The problem of “white noise”: examining current prevention approaches to online fraud
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the current prevention messages that exist surrounding the prevention of online fraud. In particular, it focuses on the amount and level of detail that is promoted for each type of potential fraudulent approach. Design/methodology/approach: Multiple data sources are used to establish the main premise of this paper. This includes the publication entitled The Little Black Book of Scams , qualitative data from victims who have experienced online fraud, and materials collected through a police investigation into online fraud. Findings: Results of this analysis indicate that current prevention messages are characterised by a large degree of detail about the various ways that (online) fraud can be perpetrated. This is argued to be ineffective, based on the experiences of victims who were unable to apply their previous knowledge about fraud to their experiences. Additionally, the categorisation of fraudulent approaches is highlighted as unimportant to offenders, who are focused on obtaining money by whatever means (or approach) possible. Practical implications: This paper provides the impetus to evaluate the effectiveness of current prevention messages. It points to a simplification of existing prevention messages to focus more importantly on the transfer of money and the protection of personal information. Originality/value: This paper argues that current prevention messages are characterised by too much “white noise”, in that they focus on an overwhelming amount of detail. This is argued to obscure what should be a straightforward message which could have a greater impact than current messages.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Current prevention messaging against romance fraud focuses heavily on sending money directly to an offender.
“Current prevention messaging is heavily focused on alerting people to an offender's request for money and is framed around instructions not to send money (Cross & Kelly, 2016).”
From Romance baiting, cryptorom and 'pig butchering': an evolutionary step in romance fraud (2024) · cites this paper as Cross & Kelly, 2016
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 51
- Authors
- Cross, C., & Kelly, M.
- Affiliations
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Venue
- Journal of Financial Crime
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2016-10-03
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 806-818
- ISSN
- 1359-0790 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2544438446
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9
- FWCI
- 11.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- eprints.qut.edu.au
- Locations
- Journal of Financial Crime (publishedVersion)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Keywords
- online fraud, white noise, personal data protection, money transfer, police investigation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review