Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reconsidering Crime and Technology: What Is This Thing We Call Cybercrime?

Lusthaus, Jonathan·2024·Annual Review of Law and Social Science
DOI 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-044042
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Cybercrime is not a solely technical subject but one that involves human offenders who are susceptible to social scientific study. Yet, despite calls for cybercrime research to be mainstreamed, the topic remains a niche area within legal studies and the social sciences. Drawing on the most significant findings over recent years, this review aims to make the subject more accessible to a wide range of scholars by softening some of the perceived boundaries between conceptions of cybercrime and conventional crime. It examines these key themes in the literature: definitions and categories of cybercrime, cybercrime marketplaces, the governance of cybercrime, the importance of “place” within the world of cybercrime, cybercriminal networks, a discussion of what is new or old about cybercrime, and how we should define the concept going forward. The empirical literature on these themes suggests a simple definition is most appropriate: Cybercrime is crime that uses digital technology in a significant way.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-044042

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 85

  1. 2006, The Evolution of Cooperation
  2. 2016, Safer scoring? Cryptomarkets, social supply and drug market violence, Int. J. Drug Policy, 35, 24, 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.04.019 · DOI
  3. 1992, Opting out of the legal system: extralegal contractual relations in the diamond industry, J. Legal Stud., 21, 115, 10.1086/467902 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 2018, Criminals seeking ICT-expertise: an exploratory study of Dutch cases, Eur. J. Crim. Policy Res., 24, 253, 10.1007/s10610-017-9356-z · DOI
  5. 2019, Introduction: new directions in cybercrime research, J. Crime Justice, 42, 495, 10.1080/0735648X.2019.1692426 · DOI
  6. 2014, Organizations and cyber crime: an analysis of the nature of groups engaged in cyber crime, Int. J. Cyber Criminol., 8, 1
  7. 2024, Mapping the global geography of cybercrime with the World Cybercrime Index, PLOS ONE, 19, e0297312, 10.1371/journal.pone.0297312 · DOI
  8. 2022, Offending concentration on the Internet: an exploratory analysis of bitcoin-related cybercrime, Deviant Behav., 43, 1453, 10.1080/01639625.2021.1988760 · DOI
  9. 2023, Exploring the global geography of cybercrime and its driving forces, Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun., 10, 71
  10. 2021, Cybercrime is (often) boring: infrastructure and alienation in a deviant subculture, Br. J. Criminol., 61, 1407, 10.1093/bjc/azab026 · DOI
  11. 2005, Cooperation Without Trust?
  12. 2019, Banking malware and the laundering of its profits, Eur. J. Criminol., 16, 728, 10.1177/1477370818788007 · DOI
  13. 2013, Reputation in a dark network of online criminals, Global Crime, 14, 175, 10.1080/17440572.2013.801015 · DOI
  14. 2017, Do police crackdowns disrupt drug cryptomarkets? A longitudinal analysis of the effects of Operation Onymous, Crime Law Soc. Change, 67, 55, 10.1007/s10611-016-9644-4 · DOI
  15. 2016, Criminals and signals: an assessment of criminal performance in the carding underworld, Secur. J., 29, 442, 10.1057/sj.2013.39 · DOI
  16. 2017, Darkode: recruitment patterns and transactional features of “the most dangerous cybercrime forum in the world, Am. Behav. Sci., 61, 1219, 10.1177/0002764217734263 · DOI
  17. 2016, The ecology of trust among hackers, Global Crime, 17, 129, 10.1080/17440572.2016.1157480 · DOI
  18. 2021, Countering distrust in illicit online networks: the dispute resolution strategies of cybercriminals, Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev., 40, 892
  19. 2018a, Building them up, breaking them down: topology, vendor selection patterns, and a digital drug market's robustness to disruption, Soc. Netw., 52, 238, 10.1016/j.socnet.2017.09.002 · DOI
  20. 2018b, The network structure of opioid distribution on a darknet cryptomarket, J. Quant. Criminol., 43, 921
  21. 1991, Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes
  22. 2024, Cybercrime
  23. 2002, Cybercrime: Vandalizing the Information Society
  24. 2011, DarkMarket: CyberThieves, CyberCops and You
  25. 2006, On the definition and classification of cybercrime, J. Comput. Virol., 2, 13, 10.1007/s11416-006-0015-z · DOI · Paper page
  26. 2001, Virtual criminality: Old wine in new bottles?, Soc. Legal Stud., 10, 243, 10.1177/a017405 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 2021, Economic geographies of the illegal: the multiscalar production of cybercrime, Trends Organ. Crime, 24, 282, 10.1007/s12117-020-09392-w · DOI
  28. 2015, Bank of the underworld, The Atlantic
  29. 2016, Reputation in the Internet black market: an empirical and theoretical analysis of the Deep Web, J. Inst. Econ., 12, 515
  30. 2013, Exploring the social organisation and structure of stolen data markets, Global Crime, 14, 155, 10.1080/17440572.2013.787925 · DOI
  31. 2014, An assessment of the current state of cybercrime scholarship, Deviant Behav, 35, 20, 10.1080/01639625.2013.822209 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 2010, Exploring stolen data markets online: products and market forces, Crim. Justice Stud., 23, 33, 10.1080/14786011003634415 · DOI
  33. 2022, A crime script analysis of counterfeit identity document procurement online, Deviant Behav, 43, 285, 10.1080/01639625.2020.1825915 · DOI
  34. 2016, Exploring the provision of online booter services, Deviant Behav, 37, 1163, 10.1080/01639625.2016.1169829 · DOI
  35. 2015, A crime script analysis of the online stolen data market, Br. J. Criminol., 55, 596, 10.1093/bjc/azu106 · DOI
  36. 2019, Understanding eWhoring
  37. 2012, Routine activity theory and the determinants of high cybercrime countries, Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev., 30, 470, 10.1177/0894439311422689 · DOI
  38. 2016, Cyber crime nation typologies: K-means clustering of countries based on cyber crime rates, Int. J. Cyber Criminol., 10, 147
  39. 2019, Money talks: money laundering choices of organized crime offenders in a digital age, J. Crime Justice, 42, 569, 10.1080/0735648X.2019.1692420 · DOI
  40. 2010, The Global Cybercrime Industry: Economic, Institutional and Strategic Perspectives
  41. 2015, The online trade in counterfeit pharmaceuticals: new criminal opportunities, trends and challenges, Eur. J. Criminol., 12, 226, 10.1177/1477370814554722 · DOI
  42. 2014, Cybercrime and social ties, Trends Organ. Crime, 17, 231
  43. 2017a, Origin, growth and criminal capabilities of cybercriminal networks, Int. Empir. Anal., 67, 39
  44. 2017b, Cybercriminal networks, social ties and online forums: social ties versus digital ties within phishing and malware networks, Br. J. Criminol., 57, 704
  45. 2017c, A typology of cybercriminal networks: from low-tech all-rounders to high-tech specialists, Crime Law Soc. Change, 67, 21, 10.1007/s10611-016-9662-2 · DOI
  46. 2016, Applying routine activity theory to cybercrime: a theoretical and empirical analysis, Deviant Behav, 37, 263, 10.1080/01639625.2015.1012409 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 2022, Money mules: some insights into vulnerabilities and networks, Public Sector Counter Fraud J, 9, 11
  48. 2010, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution
  49. 2024, A qualitative examination of cybercriminal governance in China
  50. 2012, Trust in the world of cybercrime, Global Crime, 13, 71, 10.1080/17440572.2012.674183 · DOI
  51. 2013, How organised is organised cybercrime?, Global Crime, 14, 52, 10.1080/17440572.2012.759508 · DOI
  52. 2018, Industry of Anonymity: Inside the Business of Cybercrime
  53. 2023, Cybercriminal networks in the UK and beyond: network structure, criminal cooperation and external interactions, Trends Organ. Crime.
  54. 2022, The Gozi group: A criminal firm in cyberspace?, Eur. J. Criminol., 20, 1701
  55. 2021, Offline and local: the hidden face of cybercrime, Policing, 15, 4, 10.1093/police/pax042 · DOI
  56. 2019, Cyber-dependent crimes: an interdisciplinary review, Annu. Rev. Criminol., 2, 191, 10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092057 · DOI
  57. 2014, Lost on the Silk Road: online drug distribution and the ‘cryptomarket, Criminol. Crim. Justice, 14, 351, 10.1177/1748895813505234 · DOI
  58. 2020, Selling drugs on darkweb cryptomarkets: differentiated pathways, risks and rewards, Br. J. Criminol., 60, 559, 10.1093/bjc/azz075 · DOI
  59. 2013, Cyber crime: a review of the evidence
  60. 2009, The economics of online crime, J. Econ. Perspect., 23, 3, 10.1257/jep.23.3.3 · DOI · Paper page
  61. 2017, Conflict management in illicit drug cryptomarkets, Int. Crim. Justice Rev., 27, 237
  62. 2023, Building a case for trust: reputation, institutional regulation and social ties in online drug markets, Global Crime, 24, 49, 10.1080/17440572.2022.2156863 · DOI
  63. 2022, The modus operandi of transnational computer fraud: a crime script analysis in Vietnam, Trends Organ. Crime, 25, 226, 10.1007/s12117-021-09422-1 · DOI
  64. 2020, Believe it when you see it: dyadic embeddedness and reputation effects on trust in cryptomarkets for illegal drugs, Soc. Netw., 63, 150, 10.1016/j.socnet.2020.07.003 · DOI
  65. 1991, Institutions, J. Econ. Perspect., 5, 97, 10.1257/jep.5.1.97 · DOI
  66. 2018, Assessing market competition and vendors’ size and scope on AlphaBay, Int. J. Drug Policy, 54, 87, 10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.01.003 · DOI
  67. 2019, Ransomware payments in the Bitcoin ecosystem, J. Cybersecur., 5, tyz003, 10.1093/cybsec/tyz003 · DOI
  68. 2018, Characterizing Eve: analysing cybercrime actors in a large underground forum, 207
  69. 2021, Modelling the cybercrime cascade effect in data crime, 161
  70. 2011, Kingpin
  71. 2017, Order without law: reputation promotes cooperation in a cryptomarket for illegal drugs, Eur. Sociol. Rev., 6, 752
  72. 2012, Eight arrested in Moscow after allegedly stealing millions using Carberp Trojan, Security Week
  73. 2021, The hybridization of street offending in the Netherlands, Br. J. Criminol., 61, 926, 10.1093/bjc/azaa091 · DOI
  74. 2012, Cybercrime and virtual offender convergence settings, Trends Organ. Crime, 15, 111, 10.1007/s12117-012-9159-z · DOI
  75. 2020, Determinants of cybercrime originating within a nation: a cross-country study, J. Glob. Inf. Technol. Manag., 23, 112
  76. 2016, Hacked: A Radical Approach to Hacker Culture and Crime
  77. 2024, Against Cybercrime: Toward a Realist Criminology of Computer Crime
  78. 2018, Respectable Deviance and Purchasing Medicine Online
  79. 2024, Casinos, money laundering, underground banking, and transnational organized crime in East and Southeast Asia: a hidden and accelerating threat
  80. 1998, Catching cybercriminals: policing the internet, Int. Rev. Law Comput. Technol., 12, 201, 10.1080/13600869855397 · DOI
  81. 2007, Cybercrime: The Transformation of Crime in the Information Age
  82. 2008, What are cybercrimes?, Crim. Justice Matters, 58, 20
  83. 2018, Cyber-offending and traditional offending over the life-course: an empirical comparison, J. Dev. Life-Course Criminol, 4, 343, 10.1007/s40865-018-0087-8 · DOI
  84. 2005, The novelty of “cybercrime”: an assessment in light of routine activity theory, Eur. J. Criminol., 2, 407, 10.1177/147737080556056 · DOI · Paper page
  85. 2013, Trust among cybercriminals? Carding forums, uncertainty and implications for policing, Polic. Soc., 23, 516, 10.1080/10439463.2013.780227 · DOI

Cited by

See all 18

Metadata

Authors
Lusthaus, J.
Affiliations
Department of Sociology, Oxford School of Global and Area Studies & St. Antony's College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; email: jonathan.lusthaus@sociology.ox.ac.uk
Venue
Annual Review of Law and Social Science
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2024-10-17
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
369-385
ISSN
  • 1550-3585
  • 1550-3631
DOI
10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-044042
Cited by
18
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (unspecified)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.