5 ms·

This overlooks the cybercrime crisis, which in 2020 did ~4x more financial damage than weather & climate disasters. And it's expected to get much worse this yea

This overlooks the cybercrime crisis, which in 2020 did ~4x more financial damage than weather & climate disasters. And it's expected to get much worse this year. https://twitter.com/mnmnotmail/status/1372201054213787660 https://twitter.com/mnmnotmail/status/1372201054213787660 Silicon Valley probably has a role to play in suppressing cybercrime. References: Cybercrime, $945B: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/07/cybersecurity-202-global-losses-cybercrime-skyrocketed-nearly-1-trillion-2020/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/07/cybersecu... Climate, $258B: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/01/world-hammered-by-record-50-billion-dollar-weather-disasters-in-2020/ https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/01/world-hammered-by...

pjc50 6y ago
That seems astonishing and hard to believe; the WaPo is paywalled, where are they getting that number from? Is it by any chance an organization trying to sell cybercrime solutions? SV has probably had just as much a role in enabling cybercrime as fighting it.
- sva_ 6y ago
  > The projection of $945 billion in losses, from a new report out today[0] from the Center for Strategic and International Studies and computer security company McAfee, is almost double the monetary loss from cybercrime than the $500 billion in 2018. McAfee's report "The Hidden Costs of Cybercrime"[0] seems to be the source. [0] https://www.mcafee.com/enterprise/en-us/assets/reports/rp-hidden-costs-of-cybercrime.pdf https://www.mcafee.com/enterprise/en-us/assets/reports/rp-hi...
- networkimprov 6y ago
  I can read the WaPo article in a private/incognito browser window. The IETF in particular has had a huge role in facilitating phishing via SMTP.
logicchains 6y ago
The difference is that cybercrime is self-solving: when companies start losing enough to really impact their bottom line, they'll finally have incentive to invest more in proper cybersecurity. Whereas with climate, any thing a single company or individual does has absolutely minimal impact on reducing their risks unless everyone else does it too. Most cybercrime isn't a result of really really clever cybercriminals, it's a result of really really poor security practices, a solveable problem.
- networkimprov 6y ago
  Cybercrime vs cybersecurity is an arms race, and arms race scenarios are not necessarily resolvable.
  - tatersolid 6y ago
    > arms race scenarios are not necessarily resolvable. Usually they are resolved when one or more of the racers goes bankrupt. See the Soviet Union.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  Cybercrime will be properly addressed when companies realize: 1) it's not just a matter of insurance, "ticking boxes" and "buying solutions" and 2) law enforcement actually investigates and prosecutes those involved (even if it involves international action)
- helge9210 6y ago
  > The difference is that cybercrime is self-solving: when companies start losing enough to really impact their bottom line, they'll finally have incentive to invest more in proper cybersecurity. Let's drop "cyber" for a second. Suppose some (potentially, foreign state sponsored) actor starts to physically attack/kidnap company employees in company's home country that is starts to affect the bottom line. No one would say "They have to start investing more into security". It would be normal for the company to totally offload the problem on the home state. Now, getting back to "cybersecurity": why company is supposed to handle it instead of offloading the problem on the state?
gonzo41 6y ago
Climate should be considered worse, the 250B will go up. and the lost oppotunity cost isn't factored. Crime will always be with us. right now we are in the wild west stage of the internet (still) but give it 20-30 years and everything will be better. The crime will be more complex. But the climate will just keep getting worse.
rahimnathwani 6y ago
Comparing these two numbers doesn't make sense, because: 1) Cybercrime activity has an immediate impact, whereas the impact of climate-changing activity will be felt for many years, and 2) The impact of climate-changing activity results in actual destruction of value, whereas cybercrime results in only the transfer of value (from the victims to the perpetrators). Of course, the threat of cybercrime results in other value-destroying activity, like the effort spent on cybersecurity ($200B/year according to Statista).
- vnorilo 6y ago
  While I agree with the overall sentiment, crime is usually negative sum: the perpetrator gains less than the victim lost, thus some value is destroyed even before security spending.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  Cybercrime generally results in actual destruction of value, as even for pure ransomware attacks where a ransom is paid, the losses to businesses and recovery costs are on the same scale as the ransom itself, and of course there are cases like the NotPetya attack, which caused billions of damages and did not even have a working mechanism to extract money from victims, it was purely destructive.

pjc50 6y ago

That seems astonishing and hard to believe; the WaPo is paywalled, where are they getting that number from? Is it by any chance an organization trying to sell cybercrime solutions? SV has probably had just as much a role in enabling cybercrime as fighting it.

sva_ 6y ago
> The projection of $945 billion in losses, from a new report out today[0] from the Center for Strategic and International Studies and computer security company McAfee, is almost double the monetary loss from cybercrime than the $500 billion in 2018. McAfee's report "The Hidden Costs of Cybercrime"[0] seems to be the source. [0] https://www.mcafee.com/enterprise/en-us/assets/reports/rp-hidden-costs-of-cybercrime.pdf https://www.mcafee.com/enterprise/en-us/assets/reports/rp-hi...
networkimprov 6y ago
I can read the WaPo article in a private/incognito browser window. The IETF in particular has had a huge role in facilitating phishing via SMTP.

logicchains 6y ago

The difference is that cybercrime is self-solving: when companies start losing enough to really impact their bottom line, they'll finally have incentive to invest more in proper cybersecurity. Whereas with climate, any thing a single company or individual does has absolutely minimal impact on reducing their risks unless everyone else does it too. Most cybercrime isn't a result of really really clever cybercriminals, it's a result of really really poor security practices, a solveable problem.

networkimprov 6y ago
Cybercrime vs cybersecurity is an arms race, and arms race scenarios are not necessarily resolvable.
- tatersolid 6y ago
  > arms race scenarios are not necessarily resolvable. Usually they are resolved when one or more of the racers goes bankrupt. See the Soviet Union.
raverbashing 6y ago
Cybercrime will be properly addressed when companies realize: 1) it's not just a matter of insurance, "ticking boxes" and "buying solutions" and 2) law enforcement actually investigates and prosecutes those involved (even if it involves international action)
helge9210 6y ago
> The difference is that cybercrime is self-solving: when companies start losing enough to really impact their bottom line, they'll finally have incentive to invest more in proper cybersecurity. Let's drop "cyber" for a second. Suppose some (potentially, foreign state sponsored) actor starts to physically attack/kidnap company employees in company's home country that is starts to affect the bottom line. No one would say "They have to start investing more into security". It would be normal for the company to totally offload the problem on the home state. Now, getting back to "cybersecurity": why company is supposed to handle it instead of offloading the problem on the state?

gonzo41 6y ago

Climate should be considered worse, the 250B will go up. and the lost oppotunity cost isn't factored. Crime will always be with us. right now we are in the wild west stage of the internet (still) but give it 20-30 years and everything will be better. The crime will be more complex. But the climate will just keep getting worse.

rahimnathwani 6y ago

Comparing these two numbers doesn't make sense, because: 1) Cybercrime activity has an immediate impact, whereas the impact of climate-changing activity will be felt for many years, and 2) The impact of climate-changing activity results in actual destruction of value, whereas cybercrime results in only the transfer of value (from the victims to the perpetrators). Of course, the threat of cybercrime results in other value-destroying activity, like the effort spent on cybersecurity ($200B/year according to Statista).

vnorilo 6y ago
While I agree with the overall sentiment, crime is usually negative sum: the perpetrator gains less than the victim lost, thus some value is destroyed even before security spending.
PeterisP 6y ago
Cybercrime generally results in actual destruction of value, as even for pure ransomware attacks where a ransom is paid, the losses to businesses and recovery costs are on the same scale as the ransom itself, and of course there are cases like the NotPetya attack, which caused billions of damages and did not even have a working mechanism to extract money from victims, it was purely destructive.