MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399920775 · doi:10.34190/eccws.23.1.2204

Exploring Cyber Fraud within the South African Cybersecurity Legal Framework

2024· article· en· W4399920775 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityInternet privacyBusinessComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All countries are globally struggling with the challenges cybercrime presents to the cybersecurity legal framework. Fraud is not a new crime and existed long before the internet. The internet provides a threat actor access to a lot of potential victims and the use of various threat vectors to gain access to personal information by means of social engineering. It is therefore not surprising that cyber fraud has become a serious threat which continues to escalate globally. In 2021, around $100 million was lost in Canada due to online fraud. The United Kingdom (UK) Finance indicated that cyber fraud costs consumers more than £1.2 billion in 2022. The South African (SA) Fraud Prevention Services noted a 356% surge in identity fraud between April 2022 and April 2023. The cybersecurity threat landscape is ever-evolving with the UK Finance warning that the number of cyber frauds could surge out of control as threat actors begin to incorporate the use of Artificial intelligence (AI) to make their operations far more sophisticated and not as easily detected. In 2023 the United States (US) also warned that the irresponsible use of AI could exacerbate societal harms such as fraud. Cyber fraud, also referred to as a “white collar” or commercial crime, is an umbrella term to describe the commission of different types of cyber fraud by means of the use of various threat vectors. The threat vector used to commit the different type of fraud is continuously evolving, such as the use of sophisticated phishing to quishing and deep fakes which are aimed at deceiving the recipient in sharing information. The information obtained from a data breach may be used to commit cyber fraud. Irrespective of the threat vector used to commit fraud, all types of fraud present with the same elements, namely a threat actor who unlawfully and intentionally deceives a victim to benefit and cause harm. The discussion focuses on cyber fraud in general and not a specific type of cyber fraud. The purpose of the discussion is to provide an overview of the challenges cyber fraud present to the South African cybersecurity legal landscape.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it