As staggering as the losses pegged to cybercrime are, they may even be worse than estimated, according to David A. Powner, GAO director of IT management issues and the lead author of a recent report. Cybercrime in its various forms — computer crime, identity theft and phishing — costs the U.S. economy some US$117.5 billion a year, reported the Government Accountability Office (GAO).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Cybercrime has become a threat to the nation’s economic and security interests, according to a report released Monday by a Congressional research and investigation agency.<\/p>\n
“These projected losses are based on direct and indirect costs that may include actual money stolen, estimated cost of intellectual property stolen, and recovery cost of repairing or replacing damaged networks and equipment,” says the report, released through the offices of Reps.<\/p>\n
What’s more, he added, a lot of cybercrime goes undetected. “There’s more expertise in the private sector, where it’s easier for a corporation to have an instant response team of professionals that deal with these issues,” Bedser said. “They can go in, figure out what happened, clean it up, fix it and keep the business running quicker and more effectively than calling in criminal investigators to look into the problem.”<\/p>\n
The GAO report acknowledges that certain personnel policies at federal law enforcement agencies may be hurting the fight against cybercrime.<\/p>\n
“In order to address the challenge of ensuring adequate law enforcement analytical and technical capabilities,” it continues, “we are recommending that the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security reassess and modify, as appropriate, current rotation policies to retain key expertise necessary to investigate and prosecute cybercrime.”<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.technewsworld.com\/rsstory\/58517.html<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/842","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=842"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/842\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3329,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/842\/revisions\/3329"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}