Security Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 252–271 | Cite as

Perceptions of the eCrime controllers: Modelling the influence of cooperation and data source factors

  • Matthew Williams
  • Michael Levi
Original Article


eCrime is now the typical volume property crime in the United Kingdom impacting more of the public than traditional acquisitive crimes such as burglary and car theft (Anderson et al, 2012). It has become increasingly central to the National Security Strategy of several countries; in the United Kingdom becoming a Tier One threat. While it is apparent to some governments that cybercrimes are now as much of a ‘problem’ as some forms of organised crime, little is known about the perceptions of the broad network of what we call public and private sector ‘eCrime controllers’ in the United Kingdom. A survey of 104 members of the UK Information Assurance community garnered data on the perceptions of the eCrime problem. The results showed an association of cooperation and consumption of data sources with perceptions. It is likely that perceptions within non-specialist corporate and public domains (non-IT and Finance) will begin to change as new cooperation arrangements are introduced as part of the UK Cyber Security Strategy. These findings call for a more in-depth qualitative understanding of the cooperation between eCrime controllers and their data consumption practices. Ascertaining what shapes this cooperation (and non-cooperation) and how perceptions compare with ‘actual’ threats and risks is necessary if we are to better understand the ‘social construction’ of the problem and subsequent policy and operational outcomes.


eCrime information assurance cooperation partnership information sharing 



This work was supported by Nominet Trust under the grant ‘Mapping Cybercrime and its Control’.


  1. ACPO. (2009) ACPO e-Crime Strategy. London: ACPO,, accessed 9 October 2012.
  2. Anderson, R., Boehme, R., Clayton, R. and Moore, T. (2008) Security Economics and the Internal Market. Heraklion, Greece: ENISA.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. et al (2012) Measuring the Cost of Cybercrime. London: Ministry of Defence.Google Scholar
  4. Blom-Cooper, L. and Drabble, R. (1982) Police perception of crime: Brixton and the operational response. British Journal of Criminology 22 (2): 184–187.Google Scholar
  5. Cabinet Office. (2011) The UK Cyber Security Strategy: Protecting and Promoting the UK in a Digital World. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  6. Carr-Hill, R.A. and Stern, N. (1979) Crime, the Police and Criminal Statistics: An Analysis of Official Statistics for England and Wales Using Econometric Methods, Quantitative Studies in Social Relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Casper, C. (2007) Examining the Feasibility of a Data Collection Framework. Heraklion, Greece: ENISA.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Council of the European Union. (2000) Proposal for the extension of Europol's mandate to the fight against cybercrime. Note from Presidency to Article 36 Committee., accessed 5 October 2012.
  10. CrySyS Lab. (2012) sKyWIper (a.k.a. Flame a.k.a. Flamer): A complex Malware for targeted attacks. Laboratory of Cryptography and Systems Security: Budapest University of Technology and Economics.
  11. Dorofeev, S. and Grant, P. (2006) Statistics for Real-Life Sample Surveys: Non-simple random Samples and Weighted Data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Empirica. (2007) Benchmarking in a Policy Perspective: Security and Confidence. Report No.8. Brussels: Empirica.Google Scholar
  13. Farwell, J. and Rohozinski, R. (2011) Stuxnet and the future of cyber war. Survival 53 (1): 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garlik. (2009) UK Cybercrime Report 2009. London: Experian.Google Scholar
  15. Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Grabosky, P. and Smith, R. (2001) Digital crime in the twenty-first century. Journal of Information Ethics 10 (1): 8–26.Google Scholar
  17. Greer, C. and Reiner, R. (2012) Mediated Mayhem: Media, crime and criminal justice. In: M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 5th edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 245–278.Google Scholar
  18. HM Government. (2010) A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The National Security Strategy. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  19. HM Government. (2011) Strategic Defence and Security Review: The First Annual Report. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  20. Hyde-Bales, K., Morris, S. and Charlton, A. (2004) The Police Recording of Computer Crime. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  21. i2010 High Level Group. (2006) Benchmarking Framework. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  22. Jewkes, Y. and Yar, M. (2010) Handbook of Internet Crime. Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
  23. Johnston, L. and Shearing, C. (2003) Governing Security: Explorations in Policing and Justice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Kaiser, P. (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39 (1): 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levi, M. and Williams, M. (2012) eCrime Reduction Partnership Mapping Study. London: Nomient Trust.Google Scholar
  26. Mohan, J., Twigg, L. and Taylor, J. (2011) Mind the double gap: Using multivariate multilevel modelling to investigate public perceptions of crime trends. British Journal of Criminology 51 (6): 1035–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Statistician. (2011) National Statistician's Review of Crime Statistics: England and Wales. London: Government Statistical Service.Google Scholar
  28. PriceWaterhouseCoopers. (2012) Information Security Breaches Survey. London: PwC.Google Scholar
  29. Sommer and Brown. (2011) Reducing Systemic Cybersecurity Risk. London: OECD.Google Scholar
  30. Symantec. (2012) Internet Security Threat Report, Volume 17. Mountain View, CA: Symantec.Google Scholar
  31. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2013) Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  32. U.N. Commission on Crime and Criminal Justice. (1995) United Nations Manual on the Prevention and Control of Computer-related Crime. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  33. Walker, C. and Akdeniz, Y. (1998) The governance of the internet in Europe with special reference to illegal and harmful content. The Criminal Law Review, Special Edition on Crime, Criminal Justice and the Internet, 5–18.Google Scholar
  34. Wall, D.S. (2007) Cybercrimes: The Transformation of Crime in the Information Age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  35. Wall, D.S. and Williams, M. (2007) Policing diversity in the digital age: Maintaining order in virtual communities. Criminology and Criminal Justice 7 (4): 391–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams, M. (2006) Policing & cyber-society: The maturation of regulation within an online community. Policing & Society 17 (1): 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams, M. (2010) Cybercrime. In: F. Brookman, M. Maguire, H. Pierpoint and T. Bennett (eds.) Handbook of Crime. Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
  38. Yar, M. (2006) Cybercrime and Society. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiff Centre for Crime, Law and Justice, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations