The Annual Conference on the Human Factor in Cybercrime is a small and specialised scientific event that aims to bring together scholars from around the world to present their research advances to a select audience. Its dynamic and linear format favours group discussions since all contributions are heard by all the attendants. This, together with its tailored social scheme, promotes interaction between members, which—in turn—leads to new collaborations. However, it has not yet been analysed whether the design of the conference actually encourages varied participation and fosters collaborative networks among its participants. The purpose of this chapter is to assess participation in the 2018 and 2019 editions to determine whether this is the case. Using descriptive analyses, here we show how participation in the conference has varied and examine the composition of the collaboration networks among the participants. The results show an increased and more diverse participation in the 2019 meeting along with a greater presence of stakeholders. Furthermore, the findings reveal that members of previously established organisations play an important role in cohering the network. Yet few connections exist between academia and practice. A further analysis of the strengths and weaknesses identified in the two editions of the conference serves to elaborate a series of recommendations for future editions.
While criminality is digitizing, a theory-based understanding of the impact of cybercrime on victims is lacking. Therefore, this study addresses the psychological and financial impact of cybercrime on victims, applying the shattered assumptions theory (SAT) to predict that impact. A secondary analysis was performed on a representative data set of Dutch citizens (N = 33,702), exploring the psychological and financial impact for different groups of cybercrime victims. The results showed a higher negative impact on emotional well-being for victims of person-centered cybercrime, victims for whom the offender was an acquaintance, and victims whose financial loss was not compensated and a lower negative impact on emotional well-being for victims with a higher income. The study led to novel scientific insights and showed the applicability of the SAT for developing hypotheses about cybercrime victimization impact. In this study, most hypotheses had to be rejected, leading to the conclusion that more work has to be done to test the applicability of the SAT in the field of cybercrime. Furthermore, policy implications were identified considering the prioritization of and approach to specific cybercrimes, treatment of victims, and financial loss compensation.
MULTIFILE
Criminologists have frequently debated whether offenders are specialists, in that they consistently perform either one offense or similar offenses, or versatile by performing any crime based on opportunities and situational provocations. Such foundational research has yet to be developed regarding cybercrimes, or offenses enabled by computer technology and the Internet. This study address this issue using a sample of 37 offender networks. The results show variations in the offending behaviors of those involved in cybercrime. Almost half of the offender networks in this sample appeared to be cybercrime specialists, in that they only performed certain forms of cybercrime. The other half performed various types of crimes on and offline. The relative equity in specialization relative to versatility, particularly in both on and offline activities, suggests that there may be limited value in treating cybercriminals as a distinct offender group. Furthermore, this study calls to question what factors influence an offender's pathway into cybercrime, whether as a specialized or versatile offender. The actors involved in cybercrime networks, whether as specialists or generalists, were enmeshed into broader online offender networks who may have helped recognize and act on opportunities to engage in phishing, malware, and other economic offenses.
