Insecurity and the Policing of Cyberspace (From Crime and Insecurity: The Governance of Safety in Europe, P 186-210, 2002, Adam Crawford, ed. -- See NCJ-197556)

• NCJ Number: 197563
• Author(s): David Wall
• Date Published: 2002
• Length: 25 pages
• Sale Source: Willan Publishing
• Publication Format: Book (Hardbound)
• Publication Type: Issue Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom

Annotation

This chapter considers the insecurities the Internet creates within the new "social" field of cyberspace and explores the ways in which these insecurities can be and are being policed.

Abstract

The first section of the chapter identifies the challenges that arise for criminologists when they attempt to make sense of the divergent range of behaviors that are being called "cybercrimes." The chapter's second section identifies what needs to be policed by identifying points of convergence within the framework of a matrix that will assist in understanding cybercrimes in terms of their degree of impact and types of behavior. The third section of the chapter then discusses the policing of the insecurities that cybercrimes represent and the maintenance of order and law on the Internet. The author argues that although new computer technologies do present some new anxieties and sense of insecurity, many of the so-called cybercrimes are manifestations of traditional criminal offenses, such that they can be countered under existing criminal law. The challenges lie in the areas of criminal procedures, occupational imaginations, and organizational practices. Although some view cyberspace as immune to significant regulation because of its international scope, it can be regulated through laws and directives as well as through informal social control by users who bring with them their social and ethical values. There is also an existing multi-tiered system of maintaining order on the Internet. Most policing of the Internet is conducted through a self-policing model. This is based either on a self-appointed mandate, as in the case of the Internet users and user groups that seek to maintain order on the Internet, or the corporate security organizations that are motivated to protect their own interests. Self-policing works because the participants are motivated by the benefits they accrue from the collective outcomes of their efforts. The flaw in self-policing, however, lies in the absence of formal mechanisms of accountability; further, there is little recourse to appeal to prevent miscarriages of justice. 25 notes and 68 references