[90522] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Are botnets relevant to NANOG?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Tue May 30 11:17:16 2006
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:52:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0605262105250.3543-100000@linuxbox.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 26 May 2006, Gadi Evron wrote:
> I honestly want to know why a precise number matters? It will only be
> higher than our facts based upon our different observation points.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/us/30identity.html
Credit card companies point to new monitoring systems that have reduced
loss from fraud as a percentage of overall transaction volume. At Visa,
fraud accounted for 7 cents per $100 in transactions, down from 18 cents
per $100 in 1990. "We could have a system reducing fraud to zero basis
points, but it wouldn't meet what consumers are demanding," said Rosetta
Jones, a Visa spokeswoman. "We need to deliver what consumers want in a
way that is secure."
Zero is probably a bit too optimistic, but the idea is the same.
