giant is, as for now, in a minority, since most networks allow their users to pick a chosen nickname. If identity theft is understood in the sense described earlier, one might rightfully assume that users of Facebook are more prone to becoming the victim of such thievery. The more anonymous networks, however, even when the anonymity is limited only to a name, play a more significant role in faking or stealing identity online.
        To describe the reason why the users of aforementioned platforms are exposed to the danger of online identity theft in more detail, the phenomenon itself ought to be defined first. As Hancock (2009) describes it, “deception in the context of information and communication technology, or what I will call digital deception, which refers to the intentional control of information in a technologically mediated message to create a false belief in the receiver of the message.” (p. 3)
        Deliberate deception among social media users - commonly called “catfishing” - derives its name from Nev Schulman's documentary “Catfish”. In his film, the director depicts his relationship with Megan, a young woman he met online, who later turns out to be Angela Wessselman, a middle-aged mother who has been posing as Megan by using pictures of a model, Aimee Gonzales.
        Besides introducing the concept of catfishing to a larger audience, the film also illustrates the psychology behind the act. Schulman, eager to portray not only the motive of the catfish but also the feelings of the impersonated model, decides to additionally conduct an interview with Gonzales herself (who, at the beginning of their talk, has no idea that hundreds of her pictures have been used to fabricate a persona). Thanks to the director's efforts, the story in “Catfish”, as well as the interview with Aimee Gonzales, besides its educational aspect on the dangers of online relationships, also illustrates, even if not directly, the involved model's experience.
        Most social networks offer picture sharing as a basic method of establishing a user profile; yet, their targeted audience might vary. While services like Flickr allow professional photographers to share their work, Instagram – being currently one of the most popular online platforms in general – tends to focus on more amateur work. According to Hu, Manikonda, and Kambhampati (2004):

“Nearly half (46.6%) of the photos in our dataset belong to Selfies and Friends categories with slightly more self-portraits (24.2% vs. 22.4%). We also notice that Pet and Fashion are the least popular categories with less than 5% of the total number of images. This corroborates with some of the recent discoveries in popular news media. Other categories – Food, Gadget and Captioned photo contributes to more than 10% individually but are approximately same among themselves. This is in line with the conventional wisdom that Instagram is mostly used for self promoting and social networking with their friends.” (p. 597)

Gonzales, despite being a professional model, used the Internet to share amateur pictures as well. As revealed in the film, while the young woman's artistic work was what had drawn Wesselman's attention, the personal photographs were used to establish a network of fictional profiles – a step necessary to make Megan's identity seem genuine.
        Whilst discussing the catfish' methods, the questions might arise: why does one decide to steal someone else's identity to build a fabricated one online? How and why can a famous woman become a part of such forgery? To explain the reasons behind and causes of the first issue, it is necessary to understand the psyche and environment of Angela Wesselman. The film, especially the part after revealing the true identity of Megan, gives the viewer an insight into both of these factors, greatly helping to comprehend the concept of and logic behind catfishing.
        The main factor affecting those who decide to stage a fictitious online life appears to be low self-esteem. An issue that existed long before the era of social media, or even the World Wide Web itself, seems to have increased due to the availability of access to the Internet. As Niemz, Griffiths, and Banyard (2005) discuss in their study:

“If people have a low opinion of themselves and find it difficult to socialize because of their shyness or lack of self-esteem, they may use the Internet as an alternative form of socializing, in which they can open up and gain confidence without having to interact face to face. However, as it was mentioned earlier, the direction of the relationship is unclear, as a low self-esteem may be a consequence of excessive Internet use, rather than a cause.” (p 568)

In the film, the viewer is introduced to the real personality and life of Angela Wesselman. The middle-aged woman lives with her youngest daughter and second husband, Vince, in a small town in Michigan. The family's life revolves around Vince's two sons from his previous relationship – both of them are severely mentally handicapped and require continued medical care, and the parents' attention. Though Angela is fond of her step-sons and is the person responsible for fulfilling most of their needs, she expresses grief over her career as a painter that she has never had a chance to further pursue due to her commitment to Vince's children.
        In her limited spare time, she continues to paint (although does not have a platform or an ability to share her work with a wider audience), but also tries to find a way to the fruition of her fantasy of a life she has never managed to experience. She decides to create a Facebook profile, where she poses as her daughter, Abigail, shares her paintings as the girl's, and, finally, befriends Nev, the director of the film. As their friendship continues, Angela's lies – but also the relationship - become more complex. The woman sends Nev her original paintings (while still pretending they were Abigail's), and claims that the girl has her own gallery in Michigan.
        This part of Angela's continuing deception is well illustrated in the beginning of the provided explanation of how low self-esteem plays a role in online identity theft. By claiming to be Abigail, she can experience – however faint and artificial – the feeling of being a young and critically acclaimed artist. After years of being able to only fantasise about reliving her youth and achieving fame, when the dream materialises in online world, Angela becomes more indulged in her lies than she initially planned – which supports the claim that identity theft is not just the result of low self-esteem, but can also be caused by easy access to the content available online. Boyd (2008) explains Angela's mindset to even greater detail:

“Imagine that you are screaming to be heard in a loud environment when suddenly the music stops and everyone hears the end of your sentence. Most likely, they will turn to stare at you and you will turn beet red (unless exposure does not bother you).” The author also describes why it was easy for the older woman to create such elaborate lie: “Participants were not likely to post secrets, but they often posted information that was only relevant in certain contexts. The assumption was that if you were visiting someone’s page, you could access information in context. When snippets and actions were broadcast to the News Feed, they were taken out of context and made far more visible than seemed reasonable.” (p. 14)

Although not clearly stated in the film, it is suggested by Wesselman's further actions that pretending to be Abigail, however joyful it might have seemed at the beginning, would not fulfill all the expectations related to the Internet friendship the woman has developed over time.
        Through Abigail, she desired to feel youthful again, which, at the beginning, she achieved. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that the girl, oblivious to her mother's actions, was only eight years old, both in reality, and Angela's shenanigans. As it is revealed at the end of the production, the woman did, in fact, started to falsely believe that the world she had created truly existed, but it did not happen up until establishing a whole group of fake facebook identities. At the point of realising that the character of Abigail might not be sufficient for her needs, Angela was fully aware of what she was doing, and, most importantly, of her authentic identity, and hence, emotions.
        What was previously the aim, has become an obstacle, as the woman started to – genuinely – develop romantic feelings towards Nev. Abigail's age, despite being the most important factor preventing any kind of an emotional bond other than friendship and admiration for talent, was not the only reason behind Wesselman's decision to indulge into even more complex deception.
        The idea of admitting the lies to the man, and thus proving herself to be dishonest and untrustworthy was upsetting the woman, yet, surprisingly, not as much as revealing her actual, physical frame. Such thinking might paint Angela as shallow and deprived of principles in the viewer's eyes, but one should not forget the circumstances surrounding the already perplexing situation.
        Knowing Nev to be in his mid-twenties at the time of encountering Abigail, Angela suspected that he would most probably not be interested in a relationship with a much older woman, focusing on this fact even more than on her already having a life partner. She also deduced that even if those two matters were somehow overcome, her physique might have played a deciding role in stopping any further romantic involvement. Such realisation greatly distressed Angela, which exemplifies the validity of Niemz, Griffiths, and Banyard's theory.
        Wesselman's insecurities, deepened by her use of the Internet, did not, however make her refrain from continuing the relationship with Nev. Being aware of the legitimate happiness posing as Abigail had initially provided her with, she decided to create another fabricated online identity, which would not only be an embodiment of past desires, but also the current ones.This stage of Angela's deception was when Aimee Gonzales, unbeknownst to her, became involved, and where the famous woman's experience with identity theft ought to be explained in greater detail.
        Gonzales' was de facto not introduced in “Catfish” in person, yet her involvement was equally as important as Angela's. The viewer has a chance to familiarise themselves with the image of Gonzales through many pictures of her shown in the film, yet not only, at the beginning, does not see the model and photographer directly on the screen, but also does not learn her true identity. The reason for such bizarre participation was Angela's aforementioned decision to not abandon her fraudulent online activity because of the limitations of Abigail's persona.
        The Internet was the Washington-based model's main platform to share her work, both as a photographer and a model. She used networks aimed especially at people interesting in photography, but also websites like then-popular MySpace, where she posted more personal and not professional work. Fully aware of praise and criticism resulting from sharing any kind of craft online, Gonzales had not expected her pictures to be misused in any way. When asked about “Catfish” and her reaction to Wesselman's actions, in an interview conducted in 2010 by Gina Piccalo, the model admitted: “She [Angela Wesselman] went to my MySpace page, my Model Mayhem page. She was even quoting things that I would say on my pictures and she would use that on her own pictures.”
        How exactly Angela found Gonzales' work remains unknown, yet it is not difficult to understand why she chose the model's image to be the face of her newly invented character. Bearing in mind the older woman's already existing and newly developed self-esteem issues, as well as her unreciprocated romantic attachment to Nev, Aimee's persona appears to be what would alleviate the problems had Angela had the chance to possess the model's physical features. What was undoubtedly not possible to attain in an offline world, became certainly achievable online. Encouraged by the success of Abigail's bogus profile, especially after gaining enough experience in using a fake online persona thanks to it, Angela constructed a completely new character, a nineteen years old Megan Faccio.
        This is the name the viewers know Aimee Gonzales by in Schulman's production. Soon after establishing Megan's profile, Angela tried to use it to befriend Nev again, this time as a woman in her late teens (to validate the sudden Facebook invitation, Megan was introduced as Abigail's older sister).
        As the relationship between Nev and Megan quickly developed, Niemz, Griffiths, and Banyard are proven to be right yet again. Angela became even more invested in pursuing the lie as Megan (but did not stop to contact Nev as Abigail, hence her new remained to seem genuine to the man). The preference of the character of Megan can be explained by both alleviating Angela's problems with self-image and the enacted possibility of romantic interactions.
        As mentioned earlier, Abigail's fake persona allowed Angela to, however briefly, fulfill her artistic ambitions, and Megan Faccio, accordingly, personified the physical qualities the woman desired in order to form a stronger bond with Nev. The existence of Abigail's older sister profile can be explained from the perspective of both the catfish and the catfished, the first clarifying the reason behind its creation, the other describing the outcome and consequences, in this case, experienced by a famous woman.
        In Rob Frappier's interview with Nev Schulman, his brother, and a friend, who helped to shot and produce the film, the director talks about his attitude towards Megan, and his attachment to the sisters met online:

"The depth of the interaction and the extent of it was much more personal for me. (...) And it’s been a great lesson in sort of understanding why you allow yourself to, or convince yourself of something that you want — and the power of flattery and the fantasy and the escape element in all of us, in that we want something that doesn’t make sense or is unobtainable. (...) I guess I was at a point in my life where I felt like, okay, I’d like to get to the next level with a woman. I’d like to feel a really deep connection with someone, as I think everybody does, and I hadn’t found that in New York City. And so, when something came along that was so different and so unusual that I thought, “Maybe that’s why. Maybe I haven’t been looking in the right place.” Maybe there’s something so organic and genuine about this family that it will sort of take me out of this world that hasn’t worked, in regards specifically to the perfect girl, and I’ll find it somewhere else where I would least expect."

The quote, obviously, describes Nev's opinion and feelings, but can also be used as means of understanding Angela's emotions and logic. Being in a relationship where the needs of the children were the most important issue, Angela might have longed for the romantic connection she once experienced with Vince. Even though the circumstances were clearly different, as the woman thought she lost the attachment, and Nev had never been in love, they both deduced that a loving partner was what they desired at that time.
        They considered, after becoming Facebook acquaintances, that they would try to find their significant one in a place different than usual – for Nev, a native New Yorker, it was Michigan; Angela looked online for what turned out to be a refreshing, but ultimately specious bond, which involved two more, unsuspecting, yet truly affected, people – Aimee Gonzales and Vince Pierce.
        Accordingly, feelings seem to be the most important among Nev and Angela's shared experiences. “Organic and genuine”, they let both of them believe that they had found exactly what they needed. Although it might appear bizarre that a man would genuinely fall in love with a woman he has only ever seen in pictures (and, later, on the phone, heard what was supposed to be Megan speaking), it is, at the same time, not unimaginable; even though there was no physical contact, communication and appearance – both essential in forming a bond – were present.
        The catfish' emotions, however, happen to be more difficult to understand. While Nev had no idea he was being misled, Angela, despite slowly losing sense of reality, still knew the basis of the relationship was artificial. As mentioned earlier, a connection without any physical contact was sufficient for answering the woman's needs.
        Though based on elaborate lies, the affair between the catfished and the catfish would most certainly not be possible without the engagement of Gonzales. The interview with Gina Picallo comprises not only of the description of Wesselman's online activity, but also describes the model's feelings. “Gonzales says: “Your natural response is, ‘Oh, it’s OK.’ And it’s not. It’s not OK.” Wesselman-Pierce even used the name of Gonzales’ 8-year-old daughter to identify an imaginary dead pet snake. “I definitely felt violated and just completely drained,” says Gonzales, who also has a son, 6. “I don’t think I’ve ever felt so tired in my life.” The fragment allows a better insight into Aimee Gonzales' experience both as a person whose identity has been hijacked and as a famous woman sharing her work and image on social media.
        What might draw the reader's attention first is the model's children being included in the scam as well. Although Wesselman was not aiming to hurt the children, identity theft is assuredly among the dangers the Internet possesses for minors.
        Posting children's pictures and personal information online is prevalent among parents who use social media. Although majority of them does it simply to share the joys of parenting, the data, as any other information that enters the world wide web, might end up being viewed by a previously unintended party. Whether it is an online predator preying on children, or someone, like Wesselman, who does not intend to hurt the child per se, a minor's privacy can easily be jeopardized, which, if the child is mature enough to understand the situation, but not to confront it properly, can lead to serious health issues. Murburg (1994) states :


“The neurophysiological activation seen during acute stress is usually rapid and reversible. When the stressful event is of a sufficient duration, intensity, or frequency, however, these changes are not reversible. (...) In the adult, with a mature brain, the increases in catecholamine activity associated with the stress response may result in sensitization. In the developing brain, however, neurotransmitters and hormones play key roles in neuronal migration, differentiation, synaptic proliferation and overall brain development (Lauder 1988) and, therefore, the tremendous increases in neurotransmitter activity seen with severe or prolonged stress would be expected to have a significant impact on brain development.” (p. 4)

It is worth mentioning that the threats above were described as an experience of an ordinary parent and child, who, although are vulnerable to identity theft, usually do not get recognized and purposely searched for. A public person, however, attracts a bigger online following, which, most of the time, leads to the public being interested not only in their idol, but also in his or her environment. In extreme cases, such fascination heads to stalking, but it might take a less physically damaging (for the victim) and demanding (for the wrongdoer) form.
        Aimee Gonzales, as a mother herself, besides her professional and amateur work, shared information and photos related to her family as well. Wesselman, in order to make the life she had crafted on Facebook more believable, decided to use the model's child's (and, as the film reveals later, other members' of the family too) persona. One might wonder: would the chances of Angela claiming the identity of the youngest members of the Gonzales family have been lower if the young woman was a private person? Since Wesselman never explained how exactly she found Aimee's photographs, in this particular case, it might seem impossible to give a direct answer to such question; however, there are certain premises that suggest the correlation between Gonzales' profession and her children being in jeopardy of identity theft. The easiness of finding a person modeling online, the number of available pictures (which Angela collected hundreds of), and, deeper than in the case of a private individual, interest in the famous' personal life, all contribute to Aimee Gonzales, as a famous woman, being in a greater risk of the theft of her and her relatives' image than someone who has not exposed themselves on the Internet to such extent.
        The violation of the children's privacy is a serious and thought-provoking matter, and undeniably related to the model's work, yet it is not the woman's only concern linked to being catfished. In the interview, even before the mention of her son and daughter, Gonzales describes her first response – or what she thought would be her proper reaction – to the situation.
        In one of her blog posts, Sara F. Hawkins, an attorney, reminds the reader:

“Nearly every photo taken gives the author (the one who takes the photo) a protectable right to prevent others from using or reproducing that image. Of course, there are exceptions, but generally, the photographer owns the copyright. This is actually very important to know should you ever hand your camera to someone else to take a photo.” (Hawkins, 2011)
       
The quote defines the legal aspect of picture sharing. Shortly after finding out about Wesselman's shenanigans, the model contemplated pursuing legal action against the catfish, yet later chose not to, as Piccalo's interview also discloses: “Initially, Gonzales considered reporting Wesselman-Pierce to some authority to see if she had any legal recourse. In the end, though, she decided to let it go. “She didn’t really financially gain anything from me,” Gonzales reasoned. “I’m not a person that really deals with confrontation very well. I just kind of avoid it. It didn’t make sense for me.””
        Since there were no authorities involved, and the woman focuses on her emotional reaction to the theft, Gonzales' mental attitude needs to be construed in greater detail.
        The first – and for many, the logical – response to someone stealing another person's photographs is that the uploader should be aware of the risks of publicising content online. From negative commentary to more malicious, or even illegal, actions, there is no method of fully protecting oneself from the dangers the Internet possesses, and since, a person, at least in the cases where no illicit activity was present, should not feel disturbed or upset by falling a victim to such wrongdoings. The conclusion seems to be especially relevant when the famous are involved, as, usually, they are fully aware of the reaching of the Internet and easy access to the shared data.
        Gonzales', however, seems to disagree with aforementioned mindset. She admits to having felt “drained”, and refuses to simply ignore the situation she has found herself in. Although she does not openly provide a specific reason – besides, obviously, the unexpectedness and bizarreness of the situation – one might easily guess the model's conflicted emotions. Is Gonzales' chosen profession the main reason for her being exposed to such trauma? The quantity of and uncomplicated access to the pictures (also the professional ones) made her an easy target for perpetrators like Wesselman, who need a large amount of images to successfully pursue their lie.
        In conclusion, the unexpected relationship between Aimee Gonzales and Angela Wessleman illustrates one of the dangers awaiting a famous woman who decides to use social media, especially when it is meant to be a tool for sharing the work that has made them a public figure in the first place. Personalities like Mrs Gonzales become more vulnerable to identity theft, not only because of its expanding definition, but also due to a complex combination of other users' struggle to manage their own emotions correctly and deeply rooted convictions of what physical and mental features are considered superior.
        Thanks to Nev Schulman's film, one is able to understand two concepts that have already existed for a very long time – identity theft and problems with self-image – in a completely new way, as those problems both exist now, besides their traditional form, in their contemporary, online variant. Yet, first and foremost, the production is well suited to be an example that specifies and helps one introduce themselves to the issue this chapter is focused on.
        Because of what was supposed (since, as mentioned before, the specific model's beauty and youth was what Angela thought Nev would be interested in) to be her assets, Aimee Gonzales fell prey to the unexpected behaviour of a member of her Internet audience, who, yet again, was initially meant to solely admire or criticise the content they had encountered. The continuous theft, unnoticed for a time long enough to let Wesselman develop a believable new online persona on another person's expense, caused the young woman a psychological unrest, a consequence that the thief failed to consider while progressing her malpractice. It is also important to remember that the trauma was not caused only by Gonzales's reaction to her image being used as a mean to deceive others, but comprised of discovering that her daughter was involved in the hoax as well.
        The story presented in the film, provides a suitable example of a photographer struggling with identity theft, although, it is, undoubtedly, just one of numerous cases of online thievery and deception involving a well-known woman.