Article Preview
TopIntroduction
What do we understand as cybercrime? What are we afraid of? As ascertained by Wall (2009: 54), “... claims about the prevalence of cybercrime lack clarification as to what it is, that is particularly ‘cyber’ about them.” Criminal acts are punishable by law, but a great number of offences are prosecuted by the use of the ‘classic legislation’ to regulate, for example, child pornography, theft, abuse, and similar acts. “Perhaps more confusing is the contrast between the many hundreds of thousands of incidents that are reported by the cyber-security industry each year and the relatively small number of known prosecutions” (Wall, 2008: 56). Can it be said, due to the fact that there are so few criminal acts perpetrated in cyberspace, that there is virtually no cybercrime? Does this just mean that it is difficult to collect evidence and prosecute cyber-criminals? Is fear of cybercrime justified? Do we have to examine again, what cybercrime actually is?
“We think that the best name for criminal activities connected to computers and computer networks is cybercrime. This term takes into consideration that computer crimes are carried out in the cultural context of cyberspace,” states Završnik (2005: 249). As defined by Alshalan (2005), “Cybercrime is a crime that is hidden, uses networks (nonphysical means), and sometimes leads to profits” and by Wall (2008: 46), “Cybercrime is a harmful activity that takes place in virtual environments and made the ‘hi-tech low-life’ hacker narrative a norm in the entertainment industry”, and if we consider the elements of cybercrime, as described by the International Convention on Cybercrime (Act Ratifying the Convention on Cybercrime and Additional Protocol to the convention on Cybercrime, concerning the Criminalisation of Acts of a Racist and Xenophobic Nature committed through Computer Systems (Convention on Cybercrime, 2001)), we can define cybercrime, “… as the use of information technology to carry out criminal acts.« It should be underlined that harmful and immoral acts in cyberspace which aren’t criminalized and penalized are also a part of cybercrime (Peršak, 2009: 194). Elements of cybercrime with examples from the American legislation are described in detail by Roche and Van Nonstrand (2008).
Cybercrime should be analyzed from both the viewpoint of the perpetrator and the victim, also the circumstances of the crime should be taken into account. The fear of cybercrime should also be considered, because it affects public perception of negative incidences and reactions to them. There is no fear of criminality if people aren’t aware they are in danger. On the other hand, informing them of certain deviant behavior causes exaggerated reactions to information security threats (Završnik, 2010: 120). Fear of (cyber) crime is related to an individual’s perception of how likely he is to become a victim and his evaluation of the extent of damage he can suffer (Meško et al., 2009: 293). In regard to this there is a discrepancy between statistical data on cybercrime (under-reported), the influence of media, and personal experiences of users in cyberspace.
Decreasing fear of cybercrime can only be achieved by educating users of the cyberspace. D’Arcy et al. (2009: 81) suggest the use of three safeguards to minimize endangerment and fear: users must be aware of potential threats, they must be educated about information security, and they must be introduced to various safety programs. How users conduct themselves in cyberspace depends on how well they are informed about its dangers (Bulgurcu, Cavusogn and Benbasat, 2010: 525). One of such programs is provided by ENISA – the European Network and Information Security (Enisa, 2011). Awareness of cybercrime and fear of it are therefore related to the user’s knowledge about cyber threats lurking in cyberspace. In the text bellow, we present the results of our research which shed light on how cybercrime is perceived in Slovenia, and how afraid of it users are.