Report from the Cambridge Cybercrime Conference
The Cambridge Cybercrime Conference was held on 23 June. Summaries of the presentations are here.
Comments
Clive Robinson • July 14, 2025 7:08 PM
@ Bruce,
A brief look through suggests that there is no “original crime” being demonstrated.
It’s something I noted long ago on this blog and in other places.
Nearly all Cyber-Crime is actually “traditional crime” in new wrappings that happen to have a cyber-component.
As an example, at the end of the day, Ponzi and Pyramid schemes are still just that and at the core have not changed for decades. That is all that has really changed for the cyber versions is that the communications systems from the con artists to the marks have been updated from say Snail-Mail to E-Mail. But the actual confidence tricking is the same, even though cyber-comms can give the con artists greater anonymity.
In some cases this enables the con to be slightly evolved and in effect industrialised. So we get traditional cons becoming “Piggy Butchering” run out of various “call centers” in Africa and Asia, with in some cases “people smuggling” used to staff the “call centers”.
Thus an obvious answer to why there is as such no new crimes that are specifically Cyber (not even NFT and Smart Contract cons). Is that,
“The criminals are too busy industrialising cons such that one person could be targeting ten or twenty marks at the same time.”
Thus giving a “multiplier effect” much like power tools and construction machinery act as “force multipliers” for trades people and labourers.
So maybe targeting the weaknesses in the industrialization would help negate the multiplier effect.
R.Cake • July 15, 2025 4:25 AM
@anon, if you are unhappy with any activity of your government, then you are free to start investigating, lobbying and talking to people. Maybe join a political party of your choice. If you do not want to do either, you can also find a group that already does and consider supporting them. But pointing at random academics specialized in online crime and saying “they should really investigate the government instead” is not going to help.
I found the event agenda quite interesting and would have loved to listen in. Something gives me a feeling that there may not much disruptive action to be derived from the learnings, but of course one would have had to actually be there to tell.
@Clive, with system analysis glasses on “there is no new thing under the sun”. Still online crime is more than a nuisance. Like in the world of physical interactions, crime is an economic, political and societal factor. Still I think it is relevant and academically interesting to investigate if and what ways there may be to control criminal behavior in electronic interchange. Even the basic questions like “is there a higher/lower/equal proportion of good-faith vs. criminal actors in RL compared to online” and many similar are super interesting I think.
StephenM • July 15, 2025 5:17 PM
@Clive Robinson, R.Cake
There never was a common law right to privacy. Nor was there a mechanism for privacy invasion. Now that there is perhaps some activist judges should find one?
We could discover crimes.
- keeping a dossier on a person with the intention of using the information for financial gain or sharing it with another person
- using the internet to the detriment of a person outside the jurisdiction
- disseminating or collecting information protected by legal professional privilege or medical confidentiality
- using the internet to sell copyright protected material belonging to another without her consent
- …
Clive Robinson • July 15, 2025 7:14 PM
@ StephenM, ALL,
With regards,
“There never was a common law right to privacy. Nor was there a mechanism for privacy invasion.”
That’s because back when common law became established after 1066 we had no real method of communication in the general populous beyond the spoken word. The use of reading and writing were reserved for use by the Church, and first estate of land holders via scribes (churchmen). The profession of law was reserved for those who were ordained priests well versed in latin and what became ecclesiastical law.
The “local law” was not written down nor was it the law of the realm. This Saxon law of hundreds and similar was not what the Normans wanted and “the law given at the kings feet” became codified eventually becoming “case law”. Importantly the law which had been loosely based on the Roman system became not just codified but passed out to all courts by the Assizes Judges and their scribes/clarks who came out twice a year from London.
The various torts of trespass which were common law practiced by local land holders as what became justices of the peace and magistrates (which you can still become in the UK if you wish to, https://www.gov.uk/become-magistrate/can-you-be-a-magistrate )
The torts of trespass eventually fell into three broad categories,
1, Against the person.
2, Against chattels / property.
3, Trespass to land.
When you look at them they all covered what we would call privacy of “persons and possessions” which would also include “papers” and other methods of communications by physical objects.
And that’s the problem… Communications these days are mainly regarded as being ephemeral thus intangible information, not tangible physical objects. Back in the 1980’s with the setting up of the much hated “Poll Tax” by Margaret Thatcher, a change of law happened via accepted custom and practice of banking ledgers. That is a written (or printed) output from a ledger / computer was considered unchallengeable proof of debt etc.
Near a half century later with the Post Office and similar scandals judges have to now realistically consider such records as suspect. Worse with the rapid onset of AI Fakes going the way they are recorded audio and video evidence is now very much suspect. Hence there is now “a request for comments” on changes to the laws…
The second trespass “against chattels” had an interesting definition that was in effect,
“To deny the owner the rights and privileges pertaining to ownership.”
Succinct to say but so broad in scope…
Thus you are committing an offence if you stand next to somebody elses luxury sports car and use it as part of an attempted seduction. As you are denying the owner the right that in effect are a consequence of the privilege of ownership.
Daft as it might sound it is the basis of “passing off” which is a form of fraud.
It can get quite involved… Lets say you hurt your arm and went to hospital and I’d persuaded you to registered in my name to get a prescription or sick note under it, that I then use… if you read the script/note you will find that they are not your or my property but that of the doctor or their employer. The rest as they say follows on from that…
Subscribe to comments on this entry
Leave a comment
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.
anon • July 14, 2025 5:50 PM
From one of the papers: Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the intersection between conspiracy narratives and illegal online activities…
I don’t they the authors were looking at the right ‘illegal online activites.’ They should have been investigating all government sponsored activities.