Victims of cybercrime in Europe: a review of victim surveys

Abstract

Objectives: Review the evidence provided by victim surveys in order to provide a rough estimate of the personal crime prevalence of the main types of cybercrime. Methods: We performed a search in databases, searched online, and contacted several Offices for National Statistics in Europe and selected surveys that provided information about individual victims of crime which were representative for a general population. Six types of cybercrime have been distinguished, namely online shopping fraud, online fraud banking/payment, other cyber fraud (such as advanced fee fraud), cyber threats/harassment, malware, and hacking. For every survey the questions on cybercrime are presented and the crime prevalence estimates are compared. Results: Nine surveys were included. Annual crime prevalence rates ranged from 1 to 3% for online shopping fraud, from less than 1 to 2% for online banking/payment fraud. Less than 1% of the population is a victim of other types of fraud and a maximum of 3% of the population experiences some sort of online bullying such as stalking (1%) or threatening (1%). 1-6% is a victim of hacking. The estimates for being a victim of malware range from 2 to 15%. For all offences it cannot be estimated how much of the differences are due to variation in methods and questioning between the studies or real differences between countries or change over time. Conclusions: As yet there have been very few well performed randomised sampled studies on cybercrime amongst the general population. Cybercrime prevalence (and its trend) can only be well measured if the questions are frequently updated and adequately address new aspects of cybercrime. To adequately monitor cybercrime in the future it is advisable to develop some fairly abstract main categories that are of durable validity, whilst allowing for up-todate illustrations. Furthermore, ideally the questioning in the ongoing surveys in the different countries should be standardised and there should be a uniform categorisation of the different cyber offences. A screening question in order to permit more accurate dating is essential to reduce telescoping bias. Surveys should ask about the impact on or damage to the victims.

The World of Defacers: Looking Through the Lens of Their Activities on Twitter

“…Cybercrime such as hacking activities of cyber criminals have been causing a significant amount of damage to their victims (organizations and people) [1], and such threats are becoming more and more advanced and severe in recent years [2]. A lot of research has been conducted for a better understanding, detection and prevention of cybercrime and behaviors of cyber criminals and victims.…”

“…This type of attacks are among the most common web attacks and frequently reported by the media. For instance, just to give one such example reported recently, a hacking group, Ghost Squad Hackers 1 , defaced the website of European Space Agency (ESA) twice, on 14 and 19 July 2020 [16], [17]. Particularly, to the best of our knowledge, there have no previous attempts on analyzing defacers' behaviors based on OSN data.…”

Een eerste blik op online delinquentie

“…Dit lijkt omgekeerd niet te gelden, waarbij de groep die enkel offline delicten pleegt groter is dan de groep die enkel online delicten of beide soorten delicten pleegt (Rokven e.a., 2017). In Nederland werden ook studies gedaan naar de prevalentie van slachtofferschap van cybercriminaliteit in representatieve steekproeven van de volledige bevolking (voor een review van verschillende Europese landen, waaronder Nederland, zie Reep-van den Bergh & Junger, 2018). Het merendeel van de prevalenties van slachtofferschap bleef, net zoals in de andere landen in de review, relatief laag in Nederland, met cijfers tussen de 0 en 5 procent.…”

“…Zo bleef slachtofferschap van de verspreiding van seksueel getint beeldmateriaal beperkt tot ongeveer 3 procent, maar gaf ruim 17 procent aan slachtoffer te zijn geweest van online bedreiging. In vergelijking met vorig onderzoek zijn dit hoge prevalenties (CBS, 2019;Reep-van den Bergh & Junger, 2018). Echter, door verschillen in steekproef en vraagstelling moet voorzichtig worden omgegaan met deze vergelijking.…”

The Harmonization of Russian Criminal Legislation on Counteracting Cybercrime with the Legal Standards of the Council of Europe

“…Наблюдение за функционированием ресурсов Интернета показывает существование коммерческих проектов, сомнительных в плане законности получения доходов операторами, разработчиками и правообладателями. Виртуальная преступность, приобретая международный характер [48], требует особых подходов к расследованию фактов правонарушений [49] и защите прав пользователей компьютерных сетей [50].…”