Slashdot Mirror
Data Theft Soars to Unprecedented Levels
A Wired article reports on data loss in 2007, and the numbers aren't good. Credit card and social security theft was at an all-time high, with even more losses expected in 2008. Information thieves, it seems, are just one step ahead of IT security. "While companies, government agencies, schools and other institutions are spending more to protect ever-increasing volumes of data with more sophisticated firewalls and encryption, the investment often is too little too late. 'More of them are experiencing data breaches, and they're responding to them in a reactive way, rather than proactively looking at the company's security and seeing where the holes might be,' said Linda Foley, who founded the San Diego-based Identity Theft Resource Center after becoming an identity theft victim herself."
This seems like a consequence of being able to carry gigabytes of data around in your pocket. It is probably all too easy for the odd database to duplicate into an employee's thumbdrive these days I suspect.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Is data theft at an all-time high because of hackers or just dumb companies not encrypting their backup data that gets lost in transit?
I don't know what the trouble is with the 'myminicity' thing, so I'll just comment on the synopsis.
It has to be noted that since much data these days appears to be stored unencrypted, or removed from the premises by 'interns,' that much of the populace is 'one step ahead.' The advantage the bad guys have, beyond institutional stupidity and negligence, is that there's so many of them willing to exchange the data once acquired.
Irresponsible data handling by employees at retail stores probably contributes quite a bit.
One of my friends went dumpster diving at Compusa. On top of finding almost every cable you'd ever need to hook anything up, he found over 70 pages of daily reports disclosing full credit card numbers, expiration dates, first/last names, and card company. Personal checks that were used during that day listed the account #, routing #, first/last name, birthdate, drivers license #, address, phone number, and probably some other stuff. He found this on two separate occasions, with over 300 cards listed total. None of the papers were shredded/torn either. He didn't intend to find this stuff - Imagine how easy it must be for somebody who actually wants the information!
The majority of the population doesn't understand how seriously security needs to be taken when venturing online to make purchases. If people understood going onto unsecured networks/etc was pretty much the same as leaving your credit card/checkbook in the front seat of your car, leaving the doors unlocked, and parking it in a bad neighborhood they might take security more seriously.
Sure - Most of the time if you leave stuff in your car unsecured, it'll be there when you get back. But there's always that small chance it'll get stolen.
has itself grown in size to unprecidented levels, I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that data THEFT has also grown to unprecidented levels. The real question is, when normalized for how much data is "out there", is data theft getting more or less rampant?
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
The post states that "Information thieves, it seems, are just one step ahead of IT security.". I disagree with this, but it all depends on your definition of IT security, mine being more on the tech side in relation to protection, countermeasures and network forensics. The article really does not make any claim that IT security is at fault, but rather that counter measures to known threats are not being empyloyed. In relation to the quoted statement above, I would say that information theives are five steps ahead of those of don't take measures to protect against threats, rather than being ahead of IT security. I guess it could be argued that IT security is indirectly responsible, or failing, as user education and policy are major parts of protecting corporate networks and data. The failure in these cases seems to be more related to a lack of user knowledge or failure to adhere to policy / weak policy, rather than a complete inability of IT security to protect information. Everyone knows that the internet is a dangerous place (TM), even my grandma. For those in government, schools etc to have data stolen and claim that they didn't know about the risks posed of using online data systems is just plain stupid. According to TFA, the biggest theft of information occurred due to the use of a wireless network. "What! Wireless isn't secure? I had no idea!" Only if you had your head firmly wedged up your own back passage could you as a security professional, or even semi professional ;) claim that you had no idea of the many vulnerabilities of wireless networks...
"They looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined"
The feds could initiate a program under which all citizens are issued key fobs similar to RSA Secure IDs with verification similar to that required for a passport. Without this fob, one could not open any sort of bank account or acquire a credit card or loan... The program could allow one to specify various levels of rigor beyond this basic minimum, such as pin+fob key verification to complete any sort of electronic monetary transaction.
It works for managing access to top secret material, hundreds of billions in monetary instruments and the most vital systems of companies in every industry worldwide... I suppose that on an individual basis, any person's assets, credit and livelihood just aren't as important. Or, perhaps the very industries that protect themselves with this system just don't give a fuck about their consumers.
If these folks were landlords, they'd tell every criminal they could find who you are and were you live, and they'd refuse to install a lock on your door.
Real identity theft would be taking over someone's identity (probably with some lame face exchange technology) so that the rightful owner can no longer utilize it.
I've seen interviews of people who say they no longer can utilize their identity to do the things they expect to be able to do, buy a house, open a credit account, and have their previous credit rating.
So they feel their identity has been stolen.
rd
You joke, but this type of problem is real. The reason spam continues to proliferate is because it, on some dark, evil plane, works. People answer it or by the products it hawks. The reason malware sites, such as the type of phishing sites you quipped about, continue to work, is primarily because people are easy marks.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to click this link that says my PayPal account needs updating.
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
Studies have shown that auto theft reached unprecedented levels in 1911. In future news; flying car theft will reach unprecedented levels in 2057.
More and more common thieves are learning the value of data. So more of it is being stolen. I bet MP3 player and cell phone theft rates are reaching "unprecedented" levels as well.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
It continues to astonish me that people think of "data theft" as the cause of identity theft.
Data theft is not the problem. The problem is that financial organizations are willing to accept transactions without authentication, or with very weak authentication. Supplying a 9-digit number which is a matter of public record is not a form of authentication. It does not prove that the person speaking is the account holder. Anybody can walk into a store with a fake credit card and buy stuff in my name, no questions asked. People can write checks with my account number on them, and it will be charged to my account. At no point is the slightest attempt made to authenticate the identity of the person making the transaction and certify that they are allowed to post transactions to the account.
There is no way to "plug" these leaks; most of these names and numbers are a matter of public record and must be surrendered in order to make a transaction in the first place. The identity theft problem will not abate until account holders have enhanced authentication options, and the financial institutions are required to use them. Biometrics, physical security tokens, PINs, it doesn't really matter what solution we use. We just need to use something to verify the identify of the person making the transaction. It's the only solution.
The problem is that the organizations that lose the data, and the people who work there, are not the ones who bear the pain of the result. Furthermore, we usually have no choice in handing over the personal data, most of which is completely unnecessary (but very useful for marketing), in order to get things we need.
Unless and until that changes, all the hand-wringing in the world won't make a hill of beans of difference.
It will take something like Sarbanes-Oxley, making the officers of companies and non-profits, and government workers, who handle our data personally criminally liable for failure to take due care, before there is any change. As it is now, it is a simple cost calculation, and security is pure cost. The people in charge are betting that they can cash in their stock options or get promoted/transferred before the failure to protect data causes a problem.
Last, but by no means least, everything that the naysayers said about Social Security when it was first proposed have come true: the SSID is a national ID number, and is routinely abused; and the Ponzi Scheme has run afoul of demographics. It's time to end the charade: outlaw the use of SSIDs by anyone except the SSA, and to allow people to opt out of SS.
Blaming the tech is a cop-out - firewalls and encryption mean nothing if these people are entering their details into any website that asks for it. Paper/card shredders are cheap now (even/especially for the home) and people have been told for years not to click on links in unsolicited emails, *especially* if they're from a bank/ebay/PayPal.
Instead of spending more on (company-side) tech there should be more spent on user-side education. Only those who've been a victim of identity theft and the paranoid (waves!) tend to realise exactly how much value there is in our personal information.
I quite regularly enter junk into websites that I feel ask for too much information - no, you don't need my full address and telephone number before I download that article. If there is a legitimate reason why they do need my information (delivery/billing) and the site looks okay then that's fine, but too many websites and for too much information before they'll let you do anything.
In the olden days (like 10+ years ago), if someone wrote a check in someone else's name, it was called "fraud". It is, in fact, a crime where someone steals money from the bank.
:(
At some point, someone changed the vocabulary, and now we call this "identify theft", and so we make the crime against the person who's name was forged. In fact, this person has nothing to do with this crime, and is an innocent bystander. The bank is charged with protecting my assets, and if they fail to do so, they should be liable, just as much as if someone walked into the bank with a gun and took it!
By convincing society at large that the crime is "identity theft" and not "fraud", the corporations, while not solving the problem of fraud, has made it someone else's problem; namely their customers. And the customers accept this, and direct their ire against the criminals, instead of against the company. (Admittedly the criminals are Bad People, so they do deserve to be feared and hated.)
In some ways, it is a stroke of genius by the corporate world. But not one that we should celebrate.