Chapter 16: The private policing and prevention of cybercrimes

16.1 What’s the chapter about?

How non-state/private actors police the internet, why policing is pluralized/privatized, and the accountability/equity issues this creates.

Define pluralization (in policing).

Policing activities spread across multiple nodes beyond the state: private firms, NGOs, platforms, and users.

16.2 Who are key non-state actors in internet policing?

Hotlines/NGOs (IWF, INHOPE, ASACP), civil liberties orgs (EFF, EPIC), hate-speech monitors (ADL, SPLC, TellMAMA), platforms, and user communities.

What’s ICANN’s role?

Multi-stakeholder body managing domains/IP addresses and stability; does not arbitrate content.

Why was the IWF–Wikipedia case controversial?

Private blacklist blocked a page with a decades-old album cover; critics argued IWF acted as censor without due process; ban was later reversed.

What is digilantism?

Online vigilantism where citizens “investigate,” shame, or punish perceived offenders due to perceived gaps in official remedies.

Key risks of digilantism?

Misidentification, harassment/mobbing, bias against marginalized groups, and escalations worse than the original harm.

16.3 What is platform “responsibilization”?

Laws compelling platforms to remove illegal/harmful content, police users, and report offences under threat of fines or liability.

Examples of responsibilization laws?

Australia’s Online Safety Act (eSafety), Germany’s NetzDG, UK’s Online Safety Bill with Ofcom enforcement.

Downsides of hard mandates on platforms?

Free-speech conflicts (“lawful but harmful”), over-removal/chilling effects, displacement to smaller/opaque sites.

16.4 What services do for-profit cyber firms provide?

Threat consulting, IAM/MFA/biometrics, firewalls/IDS, anti-malware, encryption/DRM, IR/forensics, and training.

Why has the private security market boomed?

State capacity limits, globalized cyber risks, organizational compliance needs, and consumer demand for self-protection.

16.5 What explains privatized/plural policing?

Shift to networked governance and neoliberal responsibilization—crime control costs/risks shifted to organizations and individuals.

How do public police view this shift?

Mixed: resent loss of domain but benefit from offloaded costs/capability gaps; public resources prioritize traditional crime.

16.6 Why is accountability a problem?

Private actors lack democratic oversight; decisions to remove/block content can reflect sectional interests without clear appeal.

Why is equity a problem?

Security becomes a commodity—those with money buy better protection, deepening digital divides and risk exposure.

16.7 Big takeaway?

Blended policing expands capacity but must balance safety with transparency, due process, and fairness across users.

Key Term: Policing

All activities that enforce norms and control crime, not only by the state but also private/third-sector actors and users.

Key Term: Privatization

Market provision of policing/security goods and services traditionally handled by the state.

Key Term: Pluralization

Dispersion of policing across multiple public-private-civil “nodes” (nodal governance).

Key Term: Governance

Networked steering of social order where the state is one node among many.

Key Term: Scambaiter

Participant who engages fraudsters (e.g., 419 schemes) to expose, waste time, or retaliate against them.

Key Term: Digilantism

Online vigilantism involving naming/shaming or DIY investigations outside formal justice systems.