Honour Among (Cyber)thieves?

Abstract

It is well known that criminals, who operate outside the law and the protection of the state, face difficulties in cooperating due both to the requirement of secrecy and a deficit of trust. For cybercriminals the anonymity of the Internet creates further challenges, making it even more difficult to assess trustworthiness and enforce agreements. Yet, contrary to expectations, collaboration among cybercriminals is prevalent, and a sophisticated industry has emerged. The purpose of this paper is to address this puzzle in relation to profit-driven cybercrime. It draws on a collection of interviews with former cybercriminals that provide a valuable form of data on micro-level and often secretive interactions. It examines four key mechanisms that lead to improved cooperation: reputation, appearance, performance and enforcement. It also addresses the rarely discussed, and somewhat counterintuitive, role that offline interactions may play in enhancing collective action among cybercriminals.

Countering Distrust in Illicit Online Networks: The Dispute Resolution Strategies of Cybercriminals

“…Cybercrime creates extra challenges for cooperation, beyond the instability of dealing with criminals alone. In online settings, anonymity is ostensibly guaranteed and physical enforcement becomes extremely challenging (Lusthaus, 2012;Lusthaus, 2018a). It should not be surprising that substantial levels of distrust remain, even after mechanisms are employed to reduce them to a lower amount (Lusthaus, 2018b, pp.…”

“…This is why some (even more elite) cybercriminals choose to stay away from marketplaces and gather in much smaller, closed groupings (Lusthaus, 2019). It is likely also why offline interactions/organization appeal to some offenders (see Leukfeldt et al, 2017a; Lusthaus, 2018a; Lusthaus & Varese, 2017).…”

“…These studies generally examine the most structured elements of governance found in cybercriminal marketplaces, such as: the feedback and rating systems that allow users to distribute information about others; the availability of escrow services; and the exclusion/banning of certain members. The puzzle of how cybercriminals successfully navigate such a distrustful environment and successfully cooperate is an important one (see Lusthaus, 2018a;Lusthaus, 2018b), as it helps determine their level of criminal achievement, and by extension their ability to attract and inspire others to join in this cybercriminal activity (Tremblay & Morselli, 2000). But gaps remain in this literature.…”

Global Voices in Hacking (Multinational Views)

“…With respect to this financial motive, it is interesting to see that even if the crime script is a high-tech form of crime, the networks still show a need for cash (Kruisbergen et al 2018a, b) and many networks still consist of groups of offenders who know each other offline (Leukfeldt et al 2017c). This has not only been found in the Netherlands but in several other countries (Lusthaus 2018). A case study on Romania by Lusthaus and Varese (2017), for example, has also shown that cybercrime can have an important local and offline dimension.…”

Researching Cybercrimes

“…Collaboration between criminal actors is well-established in the offline world, including youth gangs, organised crime groups and cross-border organisation (Aas, 2013). Cyberspace, however, is a unique system for facilitating collaboration and provides the means for various different forms of task-delegation, for example it offers opportunities such as "crime-as-a-service" (Decary-Hetu & Aldridge, 2015: 123), where ad hoc relationships can be formed for specific activities or transactions (Grabosky, 2014;Lusthaus, 2012Lusthaus, , 2018aLusthaus, , 2018bLusthaus & Varese, 2017;Yip et al, 2013). Carding fora, for example, display the kinds of relationship mechanisms, such as trust and reputation, found in offline collaborative networks (Holt & Lampke, 2010;Hoser & Nitschke, 2010;Webber & Yip, 2020).…”