On Friday 08 July 2005 12:08, Dan Kaminsky wrote: > >I'm think you wrong on that one. Financial cost and benefit are easily > >assessed on this, and I think the numbers add up. Credit card fraud > >costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year, much of which > >could be eliminated by a change to the sort of system I > >mention. That's not a small amount of money. Indeed, it is more than > >enough incentive for a major change. > > Credit card fraud has gone *down* since 1992, and is actually falling: > > 1992: $2.6B > 2003: $882M > 2004: $788M > > We're on the order of 4.7 cents on the $100. > > http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050621_3238_tc02 >4.htm > > If it's any consolation, I was rather surprised myself.
I was very surprised, since my government says it is tons worse. The U.S. Government is claiming a lot more than these figures when discussing identity theft, some high amount like $40b or so. Of course, if you factor in check fraud and debit card abuse, which credit card companies treat differently and so they may not include, that might account for some of the discrepancy, but not all. The original Nilson Report quoting these figures was from March of this year (http://www.nilsonreport.com/issues/2005/830.htm has the cover page), I'd like to see the entire article. I wonder if the government's identity theft numbers include the cost to combat fraud as opposed to just losses (cost to secure transactions, cost to the consumer who has to take time off of work to close/reapply/cancel/change perhaps dozens of minute items of personal value stored in various databases, cost for the development of Prozac to help people cope with the stress of society which includes fraud and identity theft, etc). I'm not saying someone is lying, but someone is not defining context very well... -- # Simple Nomad, C²ISSP -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # C1B1 E749 25DF 867C 36D4 1E14 247A A4BD 6838 F11D # # http://www.nmrc.org/~thegnome/ #
pgp7HFoQpPvBb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
