CHAPTER ONE: CONNECTIVITY AND CYBERCRIME offender, (ii) a suitable target, and (iii) the absence of a capable guardian.40 In the case of cybercrime, large numbers of suitable targets may emerge through increasing time spent online, and the use of online services such as banking, shopping and file sharing – making users prone to phishing attacks or fraud.41 The emergence of online social networks, including Twitter and Facebook, also provides a ready supply of millions of potential scam or fraud victims. Where users have not restricted communication settings to enable only interaction with their private network of ‘friends’, such networks can enable accessibility of a large number of potential victims all at once. Persons also tend to organize their social networking profiles according to their interests and location, which enables criminals to target victims with specific modes of behaviour or backgrounds. Such ‘guardian’ measures that do exist, such as anti-virus programmes and a (comparatively small) risk of law enforcement action, can be insufficient to deter a perpetrator motivated by the lure of significant profit. Research also highlights that the general theory of crime concerning reduced self-control and a preparedness to assume risk for short-term gains, may apply to acts that can be facilitated or enhanced by electronic communications and the internet. In addition, individuals exposed online to cyber criminal models and peers may themselves be more likely to engage in cybercrime.42 This ‘social-learning’ theory may have particular application when it comes to cybercrime, as offenders often need to learn specific computer techniques and procedures.43 Social learning theory and the general theory of crime interact, in that persons with reduced self-control may actively seek out similar others and coalesce in virtual environments in the same way as in the real world. In cyberspace this process can occur in a significantly reduced timeframe, and with much broader geographic reach. Online connectivity and peer-learning is likely central to the engagement of organized criminal groups in cyber criminality. Online ‘carding’ or ‘carder’ forums for the exchange of stolen credit card details are one such example. ‘Carder’ forums have often commenced with a ‘swarm’ structure with no obvious chain of command as cyber perpetrators seek out one another and ‘meet’ online for exchange of knowledge and the provision of criminal services. Forums later evolve into more controlled ‘hub’-like operations with higher degrees of criminal organization.44 The use of social networking sites can also enable forms of social ‘outreach’ and connectivity between individuals and criminal groups.45 Another underlying development that may contribute to driving cybercrime levels is the emergence of global connectivity in the context of world economic and demographic transformations. By 2050, the world will experience a near doubling of the urban population to 6.2 billion – 70 per cent of the projected world population of 8.9 billion.46 The World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2012 cites severe income disparity and chronic fiscal imbalances as two of the 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ibid. For an overview and further references, see ibid. p.473; Hutchings, A., Hennessey, H., 2009. Routine activity theory and phishing victimization: Who got caught in the ‘net’? Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20(3):433-451; Pratt, T.C., Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M.D., 2010. Routine online activity and internet fraud targeting: Extending the generality of routine activity theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(3):267-296. Holt, T.J., Burruss, G.W., Bossler, A.M., 2010. Social Learning and Cyber Deviance: Examining the Importance of a Full Social Learning Model in the Virtual World. Journal of Crime and Justice, 33(2):31-61. Skinner, W.F., Fream, A.M., 1997. A Social Learning Theory Analysis of Computer Crime among College Students. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(4):495-518. BAE Systems Detica and John Grieve Centre for Policing and Security, London Metropolitan University, 2012. Organised Crime in the Digital Age. A number of Twitter feeds, for example, either purport to represent individuals associated with hacking groups such as Anonymous or Lulzsec, or the organizations themselves. World Economic Forum, 2011. Outlook on the Global Agenda 2011. 9