I get the impression that in the United States, regulation to shift fraud liability to the banks, and away from the individual customers, is more effective than relying upon law enforcement.
If someone breaks into my home and steals my stuff, I may hope for law enforcement to catch those responsible. I have no expectation that my property would be returned to me.
Thinking through this analogy, property-theft insurance is affordable because law enforcement is effective where I live, and I am expected to maintain reasonable precautions against theft.
I don't know how to prevent my phone number from being used without my permission. So I don't know how to apply law enforcement as a remedy.
> If someone breaks into my home and steals my stuff, I may hope for law enforcement to catch those responsible.
Dream on. In most US jurisdictions, property crime is very low priority for law enforcement. Even if you have cameras recording the thieves in action, LE might create a report but they will probably not investigate the crime at more than a superficial level.
If someone breaks into my home and steals my stuff, I may hope for law enforcement to catch those responsible. I have no expectation that my property would be returned to me.
Thinking through this analogy, property-theft insurance is affordable because law enforcement is effective where I live, and I am expected to maintain reasonable precautions against theft.
I don't know how to prevent my phone number from being used without my permission. So I don't know how to apply law enforcement as a remedy.