Exploring the global geography of cybercrime and its driving forces

Abstract

Cybercrime is wreaking havoc on the global economy, national security, social stability, and individual interests. The current efforts to mitigate cybercrime threats are primarily focused on technical measures. This study considers cybercrime as a social phenomenon and constructs a theoretical framework that integrates the social, economic, political, technological, and cybersecurity factors that influence cybercrime. The FireHOL IP blocklist, a novel cybersecurity data set, is used to map worldwide subnational cybercrimes. Generalised linear models (GLMs) are used to identify the primary factors influencing cybercrime, whereas structural equation modelling (SEM) is used to estimate the direct and indirect effects of various factors on cybercrime. The GLM results suggest that the inclusion of a broad set of socioeconomic factors can significantly improve the model’s explanatory power, and cybercrime is closely associated with socioeconomic development, while their effects on cybercrime differ by income level. Additionally, results from SEM further reveals the causal relationships between cybercrime and numerous contextual factors, demonstrating that technological factors serve as a mediator between socioeconomic conditions and cybercrime.

Mapping the global geography of cybercrime with the World Cybercrime Index

“…It is encouraging that there is at least some external validation for the WCI’s highest ranked countries. Steenbergen and Marks [ 44 ] recommend that data produced from expert judgements should “demonstrate convergent validity with other measures of [the topic]–that is, the experts should provide evaluations of the same […] phenomenon that other measurement instruments pick up.” (p. 359) Most studies of the global cybercrime geography are, as noted in the introduction, based on technical measures that cannot accurately establish the true physical location of offenders (for example [ 1 , 4 , 28 , 33 , 45 ]). Comparing our results to these studies would therefore be of little value, as the phenomena being measured differs: they are measuring attack infrastructure, whereas the WCI measures offender location.…”

Transformation of Crimes (Cybercrimes) in Digital Age

“…Furthermore, the exploitation of zero-day vulnerabilities and collaborative models like Ransomware-as-a-Service highlight the adaptability and cooperation among cybercriminals. As technology advances, so too must our approach to cybersecurity, emphasizing a multi-layered defense strategy and collaboration between organizations and external experts to mitigate risks and safeguard against future threats [21].…”

“…Network mapping of case law linkages visualizes legal precedence chains. Extracting timebased statistics provides temporal profiles of threat evolution [5].…”

Parental Pressure and Cybercrime Engagement among Youth in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions

“…These activities range from hacking and identity theft to online fraud and cyberbullying. The interconnectedness of the digital world has provided cybercriminals with new avenues to perpetrate their actions, often leading to significant financial losses, psychological distress, and societal disruption (Chen, 2023). While the scope and impact of cybercrime are well recognized, the factors that contribute to its emergence among youth, particularly in Nigerian tertiary institutions, remain an area of investigation.…”

“…Although research has acknowledged the role of sociocultural factors and personal motivations in cybercrime engagement (Chen, 2023), the influence of parental pressure on such behaviour remains unclear. While studies have highlighted the prevalence of parental pressure in Nigerian society (Nwangwu et al, 2022), there is a dearth of comprehensive investigations into whether excessive parental expectations and pressure contribute to or shape the propensity of youth to engage in cyber-criminal activities.…”