Measuring Identity Theft Dangers – More About Identity Theft KPIS
On April 27 2007 the Associated Press reported that the Caterpillar Corporation of Peoria, IL had been the victim of huge identity theft. The theft was available in the type a stolen laptop including staff member info. Caterpillar utilizes over 90,000 people worldwide. All of them, in that instant, became possible victims of huge Identity Theft. The potential expense of that Identity Theft could be in the millions of dollars. The result? On the day the theft was announced Caterpillar’s shares rose 76 cents on the NYSE.
Depending upon which source one pays attention to the variety of events of Identity Theft variety from 100 million to over 300 million every year … and the issue is increasing. Now, the previous sentence is filled with qualifiers, unpredictabilities and suppositions … and that belongs to the problem. It is nearly difficult to figure out the seriousness of the problem of Identity Theft. Among the significant problems in figuring out the severity of the problem is that a considerable number of incidents of Identity Theft, some experts say even the majority, goes unreported.
What is required is an identity Theft Scorecard. This Identity Theft Scorecard would be a tool that might be used to develop a series of Identity Theft countermeasures. The Identity Theft Scorecard need to be a tool that offers strong, unbiased, objective and reasonable KPI (Key Performance Indicators) to what can be a really emotion laden problem. With the info offered from these Identity Theft Scorecards an “Identity Theft Metrics” could be developed. This Metrics would be an empirically accurate measurement of not only the costs related to Identity theft, however likewise the number and type of victims and, perhaps, the number and type of criminals. An Identity Theft Metrics would measure hazards and vulnerabilities and offer a method to start to address those locations of danger. It would likewise, ideally, supply a tool that could be used to identify the perpetrators of the crime and curtail their activities.
Any precise Identity Theft Metrics will have as its core KPI a measurement of threat, not uncertainty. Risk is manageable, unpredictability isn’t really. As soon as locations of risk or vulnerability are understood they can be measured and proactively addressed. What can not be measured is the unidentified, the supposed or the hypothetical. It is possible to end up being so consumed with the “exactly what ifs” that the primary job, the combating of the actual and genuine risks, is neglected. Thus it is crucial that a main facility of the KPI handle real, not thought of, risk.
As the economy is progressively digitized and the vulnerability of individuals and corporations to Identity Theft increases, quantify the threats. Just by developing a genuine, quantifiable, empirical Identity Theft Metrics with quantifiable KPI at its core can we hope to deal with the problem of Identity Theft in an effective way.