Many people treat cyber threats and digital fraud as a new phenomenon that only appeared with the development of the internet. But fraud – intentional deceit to manipulate a victim – has always existed; it is just the tools that have changed.

In a recent online course for the Open Institute of Technology (OPIT), AI & Cybersecurity Strategist Tom Vazdar, chair of OPIT’s Master’s Degree in Enterprise Cybersecurity, demonstrated the striking parallels between some of the famous fraud cases of the 18th century and modern cyber fraud.

Why does the history of fraud matter?

Primarily because the psychology and fraud tactics have remained consistent over the centuries. While cybersecurity is a tool that can combat modern digital fraud threats, no defense strategy will be successful without addressing the underlying psychology and tactics.

These historical fraud cases Vazdar addresses offer valuable lessons for current and future cybersecurity approaches.

The South Sea Bubble (1720)

The South Sea Bubble was one of the first stock market crashes in history. While it may not have had the same far-reaching consequences as the Black Thursday crash of 1929 or the 2008 crash, it shows how fraud can lead to stock market bubbles and advantages for insider traders.

The South Sea Company was a British company that emerged to monopolize trade with the Spanish colonies in South America. The company promised investors significant returns but provided no evidence of its activities. This saw the stock prices grow from £100 to £1,000 in a matter of months, then crash when the company’s weakness was revealed.

Many people lost a significant amount of money, including Sir Isaac Newton, prompting the statement, “I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men.

Investors often have no way to verify a company’s claim, making stock markets a fertile ground for manipulation and fraud since their inception. When one party has more information than another, it creates the opportunity for fraud. This can be seen today in Ponzi schemes, tech stock bubbles driven by manipulative media coverage, and initial cryptocurrency offerings.

The Diamond Necklace Affair (1784-1785)

The Diamond Necklace Affair is an infamous incident of fraud linked to the French Revolution. An early example of identity theft, it also demonstrates that the harm caused by such a crime can go far beyond financial.

A French aristocrat named Jeanne de la Mont convinced Cardinal Louis-René-Édouard, Prince de Rohan into thinking that he was buying a valuable diamond necklace on behalf of Queen Marie Antoinette. De la Mont forged letters from the queen and even had someone impersonate her for a meeting, all while convincing the cardinal of the need for secrecy. The cardinal overlooked several questionable issues because he believed he would gain political benefit from the transaction.

When the scheme finally exposed, it damaged Marie Antoinette’s reputation, despite her lack of involvement in the deception. The story reinforced the public perception of her as a frivolous aristocrat living off the labor of the people. This contributed to the overall resentment of the aristocracy that erupted in the French Revolution and likely played a role in Marie Antoinette’s death. Had she not been seen as frivolous, she might have been allowed to live after her husband’s death.

Today, impersonation scams work in similar ways. For example, a fraudster might forge communication from a CEO to convince employees to release funds or take some other action. The risk of this is only increasing with improved technology such as deepfakes.

Spanish Prisoner Scam (Late 1700s)

The Spanish Prisoner Scam will probably sound very familiar to anyone who received a “Nigerian prince” email in the early 2000s.

Victims received letters from a “wealthy Spanish prisoner” who needed their help to access his fortune. If they sent money to facilitate his escape and travel, he would reward them with greater riches when he regained his fortune. This was only one of many similar scams in the 1700s, often involving follow-up requests for additional payments before the scammer disappeared.

While the “Nigerian prince” scam received enough publicity that it became almost unbelievable that people could fall for it, if done well, these can be psychologically sophisticated scams. The stories play on people’s emotions, get them invested in the person, and enamor them with the idea of being someone helpful and important. A compelling narrative can diminish someone’s critical thinking and cause them to ignore red flags.

Today, these scams are more likely to take the form of inheritance fraud or a lottery scam, where, again, a person has to pay an advance fee to unlock a much bigger reward, playing on the common desire for easy money.

Evolution of Fraud

These examples make it clear that fraud is nothing new and that effective tactics have thrived over the centuries. Technology simply opens up new opportunities for fraud.

While 18th-century scammers had to rely on face-to-face contact and fraudulent letters, in the 19th century they could leverage the telegraph for “urgent” communication and newspaper ads to reach broader audiences. In the 20th century, there were telephones and television ads. Today, there are email, social media, and deepfakes, with new technologies emerging daily.

Rather than quack doctors offering miracle cures, we see online health scams selling diet pills and antiaging products. Rather than impersonating real people, we see fake social media accounts and catfishing. Fraudulent sites convince people to enter their bank details rather than asking them to send money. The anonymity of the digital world protects perpetrators.

But despite the technology changing, the underlying psychology that makes scams successful remains the same:

  • Greed and the desire for easy money
  • Fear of missing out and the belief that a response is urgent
  • Social pressure to “keep up with the Joneses” and the “Bandwagon Effect”
  • Trust in authority without verification

Therefore, the best protection against scams remains the same: critical thinking and skepticism, not technology.

Responding to Fraud

In conclusion, Vazdar shared a series of steps that people should take to protect themselves against fraud:

  • Think before you click.
  • Beware of secrecy and urgency.
  • Verify identities.
  • If it seems too good to be true, be skeptical.
  • Use available security tools.

Those security tools have changed over time and will continue to change, but the underlying steps for identifying and preventing fraud remain the same.

For more insights from Vazdar and other experts in the field, consider enrolling in highly specialized and comprehensive programs like OPIT’s Enterprise Security Master’s program.

Related posts

Wired: Think Twice Before Creating That ChatGPT Action Figure
OPIT - Open Institute of Technology
OPIT - Open Institute of Technology
May 12, 2025 6 min read

Source:

  • Wired, published on May 01st, 2025

People are using ChatGPT’s new image generator to take part in viral social media trends. But using it also puts your privacy at risk—unless you take a few simple steps to protect yourself.

By Kate O’Flaherty

At the start of April, an influx of action figures started appearing on social media sites including LinkedIn and X. Each figure depicted the person who had created it with uncanny accuracy, complete with personalized accessories such as reusable coffee cups, yoga mats, and headphones.

All this is possible because of OpenAI’s new GPT-4o-powered image generator, which supercharges ChatGPT’s ability to edit pictures, render text, and more. OpenAI’s ChatGPT image generator can also create pictures in the style of Japanese animated film company Studio Ghibli—a trend that quickly went viral, too.

The images are fun and easy to make—all you need is a free ChatGPT account and a photo. Yet to create an action figure or Studio Ghibli-style image, you also need to hand over a lot of data to OpenAI, which could be used to train its models.

Hidden Data

The data you are giving away when you use an AI image editor is often hidden. Every time you upload an image to ChatGPT, you’re potentially handing over “an entire bundle of metadata,” says Tom Vazdar, area chair for cybersecurity at Open Institute of Technology. “That includes the EXIF data attached to the image file, such as the time the photo was taken and the GPS coordinates of where it was shot.”

OpenAI also collects data about the device you’re using to access the platform. That means your device type, operating system, browser version, and unique identifiers, says Vazdar. “And because platforms like ChatGPT operate conversationally, there’s also behavioral data, such as what you typed, what kind of images you asked for, how you interacted with the interface and the frequency of those actions.”

It’s not just your face. If you upload a high-resolution photo, you’re giving OpenAI whatever else is in the image, too—the background, other people, things in your room and anything readable such as documents or badges, says Camden Woollven, group head of AI product marketing at risk management firm GRC International Group.

This type of voluntarily provided, consent-backed data is “a gold mine for training generative models,” especially multimodal ones that rely on visual inputs, says Vazdar.

OpenAI denies it is orchestrating viral photo trends as a ploy to collect user data, yet the firm certainly gains an advantage from it. OpenAI doesn’t need to scrape the web for your face if you’re happily uploading it yourself, Vazdar points out. “This trend, whether by design or a convenient opportunity, is providing the company with massive volumes of fresh, high-quality facial data from diverse age groups, ethnicities, and geographies.”

OpenAI says it does not actively seek out personal information to train models—and it doesn’t use public data on the internet to build profiles about people to advertise to them or sell their data, an OpenAI spokesperson tells WIRED. However, under OpenAI’s current privacy policy, images submitted through ChatGPT can be retained and used to improve its models.

Any data, prompts, or requests you share helps teach the algorithm—and personalized information helps fine tune it further, says Jake Moore, global cybersecurity adviser at security outfit ESET, who created his own action figure to demonstrate the privacy risks of the trend on LinkedIn.

Uncanny Likeness

In some markets, your photos are protected by regulation. In the UK and EU, data-protection regulation including the GDPR offer strong protections, including the right to access or delete your data. At the same time, use of biometric data requires explicit consent.

However, photographs become biometric data only when processed through a specific technical means allowing the unique identification of a specific individual, says Melissa Hall, senior associate at law firm MFMac. Processing an image to create a cartoon version of the subject in the original photograph is “unlikely to meet this definition,” she says.

Meanwhile, in the US, privacy protections vary. “California and Illinois are leading with stronger data protection laws, but there is no standard position across all US states,” says Annalisa Checchi, a partner at IP law firm Ionic Legal. And OpenAI’s privacy policy doesn’t contain an explicit carve-out for likeness or biometric data, which “creates a grey area for stylized facial uploads,” Checchi says.

The risks include your image or likeness being retained, potentially used to train future models, or combined with other data for profiling, says Checchi. “While these platforms often prioritize safety, the long-term use of your likeness is still poorly understood—and hard to retract once uploaded.”

OpenAI says its users’ privacy and security is a top priority. The firm wants its AI models to learn about the world, not private individuals, and it actively minimizes the collection of personal information, an OpenAI spokesperson tells WIRED.

Meanwhile, users have control over how their data is used, with self-service tools to access, export, or delete personal information. You can also opt out of having content used to improve models, according to OpenAI.

ChatGPT Free, Plus, and Pro users can control whether they contribute to future model improvements in their data controls settings. OpenAI does not train on ChatGPT Team, Enterprise, and Edu customer data⁠ by default, according to the company.

Read the full article below:

Read the article
LADBible and Yahoo News: Viral AI trend could present huge privacy concerns, says expert
OPIT - Open Institute of Technology
OPIT - Open Institute of Technology
May 12, 2025 4 min read

Source:


You’ve probably seen them all over Instagram

By James Moorhouse

Experts have warned against participating in a viral social media trend which sees people use ChatGPT to create an action figure version of themselves.

If you’ve spent any time whatsoever doomscrolling on Instagram or TikTok or dare I say it, LinkedIn recently, you’ll be all too aware of the viral trend.

Obviously, there’s nothing more entertaining and frivolous than seeing AI generated versions of your co-workers and their cute little laptops and piña coladas, but it turns out that it might not be the best idea to take part.

There may well be some benefits to artificial intelligence but often it can produce some pretty disturbing results. Earlier this year, a lad from Norway sued ChatGPT after it falsely claimed he had been convicted of killing two of his kids.

Unfortunately, if you don’t like AI, then you’re going to have to accept that it’s going to become a regular part of our lives. You only need to look at WhatsApp or Facebook messenger to realise that. But it’s always worth saying please and thank you to ChatGPT just in case society does collapse and the AI robots take over, in the hope that they treat you mercifully. Although it might cost them a little more electricity.

Anyway, in case you’re thinking of getting involved in this latest AI trend and sharing your face and your favourite hobbies with a high tech robot, maybe don’t. You don’t want to end up starring in your own Netflix series, à la Black Mirror.

Tom Vazdar, area chair for cybersecurity at Open Institute of Technology, spoke with Wired about some of the dangers of sharing personal details about yourself with AI.

Every time you upload an image to ChatGPT, you’re potentially handing over ‘an entire bundle of metadata’ he revealed.

Vazdar added: “That includes the EXIF data attached to the image file, such as the time the photo was taken and the GPS coordinates of where it was shot.

“Because platforms like ChatGPT operate conversationally, there’s also behavioural data, such as what you typed, what kind of images you asked for, how you interacted with the interface and the frequency of those actions.”

Essentially, if you upload a photo of your face, you’re not just giving AI access to your face, but also the whatever is in the background, such as the location or other people that might feature.

Vazdar concluded: “This trend, whether by design or a convenient opportunity, is providing the company with massive volumes of fresh, high-quality facial data from diverse age groups, ethnicities, and geographies.”

While we’re at it, maybe stop using ChatGPT for your university essays and general basic questions you can find the answer to on Google as well. The last thing you need is AI knowing you don’t know how to do something basic if it does takeover the world.

Read the full article below:

Read the article