Carding in Documentary Film: The Challenges of Visualizing the Invisible and the Ethics of Interviewing Criminals

[Professor]

Abstract: Documentary film strives to capture reality. But how do you make a film about a phenomenon that is inherently invisible, occurring on computer screens and anonymous chats, and whose characters hide their faces? Carding is the perfect challenge for a documentary filmmaker: a story with enormous dramatic potential, but lacking the visual texture of classic reportage. This article reflects on the artistic and ethical quests of directors who strive to tell the story of cybercrime in a way that is both truthful and accessible, without becoming a manual or an apology.

Introduction: Finding the Face of a Digital Ghost​

A classic documentary film rests on three pillars: location, face, and action. We see a miner at a coalface, an activist at a rally, a scientist in a lab. Carding lacks any of these elements. The location is the global network, the face is hidden behind a mask of anonymity, and the action is the quiet work of fingers on a keyboard. The director's first and foremost task is to find a visual language capable of making this intangible reality tangible for the viewer.

1. Visualization Problems: How to Show What Cannot Be Seen?​

Directors and artists are pursuing different paths in their attempts to materialize the digital shadow.

1.1. Abstraction and data art.
The most elegant and metaphorical approach. Instead of showing a "hacker," the camera follows pulsating streams of light in a fiber optic cable, dancing dots on a world map symbolizing transactions, and big data visualizations that transform into hypnotic patterns.

• What this achieves: It conveys a sense of scale, complexity, and impersonality. Carding appears not as an individual act, but as part of a global digital landscape, a new natural force. This shifts the focus from the individual to the system.
• Example: Work by artist Rafay Lozano-Hemmer, who creates installations based on network traffic data.

1.2. Reconstruction and stylization.
Creation of staged scenes based on real cases, but performed by actors. A dark room, a backlit face behind a monitor, fast hands on the keyboard.

• Risk: It's too easy to fall into Hollywood cliches ("hooded hacker"), which creates a romanticized and unrealistic image.
• Ethical approach: Use such scenes not to create an image of a "genius," but to demonstrate the routine and tedium of fraud. The monotony of chat messages, waiting for transaction confirmation, paranoia — this is the real, unphotogenic everyday life of a carder. This portrays the work not as an adventure, but as a dirty and nerve-wracking digital conveyor belt.

1.3. Focus on consequences and context.
The camera turns away from the crime and focuses on its results. This is the most powerful and humane method.

• Visuals: An empty chair in front of a computer in a bank's fraud monitoring department, the tense faces of analysts reviewing logs. Or the quiet home of a pensioner recounting how she discovered her pension had been stolen. Views of server farms, bank facades, the interiors of cybercrime police stations.
• What this does: It humanizes the story, showing its human dimension. It's not abstract "data" that suffers, but living people and those who protect them. This creates an emotional connection and a clear moral context that is missing in a purely technical narrative.

1.4. Interface as character.
The camera becomes subjective, showing the world through the eyes of the user or the carder themselves. The computer screen is the main "window" into the story.

• How it's done: Screencasts of Telegram conversations, animated journeys through darknet forums, camera zooms in on lines of malware code.
• Ethical trap: It is necessary to carefully edit and blur sensitive data (card numbers, real logins, detailed instructions) to prevent the film from becoming a textbook.

2. The Ethical Labyrinth: Interviews with Shadow Interlocutors​

The most difficult decision for a documentary filmmaker is whether or not to interview active criminals. And if so, how?

2.1. Dilemma #1: Legitimization vs. Understanding.
By giving a criminal screen time and a voice, the director risks normalizing and even glorifying their activities. This is especially true if the interviewer is a charismatic character who speaks persuasively.

• Ethical Position A (Refusal): Some directors make it a point to not give voice to criminals, believing their motives and justifications are unworthy of a platform. The story is told through the victims, investigators, and experts.
• Ethical position B (conditions): An interview is possible, but only under strict rules: complete anonymity of the interviewee (silhouette, distorted voice), strict control on the part of the editor, who is sure to put each statement of the criminal in context - either with a counterargument from an expert, or with a shot showing the consequences of his actions.

2.2. Dilemma #2: To pay or not to pay?
Financing criminal activity for access to an interview is clearly unethical. But how then to get the contact? Most often, an unspoken barter operates: information in exchange for attention. The criminal wants to tell their story, be heard, and sometimes even brag. The director's task is to avoid becoming a mouthpiece for this narcissism.

2.3. Dilemma #3: Where to place the camera?
Even when filming anonymously, the setting and surroundings convey a lot. Should you film the carder in a cozy home environment, creating the image of "one of the guys"? Or should you deliberately choose a neutral, impersonal background (a gray wall) that does not evoke sympathy and emphasizes their detachment from the real world?

2.4. The role of "former" carders.
The golden mean is interviews with retired carders who have served time or are cooperating with the investigation. Their reflection, remorse, or cold analysis of their own mistakes are invaluable. They can speak openly, their experiences are complete, and their words pose no direct threat to society at the time of the film's release.

3. The Director's Responsibility: Between Journalism and Art​

A documentary filmmaker filming about carding has a triple responsibility.

1. To the public: Don't create panic, but don't downplay the risks either. Provide clear, practical conclusions and protection advice at the end or throughout the film.
2. Before the law: Do not become an accomplice. Anything that could be construed as an instruction or disclosure of information that would facilitate the commission of a crime must be cut out.
3. Facing the Truth: Avoid simple answers. Carding isn't a story about "good guys" and "bad guys." It's often a story about social inequality, technological disruption, human greed, and the vulnerability of systems. A good film should portray this complex ecosystem without excusing the crime, nor reducing it to personal depravity.

Conclusion: The film as a bridge between two worlds​

A successful documentary about carding isn't a pure investigation or exposé. It's, above all, a translation.

It builds a bridge between the world of bits and the world of human emotion. It transforms lines of code into relatable dramas, and loss statistics into personal stories.

Such a film doesn't end with the credits. It leaves the viewer not with a sense of fear of technology, but with a deeper understanding of the digital world in which we all live. It reminds us that behind every transaction are people — those who make it, those who protect it, and those who fall victim. And the central question it poses is: What do we want this shared digital world to be — a jungle where the most cunning survives, or a space where trust and security are common property? The answer to this question lies beyond cinema, in our everyday digital practices.