It's not just stated in a silly way, it's stated in a way that's incorrect because they didn't mean what they said. "The optimal amount of fraud is nonzero" does not actually mean the exact same thing as "in an optimally-beneficial fraud prevention effort, the amount of fraud is non-zero".
But the very point of the article is to not take zero-fraud in isolation and instead, explain how non-zero-fraud is an unavoidable tradeoff when balancing 2 simultaneous goals:
- (1) prevent fraud transactions as much as practically possible
- (2) make legitimate transactions as easy as possible
If one accepts the premise of pursuing those 2 goals at the same time, then by definition, we're no longer talking about "in isolation". You've now unavoidably entered non-zero fraud territory.
Perhaps it's the author's particular wordsmithing of what he's trying to convey that just rubs many readers the wrong way.
The post makes it clear that the discussion is not about theory or taking anything in isolation - it's about fraud in the real world. In that context, the way it's stated is correct - if you have zero fraud in the real world, that means that you designed the tradeoffs wrong and that the cost of your fraud prevention (in terms of actual dollars as well as inconvenience to customers, etc.) is greater than the overall cost would be if you allowed a small amount of fraud to occur (looking at the total cost of that fraud as well as the cost of preventing additional fraud).
I suppose the problem is that whether or not the title of the post is true or not depends on the context in which it's taken, and the title itself doesn't have any context. Since the post does offer context, though, I think it's reasonable to take the title in that context.
Yeah, but that phrase won't get any clicks.
I gave up about half way through the article and just skimmed through the rest.
And the argument that more stringent anti-fraud protections increase the burdon on legitimate claimants is absolutely spot on, and has parallels in all sorts of other legal, financial, and market situations c:
It’s like saying that the optimal dirtiness after cleaning your house is non-zero (greater than zero) because cleaning it perfectly takes much more effort than it is worth!
That’s not counter-intuitive at all. It’s just an obvious fact stated in a silly way (for clicks or whatever else).