Cyber crimes refer to offenses that are committed against individuals or groups using electronic communications networks and information systems. These can include crimes like identity theft, hacking, stalking, bullying, fraud, and the dissemination of child sexual abuse material. Cyber crimes have posed significant challenges for criminologists as this new breed of offense does not fit neatly into existing theoretical frameworks and requires new perspectives to understand offender motivation, victimization, and methods for prevention.
Defining and Categorizing Cyber Crime
A key challenge for criminologists around cyber crime is defining exactly what constitutes a cyber crime and developing useful categorization systems to study these offenses separately from traditional crimes. Criminologists D’Ovidio and Doyle (2003) suggest cyber crime constitutes any illegal act for which a computer or information network was used to commit or facilitate the offense. However, narrow definitions centered only on illegal computer hacking leave out many other facets of cyber offenses.
A useful categorization divides cyber crimes into three overarching types – crimes uniquely committed with computers and online networks (like hacking), traditional crimes now transformed by use of technology (like identity theft or cyberbullying), and hybrid zones in the middle where technology creates new crimes unimaginable in a pre-internet era (like disseminating child sexual abuse images online) (McGuire and Dowling 2013). Each type poses different challenges for criminologists seeking to understand culprit motivation, methods of offending, and victim profiles.
The Anonymity Challenge
A key challenge posed by cyber crime for criminologists surrounds the anonymity afforded online, which fundamentally transforms the nature of criminal acts. Traditional criminological theories center on understanding an offender’s personal motivations and psychology as instrumental to criminal behavior. Social process theories also focus heavily on socialization influences and peer associations.
However, in cyber space an individual can easily commit serious offenses like spreading malware, stealing identities, or uploading illicit content often without revealing anything personal about themselves that can help profile their criminal mindset. This dissociation between offender and offense limits explanatory power for existing criminology perspectives centered on the individual or group as the key unit of analysis. As Nhan and Bachmann (2017) suggest, “it becomes difficult or almost impossible to identify, catch, or punish offenders in the traditional way” (p.62).
Cyber Crime: Victimization & Harm
Another key challenge surrounds gauging victimization, as damage from cyber crimes can be extensive but also remain undetected or have delayed impacts that present differently than traditional offenses. For instance, a computer hacker may stealthily access personal data but not misuse it for months or even years later. Identity fraud victimization may also go undetected for a lengthy timeframe after initial data theft.
Measuring aggregate harm is also difficult with cyber offenses potentially affecting thousands globally through single acts like malware attacks. Traditional criminology frameworks shaped by studies of visible street crimes with clear victims do not automatically extend well to cyber offenses that “have no obvious scene…and the offenders and victims may be continents apart” (Nhan & Bachmann, 2017, p. 62). Methodologically this limits options for variables that criminologists have traditionally used like crime scene analysis, eyewitness accounts etc.
Cyber offenses also present challenges through problematic crime reporting. Researchers suggest cyber crime reporting rates to authorities are extremely low, due to victim embarrassment, perceived futility due to anonymity barriers, or lack of awareness their victimization even constitutes a crime (Levi et al., 2017). This means many cyber offenses go uncaptured in official crime statistics that criminologists heavily rely on to profile offending patterns. Underreporting is a barrier for traditional crimes too, but the unique technical aspects of cyber offenses generates additional hurdles for victim reporting.
Criminologists must then get creative drawing on datasets beyond police statistics to study cyber crime, including using self-report surveys and investigations within online underground hacking communities. However, these methods also have limitations in terms of capturing offence volumes or gaining full validity assurance from self-proclaimed online offenders. Overcoming cyber crime data collection issues remains an ongoing challenge researchers continue working to address through innovative techniques.
Investigating cyber crimes poses a huge challenge for law enforcement, and by extension for criminologists relying on police data to understand these offenses. Cyber crimes frequently cross international jurisdictions, but collaborating across borders Represents significant red tape for investigators (McGuire, 2012). The expertise needed to trace online offenders and encrypted digital trails also requires very specialized policing capabilities many departments lack. Reports suggest that less than 1% of police manpower is devoted to fighting cyber crime in many developed nations, let alone within developing world police forces lagging further behind in resources devoted (McGuire, 2012).
The technical skills required also greatly favors young so-called “digital native” investigators just growing comfortable online themselves. Traditional criminology theory does not account for this unique demographic skew, as theories centered on adulthood socialization experiences shaping criminal pathways do not automatically apply the same way. However cyber crime policing evolves, investigative barriers generating incomplete crime data poses an ongoing challenge for researchers aiming to track these offenses and offenders effectively over time.
Criminologists have worked to adapt traditional theoretical frameworks to try explaining cyber offending pathways and motivations better. Social learning theories for example get invoked exploring online communities that normalize cyber crime behaviors for newcomers through shared techniques and security exploits (Holt et al. 2010). Social bonding theories look at how some cyber offenses stem from detachment or poor internet self-regulation skills (Donner et al. 2014).
However, most criminology theories still center fundamentally on understanding human psychology and social contexts shaping behavior in the physical world. Explaining cyber actions fully requires accounting better for online disinhibition effects that empower new aggressive behaviors (Suler, 2004). Anonymity, lack of authority, and distance from victims online can weaken social constraints and morality in digital environments differently than criminologists anticipated theories developed decades before the internet (Navathe et al., 2008).
Updates integrating psychological concepts like deindividuation and emerging group behavioral norms remain needed before criminology frameworks can fully do justice capturing all facets unique to the cyber domain. Ongoing interdisciplinary collaboration particularly with psychologists focusing on identity and behavior specifically online will be key for criminologists moving forward.
Culture & Subculture
Finally, cyber crime poses challenges as the online world fosters emergence of unique subcultures with evolved norms that do not automatically mirror behaviors in the physical world. Traditional criminology theory centers heavily on the role of societal and peer culture in shaping criminal mindsets and justifying offenses through shared vocabularies of motive (Willott et al. 2001). However cyber communities fall outside traditional geographic boundaries for studying cultural influences on behavior.
Online hacking subcultures span the globe for example, developing their own rituals for skilled hackers providing mentoring entry routes into sophisticated cyber crime for newcomers. The cryptoanarchist philosophy also challenges criminologists used to studying violations of state laws, rather than fundamental rejection of governmental authority itself (Holt et al. 2010). Understanding cyber crime fully requires treating online spaces as their own distinct cultures separate from the physical world, with evolved beliefs systems and norms among influential groups like hackers justified through weighted moral relativity.
Mapping cyber crime culture flowing fluidly across servers rather than streets remains an ongoing challenge as these social constructs move faster than criminologists can capture through periodic empirical research studies. Only long term embedded ethnographies online may provide deeper insight related to cultural dimensions, though even digital anthropology has limitations when subcultures intentionally cloak themselves behind encryption. Understanding the role of cyber crime subcultures will necessitate innovative theoretical frameworks for many years to come as researchers gravel to keep pace.
In summary, cyber crimes fundamentally disrupt multiple taken for granted dimensions of traditional criminology frameworks developed in an era before the internet permeated all aspects of daily life. Challenges span issues from anonymity severely limiting individual focused explanatory theories, to problems tracking fluid cyber crime harms and ineffective reporting barriers undermining crime analysis over time. Myriad legal and technical barriers also constrain investigation capabilities shaping researcher data access.
However, some of the biggest issues center on cultural emergence of unique online subcultures requiring understanding cyber spaces as their own ecology with evolved norms. Criminologists have only begun adapting traditional perspectives and developing innovative new theoretical models to try keeping pace with the ever expanding cyber crime challenges. Interdisciplinary collaboration with tech and social science fields will remain imperative to overcome the multifaceted barriers cyber crimes present for effective scholarly inquiry in coming decades.