The $1 Trillion Cybercrime Myth

wiredmikey sends this excerpt from SecurityWeek: "A recent article on ProPublica dissected two commonly quoted figures about cybersecurity: $1 trillion in losses due to cybercrime itself and $388 million in IP losses for American companies. Both figures have been scrutinized and challenged by many, and viewed as typical security vendor FUD. ... The $1 trillion figure is attributed to anti-virus vendor McAfee, while the $388 million in IP losses number belongs to Symantec's Norton division. According to ProPublica, 'The report was not actually researched by Norton employees; it was outsourced to a market research firm, StrategyOne, which is owned by the public relations giant Edelman.' The problem with both of these figures — $1 trillion and $388 million — is, as Microsoft researchers pointed out earlier this year in a report fittingly titled 'Sex, Lies, and Cybercrime,' they are studded with outliers. In one example they cite that a single individual who claims $50,000 losses, in an N = 1000 person survey, is enough to extrapolate a $10 billion loss over the population. In another, one unverified claim of $7,500 in phishing losses translates into $1.5 billion over the population. The Microsoft researchers concluded: 'Are we really producing cyber-crime estimates where 75% of the estimate comes from the unverified self-reported answers of one or two people? Unfortunately, it appears so. Can any faith whatever be placed in the surveys we have? No, it appears not.'"

Comments

Pffft!

[Anonymous Coward]

The REAL crime is the theft of our pensions for 'too big to fail'. This other crap is some kind of diversion.

Re:Pffft!

[CanHasDIY]

No, the real crime is how ordinary folks like you and me get our feet held to the fire and lives ruined for the most minor of slip-ups (say, possession of a god-damn plant), while the elite (banksters, celebrities, politicians, et. al.) get a free pass to do whatever they damn well please, such as knowingly and intentionally fucking up the economy, or stealing our livelihoods.

DISINFO: "Greatest Transfer of Wealth in History"

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Never mind the "One Percent".

There are two major factors working against the bottom 99%: First, the underlying engine driving wealth inequality (taxes under a 70% rate for the very rich) remains in effect, so the top 1% continues to take wealth from the bottom 99% through the normal operation of the economy. This effect can be quantified.

Based on its computer simulation, Macroeconomic Advisers predicts the tax cuts for the rich will have a combined 2011-2012 budgetary effect (the difference between the 35% and 40% tax rate) of $124 billion. [3] The actual cost to the bottom 99% is seven times that, the difference in revenues between the 35% rate and the "equilibrium" 70% rate. (Again, that's the rate at which inequality of wealth and incomes was stable.) Thatâ(TM)s another $868 billion the bottom 99% is losing over these two years, following a similar amount in 2009-2010.

Through the provisions of the December 2010 tax compromise, President Obama countered this drain to some extent. Macroeconomic Advisers identified taxpayer stimulus items in the bill totaling $634 billion, and including those raised its model's growth projections from 3.7 % to 4.3% in 2011-12. These stimulus provisions last only through 2012....
as it extends from the normal operation of the dysfunctional economy to the abnormal functioning of government. We would not be surprised if the bottom 99% loses another $1 trillion from multiplier effects by 2012.

Emphasis added.
http://acivilamericandebate.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/growth-in-inequality-of-wealth-after-2007/

Why trust ANYTHING that comes out of the mouth of an officer in the senior Politburo of AmerCIA?