INTERPOL Retires Pig Butchering: Rethinking Fear-Based Cybersecurity Language

When INTERPOL recently announced they would stop using the term “pig butchering” in favor of “romance baiting,” it reminds me that we're overdue for another conversation here on the Cybermaniacs Blog about how we use language and create shared meaning through words, in our unique domain of cybersecurity.

What is Romance Baiting?

"Pig butchering," or now "romance baiting," is a cyber scam where perpetrators build trust with victims through online relationships, then persuade them to invest in fraudulent schemes, often involving cryptocurrencies. The term "pig butchering" originated from a Chinese phrase likening victims to pigs being fattened before slaughter. 😬

In 2023, the FBI reported that Americans lost $5.6 billion to cryptocurrency scams, including pig butchering. In the first half of 2024, over 18,000 complaints were filed, with losses exceeding $1.9 billion

Unlike catfishing, where individuals create fake identities to deceive others into emotional or romantic relationships without direct financial motives, romance baiting specifically aims to defraud victims financially by convincing them to invest in non-existent or fraudulent ventures. The primary distinction lies in the end goal: catfishing seeks emotional manipulation, while romance baiting combines emotional deceit with financial exploitation.

Romance Baiting is a Better Name! 

Romance Baiting as a new term better reflects the manipulation at the heart of these scams, and I appreciate how it also moves us away from the somewhat dehumanizing aspect of the original term. Even reading the term 'Pig Butchering' made me cringe, an unnecessary and distracting element from the critical issue at hand. I'm glad to see this shift toward terms like 'romance baiting,' which focus on the manipulative nature of these scams without resorting to dehumanizing imagery.  This change is more than a linguistic shift—it's an opportunity to reassess how we talk about digital threats and the people affected by them. 

After all, if we aim to change hearts and minds to empower people for a safe digital future, the language we use can either pave the way for understanding or create unnecessary barriers to progress. 

The Problem with Horror Movie Titles

Cybersecurity is undeniably serious, addressing issues that can disrupt lives, organizations, and entire economies.

Historically, however, our field has adopted a small penchant for naming threats, at times perhaps with an almost gleeful horror-movie flair. Terms like “catphishing,” “zombie botnets,” and “evil maid attacks” may grab attention, but I will argue that they can also trivialize or obscure the real harm these threats pose.

Why? Well, for the every day folk we're trying to reach and influence, these names often evoke fear and confusion rather than actionable understanding. Is it time to shift our naming conventions toward clarity, empathy, and empowerment?

What’s in a Name? Revisiting Shakespeare’s Insight

In the iconic balcony scene of Romeo and Juliet (Act 2, Scene 2), Romeo reflects on the power of names, questioning their significance in shaping identity and relationships. Upon discovering Juliet’s Capulet lineage, he muses:

"What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

This line is more than romantic poetry; it’s Romeo’s internal struggle with the societal constructs attached to names. For him, the feud between “Montague” and “Capulet” represents an arbitrary boundary that stands between his love for Juliet and their shared humanity. The names carry no inherent power; their significance arises from the cultural and historical narratives that define them.

From an anthropological perspective, Romeo’s reflection highlights the role of names as symbols of shared meaning. In anthropology, shared meaning is central to understanding how language, symbols, and social constructs shape human experiences. Names, in this context, are arbitrary—their power comes from cultural agreement and the weight of collective history. A name like “Capulet” or “Montague” is a label imbued with meaning through generations of conflict and societal context.

The Cybersecurity Connection

This anthropological lens is highly relevant in cybersecurity. The names we assign to threats—whether “zombie botnets” or “pig butchering”—carry symbolic meaning that shapes perception and response.

When names rely too heavily on fear, grotesque imagery, or confusion, they risk alienating the very people they’re meant to educate. Instead of fostering understanding, these terms can create barriers, whether through intimidation or desensitization.

Romeo’s insight asks us to challenge these constructs: Are the names we use creating clarity and action, or are they perpetuating fear and misunderstanding? If a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, then a cyber threat by any other name could still be just as dangerous—but perhaps more effectively understood and mitigated when named thoughtfully.

The Psychology of Words and Shared Meaning

The words we use influence how people perceive and respond to threats. In cybersecurity, names should ideally strike a balance between urgency and clarity, avoiding unnecessary fear or drama. From a psychological perspective, words carry emotional weight that can either motivate or paralyze. Fear-based language often creates anxiety, which can lead to avoidance rather than action.

This is why etymology and anthropology matter. Language shapes culture, and culture drives behavior. As cybersecurity professionals, educators, and communicators, we have the opportunity—and responsibility—to craft language that empowers.

Words are tools, and how we use them determines whether we build understanding or reinforce fear.

Reclaiming and Rethinking Language

It’s also worth noting that some terms, like “hacker,” are in a reclamation phase. Once synonymous with malicious intent, “hacker” now often refers to ethical hackers or creative problem solvers. This shift demonstrates the potential to reshape language for the better, aligning terms with their true purpose and meaning. Similarly, we can rethink how we name threats and vulnerabilities, moving away from fear-factor imagery and toward language that promotes understanding, resilience, and action.

Moving Beyond Shock Value

Should cybersecurity language inspire caution and vigilance? Absolutely. But we can achieve that without relying on shock value, grotesque metaphors, or dehumanizing language. The goal should be purposeful communication—language that educates, motivates, and fosters a sense of shared responsibility. This includes not only how we name cyber threats but also how we frame the broader narrative of risk and resilience.

In cybersecurity, as in life, names matter. They shape perception, drive behavior, and influence culture. Let’s take a page from Shakespeare and rethink the power of language. By moving past fear-based overly technical terms, we can create a more informed, empowered, and resilient digital society.