Cybercrime and Digital Forensics – Key Vocabulary

Chapter Goals

• Explain how technology reshapes individual & collective human behavior.
• Distinguish digital natives from digital immigrants.
• Identify three primary abuse pathways for technology (communication, target, incidental evidence).
• Define & contextualize subcultures in offending.
• Differentiate cyberdeviance, cybercrime, and cyberterror.
• Understand the nature & probative value of digital evidence.
• Articulate factors that make cyber‐offenses attractive to offenders.
• Survey the spectrum of global cybercrime forms.

Introduction – Rapid Technological Change

• Thirty years ago: scarce personal computers, pay-by-hour dial-up, 16-bit consoles, GPS limited to military, print media dominant.
• Contemporary society: ubiquitous laptops, Wi-Fi, smartphones, networked consoles, multi-platform social-network presence.
• Global penetration statistics (Internet World Stats 2020):
  • 4.57\text{ billion} users ≈ 58.7\% of world population.
  • Asia: 53.6\% penetration yet accounts for \tfrac12 of all users.
  • North America: only 7.6\% of user base but 94.6\% penetration.
• Howard Odum’s concept of technicways: technological innovations displace prior behaviors & force institutional change (mail → email/SMS; maps → GPS; etc.).

Digital Natives vs. Digital Immigrants (Prensky 2001)

Digital Natives

• Born mid-late 1980s onward; never experienced pre-Internet era.
• High exposure shapes cognition, socialization, worldview.
• Empirical snapshots:
  • UK: 96\% of 16–34-year-olds use mobile Internet.
  • US 18–24: 73\% Snapchat, 75\% Instagram.
  • India: 55\% of males 18–34 use WhatsApp daily.

Digital Immigrants

• Born before advent of digital tech; must adapt.
• Lower adoption & selective utility, esp. seniors:
  • US 50+: 31\% Instagram, 12\% Snapchat.
  • UK 65+: 28\% mobile Internet use.

Technology as a Landscape for Crime

The Triad of Abuse

1. Communication Medium – enables subcultural formation & deviant knowledge exchange.
2. Target / Means – devices & networks become objects of attack (e.g., hacking, malware, DDoS).
3. Incidental Evidence Container – digital footprints stored/transmitted transform routine devices into evidentiary troves.

Technology as Communications Medium

• Low-cost equipment + anonymity ⇒ rapid, decentralized global exchanges.
• Illustrative subcultural forums:
  • Johns/prostitution review boards (pricing, police heat maps).
  • Dark Web drug bazaars (e.g., Silk Road) accessed via TOR; un-indexed, IP-obscured.
• Subculture characteristics (Brake 1980; Foster 1990): own values, argot, rituals, reputation systems.
• Positive vs. deviant subcultures: sports fandom, gardening vs. hacking, illicit drug trade.

Technology as Target or Means

• Internet-enabled devices house sensitive credentials, IoT footprints, etc.
• Hacking continuum: guessing a password → sophisticated intrusion.
  • College surveys: 10–25\% have attempted password cracking.
• Web defacement: symbolic online vandalism conveying ideological messages (e.g., Turkish campaign post-Mohammed cartoon).
• DDoS: flood traffic to incapacitate services; weapon of activists & extremists.

Technology as Incidental Device & Digital Evidence

• Digital evidence = binary-stored/transported data (emails, EXIF, GPS logs, IoT sensor data).
• Cases:
  • BTK Killer: metadata from floppy disk revealed identity (Dennis Rader).
  • Vancouver 2011 riots: 3{,}500+ crowd-sourced emails, tagged FB photos → 100+ arrests.
• Investigative challenges: hidden storage (flash drives in wristbands), multi-device crime scenes.

Definitional Spectrum

• Deviance: norm violation (e.g., texting in class, adult porn where community disapproves).
• Cyberdeviance: deviance mediated by tech.
• Cybercrime (Furnell 2002; Wall 2001): offenses requiring specialized cyberspace or computer knowledge; practical convergence of “computer” & “cyber” crime today.
• Cyberterrorism: politically/ideologically motivated digital attacks aiming for fear or disruption; overlaps w/ cybercrime creating classification ambiguity.
  • Requires motive & scope analysis (economic vs. ideological, localized harm vs. mass fear).

Why Cyber-Offending Is Attractive

• Accessibility: cheaper devices, public Wi-Fi, cafés, libraries.
• Skill gradient: low-skill (piracy, harassment) → high-skill (malware coding).
• Force multiplier: spam or phishing can target \text{10}^{3}–\text{10}^{6} victims instantly (Button & Cross 2017).
• Anonymity tools: proxies, VPNs, TOR obfuscate IP & geolocation.
• Jurisdictional loopholes:
  • No extradition (e.g., Russia–US gap) or absent statutes (Philippines pre-ILOVEYOU 2000).
• Under-reporting – the Dark Figure: victims unaware, embarrassed (romance scams), or distrust police → skewed statistics.

Law-Enforcement & Evidentiary Challenges

• Patchwork of local/state/federal/national agencies; cross-border complexities.
• Victims seldom know proper reporting channel; multi-jurisdiction confusion.
• Technical competence gaps: recognizing malware vs. hardware failure.
• Forensics: need for seizure protocols, chain-of-custody, admissibility standards (see Chs 14–16).

Wall’s (2001) Four-Fold Typology of Cybercrime

1. Cyber-Trespass – unauthorized boundary crossing (Wi-Fi piggybacking, intrusion).
   • Hacker subculture debates legality & ethics of penetration.
2. Cyber-Deception & Theft – acquisition of property/info (phishing, data breaches, piracy).
   • Phishing breach cost: US avg \$8.19\text{ million} (IBM 2019).
   • Piracy prevalence: \approx40\% obtain music illicitly (IFPI 2018); software losses 52\text{ billion} (BSA 2018).
3. Cyber-Porn & Obscenity – production/distribution/consumption of sexual content.
   • Legit adult industry thrives via HD cams & streaming; legality varies (e.g., bestiality allowed Sweden, banned US).
   • Pedophilic & prostitution subcultures exploit anonymity for CSAM, client coordination.
4. Cyber-Violence – online behaviors inflicting emotional/physical harm.
   • Cyberbullying, harassment, revenge porn, extremist propaganda, DDoS political attacks (Anonymous, Izz ad-Din al Qassam).

Broader Implications & Ethical Considerations

• Technological divides reinforce generational & socioeconomic inequalities.
• Balancing privacy vs. security: surveillance powers, encryption debates, international law harmonization.
• Sociological need to understand subcultural moral economies that legitimize or condemn cyber behavior.
• Global governance challenges: heterogeneous legal frameworks, extradition stalemates, safe-havens.

Connections to Subsequent Chapters (Preview)

• Ch 2: Policing frameworks, public–private partnerships.
• Ch 3–4: Depth on hacking & malware ecosystems.
• Ch 5–6: Digital piracy & online fraud mechanics.
• Ch 7–9: Spectrum of tech-mediated sexual & interpersonal harms.
• Ch 10–11: Extremism, cyberterror, cyberwarfare intersections.
• Ch 12: Dark Web illicit markets logistics.
• Ch 13: Applicability of classical & contemporary criminological theories.
• Ch 14–16: Digital forensics workflow, legal admissibility, investigative tools.
• Ch 17: Future trajectories—IoT, AI, quantum encryption, policy evolution.

Key Takeaways / Study Prompts

• Internalize three abuse modalities of technology & be ready to supply concrete examples for each.
• Be fluent in the digital native/immigrant divide and its behavioral implications.
• Accurately define and contrast cyberdeviance, cybercrime, cyberterrorism using motive & harm criteria.
• Understand Wall’s typology and assign real-world offenses to each quadrant.
• Evaluate why cyber-offenses enjoy high cost–benefit ratios for offenders (anonymity, scalability, legal loopholes).
• Recognize the centrality of subcultural support networks in sustaining and normalizing online offending.
• Recall landmark incidents (ILOVEYOU virus, BTK floppy, Silk Road, Turkish defacements) as illustrative case studies.
• Acknowledge the forensic importance of any Internet-connected device—phones, wearables, vehicles, IoT sensors.