Cyber Crime Theories - Essay Example

Introduction

Cybercrimes are some of the current offenses in Criminal Law that grows every day with new technology. The principles of Criminal Law have not clearly defined the extent against cybercrimes such as hacking. The penalties for hacking are not crystal-clear as there still is a grey area between legal and illegal hacking. The detection of hackers is always a challenge because hackers cover their tracks and hide in cyberspace. Unless hackers make mistakes, it is hard to track them. Yoshida et al. (2017) formulated a method of detecting hackers committing water torture attacks using Domain Name Information and suggested that for efficient detection of hackers in the future, caution should be taken for random non-malicious domain names (Yoshida et al., 2017). This paper discusses forms of social engineering tactics that hackers employ, social norms of hacker subculture, and stigmas and labels surrounding the hacker.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Forms of Social Engineering Tactics

Some of the forms of social engineering tactics hackers use are baiting, phishing, scareware, quid pro quo, and pretexting. Baiting involves scam promises that attract victims to disclose their credentials online and physically (Yoshida et al., 2017). The hacker uses knowledge of victims' interests and makes enticing promises in line with them to trick them into giving important details. An excellent example of baiting is offering free entertainment on a website where the user is required first to fill in a questionnaire their details, and then the details are used to hack into their accounts. The second tactic used to hack is phishing, which is a form of obtaining users' personal information and using misleading links and inflicting fear to make a user disclose information by responding fast (Yoshida et al., 2017). An example of phishing is sending a link to victims’ emails that send terror attack messages when clicked.

Pretexting is a hacking tactic mostly used by identity thieves to obtain details such as phone numbers, addresses, and security numbers after winning the victim's trust through the impersonation of another relevant person (Yoshida et al., 2017). For example, a scammer who impersonates a customer care service provider from a user’s bank to get information to steal from their accounts. The scareware tactic is more like baiting, but it involves toying with the insecurities of a victim. This is mostly used by malware creators who trigger false alarms to users. An example of scareware is when a hacker convinces a user that their computer programs have defects to install malware programs. Then there is the quid pro quo hacking technique, which is about a hacker promising provision of a service in exchange for information (Yoshida et al., 2017). For example, a hacker may convince workers of an IT company to log out of a certain program for updates or installation of another better program.

Social Norms of Hacker Subculture

The social norms of the hacker subculture are technology, knowledge, commitment, categorization, and law. According to Holt (2020), technology connects all the other four normative orders. Most hackers are introduced to computer technology at an early age and build a special connection with them as they grow (Holt, 2020). For example, children who are introduced to computer games may end up graduating to coding mastery and become hackers mostly for leisure as they grow because games do not stimulate their minds anymore (Holt, 2020). In the case of knowledge, hackers master a lot of information about computers and their advancements with time, meaning that they possess a high Intelligence quotient. For example, hackers enjoy following up on new technology and trying out whatever they learn by themselves.

Another social norm of a hacker subculture is categorization according to what they do with the knowledge of computer technology they have (Holt, 2020). For example, hackers use their coding knowledge to renovate the system, and crackers take advantage of gaps and illegally break into a system. Hackers have a virtue of commitment; they learn by trial and error and persevere until they get are able to hack. This calls for a lot of effort and sacrifice as it can be time-consuming. The last norm concerns the law; hackers have a culture of being well-versed with their activities' legalities and illegalities. For example, in the event one of them committing an offense, they may cover it up using their skills.

Stigmas and Labels

An article by Matthews & Lovell (2019) warns computer users on the tactics used by hackers and suggests ways of recognizing these malicious techniques and avoiding them (Matthews & Lovell, 2019). It urges users to be aware of redirected and impersonated links and be cautious with their email passwords and downloading new apps. It is also educative on how hackers perform malware attacks and how a computer user can avoid it. The tone of this article is pessimistic; it only dwells on the negativity of hacking. The article fails to mention the good hackers who hack to improve systems and not for personal gains, labels all hackers as evil (Matthews & Lovell, 2019). This can make good hackers suffer from public stigma for being judged for who they are not.

Conclusion

In conclusion, hacking is harmful and costly when illegally used. If hacking is used to learn and solve the problems in society, it could make the world a better place. In addition, the principles of Criminal Law should be amended to take care of all aspects surrounding cybercrimes

References

Holt T.J. (2020). Computer hacking and the hacker subculture. In: Holt T., Bossler A. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of International Cybercrime and Cyberdeviance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78440-3_31

Matthews, R., & Lovell, K. (2019). Don’t click that link! How criminals access your digital devices and what happens when they do. In The Conversation.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-dont-click-link-criminals-access.html

Yoshida, T., Kawakami, K., Kobayashi, R., Kato, M., Okada, M., & Kishimoto, H. (2017). Detection and Filtering System for DNS Water Torture Attacks Relying Only on Domain Name Information. Journal of Information Processing, 25, 854-865. DOI: 10.2197/ipsjjip.25.854.