Digital Drift and the “Sense of Injustice”: Counter-Productive Policing of Youth Cybercrime

ABSTRACT

Over the past several decades, criminological scholarship has increasingly focused on the problem of cybercrime including technology-enabled offending. Theoretical developments that account for these offences have not grown in tandem, leading to questions as to the nature of cybercriminality relative to traditional forms of offending. Recently, Goldsmith and Brewer proposed the conceptual framework of digital drift, extending elements of Matza’s original theories to the virtual environment. While making a useful contribution to the theorization of cybercrime, we argue that further elements of Matza’s original work also warrant consideration. In particular, we acknowledge the role of policing and the criminal justice system in affecting offender perceptions and decision-making. As such, this article extends the theorizing around digital drift to incorporate the ways that offender views are shaped in reaction to the law enforcement and industry responses to cybercrime. The implications of this extension are discussed in depth.

Notes

¹ See further studies by Wall (2007), as well as Chang and Grabosky (2017) for treatment of these concepts.

² Law enforcement organizations, for instance, are central to responding to criminal hacks as they have the legal authority to arrest and enforce laws at the local, state, federal, or national level (see also Brenner, 2010; Wall, 2007). There is some segmentation in the response capacities of police organizations regarding cybercrimes, as evidence from the United States suggests local agencies are more heavily involved in investigating cases involving child pornography and sex crimes (Jones, Mitchell, and Finkelhor, 2012), while national agencies are more likely to investigate cases involving computer hacking and data theft (Brenner, 2008; Smith, Grabosky, and Urbas, 2004). This is due to the jurisdictional limitations evident at each level of policing, as local agencies may only investigate cases involving both a victim and offender within their given geographical boundaries (Brenner, 2010; Smith, Grabosky, and Urbas, 2004). National agencies have much broader jurisdictions, and typically take cases where crimes cross borders, where victims and offenders reside in separate states or nations.

³ Corporate security personnel are essential to policing hacking as they serve as the first responders to internal compromises of sensitive infrastructure and resources within their organization (Wall, 2007). Security personnel not only manage sensitive customer and client data, but must also comply with existing industrial regulatory standards and procedures. They also investigate intrusions in their network and compromises that occur as a result of either external or internal threat actors. Security personnel also serve as gatekeepers to law enforcement as they will be the first to recognize a compromise that could have criminal or civil implications for their employer (Brenner, 2008; Wall, 2001). They will often work with management to determine the need for law enforcement engagement on the basis of the severity of the compromise and the extent to which embarrassment, financial harm, or legal liabilities may arise through public awareness of the incident for the organization. Should the scope of a hack require that law enforcement be contacted, security personnel will liaise with police on behalf of their employer and provide evidence to aid in the investigation (Brenner, 2008).

⁴ A DDoS attack uses various methods to flood a website or service provider with traffic in excess of its maximum tolerance, thereby keeping others from being able to use the resource until the traffic ceases.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Thomas J. Holt

Dr. THOMAS J. HOLT is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. His research examines cybercrime, terror, and the role of the Internet in crime and deviance. He has been published in a range of journals, and is the author of multiple books on the topic of cybercrime and policing.

Russell Brewer

Dr. RUSSELL BREWER is a senior lecturer at Flinders University. He has a PhD in Criminology from the Australian National University. His research explores the links between the use of technology and pathways into crime. He has published his findings through several leading publication outlets, holds multiple nationally competitive grants, and has been called upon by Government Agencies both domestically and abroad to advise on policy.

Andrew Goldsmith

ANDREW GOLDSMITH is Matthew Flinders Distinguished Professor and Director of the Centre for Crime Policy and Research, Flinders University Australia. He researches in the areas of policing and organized crime. He is also Co-Editor of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. This paper arises from the Australian Research Council funded Discovery Grant, Becoming Delinquent Online DP170103538 in which all authors of this paper are involved.