CYBERCRIME: THEORETICAL DETERMINANTS, CRIMINAL POLICIES, PREVENTION & CONTROL MECHANISMS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47604/ijts.1133Keywords:
Cybercrime, Criminal Policies, Prevention Mechanism, Cybercrime Control, Cybercrime Determinants.Abstract
Purpose: The research aimed to explore the theoretical determinants of cybercrime in Qatar and assess how it can be prevented and minimised.
Methodology: This was done using the mixed method research design through the survey strategy and semi-structured interviews with experts in the field of cybercrime in Qatar. Having adopted a mixed-method research methodology, the study had a target population of 200 participants for questionnaire survey, while expert interview had a target population of 11 experts. All these participants were purposively sampled in pursuit of engaging respondents who had knowledge, experience and expertise in cybercrime, such as IT experts and professionals working on cyber security solutions, Lawyers, police officers working in cybercrime department in Qatar, and lawyers who had dealt with cybercrime. The results of the survey were quantified using the Likert scale and analysed quantitatively by the factor analysis, and frequency tables. The results of the interviews were analysed qualitatively.
Findings: The results of the survey revealed that the most typical types of cybercrime in Qatar include website hacking, email cyberattacks, and online banking cyberattacks. The predominant motive for cybercrime in the country is monetary gains. However, the findings from the logistic regression analysis reveal that different types of cybercrime are associated with different determinants, and online banking crimes are predominantly driven by monetary gains. Moreover, the findings from IT experts interviewed revealed various measures can be adopted as control measures of cybercrime activities and hazards, such as development of stronger networks by commercial companies to protect their cyber assets and use of up-to-date protective software that detect and ensures complete data security.
Unique contribution to theory, practice and policy: Further, the findings, in relation to the effective methods and mechanisms for preventing cybercrime, suggest that it can be reduced through the spread of awareness among people and companies and through the adoption of preventive control mechanisms. Further, the study recommends that governments should formulate and implement legislations aimed at enhancing stringent measures of combating and dealing with cybercrime in convergence with international standards and practices. Besides, companies should adopt technological cybersecurity solutions to enhance effective protection of intellectual property, intrusion, and malicious damage of data as well as other cyber-related crimes.
Downloads
References
Agustina, J. R., & Insa, F. (2011). Challenges before crime in a digital era: Outsmarting cybercrime offenders-Workshop on Cybercrime, Computer Crime Prevention and the Surveillance Society. Computer Law & Security Review, 27(2), 211-212.
Al-Hamar, M., Dawson, R., & Al-Hamar, J. (2011). The need for education on phishing: a survey comparison of the UK and Qatar. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(5), 308-319.
Aljaroodi, H. M., Chiong, R., & Adam, M. T. (2020). Exploring the design of avatars for users from Arabian culture through a hybrid approach of deductive and inductive reasoning. Computers in Human Behaviour, 106, 106246.
Altayar, M. S. (2017, March). A comparative study of anti-cybercrime laws in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. In 2017 2nd International Conference on Anti-Cyber Crimes (ICACC) (pp. 148-153). IEEE.
Altiındağ, E., & Baykan, B. (2017). Discover the world's research. Turk J Neurol, 23, 88-89.
Antonescu, M., & Birăub, R. (2015). Financial and non-financial implications of cybercrimes in emerging countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 32, 618-621.
Barn, R., & Barn, B. (2016). An ontological representation of a taxonomy for cybercrime.
Basuchoudhary, A., & Searle, N. (2019). Snatched secrets: Cybercrime and trade secrets modelling a firm's decision to report a theft of trade secrets. Computers & Security, 87, 101591.
Baumer, E. P., & Lauritsen, J. L. (2010). Reporting crime to the police, 1973-2005: a multivariate analysis of long"term trends in the National Crime Survey (NCS) and National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Criminology, 48(1), 131-185.
Berger, A., D'Alconzo, A., Gansterer, W. N., & Pescap, A. (2016). Mining agile DNS traffic using graph analysis for cybercrime detection. Computer Networks, 100, 28-44.
binti Mohamed, D. (2013). Combating the threats of cybercrimes in Malaysia: The efforts, the cyber laws and the traditional laws. Computer Law & Security Review, 29(1), 66-76.
Bradbury, D. (2012). When borders collide: legislating against cybercrime. Computer Fraud & Security, 2012(2), 11-15.
Brar, H. S., & Kumar, G. (2018). Cybercrimes: A proposed taxonomy and challenges. Journal of Computer Networks and Communications, 2018.
Chung, W., Chen, H., Chang, W., & Chou, S. (2006). Fighting cybercrime: a review and the Taiwan experience. Decision Support Systems, 41(3), 669-682.
Corbet, S., & Gurdgiev, C. (2019). What the hack: Systematic risk contagion from cyber events. International Review of Financial Analysis, 65, 101386.
Dodel, M., & Mesch, G. (2019). An integrated model for assessing cyber-safety behaviours: How cognitive, socioeconomic and digital determinants affect diverse safety practices. Computers & Security, 86, 75-91.
Donalds, C., & Osei-Bryson, K. M. (2019). Toward a cybercrime classification ontology: A knowledge-based approach. Computers in Human Behaviour, 92, 403-418.
Donner, C. M., Marcum, C. D., Jennings, W. G., Higgins, G. E., & Banfield, J. (2014). Low self-control and cybercrime: Exploring the utility of the general theory of crime beyond digital piracy. Computers in Human Behaviour, 34, 165-172.
Eddolls, M. (2016). Making cybercrime prevention the highest priority. Network Security, 2016(8), 5-8.
Elliott, A. C., & Hynan, L. S. (2011). A SAS® macro implementation of a multiple comparison post hoc test for a Kruskal-Wallis analysis. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, 102(1), 75-80.
Epps, C. (2017). Best practices to deal with top cybercrime activities. Computer Fraud & Security, 2017(4), 13-15.
Foody, M., Samara, M., El Asam, A., Morsi, H., & Khattab, A. (2017). A review of cyberbullying legislation in Qatar: Considerations for policy makers and educators. International journal of law and psychiatry, 50, 45-51.
Heartfield, R., Loukas, G., Budimir, S., Bezemskij, A., Fontaine, J. R., Filippoupolitis, A., & Roesch, E. (2018). A taxonomy of cyber-physical threats and impact in the smart home. Computers & Security, 78, 398-428.
Ho, L. H., Lin, Y. T., & Huang, C. H. (2012). Influences of Online Lifestyle on Juvenile Cybercrime Behaviours in Taiwan. Procedia Engineering, 29, 2545-2550.
Hooper, C., Martini, B., & Choo, K. K. R. (2013). Cloud computing and its implications for cybercrime investigations in Australia. Computer Law & Security Review, 29(2), 152-163.
Hunton, P. (2011). A rigorous approach to formalising the technical investigation stages of cybercrime and criminality within a UK law enforcement environment. Digital investigation, 7(3-4), 105-113.
Hunton, P. (2012). Data attack of the cybercriminal: Investigating the digital currency of cybercrime. Computer Law & Security Review, 28(2), 201-207.
Hunton, P. (2009). The growing phenomenon of crime and the internet: A cybercrime execution and analysis model. Computer Law & Security Review, 25(6), 528-535.
Hunton, P. (2011). The stages of cybercrime investigations: Bridging the gap between technology examination and law enforcement investigation. Computer Law & Security Review, 27(1), 61-67.
Konradt, C., Schilling, A., & Werners, B. (2016). Phishing: An economic analysis of cybercrime perpetrators. Computers & Security, 58, 39-46.
Kraemer-Mbula, E., Tang, P., & Rush, H. (2013). The cybercrime ecosystem: Online innovation in the shadows? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 541-555.
Korchenko, O., Vasiliu, Y., & Gnatyuk, S. (2010). Modern quantum technologies of information security against cyber"terrorist attacks. Aviation, 14(2), 58-69.Kshetri, N. (2013). Cybercrime and cybersecurity in the global south. Springer.
Kshetri, N. (2005). Pattern of global cyber war and crime: A conceptual framework. Journal of International Management, 11(4), 541-562.
Kshetri, N. (2013). Cybercrime and cybersecurity in the global south. Springer.
Lazarus, S., & Okolorie, G. U. (2019). The bifurcation of the Nigerian cybercriminals: Narratives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) agents. Telematics and Informatics, 40, 14-26.
Leukfeldt, E. R., & Yar, M. (2016). Applying routine activity theory to cybercrime: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Deviant Behaviour, 37(3), 263-280.
Lokanan, M. E. (2015, September). Challenges to the fraud triangle: Questions on its usefulness. In Accounting Forum (Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 201-224).
Manky, D. (2013). Cybercrime as a service: a very modern business. Computer Fraud & Security 2013, no. 6 (2013): 9-13.
Martin, N., & Rice, J. (2011). Cybercrime: Understanding and addressing the concerns of stakeholders. Computers & Security, 30(8), 803-814.
Naheem, M. A. (2020). Legal analysis of Qatar'santi-money laundering and combating terrorist financing legislation and regulation amidst the summer 2017 GCC crisis. Journal of Money Laundering Control.
Naheem, M. A. (2017). Legitimacy of the summer 2017 GCC crisis and Qatar's AML framework. Journal of Money Laundering Control.
Okutan, A. (2019). A framework for cybercrime investigation. Procedia Computer Science, 158, 287-294.
Redford, M. (2011, September). US and EU Legislation on Cybercrime. In 2011 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (pp. 34-37). IEEE.
Safavi, S., Shukur, Z., & Razali, R. (2013). Reviews on cybercrime affecting portable devices. Procedia Technology, 11, 650-657.
Schofield, G. (2019). Has your Wi-Fi left you wide open to cybercrime? Network Security, 2019(3), 13-14.
Staniforth, A. (2014). Police investigation processes: practical tools and techniques for tackling cybercrimes. In Cyber Crime and Cyber Terrorism Investigator's Handbook (pp. 31-42). Syngress.
Sun, J. R., Shih, M. L., & Hwang, M. S. (2015). Cases study and analysis of the court judgement of cybercrimes in Taiwan. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43(4), 412-423.
Tabassum, A., Mustafa, M. S., & Al Maadeed, S. A. (2018, March). The need for a global response against cybercrime: Qatar as a case study. In 2018 6th International Symposium on Digital Forensic and Security (ISDFS) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Taguchi, N. (2018). Description and explanation of pragmatic development: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research. System, 75, 23-32.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2010). Transnational organized crime threat assessment. TOCTA Report (2010), PP. 217-232. < https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Studies/TOCTA_draft_2603_lores.pdf> Accessed 29 August 2020.
Van de Weijer, S. G., Leukfeldt, R., & Bernasco, W. (2019). Determinants of reporting cybercrime: A comparison between identity theft, consumer fraud, and hacking. European Journal of Criminology, 16(4), 486-508.
Vonglao, P. (2017). Application of fuzzy logic to improve the Likert scale to measure latent variables. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38(3), 337-344.
Wanyana, R. R. (2019). Cybercrime in Uganda, an analysis of the Legal Framework.
Yilma, K. M. (2014). Developments in cybercrime law and practice in Ethiopia. Computer Law & Security Review, 30(6), 720-735.
Younies, H., & Na, T. (2020). Effect of cybercrime laws on protecting citizens and businesses in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Journal of Financial Crime
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
