HC Week 1
Cyberspace, Internet and the Web
Generally speaking, people say that these are the same thing, but they are three different things. The
Web is a part of cyberspace. Cyberspace is intangible, you can’t touch it. When cyberspace doesn’t
work, no online service works. We are dependent on the cyberspace.
- Cyberspace: Digital, interconnected …
- Internet: Global network of …
- Web: Information, documents, …
The Web exists of de surface web (4%), the deep web (90%), and the dark web (6%). The surface web
exists of all search engines and easy access websites (world wide web). The deep web is difficult to
access, you’ll need for instance some sort of code or password to get in. The dark web is even harder
to get into.
Data is stored in datacentres of hosting providers, such as AWS Amazon, Shopify, and Microsoft
Azure. A big part of the cyberspace structure is in the hands of private companies.
The general crime number is decreasing, however, cyber crime is increasing. There is a huge dark
number in cybercrime, because people don’t go to the police after suffering a cyber-attack. This is a
problem, because it’s difficult to allocate resources of cyber criminals.
Key actors in cybercrime are:
- Enablers
- Cybercriminals
- LEAs (Law Enforcement Agencies)
- Cybersecurity companies
- Victims
Cybercrime definitions (Wall, 2010):
- Cyber-dependent crimes or true cybercrimes (DoS, Hacking)
- Cyber-enabled crimes or hybrid cybercrimes (Piracy, Scams, Phishing)
- Cyber-assisted crimes (Computer incidental to a real-world crime)
o Illegal gambling
o Illegal gaming
o Laundering
o Etc.
Cybercrime includes all criminal conducts in which IT (information technology) systems are essential
in the execution of the offence.
‘Cyber’ prefix: the ‘cyberhype’ effect has lost its momentum. The prefix is now mainly used to label
negative or security-related phenomena. It encourages the view that traditional forms of crime
regulation are insufficient.
Cybercrime: some conceptualisations
Traditional crime: Old wine in new bottle. Offense is the same, but strategies change
Deviant behaviour: Focus shifts to societal norm instead of laws.
Legal issue: Crime defined from a narrower perspective. Engaging in conduct that has been outlawed
,by a society because it threatens social order.
Political issue: Narratives of cybercrime not always based on evidence. Use of fear-based and
sensational words.
White-collar crime: Crimes that are part of the offender’s occupation. Legitimate vs.
Contrepreneurial crime.
Social construction: Behaviours constructed as social/criminal problems: e.g. hacking,
cyberterrorism. Assumptions: cyberspace is pathologically unsafe and criminogenic.
Technological problem: More attention for the technological nature of the offences.
Malware: malicious software.
Cybercrime challenges
- Law is different for every country
- ICT evolves faster than law
- Anonymity & attribution: who was behind the PC?
- Many crimes are not reported to the police
- Police have legal boundaries, other priorities, limited resources
- States themselves are ‘actors’
Cybercrime Legal Instruments Netherlands
1. WC I (1993)
2. Cybercrimeverdrag Raad van Europa (2001)
3. WC II (2006)
4. WC III (2019)
Cybercrime elements
1. Anonymity/Identity fluidity
- Anonymity/pseudonomity: attribution problem
- Identity fluidity
2. Scalability
- New poll of possible targets not (…)
3. Global reach / Deterritotialisation
- (…)
4. Absence of capable guardian
- Lack of investments/resources to contrast cyber threats
- Lack of knowledge/capacity among LEAs to keep up with criminals
- Little incentives due to ‘de minimis principle’
5. Accessibility/Visibility
- Development of technology allowed more contact among victims and offenders (time-space
compression)
- OiT has increased this aspect
- Hyperconnectivity & generation of huge amount of data
6. Criminal social learning
- More opportunities for potential criminals to enter in contact with deviant or criminal
environment and to learn criminal techniques
7. Displacement
- Internet allows criminals to move their criminal activities from one location to another in an
easy and fast way
,Enjoying cybercrime
1. Hackers are known to (…)
2. (…)
3. (…)
Cybercrime as a social construction
- Power
o Politicians exert control to increase or keep their power over the weaker
- Control
o Legalised strategy to allow cyber intrusion and control human behaviour
- Profit
o Businesses make profits out of problems
o Cybersecurity companies
- Security as a service
o Computer security is ‘responsabilised’
o Reliance on non-public entities > lack of oversight and accountability
- Culture of fear
o News media and cybersecurity companies
o Deployment of preventive measures and remedies (resilience)
o State surveillance and the creation of multibillion-dollar security industry
- Online gambling
o Attempt to diminish the risk perception
o Loose controls over identities and age
o New opportunities to constantly access gambling sites
- Digital piracy
o Contrast among property & freedom of speech
o Copyright laws create more criminals
o Narrative of fear and economic losses (for the industry) – moral panic
WG Week 1
Categoriseringen
Enge zin Ruime zin
Cybercriminaliteit (true cybercrime) Gedigitaliseerde criminaliteit/cybercriminaliteit
in ruime zin
Computer-focused Computer-assisted
Cyber-dependent Cyber-enabled
Target cybercrimes Tool cybercrimes
Cyber-assisted: traditionele criminaliteit met digitaal component (zoals fysieke drugshandel en
communicatie via Whatsapp.
Cyber-enabled: (traditionele) criminaliteit gefaciliteerd door computers en internet (zoals online
fraude)
Cyber-dependent: criminaliteit gericht op de integriteit, beschikbaarheid en vertrouwelijkheid van
gegevens op computers (zoals ddos-aanvallen en computervredebreuk), ‘the spawn of the internet’
Waarop is dit onderscheid gebaseerd?
, 1. Rol van de techniek (cyber-assisted, -enabled & - dependent)
2. Modus operandi (against, using & in the machine; ofwel als object, instrument of omgeving)
3. Chronologie van verschijningsvormen door de tijd volgens Wall (1 e – 4e generatie)
Intrede WC III belangrijke nieuwe regels doorgevoerd (zie slide WG PP)
Hacken
Verschillende methoden:
- Afhandig maken van inloggegevens (social engineering)
- Meekijken en inloggegevens registreren (shoulder surfing)
- Kraken met computerkracht (brute forcing)
- Gebruikmaken van kwetsbaarheden (zero-day exploits)
Zero-days
De hoeveelheid dagen sinds kwetsbaarheid bekend is bij software/hardware leverancier. Zero-day
vulnerability: een zwakke plek in software of hardware die nog niet bij de leverancier bekend is en
dus ook nog niet is hersteld/of tegen is beschermd. Zero-day exploit: methode (code) om de
kwetsbaarheid te exploiteren.
Doxing
De schending van privacy door het verspreiden van persoonlijke gevoelige informatie met als doel
het slachtoffer angst aan te jaren, ernstige overlast te veroorzaken, en/of personen te verhinderen in
het uitvoeren van werkzaamheden, maar ook intimidatie, chantage, online shaming, of activisme.
Het motief is meestal wraak. De modus operandi is informatie over een persoon die wordt gewonnen
uit o.a. publiek beschikbare databanken, sociale media, hacking en social engineering.
Hackers
White hat hackers: ethische hackers
Black hat hackers: criminele hackers
Motieven om te hacken zijn:
- Financieel gewin
- Aanzien (erkenning)
- Nieuwsgierigheid & niet-financieel gewin
- Hacktivisme & geopolitiek
Kenmerken van het internet die hacken faciliteren:
- Anonimiteit en plasticiteit van identiteit (digital disinhibition)
- Afwezigheid capabel toezicht (RAT)
- Space/time compression de tijd en ruimte vervaagt, iemand hoeft niet te verplaatsen om
criminaliteit te plegen, en op elk tijdstip van de dag
- Automatisering en snelle innovatie
- Globaal bereik en deterritorialisering welke staat is verantwoordelijk en welke wet geldt
daar?