Shop, Swipe and Smile.  With SmartSwipe it is that easy.


Nov 04
2009

Phonebusters Releases Its October Numbers

Posted by Greg Hluska in Online ScamsIdentity Theft

Those of you who follow this spot know that I am a big fan of Phonebusters and that I like to re-print and promote their statistics on identity theft in Canada. Further, you may have noticed a rather troubling trend - identity theft seems to be on the rise.

With that trend in mind, I was especially happy to see Phonebusters' October numbers. In October 2009, only 295 people called Phonebusters and reported being a victim of identity theft! These people were defrauded out of a total of $609,933.79. Those numbers compare favourably to September 2009, when 808 people were defrauded out of a total of $1,143,206.95.

I do not have enough historical information to comment upon whether this could just be a seasonal decline, but let's hope that this is a sign that identity theft is finally starting to slow down.

Finally, I want to add in my standard disclaimer. These numbers are not a complete snapshot of identity theft in Canada. People are not required to report identity theft to Phonebusters, rather, reporting is fully voluntary. Unfortunately, despite all the interviews and presentations they do, many people do not even know that Phonebusters exists. Let's try to change that in 2010...

Trackback(0)
Comments (6)Add Comment
0
...
written by N Sharifimehr, November 06, 2009
So we can conclude that now people are more aware of fraud techniques and the cyber-world has become a safer place, right? Or we can say fraudsters have become smarter and they've taken it to the next level? I was reading something in news about a trojan which steals money from victims' accounts and when they go to their online banking pages they won't notice it at all! How? Because the trojan fixes up their balance for them ;)
0
Perhaps...
written by Greg H., November 06, 2009
Hey Nima....

"So we can conclude that now people are more aware of fraud techniques and the cyber-world has become a safer place, right?"

Thanks for the comment, but unfortunately, neither the numbers nor the methodology support that conclusion. Phonebusters monitors identity theft as a whole and does not publish stats about the source of the theft. Even more damaging, these statistics are not complete - they only represent those victims who choose to report their cases to Phonebusters.

My hope is that, in two or three years, I will be able to look back at all of these numbers, graph them out alongside economic /social indicators and find some correlations. My belief is that, when economic times are bad, two things will happen. First, there will be more cases of identity theft. And second, more people will report that they have been victimized. I'm curious about this relationship and would like to learn more!
0
...
written by Greg H., November 06, 2009
I think you should write an article about that trojan that not only steals, but also covers its tracks!
0
...
written by N Sharifimehr, November 08, 2009
What you mentioned is very true, "neither the numbers nor the methodology support that conclusion". My point is that even if Phonebusters had reported zero frauds, we could not "hope" that this is a sign that identity theft is slowing down in any ways. Why? Because neither the security industry has applied any fundamental change on the current infrastructure nor the fraudsters are praying instead of preying!
0
...
written by Greg H., November 09, 2009
Great point, Nima!

I think it would be really fun to graph out long-term identity theft numbers alongside some economic indicators. My gut feeling is that the rate of identity theft is a function of the chance of getting caught, the degree of protection against identity theft, and certain economic measures.
0
...
written by N Sharifimehr, November 09, 2009
Hmmm... well I believe in butterfly effect and chaos theory too and I am not saying that none of those indicators is effective on the reported numbers. However, I have always been hesitant to analyze the numbers and connect them with the indicators I know of. Because, in my opinion there are always hidden indicators which are too complex to describe them in a simpler way than the way that they are. More interestingly, those hidden indicators usually are the most effective ones. Maybe that is why I like dynamic hidden Markov models better than simple HMMs with presumed states lol though to be honest it is just because of my laziness cuz the dynamic ones define their own states as needed without me forcing them!

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Powered by Azrul's MyBlog for Joomla!