This video tutorial shows two different ways to summarise a web page using ChatGPT.

[Note – To Watch This Video without interruptions, It’s best to download it first].

You may not know thay Windows allows you to sync your clipboard across devices so you can copy content on one device and paste it on another. This is especially useful if you work across multiple Windows devices. Here’s how it works:

– To enable Clipboard Sync, go to Settings > System > Clipboard.

– Toggle on Sync across devices.

– Choose between ‘Automatically sync text that I copy’ or ‘Never automatically sync text that I copy’.

– To use Clipboard Sync, copy content on one Windows device (e.g. press Ctrl + C).

– On another synced device, press Ctrl + V to paste the copied content.

In light of two recent reports of motorcyclists being killed in collisions with Tesla vehicles in Autopilot mode, we look closely at the issue of whether automated driving is really safe.

Death of Two Motorcyclists 

If automated driving is a factor in death on the roads, it seems legitimate to ask the question ‘is automated driving safe?’, especially since it’s a very new technology. In fact, there have been some widely publicised reports of deaths linked to vehicles operating on Autopilot mode in the US in recent times. For example:

– In 2022, a 34-year-old motorcyclist was killed in Utah when his Harley Davidson was hit by a Tesla Model 3 on Autopilot, reportedly driving at 75-80 miles per hour. The parents of the victim have reportedly now sued Tesla and the vehicle’s driver, claiming that the driver assistant software and other safety features are “defective and inadequate.”

– In April last year, a 28-year-old motorcyclist from Stanwood, Washington, was struck by a 2022 Tesla Model S. It’s been reported that the driver of the Tesla told first responders that he had been looking at his phone while the car was driving itself (in Full Self-Driving mode – FSD), when the car suddenly lurched forward, hitting the motorcycle. Washington State doesn’t actually permit self-driving vehicles to operate on the roads, unless they have a testing arrangement with the Department of Licensing.

Other Instances 

There have been other serious recent accidents involving vehicles driving on Autopilot mode, including this month (August 2024), in the US, when a driver of a Tesla was killed when the vehicle failed to navigate a highway ramp while on Autopilot, leading to a collision.

In fact, it’s been reported that The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the US has identified 13 fatal crashes related to Tesla’s Autopilot.

Not Just Tesla’s With Driver Assistance System 

Although Tesla vehicles were reportedly involved in several incidents, and Teslas have a feature known as ‘Autopilot’ (which includes Traffic-Aware Cruise Control and Autosteer), and a ‘Full Self-Driving (FSD) Package’, it is not the only brand of vehicle with advanced driver-assistance systems.

Other examples include :

– Ford Mustang Mach-E, and F-150 Lightning have ‘BlueCruise’ which offers hands-free driving on pre-mapped highways, adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping, and speed sign recognition.

– General Motors (GM) Chevrolet Bolt EV, Cadillac LYRIQ, and the GMC Hummer EV have ‘Super Cruise’ which offers hands-free driving on compatible highways, lane change on demand, and automatic lane-centering.

– BMW iX and i4 models have ‘Driving Assistance Professional’ which offers adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assist, and Traffic Jam Assist.

– Mercedes-Benz EQS and EQE models feature ‘Drive Pilot’, a (Level 3) autonomous driving system in specific conditions, primarily on highways.

– Audi e-tron and Q4 e-tron models feature Traffic Jam Pilot (available in limited markets), (Level 3) autonomous driving in traffic jams on certain roads.

– Other makes/models that have similar automatic driving assistance features include Nissan (Ariya), Hyundai/Kia (Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Kia EV6), Lucid Motors (Lucid Air), and Rivian (R1T and R1S).

No Vehicle On The Market Is Fully Self Driving 

Despite many makes/models offering advanced driver-assistance systems, with some claiming to have full autopilot or full self-driving capabilities, it’s essential to note that no vehicle on the market is truly “full self-driving” as defined by the highest levels of autonomous driving (Level 4 or 5). This is where no human intervention is required. Most systems are classified as Level 2 or Level 3, which still require driver supervision.

Levels 

To briefly summarise what each driver assistance level actually means:

– Level 0 means no automation, i.e. the human driver is entirely responsible for controlling the vehicle.

– Level 1 (Driver Assistance) is where the vehicle can assist with either steering or acceleration/deceleration using information about the driving environment, but not both simultaneously – e.g. cruise control.

– Level 2 (Partial Automation) means the vehicle can control both steering and acceleration/deceleration, but the human driver must monitor the driving environment and be ready to take control at any time. One important and relevant example of this is Tesla’s Autopilot.

– Level 3 (Conditional Automation) refers to the vehicle being able to handle all aspects of driving in certain conditions but the human driver must be ready to intervene when requested, e.g. Audi’s Traffic Jam Pilot.

– Level 4 (High Automation) means the vehicle can perform all driving tasks in specific conditions without human intervention. Human driver control is only needed outside these conditions.

– Level 5 (Full Automation), which no vehicle on the market currently has, means the vehicle can handle all driving tasks under all conditions, without any human intervention.

Tesla’s Autopilot & FSD 

As stated above, Tesla’s Autopilot, which was reportedly being used by some drivers involved in fatal collisions, is only level 2 automation, i.e. partial automation where the driver must monitor what’s happening and be ready to take control.

The so-called Full Self-Driving (FSD) Package from Tesla includes advanced features like Navigate on Autopilot, Auto Lane Change, Autopark, Summon, and Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control. It is an upgrade over the standard Autopilot, which includes basic adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping. However, despite its name, FSD is NOT fully autonomous and still requires driver-supervision. In fact, it is considered Level 2 automation, where the system can control both steering and acceleration/deceleration, but the driver must remain attentive and ready to take control.

Tesla says that its Autopilot mode is “intended to be used only with a fully attentive driver. It does not turn a Tesla into a self-driving vehicle, nor does it make a vehicle autonomous”. Tesla also states that “before enabling Autopilot”, you must agree to “keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times” and to always “maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle.”

Driver Error? 

With Tesla’s Autopilot and FSD clearly not making a vehicle fully autonomous, despite the ‘brand names’ of the features containing words that some may assume could suggest more autonomy, many of the reports of accidents do appear to show drivers doing other things and perhaps not being attentive at the wheel. For example, in the case of Jeff Nissen’s death (the 28-year-old motorcyclist of Stanwood, Washington, reportedly hit by a Tesla on Autopilot), it was reported that by the driver’s own admission, his attention was elsewhere (checking his phone). Also, in a crash in March 2018 involving Apple engineer Walter Huang, who was driving his Tesla Model X on Autopilot, it was reported that the driver was playing a video game on his phone at the time, i.e. a lack of driver attention may have affected the severity of the crash.

It was also reported in March that six weeks before the first fatal U.S. accident involving Tesla’s Autopilot in 2016, Tesla’s president Jon McNeill tried a Model X and emailed feedback to automated-driving chief Sterling Anderson (cc’ing Elon Musk) saying (March 25, 2016): “I got so comfortable under Autopilot, that I ended up blowing by exits because I was immersed in emails or calls (I know, I know, not a recommended use)”.  

It should also be noted that Tesla vehicles today use a combination of visual and audible alerts to prompt the driver to pay attention to the road. In fact, recent updates have also incorporated driver monitoring through the cabin-facing camera to detect if the driver is looking away from the road for too long.

Systems At Fault? 

Some people blame the vehicle manufacturers for perhaps leading drivers to be overconfident in the driver assistance systems and others have suggested that the systems themselves may not work as they should. For example, in the case of the motorcyclist killed in a 2022 crash involving a Tesla Model 3 on Autopilot in Utah, the motorcyclist’s parents have sued Tesla (and the vehicle’s driver), claiming that the driver assistant software and other safety features are “defective and inadequate”. 

Why? 

A recent Wall Street Journal article investigated “The Hidden Autopilot Data That Reveals Why Teslas Crash” which looked at alleged safety concerns with Tesla’s Autopilot. It highlighted issues with Tesla’s camera-based system, showing that it struggles in low visibility and obstacle detection. According to the article, an analysis of over 200 crashes revealed problems like sudden veering and failure to stop. Driver over-reliance on Autopilot and “phantom braking” were also highlighted as significant concerns. The investigation used data and video from crashes and emphasised a need for improved safety measures and transparency from Tesla.

Driverless Services

As mentioned, fully autonomous vehicles, are not yet (widely) available to the general public. However, there are some pilot programs and limited deployments are taking place in certain locations for driverless services. Here are some notable examples:

Waymo (a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.) has been testing fully autonomous vehicles in several locations, including Phoenix, Arizona. They offer a limited public ride-hailing service called Waymo One, where some rides are conducted without a safety driver in the vehicle. They have encountered some issues recently, leading to increased scrutiny and regulatory actions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched an investigation into Waymo following 22 incidents where its autonomous vehicles were involved in collisions or potentially violated traffic laws.

These incidents included crashes with objects such as gates and parked cars and instances where the vehicle’s automated driving system appeared to disregard traffic control devices. Despite these issues, the company has stated that it is proud of its safety record, having driven tens of millions of autonomous miles.

Waymo is cooperating with NHTSA to address these concerns​ although Waymo has also been subject to recalls. In June 2024, NHTSA obtained a voluntary update from Waymo to address a defect in its software that affected its ability to accurately detect and respond to poles near the driving path. This recall was part of the regulatory body’s approach to ensuring the safety of automated driving systems.

Cruise (backed by General Motors) operated autonomous vehicles in San Francisco although recently faced significant challenges, leading to a suspension of its driverless car operations nationwide. This decision came after a series of incidents involving Cruise vehicles, including a notable accident in San Francisco where a pedestrian was injured. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched a federal investigation into these incidents, prompting Cruise to pause operations to reassess and improve its safety protocols. The company announced that it is taking a proactive approach to rebuild public trust by examining its processes and ensuring safety is prioritised.

Apollo (part of Baidu) offers the ‘Apollo Go’ service in China (in cities like Beijing, Changsha, Cangzhou and Wuhan) providing fully autonomous rides in specific zones. Apollo has experienced some issues as it continues to expand its robotaxi services. For example in Wuhan, Baidu has deployed a large fleet of robotaxis and while these vehicles only make up a small portion of the city’s total taxis, they have been causing significant traffic problems.

The robotaxis are reported to drive too cautiously, leading to traffic jams and frustration among residents. Despite these issues, Baidu has made substantial progress in scaling its operations and has been expanding rapidly (it was the first to offer 24/7 service in China​) and has been aggressive in its rollout strategy, which includes heavily discounting rides to compete with traditional taxis. However, this approach has raised concerns about the long-term viability of its business model. Additionally, there have been incidents involving Apollo Go vehicles, such as minor accidents with pedestrians, which have stirred public debate and highlighted ongoing safety and integration challenges​​.

Overall, while Baidu’s Apollo program is advancing rapidly, it faces challenges related to traffic integration, safety, and economic sustainability as it works to improve its autonomous vehicle technology​.

Zoox (an Amazon subsidiary) has been testing its custom-built autonomous vehicles for public transport in specific areas. It has recently faced regulatory scrutiny and challenges in its operations. The NHTSA has opened an investigation into Zoox following incidents involving unexpected braking, which may pose rear-end crash risks. These incidents involved Zoox vehicles equipped with their automated driving system and occurred during daylight within the operational limits of the system. The investigation aimed to assess the performance of Zoox’s Automated Driving System, particularly concerning crosswalk behavior and rear-end collision scenarios​​. In response, Zoox has stated its commitment to transparency and collaboration with regulators to address these concerns.

Zoox has been expanding its vehicle testing in various locations, including California, Nevada, Austin, and Miami. Despite the investigation, the company continues to explore new markets and refine its technology​. However, as Zoox expands, it faces the ongoing challenge of integrating autonomous vehicles into urban environments.

Motional (a joint venture between Hyundai and Aptiv) is testing fully autonomous vehicles in Las Vegas and plans to offer a commercial service in partnership with Lyft. However, the company laid off about 40% of its workforce and announced plans to pause some of its robotaxi deployments, including those with Uber and Lyft, amid restructuring efforts​.

Despite these setbacks, Hyundai plans to invest nearly $1 billion to support Motional, aiming to keep the company viable as it works toward launching a robotaxi service using driverless Hyundai Ioniq 5 vehicles​​. Motional continues to test its vehicles in multiple cities, including Boston, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles​​.

These examples illustrate that while fully autonomous vehicles are being tested and deployed in certain controlled environments and fully-autonomous driverless services are available, completely autonomous vehicles (as such) are not yet widely available for everyday public purchase. Regulatory, technological, and safety challenges still need to be addressed before they can be purchased (mainstream) and adopted to run fully independently

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The debate on whether automated driving is safe has significant implications for various stakeholders. For manufacturers, the mounting incidents could suggest the necessity of rigorous testing and transparent communication about the capabilities and limitations of automated systems. While the technology promises enhanced safety and convenience (and supposedly greater safety on the roads), it may now be worth looking more closely at the apparent shortcomings identified in real-world applications, such as obstacle detection in low visibility and system reliability. This may not just involve refining the technology but also setting realistic expectations for consumers to prevent misuse and over-reliance.

For businesses relying on these technologies, such as logistics and ride-sharing companies, understanding that no current vehicle is fully autonomous (Level 4 or 5) is vital. The systems available (primarily Level 2 and some Level 3) require constant driver supervision. Educating drivers about their responsibilities and ensuring adherence to safety protocols could therefore mitigate risks. Anyone using these vehicles must always remain vigilant, keeping their hands on the wheel and their attention on the road at all times, as highlighted by the frequent accidents due to driver inattention.

In the UK, fully autonomous vehicles are not yet permitted on the roads without a special testing arrangement. The Automated Vehicles (AV) Bill, for example, aims to create a framework for the deployment and insurance of automated vehicles, which could influence future regulations and safety standards.

For the courts, the increasing number of incidents involving Tesla’s Autopilot is prompting deeper scrutiny. Legal cases are examining whether the marketing of these systems leads to driver overconfidence and misuse. The outcomes of these cases could set precedents affecting how manufacturers communicate the capabilities of their automated systems and the degree of responsibility they bear.

While automated driving systems have made significant advancements, claiming enhanced safety compared to human drivers, the technology is apparently not without flaws. The current systems require human supervision, and accidents often appear to involve a combination of factors such as driver attention, potential system faults, and road conditions. As such, while automated driving can offer safety benefits, it is not yet foolproof, and users must remain actively engaged.

Automated driving, therefore, presents both opportunities and challenges. The technology is advancing, but it demands responsible use, continued innovation, and comprehensive regulatory frameworks to ensure it truly enhances road safety. The growing body of evidence from incidents and legal actions suggests a cautious and informed approach is necessary to navigate the path towards fully autonomous driving.

In this insight, we look at how a recently developed ‘World Cybercrime Index’ appears to show the globe’s key cybercrime hotspots by ranking the most significant sources of cybercrime at a national level.

Three Years To Develop 

The world-first World Cybercrime Index (WCI) was developed by following three years of intensive research as part of a joint partnership between the University of Oxford and the University of New South Wales (UNSW), funded by CRIMGOV (an EU-supported project). Details of the research and findings were published on PLOS ONE, the Public Library of Science open-access journal.

Why? 

Co-author of the study, Dr Miranda Bruce (University of Oxford and UNSW Canberra) said that the index produced by the study will enable both the public and private sectors to focus their resources on key cybercrime hubs, thereby spending less time and funds on cybercrime countermeasures in countries where the problem is not as significant.

Dr Bruce says that WCI will also “help remove the veil of anonymity around cybercriminal offenders, and we hope that it will aid the fight against the growing threat of profit-driven cybercrime.” 

Deeper Understanding 

It’s also hoped that having an index of this kind will bring a “deeper understanding of the geography of cybercrime” and shows how different countries specialise in different types of cybercrime. Continuing to collect such data may also enable monitoring of the emergence of any new hotspots, meaning that interventions could be made in at-risk countries “before a serious cybercrime problem even develops.” 

This WCI can also inform policymakers for better resource allocation in combating cybercrime effectively.

What Is The Index and How Does It Work? 

The World Cybercrime Index (WCI) was developed to provide a comprehensive ranking of countries based on their cybercrime threats and vulnerabilities. The methodology of the WCI involved surveying 92 leading cybercrime experts globally. The experts assessed five categories of cybercrime: technical products/services, attacks and extortion, data/identity theft, scams, and cashing out/money laundering. They then nominated the countries they deemed the most significant sources of each type and rated these countries based on the impact, professionalism, and technical skill of their cybercriminals.

By analysing these expert opinions, researchers were able to generate scores for each category, combining them into an overall metric to create the WCI.

Which Countries? 

The index shows that a relatively small number of countries house the greatest cybercriminal threat. Topping the list is Russia, followed by Ukraine, China, the USA, Nigeria, and Romania, with the UK coming in at number eight.

Invisible Before – Index Is A First Step 

Co-author of the WCI, Associate Professor Jonathan Lusthaus, from the University of Oxford’s Department of Sociology and Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, has highlighted how getting information from surveys about cybercrime has been challenging up until now because offenders often mask their physical locations by hiding behind fake profiles and technical protections.

The index, therefore, is being seen as a valuable first step to a broader aim of understanding the local dimensions of cybercrime production across the world.

For example, co-author of the study, Professor Federico Varese from Sciences Po in France says: “Many people think that cybercrime is global and fluid, but this study supports the view that, much like forms of organised crime, it is embedded within particular contexts”. 

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

This index appears to follow ‘Pareto’s Principle’, in that the majority of output(s) can be attributed to a minority of input(s) … commonly known as the 80/20 law. For example, 80% of people only use 20% of their computers’ features, or 80% of profits come from 20% of clients.

The development of the World Cybercrime Index (WCI) could have significant implications for businesses across the globe. Understanding the key cybercrime hotspots and the nature of cyber threats they pose may enable businesses to better protect themselves and allocate resources more efficiently.

By highlighting the countries that are the most significant sources of cybercrime, the WCI could help companies operating in or dealing with these regions to take more stringent cybersecurity measures. Being aware of these hotspots may, therefore, enable businesses to more accurately focus their cybersecurity investments on the most pressing threats and on mitigating risks more effectively.

The index’s detailed breakdown of cybercrime categories, e.g. technical products/services, attacks and extortion, data/identity theft, scams, and cashing out/money laundering, also provides businesses with insights into specific types of cyber threats they might face. This granular understanding could help tailor cybersecurity strategies to address the most relevant threats, enhancing overall resilience against cyber-attacks.

Also, the WCI may serve as a valuable tool for policymakers, influencing regulations and cybersecurity frameworks that businesses must comply with. By aligning corporate cybersecurity policies with national and international regulations informed by the index, businesses may be able to ensure they are not only compliant but also optimally protected. This proactive approach could prevent legal and financial repercussions associated with data breaches and cyber-attacks.

As part of the NGI TrustChain initiative, 15 startups have been awarded €1.8 million in funding to use blockchain to tackle online misinformation, fraud and fake identities.

What Is Blockchain? 

Blockchain technology (first released in 2009 and the technology behind Bitcoin) is the decentralised digital ledger system that securely records transactions across multiple computers, ensuring transparency, security, and immutability without the need for a central authority.

What Is The NGI TrustChain Initiative? 

The NGI TrustChain initiative is part of the Next Generation Internet (NGI) programme, aimed at developing a more secure, trustworthy, and decentralised internet. It focuses on using blockchain and distributed ledger technologies to enhance online privacy, data security, and trust. The initiative involves collaboration between a variety of stakeholders, including research institutions, technology developers, and industry experts, all working together to foster innovation and improve the internet’s security, privacy, and trustworthiness.

One of the key aims of the initiative is to protect human rights and democratic processes in online spaces, both of which are threatened by misinformation and fake identities, e.g. through distorted information, manipulation, or weaponisation.

The 15 Startups

The 15 startups were selected from a pool of 162 applicants who responded to an ‘open call-out’ by NGI TrustChain in February 2023. Each of the chosen 15 startups will receive up to €117,000 in funding. The NGI TrustChain initiative has provided over €4.5 million in funding to 43 companies to date.

Who, Where, and What? 

The winning startups are from 10 European countries including the UK, Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain, and Greece. Their blockchain-based solutions of the 15 range from cryptography and data aggregation platforms to open-source IT tools and Web3 computing.

It’s been reported that the startup chosen from the UK is SecureOpinion, which has used blockchain technology to create a secure platform for sharing public opinions on social media, promoting trust and transparency.

As for the reason for the funding of the startups, Dr Rajarajan Muttukrishnan, core team member of TrustChain and Professor and Director of the Institute of Cyber Security at City, University of London says: “misinformation and deepfakes are inescapable in this time of elections and conflicts. We’re funding blockchain and other tamper-resistant technologies from top new startups to increase trust in democracy”. 

Dr Muttukrishnan  points to the value of using blockchain to authenticate online material, saying: “The ability to validate the images and text to prove the authenticity of the media files will help to protect against malicious content utilised for propaganda, political gain or other malicious activities online such as radicalisation, online harm, and terrorism.” 

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The EU’s funding of 15 startups through the NGI TrustChain initiative presents significant opportunities for businesses aiming to enhance their digital security and credibility. By integrating blockchain technology, companies can benefit from unparalleled transparency and security in their online operations. This is particularly crucial in an era where misinformation and digital fraud pose substantial risks to both reputation and operational integrity, particularly when 2024 is such a key election year (combatting deepfakes and political misinformation).

For businesses, the adoption of blockchain solutions can lead to more robust verification processes, ensuring that all transactions and interactions are secure and tamper-proof. This is not only essential for protecting sensitive information but also for building and maintaining customer trust. As consumers become increasingly aware of digital threats, demonstrating a commitment to security and transparency can distinguish your business from competitors.

Also, the innovative solutions being developed by these startups, such as SecureOpinion’s platform for verifying public opinions, highlight the practical applications of blockchain beyond financial transactions. Businesses across various sectors can leverage these technologies to safeguard against misinformation, ensuring that the information disseminated and received is accurate and trustworthy. This is especially relevant for companies involved in media, communications, and any field where the authenticity of information is paramount.

By staying ahead of the curve and investing in blockchain technology, businesses can not only protect themselves from the growing threats of online misinformation and fraud but also position themselves as leaders in digital innovation. This proactive approach can enhance a business’s reputation, foster customer loyalty, and ultimately contribute to long-term success in the digital age.

The UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) has shut down a global call-spoofing operation called ‘Russian Coms’ which is believed to have been used to swindle more than 170,000 victims.

Russian Coms 

Russian Coms is the name of the major caller ID spoofing platform used by criminals to make over 1.8 million fraudulent calls to victims in 107 countries, including the UK, US, New Zealand, Norway, and France. Started in 2021, the platform is believed to have been responsible for financial losses amounting to tens of millions of pounds. It was the Russian Coms platform itself that was shut down by the NCA.

What Is Call Spoofing / ID Spoofing? 

Call spoofing, also known as ID spoofing, is a technique used to falsify the information displayed on the caller ID screen of the recipient’s phone. In other words, it allows the caller to appear as though they are calling from a different number. Criminals can, therefore, display the actual number of the victim’s bank or a government agency, thereby deceiving the recipient into answering the call or divulging sensitive information.

Criminals Paid For Months of Call Spoofing Features 

In the case of the Russian Coms platform, criminals were paying to use the Russian Coms platform to enable them to conduct ID spoofing activities, e.g. they were paying the Russian Coms administrators between £1,200 and £1,400 in cryptocurrency (for anonymity) for a six-month contract use the platform. This provided the criminals with services such as a smartphone (or, more recently, a web app) encrypted calls, web phone capabilities, instant handset wipes, voice-changing features, international calls, and 24/7 support. These features allowed them to spoof the phone numbers of banks or financial institutions, to gain the trust of their victims before stealing money and personal details.

Example 

An example of the kind of ID Spoofing crime committed using the platform was the criminal using the platform’s services would spoof the phone number of a bank (e.g. call a victim pretending to be from their bank) and deceive them into transferring their money to a new account by claiming that fraudulent activity had been noticed in their current account.

London, Not Russia 

In fact, despite the name of the platform, the two men suspected of being the platform’s developers and administrators (aged 26 and 28), were arrested in Newham, London, back in March. A third man, also 28 years old, suspected of being the handset courier, was arrested in April, and last week, one of the many hundreds of scammers thought to have used the platforms services was arrested in Potters Bar.

Handsets pre-loaded 

The smartphone-style handsets provided to scammers as part of the Russia Coms service are reported to have been preloaded with fake apps to fool law enforcement, a VPN to hide the scammer’s IP address, and a ‘burn app / burner app’ that could be used to wipe the handset instantly if needed.

How Much? 

The NCA has reported that between 2021 and 2024, the criminal users of Russian Coms made 1.3 million+ calls to 500,000 unique UK phone numbers, and the average reported loss of victims was more than £9,400.

Bailed 

Although the 3 men arrested in the UK suspected of being associated with the operation of Russian Coms have been bailed, it’s understood that a global operation is now under way to track down the many hundreds of criminals who used the platforms services.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The shutting-down of the Russian Coms operation by the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) is a reminder of the evolving sophistication of cyber threats that individuals and businesses face today. For businesses, it’s a reminder of the pressing need to remain vigilant and proactive in their cybersecurity measures and of the importance of implementing robust security protocols to safeguard sensitive information.

It’s also a reminder to businesses to ensure that their employees are trained to recognise phishing and spoofing attempts, as these are common methods used by cybercriminals to gain unauthorised access to company and customer data. Regular training sessions and updated cybersecurity policies can help mitigate these risks.

Businesses should also consider investing in advanced security technologies such as multi-factor authentication, end-to-end encryption, and anti-spoofing measures. These tools can provide an extra layer of security, making it more difficult for cybercriminals to impersonate trusted entities and deceive employees or customers.

The case of Russian Coms also highlights the significance of monitoring and reporting suspicious activities. Prompt reporting to authorities can aid in the swift takedown of fraudulent operations and protect other potential victims. Establishing a clear protocol for employees to report suspicious communications can enhance the overall security posture of the organisation.

Also, the financial implications of cyber fraud cannot be overstated. With reported average losses exceeding £9,400 per victim, the cumulative impact on affected businesses and individuals can be devastating. Therefore, it is crucial for businesses to have comprehensive insurance policies that cover cyber-related incidents and potential financial losses.

The dismantling of Russian Coms appears to be a victory for law enforcement but also a wake-up call for businesses worldwide. By adopting stringent cybersecurity measures, educating employees, and staying vigilant, businesses can better protect themselves against the ever-present threat of cybercrime. The proactive steps taken today can prevent costly breaches and preserve the trust and integrity that are vital to a company’s success.