Racing for AI ...

I wonder if the complicated, unpredictable, and generally unreliable aspect of our behavior that is known as "personality" simply results from an enormous number of race conditions within our supposed cognitive circuitry.

If so, of course, in order to obtain *true* artificial intelligence, we should not be *too* careful about preventing race conditions among the huge number of processors in the data centres running genAI.

(Of course, in order to explain that thought, I would have to explain what a race condition is ... )

Sermon 73 - Muster station, safe and secure

Sermon 73 - Muster station, safe and secure

Proverbs 24:11-12

Rescue those being led away to death;

    hold back those staggering toward slaughter.

If you say, "But we knew nothing about this,"

    does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?

Does not he who guards your life know it?

    Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

2 Corinthians 1:4

who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God.

Recently, at a church, I saw a sort of a an observation, a kind of a meme, illustrated with a picture of the cross, with a sign low on its upright, indicating "muster station."  The observation went on to note that for us (Christians definitely, but possibly all human beings in general), our muster station was at the cross.

It is a lovely and possibly inspirational note.  But it probably deserves a bit more examination in terms of what a muster station actually is.

First of all, there is the word muster.  Muster is to gather, to assemble, particularly in the face of a threat.  The word muster is used in the Bible.  The concept definitely is.  The trumpet sounds, and the people come together to face a problem or an assault.  This is probably most clearly outlined in the book of Nehemiah.  The people were rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem, and they definitely had some enemies who did not want this to happen.  So Nehemiah gave instructions that the people who were working on the wall would work with one hand holding a sword or a spear, and the other doing the actual construction work.  They would also have trumpets, and, if any part of the wall was attacked, those who were being attacked would sound the trumpet, and all the other workers would assemble, with their weapons, ready to repulse any attack. That is mustering.

Mustering also took place, through the ages, when a sample of the local populace would be called to support the lord or king in a war, either of defense or of conquest.  Those who had more experience in battle, and possibly weapons, would muster, or assemble, and would then travel to muster, or assemble, into a larger army.

These days we don't do that.  We have a standing army, a professional army, and those people have means of communication, and will receive orders to assemble in support of whatever project the army is engaged in at the moment.  So we still have mustering, but most of us know the word muster in terms of a muster station.

The muster station is a place of assembly in the face of a threat.  But we are not necessarily assembling to fight the threat, regardless of what the threat is.  In our day and age, a muster station is a place where an office, or a building, or a school, or any group or subgroup of the population, is under threat.  There are muster stations on ships, in case of some problem with the ship that might render it unseaworthy.  There are muster stations outside of buildings, in the case of fire.  So, it isn't anymore primarily a human threat, of an enemy come to attack us, but it's a threat nonetheless.

But we are not asking the people who are mustering to prepare to face the threat.  These days, mustering at a muster station is primarily about ensuring that everyone is safe.  It is about safety.

And, at this point, I want to digress to a topic in this regard.  Generally speaking, when we get to a muster station, one of the first things that happens is a headcount.  We count that everyone is here.  That everyone is out of the burning building.  That no one is locked in their ship's cabin.  We count to make sure that everyone is here, and therefore safe.  With us.

And this is an important point.  I'm going to come back to it to a certain extent but this business of counting your people, checking on your people, making sure that everyone is safe, is an important point, and probably one that I should address in a completely separate sermon as well.  How often do we see someone, week in, and week out, coming into our church, and leaving, looking somewhat despondent, and we never check on them.  We need to count our chicks.  We need to check on those who come to us.  Maybe it's someone who comes and goes, and nobody talks to them.  Maybe nobody knows even knows what their name is.  Why don't we know what their name is?  Why don't we know why they are looking despondent?  Why don't we know why they never talk to anyone?  We need to check that these people are safe.

We want to make sure that everyone is safe and secure.

Safe and secure.  We use that phrase all the time.  We don't really realize how strange that phrase actually is.  We see safe, and secure, as synonyms.  That safety and security are the same thing.  And, for those of us who actually do know about security, that is definitely not the case at all.

To explain how strange the phrase safe and secure actually is, and even to explain the concept of security, we have to talk about failure.

When I published my first book, after having talked about computer viruses and what they were, and given a little bit of the history and some examples of computer viruses that had been doing the rounds, I started in on the chapter on protection.  And I started off the chapter by saying in order to protect your system, you have to assume that you are going to fail.  Or, at least, you must never assume that you are going to succeed.

That may sound strange to those of you who do not work in security.  Actually, this was fairly early in my security career, so I'm a little bit surprised, myself, that, at that early point, I did understand this concept.

When somebody asks you to secure their systems, or their premises, or their enterprise, or whatever it may be, and you ask them how much security they want, the answer is pretty much always the same: 100%.  Of course, for those of us who actually know anything about security, we know that there is no such thing.  There is never 100%, guaranteed protection.  It just doesn't exist.  It flies in the face of the laws of physics, and any other universal laws that there may be.  You just can't have perfect.

Of course, as Christians, we should understand this.  We are called to be perfect, just as our Father in heaven is perfect.  But we also know that we can't be.  We are imperfect.  We are sinners.  We can never, by our own efforts, achieve holiness, or righteousness, or perfection.  We are sinful, and that is it.  And, as we have fallen, so nature has fallen.  The entire world, the entire universe, has fallen and is imperfect.  Possibly in heaven you can have perfect security, and possibly in heaven you can have a perfectly reflecting surface: I don't know what God has done about the laws of physics in heaven.  I don't know whether you *need* any laws of physics in heaven.  But, here on this fallen earth, we cannot have perfection.  And, we cannot have perfect security.

So, in our imperfect world, we, as imperfect security experts, in our attempt to provide what security we can, we have to assume that any particular security protection will be imperfect, and will fail at some point.  So we build what we refer to as defense in depth, or layered defense.  We look at the protection that we are putting in place, and try to figure out the most likely place, and extent, to which it will fail.  And then we put another protection in place, which will, hopefully, catch some of the threats that get past the vulnerabilities in the first protection.  And we may put a third protection in place, and possibly other multiple layers of protections.  Knowing, all the while, that while we are increasing the level of protection, and increasing the security, and decreasing the threat of an attack actually succeeding, we are never going to get to 100%.  We are never going to get perfect security.

So we turn to another concept in security, again based on the idea of failure.  We look at the different protections available to us, and we decide whether we want the system to fail safe, or fail secure.

To fail safe means that, even if the system is damaged, it will still function to a certain extent.  So, do we want our computer system, say, to continue to operate, even if the access controls are not working quite right.  This means that the system is failing safely.  This means that the information, and possibly certain functions, are still available to us, even though they might not, anymore, be protected against other people.

The other option is fail secure.  Fail secure means that, if the system is damaged, it will protect our assets and keep them from being obtained by anyone else, even if that means that we can't get at them, either.

Now that may sound somewhat academic when we are talking about a computer system.  After all, while just about all of you will interact with a computer at some point (pretty much every day these days), you don't necessarily manage the computer system.  You weren't responsible if someone breaks in and steals some information.  But the concepts of fail safe, and fail secure, don't apply just to computer systems.  They can apply to other things as well.

So, for example, let us consider a fire door.  What do you want to happen if there is a fire in the building?  Most buildings, most large businesses or commercial enterprises, will have magnetically locked doors.  The doors are held closed by electromagnets.  If the power in the building fails, then the doors are unlocked, and anyone can enter.  But, by the same token, anyone can leave, as well.  Therefore, if the building is on fire, you want all your employees and possibly customers to be able to leave the building as quickly as possible, in order to get to the muster station and be safe.

That's fail safe.  But there are some situations where we use fail secure, even on a fire door.  If you are on a in a high security military installation, and you are near a fire door, and the fire alarm goes off, get away from the doorway.  High security military installations, and, generally speaking, Navy ships, are built on a fail secure concept.  Fire doors in those types of situations will shut, relatively soon after the fire alarms start going off.  It's important that they shut.  It keeps the installation secure.  And if you are in the way of one of those doors, and the doors start to shut, then the doors will shut.  Regardless of whether or not you are in the way.  That is definitely not safe.  It *is* secure.  That is why safe and secure are not synonymous.

Okay, we want to return to assembling in the face of a threat, and muster stations.  Now there are some pretty constant threats in our environment, as Christians.  We are under constant threat from the temptations of the world.  We are under threat from the false idols of the world.  We are under threat from God.  After all, God is God, and God is holy and righteous, and we are sinners, and God has every right to destroy us for our sinfulness.  But God has covered that, so we need not fear it.  But that does give us a bit of an indication of where "at the cross" would be.

I mean, we talk about meeting God, or meeting Jesus, at the cross, all the time.  We don't really think about what it means.  Individually, yes, we are coming to God in humility and gratitude for the sacrifice of Jesus that brought us salvation.  But that isn't assembling.  That's us individually.  So, fairly obviously, "at the cross," in terms of mustering and assembling for safety, is the church.

And this brings up an important point about what the church should be.  A muster station is kind of the ultimate definition of a safe space.  We are assembling in the face of a threat.  Therefore, we want a space where people will be safe from threats.  And so that gives us an important idea of what the church should be.  The church should be our monster station.  The church should be a safe space.

We use that phrase, safe space, quite a lot.  It's likely that we have kind of forgotten what it should mean.  The space should be safe.  It should be safe from threats.  It should be safe from *all* threats.  And, because the space is a space for gathering, for assembling, then that means that the space should be safe from us, as well.  Anybody who inhabits the safe space has to respect the safety of the space.  They have to respect the fact that other people have needs, and fears, and triggers, and that you have to be gentle, and non-threatening, with anyone in the safe space.  Even if you are in the safe space, yourself.

The church should be fail safe, not fail secure.  We do not need to keep the church, the safe space, the space that keeps us safe from threats, secure.  Yes, we have to keep it safe.  We do have to provide protection against threats, even threats from ourselves.  But we do not have to secure the church.  After all, what is the church?  As we frequently point out, the church is not a building, or even, really, an institution.  It is not the rules that we create, even though we create rules to help maintain the church, and to keep it safe for those within it.  But the church doesn't have to be secured.  The church is, quite simply, all the people of God.  Wherever two or three are gathered in His name, that is the church.

We do not have to secure God, or God's holiness and righteousness.  Even to entertain that thought sounds a little bit like blasphemy.  After all, God is God.  God is secure, in and of himself.  God is who He is.  His holiness, and His righteousness, are inherent in God's nature.  And, after all, what could we possibly do to protect God?  God is all powerful.  We are pathetically weak.  God is Holy.  We are sinners.  God is righteous.  We are imperfect and fallible.  There is nothing we can possibly do to protect or secure God.  And, indeed, nothing that we need to do to protect God, or secure his holiness.  God is God.

We couldn't do that anyway.  And the church should be safe for sinners.  God calls sinners.  Jesus came for those who were sick and needed a physician, not those who were righteous.  Which is a good thing, since we are all sinners, and none of us are righteous.

God does not, of course, need us to keep people safe.  God can keep others safe, and even secure, in the same way that God is, Himself, inherently secure.  God doesn't *need* us to do anything.  However, God has offered us the opportunity to help keep people safe.  Are we going to take that opportunity, or are we simply going to ignore it?

Sermons: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/09/sermons.html

It couldn't possibly be a scam, could it?

This one is a bit personal.  I have been under a targetted grief scam attack for about a month, now, although the early stages of it started a little over two months ago, and the origin of the whole process now dates back almost five months.  My colleagues in security are finding this hilarious, of course, and have encouraged me to continue the contact, for research purposes.

In that regard, it has been somewhat useful.  At the very least, it has pointed me to the use, and utility, of the concept of "frictionless" as a characteristic of conversational style that can be used, surprisingly early in the process, for identifying some contact as a scam, or potential scam.  In addition (and somewhat relatedly), I have been intrigued at the (mostly indirect) connections between the research into online scams and frauds, and my research into the risks of the new generative artificial intelligence systems.

(At the very least, the next time I do a series of seminars or workshops into protecting yourself against online scams and frauds, this incident is going to take up and entire episode.)

Background: the Widowed Village organization (associated with Soaring Spirits International) has a "pen pal" offering.  (Someone asked if Widowed Village is, itself, a scam.  I doubt it.  They do seem to have taken steps to protect their members, although those steps seem to be insufficient.  I believe the organization is honestly wishing to do service to those in distress, although, as with all too many such, I wonder if they have put enough effort into ensuring that their services are actually helpful, or sufficiently address the possible risks.)  I've been "matched" with six pen pals, only one of which has continued beyond two transactions (one stopping immediately after a mention of my research into grief scams).  However, I've noted that he (all the matches seem to be the same gender, presumably as a minimalist protection against romance/grief scams) hasn't really said much about himself, although he always commended me on being so honest and open.

"Edmund" is 49 and has an 18 year-old daughter who means the world to him (but whom he never otherwise mentions).  I told "him" a lot about myself (including the fact that I was a security expert), and even more was available in my blog.  "He" was always appreciative.  The only thing he really mentioned about himself was a major road-building contract coming up in the Middle East, which needed investment.  (Hey, I'm a professional paranoiac.  At this point I'm starting to see signs of a potential scam.  But I keep going.)  

So, after eight transactions back and forth, today I received:

***

Meanwhile, I met a woman here in Turkey who is in her early 60s. She’s a gemstone trader and is currently facing a difficult situation. She came to Turkey to purchase some gemstones to bring back to the United States but was held at the airport for not having the required export license. Now, she’s facing the possibility of a four-year jail sentence.

She explained that she has a trust fund left to her, which she needs to claim in order to get the finance needed to resolve her issues. The trust has a mandate that it must be claimed with a man present in her life. She is a widower, and I want to be clear that I cannot get involved with her personally.

Would you be interested in communicating with her or offering any assistance?

***

1)  Hands up those who think that this is a variant but fairly classic grief scam, with an initial approach by someone presenting as male to get around the system's grief scam protection, and then redirecting me to the scam?

2)  Hands up those who think that this guy is, himself, as a widower, being grief scammed, and I should warn him?

3)  Hands up those who think that I have let my professional paranoia run away with me, and I am throwing away a golden opportunity to meet, aid, and fall madly in love with this age-appropriate and wealthy woman who needs my assistance?

Anyway, I carried on, although I did note that neither gem trading nor legalities were my specialties.  (OK, I lied a bit about not being familiar with the law.)  Now, at this point, "Edmund" seems to get impatient, and (as I had asked him about his daughter) seemed to mess up his response:

***

My daughter is doing well, and I plan to see her when I leave Turkey.  I hope you might have the chance to get to know each other. I know she is looking for a trustworthy man to help her with a power of attorney so she can have easier access to the trust fund left for her.

***

So I messed with him a little on that score, but kept going.  However, by this time I had also alerted Widowed Village, and they had started an investigation, so I suspected that that scared him off.

Oh, but wait!  Before he disappeared, he gave my email address to "Debra."  In "her" second message to me, "Debra" noted that "she" was keeping an open mind as we get to know each other as life has taught "her" that meaningful connections often begin with simple conversations, and "she" looks forward to learning more about me.  Outside of work, "she" enjoy simple pleasures.  "She" likes taking walks, listening to good music, reading, and spending quiet time reflecting or enjoying nature.  "She" also enjoys travelling when "she" can, trying new foods, and having relaxed conversations with good company.  "She" values honesty, kindness, and a good sense of humor.  (I note that this seems to be copied directly from "How to Write A Generically Attractive Dating Profile in 25 Words or Less.")

My colleagues have been interested enough in this tale to ask me to continue the conversation, so I'm updating the progress of the scam here in expanding this posting over time.

"Debra" had been quiet for a couple of days, and I was wondering if "she" had twigged to the fact that I know that this is a scam.  But today she sent me a picture!  (Of a woman who, five years ago, was running a vintage fashion business.)  She also responded to my email, praising everything that I wrote--and saying almost nothing about herself.

In her most recent two messages, "Debra" has included additional pictures with each.  I'm learning more about Google Lens and the reverse image search capabilities, but the additional pictures provide little to go on.  The pictures could be of the same woman, but, given the "similar" pictures that Google pulls up, they could just be "blonde woman, older but still socially active and visiting the hairdresser quite regularly."

I'm falling down on the job: I should be posting more analysis of the content of the emails.  The primary characteristic is "frictionless."  The emails are as polite (and pretty much as content-free) as a conversation with a genAI chatbot.  (It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that an AI tool is involved.)

This issue of "friction" in relationships, or "frictionless" conversation, is originating with regard to generative AI, and conversing with chatbots.  But it seems to be a useful characteristic in regard to identifying scams.  Ordinary relationships have friction: disagreements between the parties to the relationship.  Chatbots are primarily built to be polite, and to seldom directly challenge the person they are conversing with, and so the discussions are tending to be described as frictionless.  The same characteristics tend to show up in conversations involved in scams.

So, lets examine some of "Debra's" emails to me.

In one of her first extended messages to me, "Debra" said:

"Thank you for your thoughtful message. I truly enjoyed reading it …. you write in a way that makes it easy to picture the moments you describe."

This is vaguely complimentary, but really pretty "content free."  As I noted in my experiments with getting genAI to write a bio for me, you can't really challenge any of it, but you can't prove it, either.  It is neither true nor false, and generally pointless.

" [...] interest in minerals as a boy made me smile. It is wonderful how childhood curiosities sometimes shape a lifetime’s work. Perhaps one day you will tell me what some of his favorite finds were. As a mineral geologist, I have always found it fascinating how ordinary stones can hold extraordinary stories."

This seems to have some content, and even a personal connection, but, if you examine it closely, you'll note that it has neither.  I subsequently asked "Debra" about the comment about "ordinary stones holding extraordinary stories," and got no response.

"Debra" seems very keen on travel.

"Your life as a teacher and traveler sounds rich with experience. I understand what you mean about business travel losing its romantic shine after a while, though I still try to appreciate the opportunity to see different cultures and landscapes. Istanbul itself is a city full of history and contrasts, and being here has been both interesting and rewarding for me."

While "she" doesn't directly challenge my reluctance to travel, "she" does keep on pushing me to be more open to it.  I'm not sure why.  If all they want is for me to send money, why do they need me to travel?  They may, of course, have a fixation on one of the variations on the scam that relies on getting the mark to travel in order to more firmly establish the investment and connection.

"I was touched by what you shared about Gloria. Four and a half years is not such a long time when someone has meant so much in one's life. Loss changes many things, sometimes in ways we do not expect … even the simple pleasure of reading. I admire your honesty in speaking about grief and depression. It takes strength to keep moving forward while carrying those experiences, and I respect that very much."

Once again, while this is vaguely complimentary, it's also pretty banal, as far as talking about the massive changes that bereavement makes in your life.

"You sound like someone who has lived a full and thoughtful life. I especially admire your dedication to teaching and mentoring others. Preparing security professionals for certification for so many years must have allowed you to influence many lives in meaningful ways."

Again, vaguely complimentary, but, when you examine the text in more detail, lacking actual detail or real connection.  Later on "she" mentioned having a husband who died, and, if so, "she" would have a much greater understanding of grief.

"As for me, geology has been more than a career …. It has been a way of seeing the world. I have always enjoyed working outdoors as well as studying minerals and formations in the laboratory. Even now, I still feel a sense of excitement when I encounter a new rock formation or mineral specimen. My work has taken me to several countries over the years, and I believe those experiences have shaped me into a patient and adaptable person."

Much less detail than I would expect in regard to a fulfilling career, or even an important hobby.

"On a personal level, I am a calm and thoughtful woman who appreciates meaningful conversation and companionship. I enjoy quiet evenings, good music, and occasional outings. I also value connections and simple moments of happiness. With age, I think I have learned to appreciate peace of mind and genuine kindness more than anything else."

As previously noted, a pretty vague and generic piece of text that could be taken from any dating site profile.

"I hope your upcoming classical music concert goes well …. It sounds like a lovely event. What kind of classical music do you enjoy most? Do you have favorite composers or pieces that you return to again and again?"

In other messages, "Debra" notes that music is important to "her."  So why does "she" say nothing of her own favorite composers, or style of music?  Of course, "she" wants to know *my* favorites before she commits to any herself.

"I am glad we have begun this conversation, and I look forward to getting to know you better."

Generically complimentary.

This is getting to be mind-numbingly boring.

First off, it's fairly obvious that "Debra" (and probably "Edmund" before her) really aren't paying attention to what I'm writing.  I'm not exactly hiding the fact that I'm a security expert, and my sigblock currently contains a reference to a series of postings on online frauds and scams (of which series this posting is a part).

As noted elsewhere, the frictionless nature of the messages that "Edmund" or Debra" write raises the suspicion that the scammer is using some kind of genAI tool to generate their responses.  The messages, as noted above, are pretty content-free.  As a test, I took one of the messages that *I* sent, asked a few chatbots to create responses to them, and got results that, while not word-for-word identical, were, effectively, basically the same.  I suppose I should save time by simply having a chatbot write my responses to "Debra."

Today "Debra" moved into the next stage of the scam: The Problem.  Actually, "she" was still pretty coy about what the problem actually is, but "she" introduced the fact (previously alluded to by "Edmund") that "she" is the beneficiary of a trust fund, but there is a condition that she has to be in a relationship or engaged to someone.  (I'm not sure how you can be engaged but not in a relationship, but ...)

As I noted, above, I'd been thinking about reducing the load of continuing this by getting AI to write my responses.  Interestingly, Claude and Qwen refused, noting that "Debra's" messages showed signs of being part of an online scam, and warning that I should end the correspondence.  However, ChatGPT, Meta AI, and DeepSeek were all happy to comply, with no warnings of the danger.  Meta AI's was the friendliest.  (ChatGPT noted that I wasn't in any position to help.)  I stitched together bits of all three to compose my reply.

OK, we seem to be getting near the endgame.  "Debra" is introducing me to a "lawyer," identified as Sousa Darius  sousa@sousaschamber.com.  There does seem to be a sousaschanber domain and Website.  Very bland and uninformative, providing only a function for you to send them your contact details.  The Website is less than a month and a half old.  They list quite a variety of specialties.  So many that I'm surprised that they only have five hundred (plus) satisfied customers!  (Then again, that's quite a lot, if they really are only a month and a half old.)  They list an office in Vienna.  Unfortunately, lawyers have to be registered in Austria--and they aren't.

("Debra" also seems to have decided that I have Germanic background, starting off the message with "Thank you so much, Hun" and ending with "Thanks again, Hun.")

Actually, yesterday, just after I got "Debra's" message, we had a fairly massive power outage here.  And then some power restoration stumbles that put responding to scammers at a low priority.  So I was able to use that as an excuse when "Debra" got very nervous (panic-stricken?) that I hadn't responded immediately.

I was a bit surprised at how fast things were ramping up.  As well as addressing me as "Hun," "Debra" wanted me to introduce myself to the lawyer as her fiancee.  Our relationship seems to be progressing by leaps and bounds!  But then, after all, we *have* known each other for an entire nineteen days!

Well, from addressing me as "Hun" and fiancee, "Debra" has jumped back several rungs on the familiarity ladder.  Without skipping a beat, mind you.  She still expects me to contact the "lawyer" and somehow be involved with a power of attorney.

The genAI/LLM chatbots have *really* let me down.  I asked them (well, the three remaining ones that didn't refuse last time) to respond to the latest message.  ChatGPT did provide a response, but it contained a pretty flat "no" as far as being involved in anything legal.  That's probably safer, for the general public (although ChatGPT missed the boat on that last time), but, for my purposes of trolling the scammers, it isn't very helpful.  Meta AI and DeepSeek are all in, eager to get involved with the lawyer and get on with being scammed!

But then I realized that I wasn't being fair to the chatbots.  When I added a note to the effect that I realized this was a scam, but wanted to continue (short of sending money) the bots were more helpful.  (Well, except for Qwen.  Qwen still feels that this is a really bad idea, and wants me to report the scam.  Rather ironically, to the US FTC.)  (Oh, and, even when informed that this is a scam, Meta AI is still all in, and wants me to hurry up and get involved with a possibly criminal power of attorney.)  ChatGPT provided a reasonably and suitably cautious reply.  Claude's reply was better, and more specific, and included and extra warning to be cautious.  DeepSeek was complimentary, and congratulated me on my approach, as well as ending with some warnings.  The reply itself was a bit weak, and it seemed to get confused about just who had had the power outage, so that wasn't terribly useful.  I'll probably use a combination of ChatGPT and Claude, mostly Claude.

And, I've sent an initial message to "Sousa."

Oh, and thanks to John Glover for the idea for Scambusters:

https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/03/scambusters.html

OK, this "lawyer," "Sousa," is *really keen to get started.  "He" replied, at 2:30pm New York time, or 8:30 pm Vienna time, on a Saturday, wanting to get started.

The thing is, his entire message is:

***

Dear  Robert,

Kindly provide a phone number and convenient time to reach you, This will allow us to discuss more efficiently.

Please let me know your preferred time for a call at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Regards,

***

That's it.

As it happens, I have contracted with lawyers.  Quite a bit.  I have never had an email message like this from any lawyer, ever.  No header advertising the company.  No footer with a disclaimer stating that if you have received this message and are not the person to whom it was supposed to be addressed it was not the fault of the law firm and in fact *you* are in violation of intellectual property and privacy laws.

And, despite the total lack of content, it hit the spam filter.  I'd say that sousa@sousaschamber.com has a pretty bad reputation, for some reason.

Phone call March 14.  "Sousa" said that a phone call would be more efficient, but this was possibly the least efficient communication I've ever had with anyone.  "Sousa" has a Black or possibly Chinese accent?  "Sousa" doesn't know that Europe is not a country, but we eventually establish that Switzerland is the jurisdiction for the estate and the will.  The power of attorney document not available until "he" prepares and presents it to me.  (This guy is the vaguest, and most non-specific lawyer I have ever dealt with, and I've dealt with a number of them.)  "He" is going to send a "client information document" to me, for me to fill out.  (Sending me that document seems to be taking a while, so I'm not sitting by the computer and waiting for it.)

"Sousa" finally sent me the client information form--as a jpeg.  I asked if I could just send "him" the information in an email, and for some reason that is a problem, so "he" is going to send another form on Monday, when "he" is at the office.  (His phone is also some low-grade VoIP thing, and it's really hard to understand him, between the lousy audio and the thick accent.)

I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this up, nor how much value there is in continuing.

1. Both "Debra" and "Sousa" (probably the same person) are really pushing for a quick resolution.  I had two phone calls with "Sousa" on Saturday, and now "Debra" is pushing for phone calls.  I know that "instilling urgency" is one of the standard social engineering tricks in scams, although romance and grief scammers are usually more patient.

2. This (these?) scammer(s) seems to be thick as two short planks.  I know that some people would be taken in, despite the egregious errors that they are making, but it's getting hard to take them seriously.  It also means that I doubt there is much to learn from this scam, since it doesn't seem to be being conducted by anyone with any creativity or innovation.

3. I'm not sure about giving them my information for a "power of attorney."  I don't think they could do much in terms of identity theft, but I don't want to give them too much more than I already have.

4. I'm not sure that there is any point in continuing in the hopes of catching them.  I don't see much of a way to get more information with a view to identifying them.

"Sousa" has just provided further evidence of incompetence.  He has sent a PDF of the client information form.  Not a fillable form: just a PDF copy of the JPG.

I think I'm going to tell "Debra" that there are strong indications that he is *not* a properly registered lawyer, but probably an incompetent boob of a scammer, and that she should immediately contact a true and qualified Swiss lawyer to look into matters for her, since I'm sure that "Sousa" is out to scam "her"  :-)

So, here was my reply to "her":

On Sun, Mar 15, 2026 at 1:50 PM Debra E.Murphy <emurphydebra@gmail.com> wrote:

I hope this message finds you well, Hun.

Actually, Debra, I have to say that I am becoming increasingly concerned--for you.

 

I wanted to provide you with some important information regarding the power of attorney related to my uncle’s estate and the current situation I’m facing here in Istanbul.

I'd like to know more about the situation that you are facing in Istanbul, but I think that, first of all, I really need to direct your attention to a problem with Sousa Darius.  I have had a few email messages from him, and a couple of phone calls, and I am seriously concerned about your connection with him.

I deal and contract with lawyers frequently, and his email messages are *not* characteristic of those from lawyers.  In trying to get me to provide some information for the supposed "power of attorney," he has demonstrated complete technical incompetence in some of the most basic areas.  In addition, there is a Website for a law firm under that domain name, but, despite the claim of thirty years' experience, the domain name was registered less than two months ago.  The only address for the law office is in Austria, but in Austria lawyers *and* law firms are required to be registered and certified, and there is no lawyer *or* law firm registered in Austria under those names.  The Website, if read carefully, demonstrates a complete lack of detail that could be used to verify any of the claims made.  There isn't even a listing of biographies of the legal staff who are members of the firm.

In short, I am absolutely convinced that "Sousa Darius" is a fraud, and that you may be in danger by having any legal affairs handled by him.

 

The power of attorney will authorize you to act on my behalf in certain matters, specifically in accessing my uncle’s estate. This access is crucial as I need funds urgently to address some pressing issues here. According to my uncle’s instructions, this power of attorney will allow us to have co-signature authority over the estate, effectively giving me the access I require to manage these matters.

My uncle’s condition for this arrangement was that I be in a relationship with someone who is well connected with me and who would also act as a co-signatory to the entire estate. The estate is governed by Swiss law, and Sousa is both the executor and the lawyer handling these affairs.

Before going any further, with *any* of the many legal issues involved, I really, and most strongly, urge you to immediately find a valid and competent lawyer, registered in Switzerland, since that is the jurisdiction for both the estate and the will.  Get the new lawyer to look into this "Sousa Darius," *and* the will, and find out what the real story is.

I know that this will be most upsetting, and particularly with all the other issues that you are currently facing (and I *do* want to know more details about them), but trying to get anywhere without resolving this "Sousa Darius" issue is bound to result in, possibly very serious, problems.

 

Rob, I want to be open with you….I would not have asked anyone to do this on my behalf under normal circumstances. However, given the situation and the difficulties I am currently experiencing in Istanbul, I need access to the funds urgently, and this is the only viable way to make that happen. I truly appreciate your willingness to help me with this.

Also, I think our communication via email can be slow and might delay important decisions. Please send me your phone number so I can communicate with you for real-time communication.

I would dearly love to speak with you!  I know that being able to tell your troubles to someone (even someone as distant as I am) can be a comfort, even if it is not a direct assist.  My phone number is +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.  Unfortunately, I have to leave for a meeting shortly, and I won't be back home until about 3 pm, Pacific time.  (That would make it 11 pm or midnight, your time?  That might be too late for you to stay up.)  On Tuesday, I would be available before 11 am, before I have other meetings.

Also, while I would love to provide a shoulder to cry on for any topic you wish, in regard to the details of the legal issues, I think we should stick to email messages for those areas.  The very slowness and delay of email messages is in our favour in those areas, since it forces you to slow down and think clearly about the problems, and what the solutions might be.  Letting urgency take over tends to make you fixate on a given course of action, rather than finding new and creative alternatives that might not be immediately obvious when you are rushing towards an immediate solution.

Thank you again for your support and understanding.

Always.  Glad to be of any help. 

"She" didn't call last night, and "she" didn't call this morning, so I think that, as unaware as the scammer seemed to be, they probably finally got the message.

I *really* thought that would be the end of it, but apparently not.  "Debra" is taking my concerns seriously and is looking into the issues that I raised about lawyers and registration.  "She" thanks me for looking out for her!

To be continued? Yet again? ...

Online scams, frauds, and other attacks (OSF series postings)

https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/online-scams-frauds-and-other-attacks.html

Grief table of contents and resources

https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/06/grief-table-of-contents-and-resources.html

Presentative dissonance

 A man may smile and smile and yet be suicidal ...

Woke

When did the word for being a conscious and thinking entity become an insult?

(And why?)

Isaiah 49:20-21

The children born during your bereavement

    will yet say in your hearing,

'This place is too small for us;

    give us more space to live in.'

Then you will say in your heart,

    'Who bore me these?

I was bereaved and barren;

    I was exiled and rejected.

    Who brought these up?

I was left all alone,

    but these—where have they come from?'

Wrong place

I figure that I am always the wrong person in the wrong place and situation.

I am a scientist who believes in God.  I am a believer in discourse and consensus, in a world full of division and denial.  I am a devotee of lifelong learning, in a church that has reached new heights of anti-intellectualism.  A protector of those who think that they are too street-smart to be tricked or trapped.  I am a believer in donating everything that you can, in a world that believes every need is an opportunity for a side hustle.  A teacher in a society where most people avoid learning anything they can.  I am a believer in partnership and relationship, in a society which believes everything is a transaction.  A specialist in information security, in a world where no one wishes to take any account of risk.  I am a specialist in information integrity in a world which no longer believes in the truth.  I am a depressive in a society that worships positivity (even if toxic).

OSF - 3.20 - spam - packages

Package scams are probably yet another variant in the general class of advance fee fraud.  Packages, as well as various gift and lottery, scams have been around for quite a while, but they really picked up during the pandemic, when everybody was ordering things online.  Online ordering, and delivery services, are still quite active, and so package scams are still around.

I have a possible advantage over the scammers, in regard to package scams.  At one time I did a lot of reviewing of technical books, and so I was receiving an awful lot of packages, of books, through the mail, or via the various delivery services.  Therefore, I was more aware than most people of the announcements that you would, and would not, receive from delivery services, and so I was more able to identify the variations that indicated that something was a scam.

As with any advance fee fraud, there is the promise of a benefit to come, dependent upon you paying some kind of fee in advance.  In the case of packages, or the free gifts mentioned earlier, the fee is generally fairly small.  Usually, package scams are a kind of a one-off fraud, rather than the ongoing requests for a constant stream of fees or assistance that are part of the classic advance fee fraud.  However, it is possible that some of the package scams may involve an initial small fee, perhaps five or ten dollars, and only later report that you need to pay extra taxes or duty.

Package scams very often come via text, rather than email.  In this case, it offers us a bit of a twofer, in terms of red flags.  The first message is for a delivery scam.  How do we know?  Well, Canada Post isn't likely to host its rescheduling Website in Hong Kong (.hk).  So that's one indication, for a start.  However, as chance would have it, these particular scammers seem to be involved in a number of different scams.  You'll notice that both messages came from the same number, and one is for a completely different scam (threatening that you have not paid your Disney+ account).

These texts didn't come from the same number: this is from my reporting of spam to a research account.  However, you can see that there are a variety of package scam attempts: one purportedly from Canada Post, one from DHL, and one unnamed.  Notice also one mention of a "border fee."

I really love this one.  They've put a bit of thought into the social engineering: in order to prove that they actually have a package for you, they've sent you a *picture* of it!  Relatively few people would think to question the fact that the picture isn't clear enough to indicate who sent it, or to whom it is addressed.  I mean, it's not possible that someone just took a picture of *any* package and sent it to you, is it?

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/osf-315-spam-red-flags-3.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/online-scams-frauds-and-other-attacks.html

Next: TBA

OSF - 3:15 - spam - red flags 3

A few more issues that can indicate that you should maybe not trust this message.

One of the things that you should watch for is any indication that the party that actually sent the message is not the party that the message is supposedly from.  In the case of this message, it is supposed to be from Shaw, who provide my Internet service.  Obviously I want to continue my Internet service, but, in this case, the message doesn't come from Shaw (a Canadian company), but from BTConnect, a British company.  Obviously a Canadian Internet provider would have no need to route their email via a different provider in Britain.

But there is another factor here, and that is a problem with Shaw.  Shaw, in providing an interface for email, should be providing its users with the information about who sent the message.  Shaw does not.  The creator of this message has crafted the message such that the "personal name field" shows "Shaw."  But Shaw, in presenting the message, does not provide the actual email address, only the personal name field.  The only reason that I was able to quickly figure out that "Shaw" wasn't the actual sender was that the images in the message were stored on an external server, and the email system balked at displaying them.

There are a bunch of fairly obvious red flags in this message.  Supposedly it is in regard to a Google Workspace.  Right off the top, we should suspect that nobody who works for Google would need, or even be allowed, to use an obviously external email server such as defence-s.org.  Then there is the fact that VCN (and particularly my account on it) isn't run by Google.  In addition, the link to contract.lisojea.contractors is extremely suspect.

However, note that the user interface for this system does at least give you this information rather than hiding it.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/osf-310-spam-red-flags-advance-fee.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/online-scams-frauds-and-other-attacks.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/osf-320-spam-packages.html

OSF - 2.40 - scams - naive AI?

In a posting about recent activities on Moltbook, someone made the observation that AI agents are pretty naive.

The observation was in regard to the ability of agents to successfully perform various tasks, but my professionally paranoid mind immediately went in another direction.

As we use them more, and particularly as we use them on the Internet, AI agents are going to get scammed.  Since I'm writing up a bunch of material on scams right now, this is kind of top of mind for me.

OK, probably most AI agents don't have any money, so, I can hear you say, how can they get scammed?  Well, they do have access to something of value: they have a lot of information about *you*.  In order to make them more useful to you, you've given them a lot of information about you.  You've probably given them access to a lot of your online accounts.  (Possibly you've given them access to your bank accounts and credit cards, in order that they may make purchases for you?)

And this, of course, is only one way in which AI agents could be scammed.

Somebody could claim to *be* you, and give them new orders.  Botnets on steroids?

I suspect somebody needs to think about this ...

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/osf-235-scams-discord-attacks.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/online-scams-frauds-and-other-attacks.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/osf-305-spam-red-flags-1.html

See also https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/01/ai-000-intro-table-of-contents.html

OSF - 3.10 - spam - red flags advance fee

OK, most of these will have something to do with variations on advance fee frauds.

First of all, we've got this one.  You may not recognize it as advance fee fraud, because, in this initial message, it just says that you have won the lottery.  However, lottery winnings, particularly for a lottery that you have never entered, have become a very common come-on for advance fee fraud.

This is, of course, very fancy and official looking.  After all, nobody could go online and get the logo for FIFA in order to create a fake, could they?  It's even got a barcode, so it *must* be official!  (There are lots of sites on the Internet that will help you create all kinds of barcodes.)  In terms of lotteries that you have never entered, it says that it is your *email* address that has won.  That sounds reasonable, right?  Well, it has become an indicator that this is, in fact, an advance fee fraud.  That particular rationale has been used in a lot of examples of this type of fraud.

You will notice that it does not, initially, mention any kind of fee.  But you'll also notice that there are all kinds of oddities in regard to releasing the funds to you.  For one thing, it says to keep this confidential.  That is common in order to discourage people from discussing this message with others, and possibly being warned that it *is* a fraud.  Also, the money is to be released to a bank in South Africa.  This then allows the scammers to claim all kinds of bank transfer fees, and you'll have no way to verify that, because it isn't likely that you live in South Africa.

They seem to want a lot of information about you.  Even if you only replied with that data, and refuse to pay any fees, They could likely collect and use, or sell, that information for subsequent phishing scams.

Then there is the fact that, even though this is supposed to be associated with FIFA, the contact email is a GMail account, which anyone can create.  Then there is the verification of the winning number, which is to be via the PowerBall lottery in the United States.  (They probably pick a combination of numbers that *has* been drawn in the PowerBall lottery.  Which would have nothing to do with a FIFA lottery.

Oh, and the FIFA lottery?  You don't win money in the FIFA lottery.  You win the chance to pay FIFA a lot of money in order to buy tickets for one of the FIFA games ...

This is a message I received, recently, that was the opening of the gift card variation on advance fee fraud.  I replied to it, wondering what it was about, and got this in reply:

I did a bit of digging on this one, and this person is, actually, Senior Pastor at the church noted above.  But the message is undoubtedly not from him.  I have received messages in a similar vein, from unknown people, people that that I do know, and even relatives.  In this case, their email address and account have been obtained, probably through a phishing attack, and then is used for this type of scam.  As with the grandparent scam, the rush and urgency will require, at some point, that you send the gift card numbers, probably in another email, and then, as previously noted, the value is used and gone.

In this list, notice that several mention cash or benefits.  Once again, supposedly you have come into some kind of windfall, and you only have to claim it!  (*After* you pay the fees, of course.

But also notice that at least four of the messages are addressed to "Josefina."  One of the things that I am very used to is people incorrectly giving *my* email address as *their* email address.  So I have lots of email messages addressed to Ralph, Rufus, Roger, Ruth and others instead of my actual name.  And I'm used to spammers trying to *guess* at what my name might be.  But how do you get "Josefina" out of my name, or email addresses?  So I started to suspect that this is actually deliberate.  The scammers, trying to trick the greedy, and deliberately addressing a name that is very uncommon.  Social engineering comes into play again, since they assume that some people will feel that they can get in on cash that is rightfully Josefina's!  (And, figuring that they are pulling a fast one, will not be as aware of the fact that they are the ones getting taken ...)

And this is probably something along the same line.  The greedy will possibly assume that they can get away with someone else's Bitcoin purchase, by intercepting the email invoice that has gone astray.  And they are less likely to be watching for the indications that this is, in fact, a fraud.

At one point they were doing a lot in this regard with casino winnings.

Another very common variation in the advance fee space is in regard to inheritances.  Someone has died, and you are part of the estate.  Sometimes somebody has died, and you actually *aren't* part of the estate, but an unscrupulous barrister is willing to split the takings with you.  Beware of all enterprises involving the purchase of new identities.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/osf-305-spam-red-flags-1.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/online-scams-frauds-and-other-attacks.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/osf-315-spam-red-flags-3.html

OSF - 3.05 - spam - red flags 1

OSF - 3.05 - spam - red flags 1

So, here are some indications that the email, or text, that you have received may have some issues that you might be concerned about.

Actually, here's one to be concerned about, regardless of whether it's a text or a call.  Supposedly I have received a call (which I didn't pick up) from 604-555-1212.  If you watch a lot of TV or movies, you will recognize the 555 exchange.  It is, in fact, a reserved exchange, regardless of the area code it is under.  There are some numbers in it that are used purely by the telephone companies, for internal purposes.  There are no legitimate numbers that will call you from the 555 exchange, and that is why TV and movie phone numbers always use that exchange: nobody does, and nobody will.  (555-1212 was, at one time, and in some areas, used as a directory information number.)

This comes under the heading of, "if it seems to good to be true, it probably is."  All (well, *almost* all) of these messages are offering you something for free.  You have won a free prize, and all you have to do is confirm your account (which lets them steal your account) or pay the shipping fee, or the handling fee, or both fees, one after the other, and then possibly an additional fee after that ...  Sometimes this is a version of advance fee fraud, and they will be after you for multiple fees.  Sometimes they are after your account, and you may think that your account is of no value: after all, it's not a *bank* account.  But email accounts, social media accounts, and other "free" accounts can have a lot of value, even beyond the nuisance value of having to get a new email account and contact everyone.  For example, these days, a great many other accounts are tied to your email account, and you could lose all of them, as well.

This type of attack is a kind of subset of the larger class known as phishing attacks.  These are messages that attempt to obtain information from you, that can be used in other attacks.  Very often the information is about you: person information, but not necessarily *too* personal.  For example, what were your parent's names at birth?  Since many systems suggest that you use your mother's maiden name as a security question, this is information that can be used to break into your accounts.

This particular spam came via text, but it points up a warning that applies to texts, email, and even Websites.  The message says to make a claim at https://bit.ly/ICBCcove .  There are a couple of points to make.  The first is the https.  Some people may have been told, or believe, that this provides for some level of security.  It doesn't provide any security against scams or frauds.  The second issue is with regard to the site bit.ly.  This site is a URL redirector.  It is usually used simply to shorten URLs, but it can also be used to specify a particular name.  So, just because it *says* ICBC, it doesn't really mean that ICBC has anything to do with it.  Since it is a redirector, all it really means is that you have no idea where this link is sending you.  Always be somewhat suspicious of these types of links.

This is a fairly common type of spam, and scam.  These particular people are trying to steal your email account, and, as noted above, there are a variety of uses and values that they can obtain from it.  The red flags here start with who this email is from.  on the top line, towards the right, you will notice that the email is from someone at AOL.  I really can't see why someone in authority to remove your account, at Microsoft (*not* Micro Soft), needs to use an AOL account for email.  Also, as I pointed out, Microsoft is unlikely to spell or format their own name incorrectly.  The 48 hour time limit is yet another use of social media to panic people and get them to make decisions in haste, and without considering these factors.  (The "Dear Customer" salutation is also a bit of a flag.  If you actually *are* a customer, presumably they know who you are.)  The mention of the account not being updated on their servers is another oddity: *you* don't need to update *their* servers.

This particular message came to an Outlook ( Microsoft) account that I have and do use.  Outlook is particularly bad at spam filtering, and (rather oddly) particularly at identifying and filtering this kind of messaging attacking their customer's Outlook email accounts, which are often tied to other Microsoft services.  As noted, I do receive legitimate email on this account, but much of the time I find that at least three quarters of the messages I receive via Outlook are attacks on the Outlook account itself.  (Just something to consider when you are choosing email services.)

More to come ...

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/osf-240-scams-naive-ai.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/online-scams-frauds-and-other-attacks.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/osf-310-spam-red-flags-advance-fee.html

OSF - 2.35 - scams - discord attacks

OSF - 2.35 - scams - discord attacks

Once again, as I did before when I talked about how organized these groups and attacks can be, I have to be very careful when discussing discord attacks.

This can be very easily seen as political, primarily because it actually *is* political, although not necessarily in the ways people think about political issues.  A number of the examples that I am going to use are related to nation-state actors, and you may think that in the first place I am attacking certain countries that may be identified with this type of activity, or that, not being a nation state yourself, this doesn't apply to you and you don't need to worry about it.  These ideas are not correct.

As I have said, for almost forty years, I have been researching, and working in, information security.  And I get to talk to people in related communities, like the intelligence community.  Those are the spies.  And the counterspies.  And we talk about things like disinformation.

Now there's misinformation, which is just when you make a mistake, and you believe something that's wrong.  That's bad enough.  But disinformation is when somebody deliberately tells you a lie, designed so that you will believe it.  This has been happening for as long as people have been fighting, and that goes back an awfully long way.  As a matter of fact, possibly we can go right back to Cain and Abel.  God comes to Cain and says, where is your brother  And Cain tries to tell a lie, without even telling a lie.  He just says, am I my brother's keeper?  But God, of course, sees through this and it doesn't work.

Now, when you are dealing with human beings, and not God, it works a little better.  So, someone tells you a lie.  And they tell the lie that they know you are going to believe.  Because it's a lie about someone you don't like.  And the person who tells you this lie, knows that you are going to believe it, because you are willing to believe the worst about the person that you don't like.  So, you believe that lie.  And you repeat that lie.  You tell that lie to other people, because, of course, you want to cause trouble for the person that you don't like.  Or, at the very least, you want to warn other people about the person that you don't like.

So, you have now become a liar.  Oh, maybe you will object that you don't know that it's a lie, but you're repeating a lie anyway.  So, in fact, you are a liar.  And you know what else you are  You are now a weapon.  You are the weapon of the person who told you the lie in the first place.  That's what disinformation does.  It weaponizes lies, and it weaponizes people.  And if you believe, and repeat those lies, you become the weapon.  You become evil, or at least a part of evil.  You are working for evil.

You didn't mean to, of course, but that's the way things ended up.

Now, one of my other fields is emergency management.  We deal with disasters.  And one of the things that we know about disasters, is the disasters bring out both the best, and the worst, in people.  There are going to be people who try to help during a disaster.  And then there are those who are going to try and take advantage of the situation.

But the pandemic has been different.  For me, personally, the pandemic has been very disappointing.  The pandemic seems to have given everyone permission to be their very worst.  To misbehave, although misbehavior is far too weak a term for what we have seen during the pandemic.  The pandemic has given everyone permission to be racist.  To consider anyone who believes in a different political party or stance to be evil.  To allow people to engage in violence on the streets because they don't like another person's skin color, or facial characteristics, or the political symbol that they put on the back of their car, or they don't like the fact that somebody has an "I got vaccinated" sticker on their shirt, or they don't like the fact that somebody has a vaccines kill bumper sticker on the back of their car.  And everybody just seems to think that because you don't agree with me, I have the right to beat you up or run into your car, or post lies about you.  Oh yes, we're dealing with the lies here.

We'll come back to the lies in a bit here.

As I've said I've been very disappointed during the course of the pandemic by the way that people have been misbehaving.  And I expressed this to a friend and she said, well, it's because they're all grieving.

Now, of course, one of the other things that I am is a grieving widower.  And I have been studying grief.  And I have been studying the ways that people behave when they are grieving.  And in discussing this with a friend, she said, that's because they are grieving.  And suddenly, because of what she said, everything came into focus.  Yes, people have been grieving.

Grief is about loss.  And, during the pandemic, everybody has lost something.  Maybe it wasn't a close friend or family member who died.  Maybe you lost a job.  Maybe you just lost an opportunity.  Maybe you just lost the ability to go down to the pub anytime you wanted for a beer.  But everybody has lost something.

Those who are grieving experience a range of emotions.  But one of the most common is anger.  We are angry about our loss.  But, as human beings, we are not particularly good at identifying why we are feeling anger, or indeed any good at identifying any strong emotion that we are feeling and what it actually is.  Our brain tries to find a reason for the strong emotion that we are feeling.  The reason that it generates doesn't have to be correct.  It doesn't even have to make sense.  It's just a presentation that our brain makes to us about why we are feeling some strong emotion.  So, very often, we feel that we are angry at God.  Or at the universe.  (Or even the person who died, which makes no sense at all.)  Or at that person who has skin of a different color.  Or at that person who holds a different political view.  It's their fault.  Whatever it is.

Thus, we have a whole bunch of people who feel very, very strongly that those people over there are responsible for my pain.  They are angry.  Whether they have any valid reasons or not, they are angry.  And they are taking it out on those people over there.  Maybe they won't actually perpetrate physical violence against them.  But they are certainly willing to believe anything bad about them.  And to repeat any lie that they hear about them, as long as it paints them in a bad light.

There's another thing about grief: desperately intense loneliness.  If you are grieving, you are not just grieving the loss of relationship with one particular person.  You seem to be grieving the loss of relationship in general.  And, therefore, it's almost a cliche that when mom dies, dad, all too soon, falls for some inappropriate female, and forms an inappropriate attachment.

And so what have we seen during the pandemic  We have seen all kinds of people, joining all kinds of groups, groups espousing all kinds of weird conspiracy theories, just so that they can belong.  To anything.  With anyone.

And so we come back to the lies.  Because of the anger, people are willing to tell lies.  They're willing to believe lies.  Because of the loneliness, they're willing to join with other people who believe lies.

And how does all this fit together?

Well, like I told you, some of my friends are spies.  And they have been noticing, that during the pandemic, the campaigns, by various foreign governments, to try and make trouble for those of us who live in democracies, have stepped up the disinformation campaigns.  Because, right now, with everybody angry, and everybody joining with cults and conspiracy theories, everybody is willing to spread lies.  There are all kinds of people who are willing to become weapons of disinformation campaigns.  It's become so prevalent that the intelligence community has a name for it they call it discord attacks.  People who are our enemies are sowing lies knowing that a large number of us will believe the lies, and spread the lies, and even amplify the lies.  Thus making disinformation campaigns very much more successful recently than they ever have been in the past.

Now, as I have said, a lot of the information and research in this particular area involves nation state actors.  And, you may be saying thinking that I am saying that certain nation states are attacking our nation state with particular sets of lies.  And you may be thinking that that is unfair.

The thing is, I am not saying this only about other countries attacking us.  Telling lies, in terms of nation states, is basically known as propaganda.  It is a part of what is known as "soft power."  Soft power is an attempt to influence other countries, without actually threatening or attacking them.  Sometimes soft power can be a positive thing.  For example, most countries are involved with foreign aid: sending money and or aid to other countries.  Obviously, this is an attempt to influence the other countries.  It is an attempt to influence them by doing something positive for them, but there is another term for that: it is often called bribery.  Regardless, it is an attempt to influence other countries, on a nation-state basis, and everybody does it.  It's part of soft power.

Well, discord attacks are soft power as well.  Sometimes it's outright propaganda, but the discord attacks are a little bit less obvious.  Discord attacks are mounted, in terms of propaganda, against different groups in the country that you are trying to influence.  These will be groups that do not agree with each other.  So, what a discord attack will do is to create and submit lies, disinformation if you will, aimed at being targeted in a negative way, against one group, but really, in fact, targeted at the opposite group, by being a lie that the opposing group will want to consume.  It is something that they will want to believe, because it says something bad about the other side.

As I say, so far I have been talking and using illustrations about nation state level discord attacks.  The thing is, it's not just nation states that do these things.  In recent years, this has become extremely common in propagandizing, and attempting to influence either committed groups, or the general public, even within small communities.  People are using discord attacks very frequently, and unfortunately very effectively, particularly within social media.  Some of these discord attacks are aimed at political groups, and, since politics touches pretty much every human activity, I guess you could say that all of this is politics, or political activity.  But this is not necessarily just about right-wing parties versus left-wing parties.  Sometimes it is targeted at small groups within a town, and even within an individual organization.  Anytime there is a division, it seems that people are selling lies to one side, in order to get them inflamed against the other side.

And selling is very often an operative word here.  Particularly in regard to social media, some people are just in it for the money.  Online advertising is still a very significant source of revenue for social media platforms and pretty much anybody else who has a presence on the Internet.  The social media platforms, all of them, push for engagement: the attempt to get the social media user to stay on their platform, read their postings, and spend time reacting to their postings, or forwarding those postings on to other people.  Unfortunately, it does seem to be the case that, for a variety of psychological reasons, the most effective way to keep people engaged on social media is to promote hatred.  To get one group of people upset at another group of people.  And it doesn't seem to matter what the groups are.  As long as somebody is stirring up trouble, and spreading malicious gossip, social media users consume it, and spend more time on the platforms.  That makes the owners of the social media platforms happy, and it enriches the bank accounts of the people who create and spread lies about various issues and groups.

And this is really the entire point that I am trying to make about this kind of attack.  When you read something that upsets you, please do not simply automatically share it with all of your friends.  Find out whether it has any basis in fact, first.  If you are spreading malicious gossip that has been created falsely, purely for the purposes of stirring up trouble, and possibly partly for the purpose of enriching somebody who makes up lies for a living, then you are promoting discord attacks yourself.  You are helping to spread the lies.  You are lying.  You are also helping to enrich the people who create this deceitful disinformation, and do it just because it makes them money.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/05/grief-scams.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/online-scams-frauds-and-other-attacks.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/02/osf-240-scams-naive-ai.html