Eve He

Shuning Zhang, Eve He, Xiao Zhan et al.

E-commerce dispute resolution typically relies on the security assumption that digital evidence truthfully reflects physical reality. Generative AI (GenAI) invalidates this threat model, enabling attackers to fabricate hyper-realistic evidence of product defects at negligible cost. Through semi-structured interviews with merchants (N=17) and platform workers (N=13) in the Chinese e-commerce market, we characterize this shift toward GenAI-enabled scalable fabrication. We outline a taxonomy of four GenAI-enabled threat vectors across the transaction, dispute, logistics and communication phases, highlighting how attackers exploit GenAI to synthesize physically plausible product defects at scale. To mitigate these threats, platforms and merchants are adapting verification strategies, relying on AI tools for automated screening and adversarial interrogation (e.g., requesting multi-angle videos) to increase attack complexity. However, we find several challenges that hinder the adoption of these defenses, including implementation hurdles like structural platform constraints and fundamental limitations regarding the technical sophistication of GenAI. We conclude by outlining design implications for privacy-preserving cross-platform fraud databases, and traceability mechanisms such as embedding verifiable material anchors into the product.

Shuning Zhang, Changxi Wen, Eve He et al.

Large Language Model (LLMs)-assisted scholarly workflows introduce critical privacy and intellectual property risks. As a uniquely vulnerable cohort driven by publication pressure and a lack of institutional support, novice researchers rely heavily on public LLMs, compelling them to navigate high-stakes privacy-publication trade-offs. To investigate these concerns, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 44 researchers across diverse disciplines. Our findings reveal that the fear of idea leakage paradoxically accelerates, rather than deters, reliance on LLMs, as researchers utilize them to expedite publication. They also held misconceptions that their ideas lacked the unique value to attract targeted attacks, and that their inputs would be safely diluted within massive datasets, preventing reconstruction. From interviews, we identified five types of mitigations including input fragmentation and adversarial probing, though we found that participants largely perceived these measures as ineffective. We outline implications including implementing institution-level sandboxed isolation, scenario-based privacy pedagogy, and verifiable data-deletion audits for transparency.