The Linguistics of Fraud: How Analyzing Carder Jargon Helped Create Clearer Language for Security Alerts

[Professor]

Idea: A study of slang and terminology. How their study by linguists and psychologists has helped banks and regulators move away from bureaucratic jargon and speak to customers in clearer, more figurative language that truly warns of dangers.

Introduction: When Slang Becomes the Key to Understanding​

In a world where millions of people make online payments every day, the main line of defense is often not a complex encryption algorithm, but a short message on the screen: "Are you making a transfer?" or "Don't share the SMS code with anyone." The effectiveness of these warnings is a matter of security for entire fortunes. For a long time, they were drowned in bureaucratic jargon and legalese, which users simply ignored. But a quiet revolution in communication has occurred, and a surprising co-author of this revolution has been the language of fraudsters themselves — their jargon, their slang, their unique linguistic universe. Analysis of this "shadow language" has allowed us to create a new, clear, and effective warning language that speaks to people in a way they understand.

Chapter 1: The Vocabulary of Shadowcraft – What's Behind the Jargon​

Carding and scamming communities in the early 2000s and 2010s developed their own rich and figurative language. It wasn't just a collection of words, but an entire system of concepts that reflected processes, tools, statuses, and relationships.

Key categories of vocabulary:

• Terms for data and tools:
  • A "dropper" is a person or address designated for receiving goods or money, often unaware of their role. Originally, it was a "drop" (drop point).
  • "Banlor" / "Bagor" is a stolen bank card or its details. From the English "bank log".
  • Skimming is the theft of card data using a removable device.
  • "Phishing" is the extraction of data through fake websites and emails. The metaphor of "fishing" has proven surprisingly accurate and has migrated into official language.
• Terms for processes and statuses:
  • "Clean the card" - make purchases or withdraw money up to the limit.
  • "Вб" means to use data for payment on the Internet.
  • "To extinguish" means to cash out money.
  • "Broken" / "Broken" - a card that no longer works (blocked).
  • "Shipyard" / "Farm" is a place where data is "processed" or funds are cashed out.
• Terms for communication and trust:
  • "Support" - technical support on shadow forums.
  • “Guarantor” is a person acting as an intermediary and guarantor of a transaction (similar to escrow).
  • To "throw" is to deceive a partner in a transaction.

Linguistic analysis revealed surprising things:

1. Concreteness and imagery. Jargon avoided abstractions. "Enter a card" sounded much more concrete and visual than "use the details for an unauthorized transaction."
2. Dynamism and simplicity. Slang described actions with short, energetic verbs. It was the language of practitioners, not lawyers.
3. A reflection of psychology. The words "to ditch" or "to screw up" carried an emotional connotation — disappointment, risk, instability. This language existed in a world of high risk and split-second decisions.

Chapter 2: Why the Official Defense Language Didn't Work​

While the world of shadow operations spoke a living, albeit criminal, language, official bank warnings suffered from the opposite problems:

• Official language and passive constructions: "You are required to ensure confidentiality of sensitive authentication data." The brain perceives this as noise that doesn't require immediate action.
• Legal redundancy: The texts were replete with clauses such as "if," "provided that," and "in accordance with the terms of the agreement." They protected the bank legally, but did not protect the client psychologically.
• Lack of emotional resonance: Words like "fraud," "unsafe," and "threat" lost their power with repeated use, causing irritation rather than fear. They didn't create a vivid, memorable image in the mind.

Simply put, the fraudster spoke to the victim in the language of action and profit in person ("Transfer immediately to save your savings!") , while the bank, via text message, spoke the language of bureaucracy and detachment. In this duel for attention and trust, the one with the more persuasive speech won.

Chapter 3: Linguistic Breakthrough – How Slang Helped Find the Key to the User's Mind​

In the mid-2010s, linguists, psychologists, and usability specialists, working with cybercriminals, began studying not only fraudulent schemes but also their language .

Discovery #1: Metaphors work.
The term "phishing" proved brilliantly accurate. Entire campaigns were built around it: "Don't fall for the scammers' bait!" and the image of a hook in security emails. This created a clear visual and semantic image. Analysts realized they needed to find similarly vivid metaphors for other threats.

Discovery #2: Language should describe the victim's actions, not the criminal's.
Instead of "Beware of scammers," it became " Don't tell anyone the code from the SMS — even someone claiming to be a bank employee ." This is a direct copy of situations where a scammer asks to "dictate the code to cancel a transfer." The phrase became a counter-instruction for the attacker.

Discovery #3: Slang reveals pain points.
By studying how scammers refer to "unsuccessful" targets ("boomer," "newbie" — inexperienced users), psychologists understood who exactly needs to be educated first and how — without condescension, but in accessible language. The term "drop" helped create explanations: "They might ask to transfer money to the card of a 'relative' or 'courier,' who is often a scammer."

Chapter 4: The New Language of Security – Clear, Visual, and Actionable​

The result of this interdisciplinary analysis was the birth of a new communication protocol between the bank and the client.

1. The principle of direct speech and imperative.
Messages became short and imperative, like commands:

• It was: "It is recommended that you refrain from providing personal information."
• It became: "Never give your card details to anyone. No bank employee will ask for them."

2. The principle of a concrete scenario.
Instead of abstract warnings, a description of a specific trick, revealed by analyzing jargon and methods:

• It was: "Be vigilant when making online payments."
• What it means: "A scammer may send you a link to a fake website, resembling a bank's, and ask you to 'confirm your details' or 'enter a code from an SMS.' Don't click these links." This describes the direct process of phishing a card.

3. The principle of emotional resonance through simple words.
Using words that are common to everyone:

• "Counterfeit" instead of "falsified".
• "Trick" instead of "social engineering method".
• "Urgent transfer under pressure" describes a situation where the scammer "pressures" the victim so that they don't have time to think.

4. The principle of positive action.
Language has shifted from prohibitions ("don't do it") to instructions for action ("do it this way"):

• "If in doubt, hang up and call the bank back using the number on the official website or on the back of your card." This is the algorithm for behavior when a scammer is using pressure (the scammers' "support").

Chapter 5: From SMS to Interfaces – Linguistic Security Design​

The new language went beyond text alerts. It became part of the user experience (UX) :

• Push notification design: Instead of "Suspicious activity," change to "Someone is trying to access your account from a new device in [city]. Is that you? [Yes/No]." Specific location and action.
• Text in online banking: Next to the field for entering the code from the SMS, there's now a bold message instead of a gray footnote: "This password is for login only. Don't tell it to anyone. If anyone asks for this code, it's a scam." This is a direct response to the scheme where victims are asked to "dictate a code to cancel a transfer."
• Function names: "Virtual card" for secure online payments is clearer than "one-time payment details generation service." "Freezing a card" in one click is a term that reflects an instant action, as in jargon ("the card was burned").

Conclusion: How the enemy's language taught us to defend ourselves​

The history of fraud linguistics is a story of how understanding the enemy's language became a powerful defensive weapon. Carder jargon, once uncovered and studied, served not as a textbook on crime but as a unique sociolinguistic mirror . It reflected the weaknesses of official communication, the psychological triggers of victims, and the very simplicity that warnings sorely lacked.

Banks and regulators made a wise move: they abandoned the slang, but adopted its key principles — specificity, imagery, dynamics, and targeting. They began to speak to clients not as a bureaucratic machine to a person, but as a person to a person, warning of dangers in the language in which these dangers manifest themselves.

In the end, everyone except the fraudsters won. Users received clear instructions that they actually read and understand. Banks built a more effective last line of defense. And the language of financial security transformed from a set of frightening and incomprehensible formulations into an instrument of care, clarity, and genuine assistance. It is proof that even in the darkest linguistic universe, we can find nuggets of meaning to make our own world brighter and safer.