See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342542851

Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century

Victimology

Chapter · June 2020

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-41622-5_1

CITATIONS READS

3 741

1 author:

Jaishankar Karuppannan
International Institute of Crime and Security Sciences
60 PUBLICATIONS   734 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Books Authored / Edited View project

Articles / Peer Reviewed Papers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jaishankar Karuppannan on 15 June 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 1
Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline
of the Twenty-First Century Victimology

K. Jaishankar

Me, Marc and His Indelible Mark: A Cherished Journey

I am very happy to be invited by the Editors of this Festschrift for Prof. Dr. Marc
Groenhuijsen. Marc has travelled (and is still travelling) with me, in a journey,
which I will always cherish. Notably, he was with me when I was a PhD Student
until I became a Full Professor and he still continues to be with me as a friend, phi-
losopher and guide.
I first met Marc in the year 2000 (when I was a PhD Student), when he visited
the Department of Criminology, University of Madras, Chennai, India. Though our
meetings on those days were short, it was always fruitful in terms of knowledge
dissemination. Though we had more online interactions, we also interacted in a few
physical meetings at some significant victimology events (SASCV Jaipur, 2011;
WSV Hague, 2012; SCS Stockholm, 2012; SASCV Kanyakumari, 2013; WSV
Perth, 2015). In 2016, I became a Full Professor of Criminology and Head of the
Department at Raksha Shakti University, Gujarat, India and met him at Jindal

Some parts of this chapter are derived from earlier publications of the author: Jaishankar, K. (2012).
Victimization in the Cyber Space: Patterns and Trends. In S. Manacorda (Ed.). Cybercriminality:
Finding a balance between freedom and security (pp. 91–106). Milan, Italy: International Scientific
and Professional Advisory Council of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
Programme (ISPAC). ISBN 978-88-96410-02-8 Jaishankar, K. (2013). Cyber Victimization: New
Typology and Novel Trends of Interpersonal attacks on the Internet. In Korean Institute of
Criminology (Ed.). Information Society and Cybercrime: Challenges for Criminology and
Criminal Justice (pp.  31–47). Seoul, Korea: Korean Institute of Criminology. Research Report
Series 13-B-01.ISBN 978-89-7366-002-5. Reproduced with permission.

K. Jaishankar (*)
School of Criminology and Crime Science (Block E), Raksha Shakti University (Police and
Internal Security University), Lavad, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 3

J. Joseph, S. Jergenson (eds.), An International Perspective on Contemporary
Developments in Victimology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41622-5_1
4 K. Jaishankar

Global University, New Delhi for the 18th International Congress on Criminology
(December, 2016) and he rejoiced my success of becoming Full Professor.
My interactions with Marc mentioned above are only some highlights. Our inter-
actions are unfathomable, and our academic relationship continues… Marc is one of
the pillars of my success in academia and with profound pride and gratitude, I would
mention that, “Marc has made an indelible mark on my life”.

Introduction

The internet has transformed many of our lives and now more people have started
inhabiting in cyber space. However, as any technology has the possibility to be mis-
used, internet is no different. Many of the dangers, threats, and annoyances that
plague society in general can also be found on the Internet. Internet has provided an
easy platform to offenders to perform various criminal activities in novel forms.
Added with this is the nature of patterns of anonymity protection shields offered by
various websites, which has helped the perpetrators to harass the victims in much
more shrewd fashion than in the offline crime scenarios. Whereas some crimes such
as illegally accessing victim’s private data, computer and computer networks and
modifying the content, defamation, etc. are done to harm the good reputation of the
victim, some other sorts of offenses like data theft, identity theft and even cyber ter-
rorism are also done for personal gain, besides harming the reputation of the victim
(Jaishankar 2012, 2013).
Wall (2005, revised in 2010) has pointed out that the term cyber crime does not
necessarily denote those crimes, which are recognized in the penal codes, but the
media highlight this term. Wall (2001) has divided cyber crime into four categories:
1. Cyber-trespass – crossing boundaries into other people’s property and/or causing
damage, e.g. hacking, defacement, viruses; 2. Cyber-deceptions and thefts – steal-
ing (money, property), such as credit card fraud or intellectual property violations
(a.k.a. piracy); 3. Cyber-pornography; 4. Cyber-violence  – doing psychological
harm to, or inciting physical harm against others, thereby breaching laws pertaining
to the protection of the person, such as hate speech or stalking (Jaishankar
2012, 2013).
Wall (2005, revised in 2010, p. 82) prefers to analyze cyber crime as crimes that
are mediated by computer networks and not necessarily crimes against machines.
He mapped impact of deviant behavior influenced by cyber crime from four angles:
a. Crime against machines especially integrity-related crimes encourage opportu-
nities like harmful trespass. This may further develop traditional crimes using
computers, like phreaking and chipping; hybrid cyber crime (which are born as
traditional crimes but are more developed due to cyber space) like cracking /
hacking, virus attacks, hactivism, etc.; and true cyber crimes like sending spams,
denial of services, information warfare and parasite computing.
1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology 5

b. Crimes using machines like computer-related crimes may encourage crimes

such as acquisition of domain or profile like theft or deception. This may further
contribute to traditional crimes like frauds, pyramid schemes; hybrid crimes like
multiple large scale fraud, 419 frauds, thefts and ID thefts; true cyber crimes like
intellectual property crimes, online gambling, e-auction frauds and phishing.
c. Crimes in the machine such as content-related crimes may encourage obscenity
which may further form traditional crimes like trading sexual materials; hybrid
crimes like online sex trade, cam-girl sites and also true cyber crimes like cyber
sex and cyber pimping.
d. Crimes in the machine, especially content-related crimes, may also encourage
violence which may further motivate traditional crimes like stalking and per-
sonal harassment; hybrid crimes like general hate speech and organized paedo-
phile rings and true cyber crimes like online grooming, organized bomb talks,
targeted hate speech, etc. Wall (2005, revised in 2010, p.82).
Though cyber crimes are termed in varied terminologies like computer crime,
computer-­related crime, digital crime, information technology crime (Matt 2004),
Internet crime (Wall 2001), virtual crime (Lastowka and Hunter 2004), e-crime (Yar
2012) and netcrime (Mann and Sutton 1998), it all signifies the application and util-
ity of internet and telecommunication networks to commit these crimes (Jaishankar
2008). Even though some researchers feel cyber crimes as a case of “old wine in
new bottles” (Grabosky 2001), “old wine in bottles of varying and fluid shape” (Yar
2005), or “new wine in no bottles” (Wall 1999), cyber crimes are unique (Yar 2005).
Especially, victimization perspective of cyber crime is distinct in its character, com-
pared to the conventional crimes. Cyber crime victimization defies the logic of
physical proximity. Cyber crime offenders need not be physically proximate with
their offenders unlike physical space crimes (Brenner 2004). An offender can vic-
timize any person across the globe, sitting in any corner of the world, using his/her
computer connected to a network (European Commission 2001). Also as cyber
crime is an “automated crime” (using technology to multiply the number of
“crimes”) someone can commit in a given period of time (Parker 1999, 2002; Arena
2001), several persons can be victimized with the same effort. This innovative
nature of automation allows the offenders to victimize many in rapid and precise
manner (IPWatchdog.com 2003). (For classification of cyber crimes, see, Carter
1995; Davis and Hutchison 1997; Deflem and Shutt 2006; Goodman and Brenner
2002; Wall 2001, 2010.)
Many definitions of cyber crime were evolved in the pre and post millennium.
Some of the definitions were simple and some were complex. Some focused on the
crime, some the offender, some the victim. A notable metamorphosis in the new
millennium cyber crime definitions is moving beyond the machines (hacking) and
focusing on the humans, especially the victims (Halder and Jaishankar 2012). A
simple definition of cyber crimes is provided by the Oxford Reference Online:
“crimes committed over the Internet”. Though, multiple definitions (Statistics
Canada 2002; Thomas and Loader 2000; Yar 2006) are available for cyber crimes,
there are no consistent and statutory definitions (Yar 2005), and also defining cyber
6 K. Jaishankar

crime raises conceptual complexities (Smith et al. 2004). Matt’s (2004) definition of
cyber crime gave a holistic focus on cyber crime from an offense perspective:
Cyber crime encompasses all illegal activities where the computer, computer system, infor-
mation net work or data is the target of the crime and those known illegal activities or
crimes that are actively committed through or with the aid of computers, computer systems,
information networks or data (p. 22).

The human element of cyber crime was included by the Convention on Cyber
Crime (Council of Europe 2001). The Convention on Cyber Crime was one of the
first legislation to think in the direction of humans while most of the definitions
were concentrating on the machines (Halder and Jaishankar 2012). The Convention
on Cyber Crime (Council of Europe 2001) included offences against children and
“attacks on human emotions, banning usage of ‘improper words’ in the cyber space.
This was originally meant to prevent usage of derogatory words, which may pro-
mote terrorism, danger to national security and/or racial hatred” (Halder and
Jaishankar 2012, p. 14). The Convention on Cyber Crime also helped the law mak-
ers and the academics to change their earlier perspective on cyber crimes “i.e.,
everything is hacking or attack at e-commercial transactions. This drift helped to
include emotional attack on internet users as offense and transmuted to a more
advanced approach to look at it from individual victim’s perspective” (Halder and
Jaishankar 2012, p.  14). It was Wall’s (2008) definition of cyber crime that first
included ‘harm’ as a component. Wall (2008) explained cyber crime as “online inse-
curity and risk and it is widely used today to describe the crimes or harms that are
committed using networked technologies” (p. 862). The inclusion of ‘harm’ gave a
new focus to cyber crimes as it was inclined more to crimes against human emotions
like stalking, harassing and bullying. Even though there were many definitions of
cyber crime beyond Wall’s (2008) definition, only Halder and Jaishankar’s (2012)
definition on cyber crime had the victimization perspective:
Offences that are committed against individuals or groups of individuals with a criminal
motive to intentionally harm the reputation of the victim or cause physical or mental harm
to the victim directly or indirectly, using modern telecommunication networks such as
Internet (Chat rooms, emails, notice boards and groups) and mobile phones (SMS/MMS)
(p. 15).
The types of cyber crimes that are included in the above definition are: hacking, morphing,
spoofing, tampering the computer sources, obscene publication, trojan attacks, phishing,
cyber stalking, cyber pornography, cyber defamation, cyber bullying, e-mail harassment,
cyber blackmailing, cyber threatening, cyber murder, cyber terrorism and abetment of such
offences (Halder and Jaishankar 2012, p. 15).

 yber Victimization: Creation of a New Typology (Jaishankar

C
2012, 2013)

As it is common with the public to think that cyber crime only means hacking (Yar
2006), it is to be noted that most of the scholars (Burgess-Proctor et al. 2010; Finn
2004; Hinduja and Patchin 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012; Landoll 2012; Li 2007;
1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology 7

Lipton 2011; Perreault 2011; Şahin et al. 2012; Sakellariou et al. 2012; Schiller and
Gradinger 2013), excluding few (Alshalan 2006; Halder and Jaishankar 2008, 2009,
2011, 2015; McQuade 2009; Ngo and Paternoster 2011; Roberts 2008, 2009), are of
the opinion, that cyber crime victimization equates to cyber bullying / cyber stalking
victimization. A Google Scholar search will also make this clearly evident. While
someone searches for cyber victims or cyber victimization in Google Scholar, the
studies shown are mostly on cyber bullying and cyber stalking/harassment.
Victimization is nothing but the other side of the coin. It is like viewing from the
other side of the river. So branding only cyber bullying/stalking as victimization and
not including other types of cyber crimes in the victimization perspective is not cor-
rect. Also it is found that whenever cyber victimization is analyzed, it is only exam-
ined from an individual perspective and not from a mass or system perspective. Not
only individuals can be victimized by cyber crime but also the governments and
corporations and society as well are victimized by cyber crime. The following vic-
tim typology tries to break the conventional perception of scholars towards cyber
victimization.

Typology of Cyber Victimization (Jaishankar 2012, 2013)

1. Cyber Victimization of Governments

• Cyber attacks (including cyber terrorism and cyber warfare)
• Threats against Political Leaders
• Political Hactivism
• E voting Fraud
• Online Plagiarism/Scientific misconduct
2. Cyber Victimization of Corporations
• Hacking
• Insider Threat
• Cyber Squatting
• Digital Piracy / Copyright Infringement / Intellectual Property theft
• Cyber slacking / wandering of employees (Personal use of internet in
workplace)
3. Cyber Victimization of Individuals or Interpersonal Cyber Victimization
• Viruses, Malware, adware, spywares, Bots, botnets, zombies and remote con-
trols etc.
• Hacking
• Cyber harassment: Cyber bullying / Peer Victimization /Cyber Stalking
• Cyber hate
• Cyber Racism
• Cyber Grooming
8 K. Jaishankar

• Child Pornography
• Victimization in the social networking sites
• Identity related cyber crime
• Victims of Virtual environments
• Scam victims (419, Lottery and Advance Fee Fraud, Phishing, Phreaking)
• Victims of Social Engineering
• Victims of content theft (blogs articles etc)
4. Victimless Crimes
• Sexting
• E-Prostitution
• Sex chatting
• Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) / Online Addiction
• Online Pornography
• Online Gambling

 ovel Trends in Cyber Crime Victimization (Jaishankar

N
2012, 2013)

Development of Victim Turned Offenders

There are many instances in the physical space crimes such as harassment and abuse
where the victims turn into offenders. Most of these cases pertain to children and
women, and a small body of growing literature is available on victim-offender over-
lap (Briggs 2003; Broidy et  al. 2006; Jennings et  al. 2010; Jennings et  al. 2011;
2012; Klevens et  al. 2002; Lauritsen and Laub 2007; Mustaine and Tewksbury
2000; Rumgay 2010; Shaffer 2003). Notably, online victim-offender overlap is a
modern phenomenon (Umarhathab et al. 2009) and of late we could find instances
where some victims have turned into offenders. I have come across cases which
come to our Centre for Cyber Victim Counselling (an online counseling centre and
NGO for victims of cyber crimes founded by Debarati Halder and me in 2009; more
details are at www.cybervictims.org) where there are many requests from the vic-
tims seeking our assistance to hack the offenders email accounts or social network-
ing site accounts. When we disagree citing our policy of non-interfering in others
online accounts, they tend to move to professional hackers (Halder and Jaishankar
2012). However, we have tried to change their outlook to a certain extent, online
victims try to take revenge by becoming offenders.
In cases of money mules, who are recruited by the online offenders in the guise
of providing a legitimate job, they “receive bad checks and write good ones and as
(albeit perhaps innocent) co-conspirators are not protected” (Florêncio and Herley
2010, p. 4) by the laws of any country. Suresh and Paul (2010) assert that all money
mules are not innocent. “Contrary to popular belief, mules are not innocent people
1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology 9

tricked into illegal business. They are typically mercenary volunteers with scant
respect for the law – and for this very reason, they are turning professionals” (Suresh
and Paul 2010, p. 498). Suresh and Paul’s (2010) argument is further strengthened
by the 2011 survey of Financial Fraud Action UK (2011) and the National Fraud
Authority (NFA) among the residents of Newham in East London. This survey
found that 27 percent of victims of money mule schemes did not know that it is
illegal and 87 percent did not report to police.

Growth of Victim Precipitated Crimes

It has also been found that some of the victims have precipitated (caused) their own
cyber victimization. While in physical space people tend to follow certain safety
norms, they tend to ignore the same while they are in the cyberspace. In cases of
phishing and money mules, it is the victims’ greed and innocent nature that the
cyber criminals exploit. Many internet savvy users become victims of virus attacks
because of their reckless nature of visiting pornographic sites and using torrents to
download films, songs and other files. Norton’s (2011) first ever large scale research
on cyber victimization found that 80 percent of their respondents became victims
because of watching adult materials, online. Some of the internet users are not con-
cerned about issues of privacy in social networking sites and become victims
(Halder and Jaishankar 2009). They upload photographs exhibiting their intimacy
with their girlfriends/boyfriends. Sometimes these photographs are used by black-
mailers or sometimes they are morphed for blackmailing.
In many cases of Nigerian 419 scams, the victims were very greedy and some
even have gone to the extent of selling their own houses purportedly to receive a
huge sum of money from the offender. Apart from exploiting the greedy nature of
the victims, cyber offenders also exploit the fear of the victims, especially, using
scareware (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2012). “By playing to Internet users’
fears that computers and information can be at risk, cybercrooks have been able to
gain unprecedented access to machines while making hundreds of millions of dol-
lars” (McAfee 2011, p. 7).
Research on victims of cyber attacks of a university network by Michel Cukier
and David Maimon, both from the University of Maryland, USA, found that the
victims expose themselves to cyber attacks and they precipitate their own victimiza-
tion. Their study applied routine activity theory and found that the “campus was
more cyber-attacked during business hours than during down times like after mid-
night and on weekends” (Eddy 2011, para 3).
Also the genuineness of some of the victims is questionable. The Norton study
(2011) argues that the anonymous nature of the internet provides an opportunity to
do illegal activities online which they might not do in the physical space. This sup-
ports my Space Transition Theory of Cyber Crimes (Jaishankar 2008). The Norton
study shows that the victims are sometimes involved in illegal activities like down-
loading music and film files without paying, plagiarism, engaging in forms of online
10 K. Jaishankar

theft, misrepresentation, and defacement. Also some victims do not request permis-
sion from others to take their photographs from social networking sites. The Norton
study found that nearly 80 percent of respondents became victims because of lack
of genuineness.

Increase in Mobile Phone Victimization

In the recent past, smartphones like iPhone and BlackBerry have created a revolu-
tion in the society. In addition to that, the introduction of new gadgets like iPad,
tablets, and Android phones has changed the dimensions of information exchange.
These mobile phones are no more mere phones; they are computers or extension of
computers (House of Commons, UK 2012, p. 13). The mobile phones have great
advantages and many a times it ensures the safety of an individual (Nasar et  al.
2007). However, these mobile phones also put individuals in danger. With the provi-
sion of Bluetooth, wireless and internet connection in these phones provides the
same chance of victimization as of the users of the computers with internet
connection.
“The McAfee Threat Report for the third quarter of 2011 showed that mobile
phone malware had doubled since 2009 and that the majority of new malware on
mobile platforms had been targeted at Android phones” (House of Commons, UK
2012, p. 5). The Norton study (2011) found that 80 percent of the male respondents
who use mobile phones have become victims of cyber crime. Also bullying through
mobile phones has increased to a great extent (Campbell 2005; Kumar and
Jaishankar 2007; Erentaitė et al. 2012). Research on child sexual exploitation in the
UK found that the offenders initially victimize the children on the internet via com-
puters; later, they move on to mobiles, especially smartphones to victimize the chil-
dren. This methodology is also used for victimizing adults (Policy, Research &
Media 2012).

 ulnerability of Children and Teens Increased

V
to a Greater Extent

In the new millennium, there is a steep rise of children and teens using the Internet.
They are more skilful than the adults in using the internet and mobile phones. They
grasp the technology faster than adults and even become teachers of older persons
in the usage of mobile phones and the internet. However, the same knowledge of the
internet and mobile phones puts them in danger. Online predators may exploit their
curiosity to understand many things, including sex (Wolak et al. 2008) and many
children and teenagers become victim of cyber crimes. Wolak et al. (2006) study on
online victimization of youth found that youth are susceptible to victimization and
1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology 11

they become victims of online sexual solicitation. A new study in the UK found a
steep rise in online grooming for sexual exploitation since 2010. The study found
that the victims were groomed via mobile phones and social networking sites such
as Facebook, Orkut, and Twitter (Policy, Research & Media 2012).
Alternatively, recent research found that youth and children have become more
aware of their victimization online and there is a reduction of online sexual solicita-
tion (Jones et  al. 2012). Though there may be a diminutive rise of awareness of
cyber crime among a section of children and youth in the internet, still there are
potential victims who are newer to the cyber space.
Also, sexting, a new form of cyber crime in which a teen is both the offender as
well as the victim, has created further victimization of children online. Sexting,
though considered as a victimless crime (Jaishankar 2009a, b), brings in more
potential victims online (Ngo et al. 2017). Recent research on sexting and personal
victimization (Reyns et al. 2011) found that sexting not only makes them victims of
sexting, but it makes them victims of several forms of online victimization.

Differential Victimization of Men and Women

The risk taking behavior of men in the physical space and the vulnerability of
women in the physical space are the same in the cyber space. However, the patterns
of victimization in the cyber space show a differential aspect. The Norton study
(2011) suggests that men are more susceptible to victimization than women as they
take the risk of visiting pornographic sites and gambling sites and talking with
strangers. The study found that 72 percent of men have become victims compared
to 65 percent of women. “Men are also more vulnerable because nearly four times
more men than women view adult and pornographic sites, while twice as many
gamble online and go online dating” (Limsamarnphun 2011, para 4). The Norton
study also found that men between 18–31 age groups who spend more time on the
internet are vulnerable to victimization.
When it comes to online women victims, they are more vulnerable to be a victim
of cyber crime and also the impact of victimization is more on them compared to
men. Especially women are prone to online harassment and stalking (Desai and
Jaishankar 2007). This aspect is different when compared to men as they are not that
much harassed or stalked online (Halder and Jaishankar 2012). Men become online
victims because of their risky behaviour, but women become victims because of
their mere presence online. Cyber stalking statistics (2010) of Working for Halting
Online Abuse (WHOA) shows that there is an unequal ratio of men and women
victims as well as harassers. Among 349 victims, 73% are women and 27% are
men; whereas, 44.5% of harassers were men and 36.5% of harassers were women
(Halder and Jaishankar 2012). Comparatively, fewer women than men report their
online victimization to police. Clear statistics of online victmization of women are
not available. Also the impact of victimization on women is different than men.
Cyber crimes create a deeper wound in women (Halder and Jaishankar 2008; 2012).
12 K. Jaishankar

Halder and Jaishankar (2012) explain the impact of online victimization on women
compared with men:
When a man’s email id or private data stored in websites and also personal computers are
accessed and modified in an unauthorized way, he can afford to live on by informing the
police and his acquaintances. Indeed his reputation may be marred due to misuse of the
personal data. Unlike a woman victim, he may not be subjected to gross humiliation by the
society as a whole; he may neither be reduced to a mere ‘sex item’ like his female counter-
part. His victimization may be judged only from the perspective of economic losses. On the
contrary, a woman who may have turned into a victim may be ostracized by the society.
Unlike her male counterpart, she may not be able to take the online humiliation so easily; it
may engulf her with the feeling of shame and hatred for herself (p. 5).

 ack of Reporting Behaviour, Secondary Victimization

L
and Reliance on Online Private Policing Groups

Underreporting of cyber crimes is commonly found (Wall 2001). Reporting cyber

crimes is difficult for the victims as most of the victims are educated and knowl-
edgeable. Victims might feel that the police will abuse or ridicule them because of
their victimization. Especially women victims cite privacy issues for not reporting
to police (Halder and Jaishankar 2012). “Many victims of cyber-crimes may not
realize their victimization until long after the event. Victims may be reluctant to
report cyber-crimes due to embarrassment, not knowing where or how to report the
crime, or the size of the loss” (Roberts 2008, p. 580). Also there are instances where
secondary victimization is highly prevalent in cyber crime cases, especially cyber
gender harassment (Halder and Jaishankar 2011). Still the criminal justice system
including police, prosecutors and judiciary of many countries are not ready to solve
the cyber crime cases and provide justice to the victims. This has pushed the victims
towards a new trend of reporting their victimization to agencies other than the
police. Because of the secondary victimization and lack of proper resources with the
criminal justice system, now, victims prefer non-governmental agencies which
work in “private policing” (Yar 2010) of the internet. In the new millennium, many
NGO’s have come to support and assist the cyber crime victims. The Internet Watch
Foundation (IWF) of UK, Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHOA) of the USA,
Cyberangels of the USA, and the Centre for Cyber Victim Counselling (CCVC) of
India are some of the NGO’s that cyber victims rely upon to report their victimiza-
tion (Halder and Jaishankar 2012).
1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology 13

 yber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-first

C
Century Victimology

Since Wall’s categorization of cyber crimes in four sectors in 2005, trends and
typology of cyber crimes are growing. Revenge porn, vishing and smishing, vamp-
ing, etc. are some of the examples. Further, as can be seen from the ISIS example,
the concept of cyber terrorism is also undergoing gross changes. Fundamentalists
no longer restrict their terror activities to mass attacking the protected systems or
injecting a virus; they openly challenge the freedom of speech and expression laws
and basic human rights by way of depicting violent images. They have their own
websites and servers which can operate independently. They are using internet
giants like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc. to spread their messages to the masses.
Similarly, scammers and fraudsters are also expanding their operative mechanism
through e-corporate portals, social networking sites, etc. There is a need to restruc-
ture the profiles of types of cyber victimization on the basis of the above such under-
pinning issues (Jaishankar and Halder Forthcoming).
Further, it needs to be noted that the profiles of the victims are also changing. The
data contribution by the internet users (including government, corporate sectors and
private individuals) and internet companies allure cyber criminals to do more crimi-
nal activities. Consider the examples of Google Maps or Google Glass; the applica-
tions pose threats to privacy in numerous ways. The victims of such privacy
infringement can be either the government or the private individual or even the
corporate sectors. Also, consider the case of Wikileaks; the whistle blower has
turned into a fugitive due to his changed status as ‘criminal’. But at the same time,
his security and privacy is jeopardized due to constant virtual as well as real life
surveillance. Similarly, revenge porn victims may have to suffer due to their own
contribution of the sexted images. There is an imperative need to study the profiles
of cyber victims from this light (Jaishankar and Halder Forthcoming).
Based on the above issues, I proposed a new sub-discipline of Victimology,
Cyber Victimology in my keynote speech at the 15th International Symposium of the
World Society of Victimology (WSV) at Perth, Western Australia held during 5–9,
July 2015. I coined the term “Cyber Victimology” and I defined cyber victimology
as “the study of forms of online victimization, its impact on victims, and responses
of society and systems” (Jaishankar 2015).
Cyber Victimology or the Victimology of cyber crimes becomes an essential
project due to the imminent need for understanding of the subject from theoretical
as well as practical aspects. Victims’ rights in the cyber space still need to be codi-
fied in many jurisdictions. Such rights are largely governed by the privacy rights of
individuals in the real space in many jurisdictions. But this right is again not clearly
explained in many countries. Further, the right to privacy is constantly breached due
to the State’s right to surveillance. Right to privacy is also affected by the ever grow-
ing notions of freedom of speech and expression on the internet. Even though vic-
tim’s rights in the cyber space can be secured by taking up measures that are
promised by ‘right to be forgotten’, the same is still not properly explained in the
14 K. Jaishankar

legal perspective of transnational jurisdictions. In brief, victim’s right in the cyber

space still suffers from a lacuna in understandings and this needs to be addressed
(Jaishankar and Halder Forthcoming).
When dealing with cyber victimology, it also becomes necessary to understand
the effects of a victim’s response towards victimization in the cyber space and
causes of re-victimization. Cyber victimology also will deal with the subject with
the help of criminological and victimological theories, including Space Transition
Theory of Cyber Crimes (Jaishankar 2008) and Irrational Coping Theory (Halder
and Jaishankar 2015) in the context of cyber space victimization. This sub-­discipline
also will propose useful guidelines that may help to curb the cyber crimes and
ensure the rights of the victims (Jaishankar and Halder Forthcoming).

Conclusion

The trends of cyber crime victimization have given a new dimension to the contem-
porary cyber victim behaviour analysis. It has changed the conventional perspective
of victimologists, criminologists, police and criminal justice officials towards cyber
crimes, criminal behaviour and victims. Moreover, the complexities involved in the
investigation of cyber crime victimization have brought a new culture among police
agencies. The cyber crime victimization has made law enforcers to be more techno
savvy than before. It has become a situation like; either learn technology or leave it
to the technocrats. Also as the criminal justice system needs to deliver justice to the
victims of cyber crimes, new laws are promulgated in almost all the countries
(Halder et al. 2013; Jaishankar and Halder Forthcoming).
Cyber crime victims have not received the same attention by the media, criminal
justice system and academics as that of the cyber crime offenders (Wall 2005). The
reason is that the victims do not provide the kind of novelty the offenders provide.
The victims of cyber crimes are not much more unique than the victims of conven-
tional crimes, though, they have some distinctive characteristics. They may have
created a trap for themselves on the internet and hence they become engulfed in
shame, trauma as well as self-hatred. The victims cannot be bounded in any particu-
lar age group, nationality, race, religion; they can be children, teenagers, males,
females, even aged net surfers or even persons who may be oblivious of the fact that
s/he is being attacked in the internet, by fake mails. Adequate attention to these
victims from the criminal justice officials as well as victim service providers is
needed. Also research on these victims is most needed. It will help to prevent and
mitigate further victimization and provide policy directions to the governments
(Jaishankar and Halder Forthcoming). The current status of cyber crime victimiza-
tion needs to be holistically studied in detail and I believe the proposed sub-­
discipline of victimology, “Cyber Victimology”, will be ready to lend a hand in this
direction.
1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology 15

Acknowledgement  I sincerely thank Prof. Dr. Debarati Halder for her inputs and constructive
criticisms that greatly enhanced the quality of this chapter.

References

Alshalan, A. (2006). Cyber-crime fear and victimization: An analysis of a national survey. PhD
Dissertation submitted to Mississippi State University.
Arena, K. (2001). U.S. targets porn site’s customers, CNN.com web site (Aug. 8, 2001), Retrieved
from http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/08/ashcroft.childporn.
Brenner, S. (2004). Toward a criminal law for cyberspace: Distributed security. Boston University
Journal of Science & Technology Law, 10(2), 1–105.
Briggs, F. (2003). From victim to offender: How child sexual abuse victims become offenders.
NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Broidy, L. M., Daday, J. K., Crandall, C. S., Sklar, D. P., & Jost, P.F. (2006). Exploring demo-
graphic, structural, and behavioral overlap among homicide offenders and victims. Homicide
Studies, 10, 155–180.
Burgess-Proctor, A., Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and online harassment:
Reconceptualizing the victimization of adolescent girls. In V. Garcia & J. Clifford (Eds.). Female
crime victims: Reality reconsidered (p. 162–176). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Campbell, M. A. (2005). Cyber bullying: An old problem in a new guise? Australian Journal of
Guidance and Counselling, 15(1), 68–76.
Carter, D. (1995). Computer crime categories: How techno-criminals operate. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 64(7), 21.
Council of Europe. (2001). – Convention on Cybercrime. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.
eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/libe/dv/7_conv_budapest_/7_conv_budapest_en.pdf.
Davis, R., & Hutchison, S. (1997). Computer crime in Canada. Toronto: Thomson Canada Limited.
Deflem, M., & Shutt, J. E. (2006). Law enforcement and computer security threats and measures.
In H.  Bidgoli (Ed.), The handbook of information security, volume 2: information warfare;
social, legal, and international issues; and security foundations (pp. 200–209). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
Desai, M., & Jaishankar, K. (2007). Cyber stalking victimization of girl students: an empirical
study. Presentation in the Second International Conference on Victimology and Sixth Biennial
Conference of the Indian Society of Victimology, Chennai, India 9–11, February, 2007.
Eddy, N. (30th November, 2011). Cyber-crime victims often provide access unwit-
tingly: report. Security. Retrieved from http://www.channelinsider.com/c/a/Security/
Cybercrime-Victims-Often-Provide-Access-Unwittingly-Report-549746.
Erentaitė, R., Bergman, L.  R. & Žukauskienė, R. (2012). Cross-contextual stability of bullying
victimization: A person-oriented analysis of cyber and traditional bullying experiences among
adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53(2), 181–190.
European Commission (2001). Communication from the European Commission to the Council
and the European Parliament 1.1, COM, 890 final, at 9 (Brussels, Jan. 26, 2001), Retrieved
from http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/eif/InternetPoliciesSite/Crime/CrimeCommEN.html.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2012). Nigerian Letter or “419” Fraud. Retrieved from
https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/common-fraud-schemes/nigerian-letter-or-419-fraud
Financial Fraud Action UK (2011). East Londoners at greatest risk of falling for money
laundering scam. Retrieved from http://www.financialfraudaction.org.uk/cms/assets/1/
MoneyMulesRelease.pdf.
Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 19(4), 468–483.
16 K. Jaishankar

Florêncio, D., & Herley, C. (2010). Phishing and money mules. Redmond, WA, USA: Microsoft
Research, One Microsoft Way. Retrieved from http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/143095/
mules.pdf
Goodman, M., & Brenner, S. (2002). The emerging consensus on criminal conduct in cyber-
space. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 10(2), 139–223. https://doi.
org/10.1093/ijlit/10.2.139
Grabosky, P. (2001). Virtual criminality: Old wine in new bottles? Social & Legal Studies,
10, 243–49.
Halder, D., & Jaishankar, K. (2008). Cyber crimes against women in India: Problems, perspectives
and solutions. TMC Academy Journal, Singapore, 3(1), 48–62.
Halder, D., & Jaishankar, K. (2009). Cyber socializing and victimization of women. Temida - The
journal on victimization, human rights and gender, September 2009, 12(3), 5–26.
Halder D., & Jaishankar, K. (2011). Cyber gender harassment and secondary victimization: a com-
parative analysis of US, UK and India. Victims and Offenders, 6(4), 386–398.
Halder, D., & Jaishankar. K. (2012) Cyber crime and victimization of women: Laws, rights, and
regulations. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.
Halder, D., Jaishankar, K., Periyar, E., & Sivakumar, R. (2013). Cyber victimization in India:
Preliminary study (pp. 115–136). In K. Jaishankar & N. Ronel (2013). (Eds.), Global criminol-
ogy: Crime and victimization in the globalized era. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Taylor
and Francis Group.
Halder, D., & Jaishankar, K. (2015). Irrational coping theory and Positive Criminology: A frame
work to protect victims of cyber crime. In N. Ronel and D. Segev (eds.), Positive Criminology
(pp. 276–291). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-74856-8.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2005). Research summary: Cyberbullying victimization. Preliminary
findings from an online survey of Internet-using adolescents. Retrieved from http://www.
cyberbullying.us/cyberbullying_victimization.pdf.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School vio-
lence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89–112.
Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to
offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 1–29.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding
to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012). School climate 2.0: Preventing cyberbullying and sexting one
classroom at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
House of Commons, UK (2012). Malware and cyber crime. Twelfth report of session 2010–12.
London, UK: House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee.
IPWatchdog.com (2003). About cyber crime, IPWatchdog.com Web Site. Retrieved on from http://
www.ipwatchdog.com/cybercrimes.html.
Jaishankar K., (2008). Space transition theory of cyber crimes. In F. Schmallager, & M. Pittaro
(Eds.), Crimes of the Internet (pp. 283–301). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jaishankar K., (2009a). Sexting: How do we protect the victim turned offender?, Presentation at
the Workshop on “Victim Protection” in the International Conference on “Protecting Children
from Sexual Offenders in the Information Technology Era” organized by the International
Scientific and Professional Advisory Council of the United Nations Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice Programme (ISPAC), during December 11–13, 2009 at Courmeyeur, Mont
Blanc, Italy.
Jaishankar, K. (2009b). Sexting: A new form of victimless crime. International Journal of Cyber
Criminology, 3(1), 21–25.
Jaishankar, K. (2012). Victimization in the cyber space: Patterns and trends. In S.  Manacorda
(Ed.). Cybercriminality: Finding a balance between freedom and security (pp. 91–106). Milan,
Italy: International Scientific and Professional Advisory Council of the United Nations Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme (ISPAC). ISBN 978-88-96410-02-8
1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology 17

Jaishankar, K. (2013). Cyber Victimization: New Typology and Novel Trends of Interpersonal
attacks on the Internet. In Korean Institute of Criminology (Ed.). Information society and
cybercrime: Challenges for criminology and criminal justice (pp.  31–47). Seoul, Korea:
Korean Institute of Criminology. Research Report Series 13-B-01. ISBN 978-89-7366-002-5.
Jaishankar, K. (2015).“Cybercrime victimization: New wine into old wineskins?”. Keynote
Presentation at the 15th World Society of Victimology Symposium, organized by WSV, Victims
Support Australia, Angelhands Inc. and Australian Institute of Criminology held during 5 – 9,
July 2015, at Perth, Australia.
Jaishankar, K., & Halder, D. (Forthcoming). Cyber victimology: Decoding cyber crimevictimiza-
tion. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. ISBN: 978-14-987848-9-4.
Jennings, W.  G., Higgins, G.  E., Tewksbury, R., Gover, A.  R., & Piquero, A.  R. (2010). A
Longitudinal assessment of the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
25, 2147–2174.
Jennings, W. G., Park, M., Tomsich, E. A., Gover, A. R., & Akers, R. L. (2011). Assessing the
overlap in dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college stu-
dents: the influence of social learning and self-control. American Journal of Criminal Justice,
36(2), 188–206.
Jennings, W. G., Piquero, A. R., & Reingle, J. M. (2012). On the overlap between victimization and
offending: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(1), 16–26.
Jones, L.  M., Mitchell, K.  J., & Finkelhor, D. (2012). Trends in youth internet victimization:
findings from three youth internet safety surveys 2000-2010. Journal of Adolescent Health,
50(2), 179–86.
Klevens, J., Duque, L. F., & Ramírez, C. (2002). The victim-offender overlap and routine activi-
ties: Results from a cross-sectional study in Bogotá, Columbia. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 17, 206–216.
Kumar, A.  R., & Jaishankar, K. (2007). Cyber bullying using mobile phones: A study on vic-
timization and perpetration among school students. Presentation in the Second International
Conference on Victimology and Sixth Biennial Conference of the Indian Society of Victimology,
Chennai, India 9–11, February, 2007.
Landoll, R. R. (2012). The new frontier of peer victimization: Prospective associations between
adolescents’ on-line peer victimization and internalizing symptoms. Open Access Dissertations.
Paper 820. Retrieved on 15th August 2013 from http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/
oa_dissertations/820
Lastowka, F.G., & Hunter, D. (2004). Virtual crimes. New York Law School Law Review, 49,
293–316.
Lauritsen, J. L., & Laub, J. H. ( 2007). Understanding the link between victimization and offend-
ing: New reflections on an old idea. Crime Prevention Studies, 22, 55–75.
Li, Q. (2007). Bullying in the new playground: Research into cyberbullying and cyber victimisa-
tion. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 435–454.
Limsamarnphun, N. (2011). Is your data safe and secure? Retrieved on 15 January 2012 fromhttp://
www.nationmultimedia.com/new/opinion/Is-your-data-safe-and-secure-30166572.html
Lipton, J.  D. (2011). Combating cyber-victimization. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 26,
1103–1156.
Mann, D., & Sutton, M. (1998). NetCrime. More change in the organisation of thieving. British
Journal of Criminology, 38(2), 201–228.
Matt, S. M. (2004). Cybercrime: A comparative law analysis. Unpublished Dissertation submitted
for the Degree of Magister Legum (LLM) at the University of South Africa. Retrieved from
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/10500/2056/4/02chapter2.pdf.
McAfee. (2011). A good decade for cybercrime: McAfee’s look back at ten years of cybercrime,
report. Retrieved from http://www.mcafee.com/ca/resources/reports/rp-good-decade-for-
cybercrime.pdf.
McQuade, S. (ed.), (2009). The Encyclopedia of Cybercrime. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
18 K. Jaishankar

Mustaine, E.  E., & Tewksbury, R. (2000). Comparing the lifestyles of victims, offenders, and
victim-offenders: A routine activity theory assessment of similarities and differences for crimi-
nal incident participants. Sociological Focus, 33, 339–362.
Nasar, J., Hecht, P., & Wener, R. (2007). ‘Call if you have trouble’: Mobile phones and safety
among college students. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(4),
863–873.
Ngo, F. T., & Paternoster, R. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and
situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5(1), 773–793.
Ngo F., Jaishankar, K., & Agustina, J. R. (2017). Sexting: Current research gaps and legislative
issues. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(2), 161–168.
Norton (2011). Norton cybercrime report: The human impact. Retrieved from http://us.norton.
com/theme.jsp?themeid=cybercrime_report.
Parker, D. (1999). Automated crime, information security. Retrieved from http://www.infosecuri-
tymag.com/articles/1999/autocrime.shtml.
Parker, D. (2002). Automated crime, windowsecurity.com web site (Oct. 16, 2002), Retrieved from
http://secinf.net/misc/Automated_Crime_.html.
Perreault, S. (2011). Self-reported Internet victimization in Canada, 2009. Statistics Canada,
Ministry of Industry. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/
article/11530-eng.htm.
Policy, Research & Media. (January 2012). Cutting them free: How is the UK progressing in
protecting its children from sexual exploitation? Retrieved from http://www.barnardos.org.uk/
cuttingthemfree.pdf.
Reyns, B. W., Burek, M. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2011). The unintended consequences
of digital technology: exploring the relationship between sexting and cybervictimization.
Journal of Crime and Justice. iFirst, doi: 10.1080/0735648X.2011.641816, Available online:
7 Dec 2011.
Roberts, L. (2008). Cyber-victimisation in Australia: Extent, impact on individuals and responses.
TILES Briefing Paper No. 6.
Roberts, L.  D. (2009). Cyber-Victimization. In R.  Luppicini & R.  Adell (Eds.), Handbook of
research on technoethics (pp. 575–592). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.
Rumgay, J. (2010). When victims become offenders: in search of coherence in policy and practice.
Report of the Fawcett Society. Retrieved from http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/
When%20Victims%20Become%20Offenders%20Report%2014.12.04.pdf.
Şahin, M., Aydin, B., & Sari, S. V. (2012). Cyber bullying, cyber victimization and psychologi-
cal symptoms: A study in adolescents. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal,
41(1), 53–59.
Sakellariou, T., Carroll, A., & Houghton, S. (2012). Rates of cyber victimization and bullying
among male Australian primary and high school students. School Psychology International,
33, 533–549.
Schiller, E.  M., & Gradinger, P. (2013). Combating Cyberbullying and Cybervictimization.
Presentation on 15th April, 2013 at College of Education, University of Arizona.
Shaffer, J. N. (2003). The victim-offender overlap: Specifying the role of peer groups. Unpublished
Doctoral thesis submitted to the Pennsylvania State University, USA.
Smith, R., Grabosky, P., & Urbas, G. (2004). Cyber criminals on trial. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Statistics Canada (2002). Cyber-crime: issues, data sources and feasibility of collecting police-
reported statistics. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
Suresh, P., & Paul, J. (2010). Management of banking and financial services. Pearson: New Delhi.
Thomas, D., & Loader, B. (2000). Cybercrime in the information age. In: D.  Thomas and
B. Loader, (eds.). Cybercrime: Law Enforcement, Security and Surveillance in the Information
Age (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.
 1  Cyber Victimology: A New Sub-Discipline of the Twenty-First Century Victimology 19

Umarhathab, S., Rao, G. D. R., & Jaishankar, K. (2009). Cyber crimes in India: a study of emerg-
ing patterns of perpetration and victimization in Chennai city. Pakistan Journal of Criminology,
1(1), 51–66.
Wall, D. S. (1999). Cybercrimes: new wine, no bottles? In P. Davies, P. Francis & V. Jupp (eds.),
Invisible crimes: their victims and their regulation (pp. 105–39). London: Macmillan,
Wall, D.  S. (2001). Cyber crimes and the internet. In D.  Wall (ed.) Crime and the internet
(pp. 1–17). London: Routledge.
Wall, D. S. (2005). The internet as a conduit for criminal activity. In A. Pattavina (Ed.), Information
technology and the criminal justice system (pp. 78–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wall, D. S. (2008). Cybercrime and the culture of fear: Social science fiction(s) and the production
of knowledge about cybercrime. Information Communication and Society, 11(6), 861–884.
Wall, D. S. (2010). Cyber crimes. Class notes, masters course in criminology and law. School of
Law, University of Leeds. On personal communication.
WHOA. (2010). Cyber stalking statistics. Retrieved from http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/
stats/2010stats.pdf.
Wolak, J.  Mitchell, K.  J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization of youth: 5 years later.
Alexandria, VA: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K., & Ybarra, M. (2008). Online “predators” and their victims:
myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 63,
111–128.
Yar, M. (2005). The novelty of ‘cyber crime’: An assessment in light of routine activity theory.
European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 407–427:
Yar, M. (2006). Cybercrime and Society. London: Sage Publications.
Yar, M. (2010). The private policing of internet crime. In Y. Jewkes & M. Yar. (Eds.), Handbook of
internet crime (pp. 546–561). Cullompton: Willan Publishers.
Yar, M. (2012) E-Crime 2.0: the criminological landscape of new social media. Information
& Communications Technology Law, 21(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360083
4.2012.744224

View publication stats