Offline and Local: The Hidden Face of Cybercrime

Abstract

A persistent refrain in both the academic literature and the popular press is that cybercrime is a largely anonymous activity that exists in cyberspace (e.g., Gabrys 2002. For relevant discussions, see Grabosky 2004;Wall 2007;Lusthaus 2013). Cybercriminals 'meet' anonymously in virtual marketplaces (see, for instance, Décary-Hétu and Dupont 2013; Holt and Lampke 2010; Hutchings and Holt 2015). Shadowy attackers could strike from anywhere at any moment. They are a new type of threat, unlike any criminal activity that has been observed before. In short, these offenders challenge existing paradigms of crime and policing, and vastly new models are required to comprehend this new challenge.In this paper, we seek to add greater nuance to understandings of cybercrime by highlighting a neglected aspect of the phenomenon: the offline and local dimension (see Lusthaus 2016: 24-31). As a starting point it is vital to acknowledge that all cyber-attacks stem from a person who physically exists in a certain location. This basic consideration helps us better understand, investigate and counter cybercrime. It contextualises the threat. We should expect a degree of variation as to how cybercrime presents in each case. The economic and social dynamics of different settings are likely to influence who gets involved in cybercrime, what types of cybercrime they carry out and the way they are organised. In short, both the individuals behind cybercrime and the offline worlds they inhabit deserve study.Cybersecurity should not just be about the analysis of fast changing technical threats and the challenges they pose. Alongside the online and technical, there is an offline, human and contextual element that matters.

Characterizing Eve: Analysing Cybercrime Actors in a Large Underground Forum

“…The content of what is learnt includes specific techniques to commit crime, as well as the 'definitions' (mindset) favourable to committing crime [37]. In relation to cybercrime, there is evidence that offenders associate with each other in physical space [18], but also online, particularly through the use of online underground forums [10,15,38].…”

Deviating From the Cybercriminal Script: Exploring Tools of Anonymity (Mis)Used by Carders on Cryptomarkets

“…Carders use them for extra security when they want to obtain physical goods with stolen card details. This shows that there is an important offline element to cybercrime, which sometimes can even be local if people work together in the same areas (Lusthaus & Varese, 2017). However, it is often stressed in carding tutorials that a drop address cannot have any links to the carder's life and sometimes it is even recommended to set--up schemes in which the carder hires someone to pick--up packages from the drop and deliver to his/her real address ( van Hardeveld, Webber & O'Hara, 2016).…”

‘Why Don’t You Block Them?’ Police Officers’ Constructions of the Ideal Victim When Responding to Reports of Interpersonal Cybercrime

“…Drawing on the work of Christie (1986) and the notion of the 'ideal' victim it can be seen how officers construct their understanding of who is an 'ideal' victim. These notions are informed by popular characterisations of cybercrime as anonymous and faceless and occurring in an unknown cyberspace (Lusthaus and Varese, 2017). These forms of cybercrime, which are mostly property related, allow the offender to be 'big and bad' and position the victim as unknowing and blameless, giving them unquestioning victim status.…”

“…The idea of the 'faceless' criminal operating across the internet fits the popular characterisation in academic and popular literature of cybercrime as anonymously enacted in a distant and unknown cyberspace (Lusthaus and Varese, 2017). This type of criminality allows officers to consider the victim as unambiguously blameless as the offender is unknown and the victim Pre-print version: Black, A., Lumsden, K. and Hadlington, L. ( Those online offences that are more interpersonal in nature are more likely to imply that the victim and the offender are known to each other, and thus it is viewed that there are more opportunities for the victim to disassociate from the offender, as can be seen in the quote below: Respondent 2: Yeah, we have genuine victims who just didn't see it coming or who have been blatantly exploited, but then we also have the lower-level stuff which is just down to social irresponsibility and people not taking responsibility for their own actions online.…”