Cybercrime

Broadly speaking, one can classify cybercrimes in two categories. First, there are crimes that require a computer and cannot be committed in any other way or against any other type of victim. These also include crimes where the computer is the target of the offense, for example, unauthorized access to systems, tampering with programs and data, and planting viruses. Second, there are familiar or conventional crimes that are facilitated by computers and information and communication technologies (ICTs), such as “cyber” versions of identity theft, stalking, pedophile activities, or trading counterfeit goods. In some cases, criminal activities may encompass both categories. For example, acts of terrorism can involve qualitatively new offenses enabled by computer technologies or, alternatively, may integrate cyberspace into more traditional activities, such as planning, intelligence, logistics, and finance. Finally, there are several activities that are not strictly cybercrimes, insofar as they are not illegal, but they may cause what most people would consider harm to some users (such as certain forms of pornography, gambling, unsolicited e-mail, or unregulated sales of medicines and prescription drugs).

Newman and Clarke identified 26 crimes made possible by ICTs. They summarize the criminogenic attributes of cybercrimes in the acronym SCAREM: Stealth (cyberspace makes carrying out furtive crimes much easier), Challenge (an intellectual climate among hackers usually summed up as a desire to “beat” the system), Anonymity (an aspect of cyberspace that is obviously conducive to committing crime and not getting caught), Reconnaissance (the Internet provides a context in which informed criminals can plan their operations, survey all possible targets, and then act accordingly), Escape (in an environment where the identity and location of the offender are unknown and frequently unknowable, the opportunities for escape without leaving a trail of evidence are extremely high), and Multiplicity (hacking into valuable databases offers the opportunity to commit multiple crimes and create millions of victims simultaneously).

When it comes to the assessment of crime and crime control in cyberspace, there are essentially two diametrically opposed views. One is an upbeat—some would say, idealistic—view that the Internet is democratizing and the fact that control over content rests not with one, powerful interest group but potentially with each and every user makes the cyberenvironment a great social leveler, whereby we can all “police” each other. The other assessment of cybercrime is a negative response that ranges from doomand-gloom resignation to shrill warnings about apocalyptic meltdown. Inevitably, our reliance on ICTs in nearly every aspect of our public and private lives raises important concerns about security, trust, and control. In part, feelings of vulnerability may arise from the speed with which the personal computer (PC) became ubiquitous in everyday life in the 1980s and 1990s and the rate at which “new generation” technologies continue to be developed. Furthermore, the fear that hackers and virus writers are becoming less concerned with technical mastery for its own sake and are becoming explicitly criminal in intent may be a consequence of the more general anxiety concerning terrorist threats after the attacks on America on September 11, 2001.

...