Fighting Cybercrime: A Joint Effort

  • S. Boes
  • E. R. Leukfeldt
Part of the Protecting Critical Infrastructure book series (PCIN, volume 3)


This chapter describes the fight against cybercrime from a European perspective. Law enforcement agencies always have had an important role when it comes to fighting crime. However, in this digital era, several problems hamper the effectiveness of the police combating crime. Therefore, the first part of this chapter describes the difficulties the police have in fighting cybercrime. The second part of the chapter focuses on one of the strategies to overcome some of these difficulties, namely forming alliances with private institutes. This joint-up approach is mostly realized by public–private partnerships (PPPs), consisting of formalized cooperation between governmental authorities and important stakeholders. Cooperation between governmental and private actors is no sinecure, as will appear from a public administration perspective. Successful cooperation depends on several factors, which will be theoretically described and practically illustrated. Conclusively, the discussion paragraph handles the common dilemma of the extent to which the government should play a leading role in the fight against (cyber) crime.


Private Actor Private Partnership Governmental Authority Private Party Prosecution Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Computer and Emergency Response Team


Centre for Protection of the National Infrastructure


Distributed Denial of Service


Electronic Crimes Task Force


European Network and Information Security Agency


Government Computer Emergency Response Teams


Internet Protocol


Information Sharing and Analysis Center


Internet Service Provider


National Cyber Security Centre


New Public Management


National Skimming Point


Public–Private Partnership


Small and Medium-sized Enterprise


  1. Bekkers, V., van Sluis, A., & Siep, P. (2006). De nodale oriëntatie van de Nederlandse Politie: Over criminaliteitsbestrijding in de netwerksamenleving: Bouwstenen voor een beleidstheorie. [The nodal orientation of the Dutch police: About crime fighting in the network society]. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Boonstra, J. J. (2007). Ondernemen in allianties en netwerken: Een multidisciplinair perspectief. [Undertaking in alliances and networks. A multidisciplinary approach]. M&O, 3/4, 5–25.Google Scholar
  3. Bossler, A. M., & Holt, T. J. (2012). Patrol officers’ perceived role in responding to cybercrime. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 35(1), 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boutellier, H. (2005). Meer dan veilig. Over bestuur, bescherming en burgerschap. [More than safe. About governance, protection and citizenship]. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  5. Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2011). Public-private partnerships: Perspectives on purposes, publicness, and good governance. Public Administration and Development, 31, 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capeller, W. (2001). Not such a neat net: Some comments on virtual criminality. Social and Legal Studies, 10, 229–242.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, K., Stikvoort, D., Stofbergen, E., & van den Heuvel, E. (2014). A Dutch approach to cybersecurity through participation. IEEE Security and Privacy, 12, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Décary-Hetú, D., & Dupont, B. (2012). The social network of hackers. Global Crime, 13(3), 160–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Domenie, M. M. L., Leukfeldt, E. R., van Wilsem, J., Jansen, J., & Stol W. P. (2013). Slachtofferschap van delicten met een digitale component onder burgers. Hacken, malware, persoonlijke en financiële delicten in kaart gebracht. [Victimization of crimes with a digital component: a report on hacking, malware, personal and financial crimes]. De Bilt/Leeuwarden: PAC/NHL Hogeschool.Google Scholar
  10. Dunn Cavelty, M., & Suter, M. (2009). Public-private partnerships are no silver bullet: An expanded governance model for critical infrastructure protection. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection,. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcip.2009.08.006.Google Scholar
  11. ENISA (2011). Cooperative models for effective public private partnerships. Good practice guide. Retrieved May 29, 2015 from
  12. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: The University Press of Chicago.Google Scholar
  13. Gogolin, G., & Jones, J. (2010). Law enforcement’s ability to deal with digital crime and the implications for business. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective, 19(3), 109–117.Google Scholar
  14. Grabosky, P. N. (2000). Computer crime: A criminological overview. Prepared for presentation at the Workshop on Crimes Related to the Computer Network, Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Vienna, 15 April 2000. Retrieved August 7, 2012 from
  15. Grabosky, P. N. (2001). Virtual criminality: Old wine in new bottles? Social and Legal Studies, 10, 251–256.Google Scholar
  16. Hagenaars, P. M. M., & Bonnes, J. M. (2014). De kracht van privaat-publieke samenwerking [The power of private-public cooperation]. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  17. Heldeweg, M., & Sanders, M. (2011). Botsende waarden bij publiek-private samenwerking. Dimensies en dilemma’s van juridisch-bestuurskundige legitimiteit, in het bijzonder bij openbaar gezag [Clashing values in public-private partnerships. Dimensions and dilemmas of judical-governmental legitimacy, especially in public authority]. Bestuurskunde, 2, 33–43.Google Scholar
  18. Hodge, G., & Greve, C. (2005). Introduction. In G. Hodge & C. Greve (Eds.). The challenge of public-private partnerships. Learning from international experience (pp. 1–21). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  19. Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2012). Police perceptions of computer crimes in two south-eastern cities: An examination from the viewpoint of patrol officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 396–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holt, J. T., & Lampke, E. (2009). Exploring stolen data markets online: Products and market forces. Criminal Justice Studies, 23(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoogenboom, A. B., & Muller, E. R. (2002). Voorbij de dogmatiek. Publiek-private samenwerking in de veiligheidszorg. [Past dogmatic. Public-private cooperation in safety assurance]. Apeldoorn: Politie & Wetenschap.Google Scholar
  22. Hudson, B., Hardy, Henwood, M., & Wistow, G. (1999). In pursuit of inter-agency collaboration in the public sector. Public Management: An International Journal of Research and Theory, 1(2), 235–260.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jewkes, Y., & Leukfeldt, E. R. (2012). Policing cybercrime. In E. R. Leukfeldt & W. P. Stol (Eds.), Cyber safety: An introduction (pp. 253–266). The Hague: Eleven International Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Jewkes, Y., & Yar, M. (2008). Policing cybercrime in the twenty-first century. In T. Newburn (Ed.), Handbook of policing (pp. 280–607). Cullompton, UK: William.Google Scholar
  26. Klijn, E. H., Edelenbos, J., Kort, M., & van Twist, M. (2008). Facing management choices. An analysis of managerial choices in 18 complex environmental public private partnership projects. International Review of Administrative Science, 74(2), 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klijn, E. H., & van Twist, M. (2007). Publiek-private samenwerking in Nederland. Overzicht van theorie en praktijk. [Public-private partnerships in the Netherlands. Overview of theory and practice]. In J. J. Boonstra, (Ed.). Ondernemen in allianties en netwerken. Een multidisciplinair perspectief (pp. 156–170). Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. Koops, E. J. (2010). The internet and its opportunities for cybercrime. In M. Herzog-Evans (Ed.), Transnational criminology manual (pp. 735–754). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Leukfeldt, E. R., Domenie, M., & Stol, W.P. (2010). Verkenning cybercrime in Nederland 2009. [Cybercrime in the Netherlands]. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  30. Leukfeldt, E. R., Veenstra, S., Domenie, M., & Stol, W. P. (2013a). De strafrechtketen in een gedigitaliseerde samenleving. Een onderzoek naar de strafrechtelijke afhandeling van cybercrime. [Criminal justice in a digitized society. A study into the criminal prosecution of cybercrimes]. De Bilt/Leeuwarden: PAC/NHL.Google Scholar
  31. Leukfeldt, E. R., Veenstra, S., & Stol, W. P. (2013b). High volume cyber crime and the organization of the police. The results of two empirical studies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 7(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  32. Loader, I., & Walker, N. (2007). Civilizing security. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lodder, A. R., & Toet, J. (2013). Cybersecurity: Europese Unie initiatieven voor een intrinsiek grensoverschrijdend fenomeen. [Cybersecurity: European Union initiatives for an intrinsic boarder-crossing phenomenon]. Tijdschrift voor internetrecht, 5/6, 135–140.Google Scholar
  34. Lu, Y., Luo, X., Polgar, M., & Cao, Y. (2010). Social network analysis of a criminal hacker community. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 51(2), 31–41.Google Scholar
  35. NCSC (2014). Cybersecuritybeeld Nederland. CSBN-4. Den Haag: Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie.Google Scholar
  36. NCSC (s.d.). ISACs. Retrieved April 23, 2015 from
  37. Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (2012). Het Diginotarincident. Waarom digitale veiligheid de bestuurstafel te weinig bereikt [The Digitnotar incident. Why digital safety does reach the management table too little]. Retrieved April 23, 2015 from
  38. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Boston: Addison-Wesly.Google Scholar
  39. Peretti, K. K. (2008). Data breaches: What the underground world of “carding” reveals. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, 25, 345–414.Google Scholar
  40. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schuilenburg, M. (2012). Orde in veiligheid. Een dynamisch perspectief. [Orderliness in safety. A dynamic perspective]. Den Haag: Boom Lemma Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  42. Shearing, C., & Wood, J. (2003). Nodal governance, democracy, and the new ‘denizens’. Journal of Law and Society, 30(3), 400–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smit, M. (2010). Publiek belang: hoe houd je het op de rails. Een studie naar de effectiviteit van planvorming voor stationslocaties. [Public interest: how to keep it on track. A study into the effectiveness of planning of railway-station locations]. Enschedé: Gildeprint.Google Scholar
  44. Soudijn, M. R. J., & Monsma, E. (2012). Virtuele ontmoetingsruimten voor cybercriminelen. [Virtual meeting places for cyber criminals]. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 54(4), 349–360.Google Scholar
  45. Soudijn, M. R. J., & Zegers, B. C. H. T. (2012). Cybercrime and virtual offender convergence settings. Trends in Organized Crime, 15, 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stenning, P. (2009). Governance and accountability in a plural policing environment. The story so far. Policing, 3(1), 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stol, W. P., Kaspersen, H. W. K., Kerstens, J., Leukfeldt, E. R., & Lodder, A. R. (2008). Filteren van kinderporno op internet. Een verkenning van technieken en reguleringen in binnen- en buitenland. [Filtering of child pornography on the internet. Technologies and laws in the Netherlands and abroad]. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  48. Stol, W. P., Kaspersen, H. W. K., Kerstens, J., Leukfeldt, E. R., & Lodder, A. R. (2009). Governmental filtering of websites: the Dutch case. Computer Law & Security Review, 25(3), 251–262.Google Scholar
  49. Stol, W. P., Leukfeldt, E. R., & Klap, H. (2013). Policing a digitized society. The state of affairs in the Netherlands in 2013. In W.P. Stol & J. Jansen (Eds.), Cybercrime and the Police (pp. 61–74). Eleven International Publishing: The Hague.Google Scholar
  50. Struiksma, N., de Vey Mestdagh, C. N. J., & Winter, H. B. (2012). De organisatie van de opsporing van cybercrime door de Nederlandse politie. [The organization of policing cybercrime in the Netherlands] Apeldoorn: Politie & Wetenschap.Google Scholar
  51. Terpstra, J. (2011). Regulering in een hybride veiligheidszorg. Over de bewaking van een publiek goed in een deels geprivatiseerd bestel [Regulation in hybrid safety assurance]. Tijdschrift voor Veiligheid, 10(4), 41–58.Google Scholar
  52. Terpstra, J., & Kouwenhoven, R. (2004). Samenwerking en netwerken in de lokale veiligheidszorg. [Cooperation and networks in local safety assurance]. Kerckebosch: Zeist.Google Scholar
  53. Toutenhoofd-Visser, M. H., Veenstra, S. Domenie, M. M. L., Leukfeldt, E. R., & Stol, W.P. (2009). Politie en cybercrime. Intake en eerste opvolging. Een onderzoek naar de intake van het werkaanbod cybercrime door de politie. [Police and cybercrime. A study on the registration process with regard to cybercrime reports within the Dutch police]. Leeuwarden: NHL Hogeschool.Google Scholar
  54. Van Delden, P. (2009). Samenwerking in de publieke dienstverlening. Ontwikkelingsverloop en resultaten. [Cooperation in public services. Development and outcomes]. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  55.  Van den Heuvel, E., & Baltink, G. K. (2014). Coordination and cooperation in cyber network defense: the Dutch efforts to prevent and respond. In M. Hathaway (Ed.) Computer Network Defense: Incident Detection and Response (pp. 118–129). NATO Science for Peace and Security Series.Google Scholar
  56. Van der Hulst, R. C. & Neve, R. J. M. (2008). High-tech crime: Inventarisatie van literatuur over soorten criminaliteit en hun daders. [High tech crime. Literature review of cybercrimes and their offenders]. Den Haag: WODC.Google Scholar
  57. Van Montfort, C. J. (2008). Besturen van het onbekende. Goed bestuur bij publiek-private arrangementen. [Governing the unknown. Good governance in public-private arrangements]. Den Haag: Boom Lemma Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  58. Van Montfort, C., van den Brink, G., Schulz, M., & Maalsté, N. (2012). Publiek-private samenwerking in maatschappelijke veiligheid. [Public-private partnerships in social safety]. Den Haag: WODC.Google Scholar
  59. Van Steden, R. (2011). Sturing van lokale veiligheid: een achtergrondstudie. [Governance of local safety: a background study]. In R. van Steden (Ed.). Strategieën van lokale veiligheid. Een achtergrondstudie en drie reflecties [Strategies of local safety. A background study and three reflections] (pp. 9–51). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Veenstra, S., Zuurveen, R., Jansen, J., Kloppenburg, S., & Stol, W. P. (2014). MKB en cybercrime. Slachtofferschap onder het Nederlandse Midden- en Kleinbedrijf in een gedigitaliseerde samenleving. [SMEs and cybercrime. Victimization of the Dutch Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in a digitized society]. Leeuwarden/Apeldoorn/Heerlen: NHL Hogeschool/Politieacademie/Open Universiteit.Google Scholar
  61. Visser, R. A., van Gemerden, E., More, P. A., & de Roon, R. J. C. (2008). Sturing en samenwerking in handhavingsprojecten. [Governance and cooperation in enforcement projects]. Leiden: Leiden University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wall, D. S. (1997). Policing the virtual community: The internet, cyber crimes and the policing of cyberspace. In P. Francis, P. Davies & V. Jupp (Eds.) Policing futures, the police, law enforcement and the twenty-first century (pp. 208–236). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  63. Wall, D. S. (2007/10). Policing cybercrimes: Situating the public police in networks of security within cyberspace (Revised May 2010). Police Practice & Research: An International Journal, 8(2), 183–205.Google Scholar
  64. Yar, M. (2011). From the ‘governance of security’ to ‘governance failure’: refining the criminological agenda. Internet Journal of Criminology. Retrieved April 23, 2015 from
  65. Yip, M., Shadbolt, N., & Webber, C. (2012). Structural analysis of online criminal social networks. ISI 2012. June 11–14, 2012, Washington.Google Scholar
  66. Zhang, L., Young, R., & Prybutok, V. (2007). Inhibitors of two illegal behaviors: Hacking and shoplifting. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 19(3), 24–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cyber Safety Research Group of the NHL University of Applied SciencesLeeuwardenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Police AcademyApeldoornThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Open UniversityHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations