Close this search box.

Seniors’ cyber safety! 7 ways cyber criminals target seniors — and how to stop it


Seniors’ cyber safety! 7 ways cyber criminals target seniors — and how to stop it

Roughly eight out of 10 scam victims are over 65, according to recent reporting from the Federal Trade Commission. When seniors are scammed, they also tend to lose more money ($1,700 on average) than other age groups.

Why? Cybersecurity experts say that seniors are generally slower to adopt online methods for banking and shopping, so they’re less in-tune with the associated risks. Seniors also are targeted because many of them have savings, and because older adults tend to be more trusting than younger people.

What’s more, seniors as a whole simply aren’t taking the necessary steps to protect their identities. According to Generali Global Assistance, 58% of seniors believe they’re doing all they can to protect themselves, but just 21% of seniors have identity-theft protection.

The Cyber Protection Services division at Generali Global Assistance wants to alert the public to simple steps that everyone — especially older adults — should take to protect themselves from digital threats. PC360 recently talked with Paige Schaffer, CEO of Global Identity & Cyber Protection Services at Generali Global Assistance, to find out more:

Why is this an issue that Generali Global Assistance wants to draw attention to?

 First and foremost, this is core to our DNA as our business focuses on identity and cyber protection. While identity crimes and scams leave no age demographic untouched, seniors seem to often bear the brunt of them. They’re naturally more trusting. And seniors were generally raised to be polite, so there are some generational characteristics. There’s also a new study that suggests that older people have trouble identifying untrustworthy faces. I think also seniors are targeted more because they have a lot at stake. Many seniors have spent their lives working hard to have a comfortable retirement. Therefore, more funds are available and fraudsters want a piece of it.

Why do people need an identity protection service? What is the value of such a service?

Schaffer: In today’s digitized world, a lot of crime happens electronically. It’s really important to have somebody acting on your behalf. We offer services like identity monitoring on the dark web. So you can plug in particular data points and if your information shows up where it shouldn’t be, you’ll get an alert and the call center can quickly work with you to get it taken care of. We also offer credit monitoring alerts. If somebody were to get some of your information and then open up a home loan or buy a car or any sort of payment plan with credit, you’re going to get notified immediately.

It’s always better to shut it down quicker with some proactive monitoring, like our online data protection service that’s downloadable to your home computer. Then, if somebody sends you a phishing email, it’ll flag it and prevent you from clicking on that stuff. It also prevents thieves from capturing your passwords.

So yes, you have to be vigilant yourself. But where the electronic services matter is that you’ve got an organization or company and technologies that are proactively on the hunt for something that doesn’t look right. Because if you don’t stop it quickly, then it’s likely they will open up one account, and then open up another account, and it just goes on and on. It makes it harder to bring resolution to the scenario.

We do see a percentage of victims. When you are a victim, you don’t want to be scrambling all over trying to figure out what to do, whether it’s dealing with police reports or a bank account or credit card accounts or the IRS, in the case of tax fraud. It helps to have an expert that knows what to do quickly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts


Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote