Policing the Hackers by Hacking Them: Studying Online Deviants in IRC Chat Rooms

  • David Décary-Hétu
  • Benoit Dupont
  • Francis Fortin
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Social Networks book series (LNSN)

Abstract

The Internet is now an irreplaceable source of news and communication. While traditional data-gathering techniques such as surveys and interviews have proven useful in this environment, we believe that the monitoring of online communities will provide new and innovative datasets that will greatly enhance our comprehension of the criminal phenomenon in a virtual setting. This chapter describes how social researchers can tap into the Internet Chat Relay (IRC) to collect information on cyber deviants and build activity logs, social graphs and do content analysis. The research also provides an analysis of a dataset that was generated through this methodology and concludes on the limits and ethical problems that such a technique poses.

Keywords

Hackers Data-gathering IRC Social networks 

References

  1. 1.
    Sutherland EH (1947) The professional thief. University Of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hobbs D (1995) Bad business: professional crime in modern Britain. Oxford University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Venkatesh SA (2002) American project: the rise and fall of a modern ghetto. Harvard University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morselli C, Tremblay P (2004) Criminal achievement, offender networks and the benefits of low self-control. Criminology 42(3):773–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hopper CB, Moore J (1990) Women in outlaw motorcycle gangs. J Contemp Ethnography 18(4):363–387.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brumley D (1999) Tracking hackers on IRC. Retrieved May 19th 2011 on: https://db.usenix.org/publications/login/1999-11/features/hackers.html
  7. 7.
    Hugues L (2012) Law enforcement getting on the social media Bandwagon. Retrieved 22nd Oct 2012 on: http://www.ktre.com/story/19884594/local-police-are-using-facebook-to-keep-community-informed
  8. 8.
    Sayer P (2010) Interpol uses facebook to hunt for most-wanted suspects. Retrieved 22nd Oct 2012 on: http://news.techworld.com/personal-tech/3229834/interpol-uses-facebook-to-hunt-for-most-wanted-suspects/
  9. 9.
    Thompson J, Demerath NJ (1952) Some experiences with the group interview. Soc Forces 31:148–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foddy W (1994) Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires: theory and practice in social research. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Newman J, Des Jerlais DC, Charles T, Jay G (2002) The differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes. Am J Publ Health 92:294–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Denning P (1990) Computers under attack: intruders, worms and viruses. Addison-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jordan T, Taylor P (1998) A sociology of hackers. Sociol Rev 46(4):757–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schell B, Dodge J (2002) The hacking of America: who’s doing it, why, and how. Quorum Books, WestportGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holt TJ (2010) Exploring strategies for qualitative criminological and criminal justice inquiry using on-line data. J Crim Justice Educ 21(4):466–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rehn A (2003) The politics of contraband: the honor economies of the Warez scene. J Socio-Econ 33:359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coleman S, Normann E (2000) New media and social inclusion. Hansard Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poier S (2008) Fighting on words, fighting on worlds: brief ethnography of hackmetting. In: Verga M (ed) Ais—Sezione di Sociologia del diritto. Università Degli Studi Di Messina, MessinaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blankwater E (2011) Hacking the field: an ethnographic and historical study of the Dutch hacker field. Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology, Universiteit van AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dreyfus S (1997) Underground hacking, madness, and obsession on the electronic frontier. Random House, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kleen L (2001) Malicious hackers: a framework for analysis and case study. Master’s Thesis, Department of Operations Research, Air Force Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winkler IS (1996) The non-technical threat to computing systems. Comput Syst 9(1):3–14.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Décary-Hétu D, Morselli C, Leman-Langlois S (2011) Welcome to the scene: a study of social organization and recognition among Warez hackers. J Res Crime Delinquency 49(3):359–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Basamanowicz J, Bouchard M (2011) Overcoming the Warez paradox: online piracy groups and situational crime prevention. Policy Internet 3(2):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hinduja S (2001) Correlates of internet software piracy. J Contemp Crim Justice 17(4):369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Funkhouser N (2006) Software piracy among students in Taiwan: the ethical decision-making process and attitudes toward the use of pirated software. IMBA Master’s Thesis, National Cheng Kung UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Holt TJ, Lampke E (2010) Exploring stolen data markets online: products and market forces. Crim Justice Stud: A Crit J Crime, Law Soc 23(1):33–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verizon (2012) 2012 data breach investigations report. Retrieved 2nd May 2012 on: http://www.verizonbusiness.com/resources/reports/rp_data-breach-investigations-report-2012_en_xg.pdf
  29. 29.
    Simpson C (2000) Internet relay chat. Educ Media Technol Yearb 25:62–65Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spitzner L (2003) Honeytokens: the other honeypot. Security FocusGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Poulsen K (2005) Hacker penetrates t-mobile systems. Retrieved on 19th May 2011 on: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10271
  32. 32.
    Mutton P (2004) Inferring and visualizing social networks on internet relay chat. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information visualization. Canterbury, UKGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Calce M, Silverman C (2008) Mafiaboy: how i cracked the internet and why it’s still broken. The Viking Canada, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sparrow M (1991) The application of network analysis to criminal intelligence: an assessment of the prospects. Soc Netw 13:251–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Morselli C, Giguere C (2006) Legitimate strengths in criminal networks. Crime, Law Soc Chang 45(3):185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lawson D (2003) Blurring the boundaries: ethical considerations for online research using synchronous CMC forums. In: Buchanan EA (ed) Readings in virtual research ethics: issues and controversies. Information Science Publishing, HerseyGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    York University (2012) Surveys and research in an online environment. Retrieved 2nd May 2012 on: http://www.yorku.ca/research/support/ethics/
  38. 38.
    Standford (2012) Internet research ethics. Retrieved 22nd Oct 2012 on: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-internet-research/
  39. 39.
    Ess C, AoIR Ethics Working Committee (2002) Ethical decision-making and internet research. Retrieved 19th May 2011 on: http://aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf
  40. 40.
    Cate FH (2008) Government data mining: the need for a legal framework. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Rev 43(2)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rafaeli S, Sudweeks F, Konstan J, Mabry E (1998) ProjectH: a collaborative quantitative study of computer-mediated communication. In: Sudweeks F, McLaughlin M, Rafaeli S (eds) Network and netplay: virtual groups on the internet. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 265–281Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morselli C (2009) Inside criminal networks. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Décary-Hétu
    • 1
  • Benoit Dupont
    • 2
  • Francis Fortin
    • 2
  1. 1.University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.University of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations