Monday, February 24, 2020

Crime metrics matter: two charts of the big mess we're in, even if we're not sure how big it is

It's late February, 2020, so let me ask you: How secure is your personal information? If you're like most adults in America, the answer is probably: "not as secure as it used to be."
 Chart linked to original report.

That is what the social scientists at Pew Research Center found last year when they carried out the survey behind the chart on the right (click to access the full report).

As you can see, 70% of folks said that they felt their personal information was less secure than it was five years ago; furthermore, they were more likely to think that way if they were 50 or older, more educated, or in a higher income bracket.

My take on these numbers is that they reflect the relentless increase cybercrime, or what my good friend, the gifted security researcher Cameron Camp, calls cyberbadness: the apparently never-ending litany of technology-enabled scams, frauds, thefts, losses, and disruptions that seem to be victimizing more and more people and organizations. Note that I used the word "seem" intentionally because some observers will point out that public perception of criminal activity is not always in sync with reality. At times that may be true, but before we can determine whether people are over- or under-reacting to cybercrime, we need to ask: what is the true scale and impact of cybercrime? And quite frankly, nobody has a good answer at the moment.

Why? Well, I've said it before, years ago, and again last year: "the importance of metrics to crime deterrence would appear to be both critical and obvious, but despite this there is a persistent cybercrime metrics gap." As far as I am concerned, that is a problem, one that I addressed at some length in a recent law journal article that is currently available online. The following quote may help to put the problem in perspective:

“[u]ntil there are accepted measures and benchmarks for the incidence and damage caused by computer-related crime, it will remain a guess whether we are spending enough resources to investigate or protect against such crimes… In short, metrics matter.”

Those words were spoken 16 years ago by an FBI agent, Edward J. Appel, someone who knew thing or two about metrics (his father, Charles A. Appel, founded the FBI's Technical Laboratory).

Unfortunately, casual use of Google gives the impression that we have an abundance of metrics of about cybercrime, with search results like "300+ Terrifying Cybercrime & Cybersecurity Statistics" and "110 Must-Know Cybersecurity Statistics for 2020." The problem is, the sources for such numbers are often suspect in terms of methodology and/or confirmation bias.

I addressed these issues in the Journal of National Security Law & Policy article mentioned above (Advancing Accurate and Objective Cybercrime Metrics (publication pending, but currently available online). And I had spoken at length about the problem at the 2015 Virus Bulletin security conference (you can find my paper, a video of my talk, and my slides here: Sizing Cybercrime: incidents and accidents, hints and allegations. The sad reality is that, when it comes to timely and objective official statistics about crimes committed in cyberspace, they are in short supply.

Even sadder is that fact that the metrics we do have, such the Internet Crimes Reports issued by the FBI and IC3, make for depressing reading, not to mention depressing charts like the one on the right. This documents the rise in total annual crime losses reported to the Internet Crime Complaint Center or IC3 from 2003 through 2019.

As you can see, the year-on-year increase has become quite acute. Yes, I know the chart is somewhat compressed to fit this page layout, but you would have to spread it quite wide to get rid of the "hockey stick" that is the last five years. I certainly wouldn't bet against it blowing through $4 billion in the next report.

And yes, there are issues with using the IC3 numbers as crime metrics. They are not collected as an exercise in crime metrics, but rather as part of just one avenue of attack against the crimes they represent. However, I have studied each annual report and am satisfied that collectively they provide solid evidence of a real world cybercrime impact trend that looks very much like the line shown here.

My law review article was one of several generated by a range of independent subject matter experts as part of the Third Way Cyber Enforcement Initiative. The initiative was an impressive multi-stage effort to coordinate inter-disciplinary input on efforts to tackle the cybercrime problem. When commissioned papers reached draft stage, authors attended a day-long, mid-summer workshop at New York University School of Law for live peer review. By October, this Third Way initiative had already produced results, including an excellent summary of the metrics issue in The Need for Better Metrics on Cybercrime, from Third Way Policy Advisor, Ishan Mehta.

As papers continue to appear, check the website of the Journal of National Security Law & Policy. For example, right now you can access this important contribution from Amy Jordan and Allison Peters on Countering the Cyber Enforcement Gap: Strengthening Global Capacity on Cybercrime, and this excellent review of the use of criminal charges as a response to nation-state hacking from Tim Maurer.

(Acknowledgement: I am deeply grateful to all who participated in this project, for their input, insight, enthusiasm, and support.)

Monday, January 20, 2020

Happy New Year? Decade? 2020?

Greetings! I am happy you're here, reading this page, because now that I'm no longer writing for We Live Security, this blog is one of the ways I will continue to share what I hope is useful research and analysis. (There's more on the big changes I made in 2019 here.)

I really do hope that you have a happy and safe and satisfying 2020, and a fulfilling decade, but I put those question marks up there in the title because right now I see serious challenges ahead. Frankly, I'm not sure the world is ready, or able, or even willing, to meet them.

But gloomy as that may sound, I do see some bright spots; I mean, the 2020 puns are bound to wear out soon, right? And people will eventually stop saying things like "I can see clearly now that 2020 is here." Which reminds me of the 2015 TEDx event in San Diego that was actually called 20/20 Vision.

I had the honor of speaking at that event. My topic was cybersecurity, cybercrime, and the need for more women and minorities in technology leadership. I framed these remarks (yes there's a pun there if you like), as a choice between two futures.

The first future that I sketch out is one in which technology enables humans to tackle existential risks like climate change and make life on the planet better for everyone. The second future turns out to be a dismal one because we failed to get to grips with core problems facing technology. Well, now that 2020 is here I have to say that the world pretty much went with Future #2, and we are no nearer to the bright and shining Future #1 now than we were in 2015.

And of course, that means I have a lot more work ahead of me - explaining what we're doing wrong, why we're doing it wrong, and how critical it is that we change. But just for the record, here's that 2015 talk. Happy 2020?