Norton '12 Cybercrime Numbers Lower Than Last Year's — But Just As Bad
Curseyoukhan writes "Norton released its annual cybercrime report on Wednesday, and the company put the 'direct costs associated with global consumer cybercrime at US $110 billion over the past twelve months.' Last year's report put the total 'at an annual price of $388 billion globally based on financial losses and time lost.' That's more than the estimated value of the global black market in marijuana, cocaine and heroin combined ($288 billion), the report said. But Norton makes no mention of the vast difference in 2011 and 2012 numbers. That's because last year's number was entirely fictitious." Something tells me that the scare-monger number-wavers aren't as embarrassed by this sort of logical deconstruction as they should be.
While you personally don't like Norton or their products, AV Comparatives and other independent testers (e.g. CNet, PCMag, etc.) show NIS at the top in terms of detection, removal, low-system resource utilization, etc. Empirical evidence shows its very good at what it does. I've used NIS for a few years and I like the GUI, the speed, and the way it works but I didn't like the price which is why I switched to Avast but it's hard to say NIS isn't effective and efficient at what it does unless you're letting your emotions take over.