Security in a digital world: Understanding and preventing cybercrime victimization
Security in a digital world: Understanding and preventing cybercrime victimization
复制标题
数字世界的安全：了解和防止网络犯罪受害
作者：
Bradford W. Reyns;Billy Henson
网络犯罪研究在相对较短的时间内取得了很大进展，来自不同研究领域的学者都集中精力解释其范围和性质（例如，Li，2006；Spitzberg 和 Hoobler，2002）。其中大部分工作是由社会科学家，特别是犯罪学家、受害者学家和刑事司法相关领域的其他人承担的。早期的网络犯罪研究侧重于定义网络犯罪、开发网络犯罪类型以及描述网络环境和网络犯罪，以区别于发生在物理地点的传统犯罪（例如，Grabosky，2004；Yar，2006；Wall，2007）。随后的研究建立在这项早期工作的基础上，通过估计不同类型网络犯罪的流行程度并识别犯罪和受害模式（例如，Finn，2004 年；Patchin 和 Hinduja，2006 年）。最近，学者们通过改编和应用现有理论以及开发和测试新理论来进一步研究网络犯罪受害，以解释网络犯罪犯罪和受害的原因（例如，Higgins，2005；Holt和Bossler，2009；Reyns等，2011）。此类研究的结果为提供在线安全和防止网络犯罪受害发生的策略提供了信息（例如，Newman 和 Clarke，2003 年；Reyns，2010 年；Henson 等人，2011 年；Bossler 和 Holt，2012 年）。本期特刊旨在强调网络安全和网络犯罪预防方面的一些新问题，并认识到尽管已经取得了进展，但仍有许多工作要做。确保在线安全和预防网络犯罪的最有前途的方法之一是减少犯罪和受害的机会——这一策略已成功应用于线下犯罪（Clarke，1997）。这种预防犯罪的观点植根于这样的假设：机会是犯罪的主要原因，如果没有机会，大多数犯罪就不太可能发生（Felson 和 Clarke，1998）。在 Cohen 和 Felson（1979）引入常规活动视角的开创性研究中，作者认为犯罪机会是常规活动的函数。他们假设，更多地参与远离家庭的活动是社会犯罪机会增加以及犯罪率上升的主要原因。在过去的二十年里，日常活动可能也发生了类似的转变——从基于地点的活动转向在线活动。此外，正如 Cohen 和 Felson（1979 年，第 591 页）指出的那样：“许多为合法目的而设计的技术进步——包括汽车、小型电动工具、狩猎武器、高速公路、电话等——可能使犯罪者能够更有效地开展自己的工作……”。这对于解释网络犯罪的含义是显而易见的——更多地参与合法的在线活动带来了新的犯罪机会（Clarke，2004）。所以，
Cybercrime research has made a great deal of progress in a relatively short period of time, and scholars from diverse fields of study have concentrated on explaining its extent and nature (for example, Li, 2006; Spitzberg and Hoobler, 2002). Much of this work has been undertaken by social scientists, especially criminologists, victimologists and others in fields related to criminal justice. Early cybercrime research focused on defining cybercrime, developing typologies of cybercrimes and on delineating cyber-environments and cybercrimes as distinct from traditional crimes occurring at physical locations (for example, Grabosky, 2004; Yar, 2006; Wall, 2007). Subsequent research built upon this early work by estimating the prevalence of different types of cybercrimes and identifying patterns in offending and victimization (for example, Finn, 2004; Patchin and Hinduja, 2006). More recently, scholars have furthered the study of cybercrime victimization by adapting and applying existing theories and developing and testing new theories to explain the causes of cybercrime offending and victimization (for example, Higgins, 2005; Holt and Bossler, 2009; Reyns et al, 2011). Results from such research inform strategies for providing security online and preventing cybercrime victimization from occurring (for example, Newman and Clarke, 2003; Reyns, 2010; Henson et al, 2011; Bossler and Holt, 2012). This special issue is intended to highlight some of the emerging issues in online security and cybercrime prevention, recognizing that although progress has been made, there is still much work to be done. One of the most promising methods for ensuring online security and preventing cybercrimes is reducing opportunities for crime and victimization – a strategy that has been applied successfully to offline crimes (Clarke, 1997). This perspective on crime prevention is rooted in the assumption that opportunities are a primary cause of crime and that without an opportunity most crimes are much less likely to occur (Felson and Clarke, 1998). In Cohen and Felson’s (1979) pioneering research introducing the routine activity perspective, the authors argued that criminal opportunities are a function of routine activities. They hypothesized that greater participation in activities away from the home were a primary source of increased opportunities for crime in society and therefore rising crime rates. During the last two decades, a similar shift in routine activities may have occurred – a shift away from place-based activities to those that occur online. Moreover, as Cohen and Felson (1979, p. 591) pointed out: ‘Many technological advances designed for legitimate purposes – including the automobile, small power tools, hunting weapons, highways, telephones, etc. – may enable offenders to carry out their own work more effectively ...’. The implication of this for explaining cybercrime is clear – greater participation in legitimate online routines has brought with it new criminal opportunities (Clarke, 2004). Therefore,