Irish Examiner view: We need better protection against fraud

Interpol put the global losses from fraud at an estimated €382bn last year, but stressed the true amount was likely to be well above this figure due to significant levels of under-reporting. File picture

The warning from Interpol that the incidence of recorded fraud in Europe surged by 70% in 2025 is alarming. Even more worrying is that the international police organisation says the situation is going to get much worse, thanks mainly to the availability of AI and sophisticated deepfake technology.

The amount of money involved is staggering. Interpol put the global losses from fraud at an estimated €382bn last year, but stressed the true amount was likely to be well above this figure due to significant levels of under-reporting.

Closer to home, research published last month said that social media platforms made €32m in revenue from scam ads targeting Irish consumers in one year alone. The value of fraudulent payments, through the likes of online transactions and remittances reported by Irish-based payment
service providers, reached €160m in 2024 — up 24.5% on the previous year — and the volume soared by more than 40% in the same period. It seems that every other week we hear of, or encounter, a new scam in which fraudsters try to access our personal information and/or our bank accounts.

But if well-resourced IT security experts, corporations, and law enforcement agencies are struggling to stay ahead of the fraudsters, what hope is there for the rest of us to separate the legitimate interactions and requests for details from the fraudulent ones? Certainly, there are onerous obligations on financial institutions, public bodies, and any other company or agency that hold our personal data to safeguard that data to the ultimate degree. They are rightly open to punitive financial sanctions for breaching these rules. With all their expertise and obligations, they can still find their defences breached by fraudsters. Yet, individuals who have fallen victim to some sophisticated new swindle, through an authentic-sounding phonecall or online notification, are often made to feel they are the ones at fault. They have to prove their innocence, and face daunting obstacles trying to get their money back in those rare cases where there is even a possibility of tracking down the payments.

With the prevalence and sophistication of fraud about to get a whole lot worse, a layer of protection for the individual is urgently required. That does not mean letting the institutions, Government departments and agencies, or companies off the hook. They are the main line of defence in guarding the data that they have demanded from us as the price of doing business with them. However, it does point to the need for a high-profile public campaign by a trusted body to equip people with the knowledge to recognise and deal with emerging threats. We should not have to rely on the media to bring us the heartbreaking stories of people who have lost their life savings, stories told after the damage is done.

Prevention should be the priority.

Fury in rhetoric

The mini controversy over Cork City Council’s dog fouling posters provided an entertaining diversion on the use of “bad” language for a couple of days last week.

Opinion was divided on the appropriateness or otherwise of the use of a certain word, a common synonym for human and animal waste, where children or people of delicate disposition could see it. The debate passed off without too many people getting particularly het up about it. 

However, there is a language problem that we should be paying more attention to and that is the increasing harshness, aggression, and even violence that now characterise public discourse.

Just over a week ago, US president Donald Trump described the Iranian leadership as “deranged scumbags”.

He was deploying a variation on the word “scum”, which he frequently hurls at left-leaning media, political opponents, and other critics. The words “evil”, “mentally disabled”, and even “piggy” feature among the stream of insults he has been throwing at his perceived adversaries for years.

Trump alone did not normalise words such as “vile”, “pathetic”, “hate”, and “fury”, which now pepper public conversation. These terms were once used sparingly and in specific contexts. Now, the mildest irritation, the smallest disagreement, and the most minor of inconveniences bring forth the most extreme of descriptions such as “disastrous”, “cruel”, “fury”, and “hate”.

In an environment of heightened rhetoric, it is a short step from legitimate comment or criticism to abusive, venomous attacks. Public figures have spoken about the harsh, emotionally charged language adopted by their critics. Witness how quickly and how often online discussions and even radio debates can descend into personal attacks, marked by vitriol and name-calling. 

The odd coarse word on a poster might be of concern to some, but the drift towards normalisation of contempt, anger, and harshness in public conversation should be of concern to all of us.

Russia's bid for babies

The latest gimmick by Russia to reverse its rapidly declining birth rate could have come from Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid’s Tale. Women are to be asked how many children they wish to have, and those who say they do not want to have children are to be referred to a medical psychologist “with the goal of forming a positive attitude to having children”. 

This follows the introduction of another controversial Russian policy whereby the state will pay teenagers a one-off bonus to have a baby. It is unlikely that these somewhat dystopian strategies have an impact, but declining birth rates are a real problem for Russia and most developed countries — including Ireland.

The EU fertility rate has dropped in recent decades to well below 2.1 babies per woman, the replacement rate needed to sustain a population. Ireland’s population has grown in recent years, but the fertility rate has fallen from 1.9 to 1.5 between 2013 and 2023. This is a problem because, if the trend continues, it won’t be long until too few working-age people are trying to support too many non-working people.

The advice to Government from the National Economic and Social Council (NESC) is to encourage larger families and welcome more migrants.

Given the current pressures on housing, public services, and other infrastructure, the impulse might be to aim for lower population growth. This would be a mistake that leads to a vicious cycle of further decline in fertility, an ageing population, an increase in emigration, and economic stagnation. What is needed is a “virtuous cycle” of investment in affordable housing, childcare, and accessible public transport; an employment environment that supports workers’ caring responsibilities; and income and welfare policies that “de-risk family formation”. Until people believe that they can provide a home, an education, and a future to any child they bring into the world, the birth rate will continue to fall.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here