Report from the Cambridge Cybercrime Conference – Source: www.schneier.com

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.

Leave a comment