Cybercrimeology

Cybercrimeology

Cybercrimeology is a podcast about cybercrime, its research and its researchers. We talk to top researchers from around the world to learn about different forms of cybercrime and their research. We learn about cybercrime theory, organized crime online, Darknet drug markets, cybercrime awareness and crime prevention, technology-facilitated intimate partner violence and much more. The podcast has been running since November of 2019 and there is still so much to learn. I am happy to have you along for the journey into this fascinating subject.

  1. Snapshots of Society: Studying Cybercrime Every Here

    1 dag siden

    Snapshots of Society: Studying Cybercrime Every Here

    Notes: Irnasya Hadi explains how growing up with the internet, and being frustrated by the limited connection between critical criminology and cybercrime, drew her toward the study of cyber insecurity. The conversation turns to Indonesia and the difficulty of producing nationally representative cybercrime research in a country with a very large population, uneven internet access and uneven documentation. She discusses why cybercrime theories, surveys and assumptions from places such as Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia cannot simply be imported into Indonesian or Asian contexts. The episode examines the stereotype that cybercrime is produced in Asia and victimizes people elsewhere. Hadi pushes back against this framing by noting that many of the victims of cybercrime in Asia are themselves Asian. She reflects on the imbalance between Global North and Global South knowledge production, especially when Global South researchers often have to know Northern theory while Northern researchers may know far less about Southern contexts. The conversation introduces the Snapshot of Society method, which begins with people and organizations already working on a topic, then moves to affected members of the public, then to a broader survey stage. Civil society organizations can provide an insider perspective on issues such as government data breaches, while affected members of the public can reveal where expert assumptions do or do not match lived experience. A central finding from Hadi’s work is that people may not be indifferent to government data breaches. Instead, they may care deeply but feel too fatigued, resigned or worn down to respond. The discussion explores generational differences in how Indonesians understand government data breaches. Younger people may be more aware of cascading risks such as spam calls, identity theft and data being sold online, while older generations may interpret exposure to online risk differently. She discusses the role of insider knowledge in qualitative research, including how local jokes, shared experience and awareness of government priorities can shape what a researcher hears and how they interpret it. The episode closes with the broader promise of the Snapshot of Society approach: locally grounded studies from different places could be added together to build a richer global picture of cybercrime that does not simply mean the United States and the United Kingdom. About our guest: Irnasya Hadi https://www.linkedin.com/in/irnasya-shafira-hadi-9524b0145/ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=dnc6cUcAAAAJ https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8929-329X   Papers or resources mentioned in this episode: Hadi, I. S., Chang, L. Y. C., & Davies, S. G. (2026). The Snapshot of Society: Challenges of Studying Cyber Insecurity in the Global South? Asian Journal of Criminology, 21, Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-026-09494-4 Hadi, I. S. (2025). Inaction as Nonformal Reaction: Rethinking Crime Perception in the Era of Data Breaches. Jurnal Kriminologi Indonesia, 1(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.7454/kriminologi.v1.i1.1000   Other: “The data analysis process uses Atlas.ti software, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, printouts, and highlighters.” (Hadi et al., 2026, p. 14).  🤣

    30 min.
  2. No News is Bad News: AI Agents, Information Value, Accountability & Democracy

    1. jun.

    No News is Bad News: AI Agents, Information Value, Accountability & Democracy

    Notes: Dr. Bridgman discusses his path from Winnipeg to McGill and how he became involved with the Media Ecosystem Observatory while still a PhD student. The conversation turns to the origins of the Media Ecosystem Observatory during the 2019 Canadian federal election and how its work continued through the pandemic, the Hogue Commission and the growing focus on information ecosystem health in Canada. Dr. Bridgman explains why COVID-19 and AI have been two major disruptions in the information environment and why AI agents may become one of the main ways people encounter public information. The episode looks at the shift from traditional search, where users clicked through to sources, to AI summaries that may give users enough information without sending them to the people or organizations that produced it. Dr. Bridgman discusses the problem of value transfer, explaining how aggregators have captured value from original information production and how AI agents may become even more powerful aggregators. The conversation considers how common AI news use already is, including the difficulty of measuring it because many people may not recognize that ordinary search now includes AI-generated answers. Dr. Bridgman explains what he means by an AI agent: a general intelligence connected to tools that allow it to search, read, summarize and act in digital environments. The discussion uses the idea of AI as a “brilliant intern” to explain why these systems can be useful, capable and eager to please, while still lacking judgment about the broader consequences of how they complete a task. The episode closes by looking at the harms that may follow if original information production is not sustained, including poorer information, weaker attribution and new challenges for democratic accountability. About our guest: Dr. Aengus Bridgman https://meo.ca/people/aengus-bridgman https://abridgman.ca/ Papers or resources mentioned in this episode: Owen, T., & Bridgman, A. (2026). AI News Audit: How AI Models Use and Distribute Canadian Journalism. Media Ecosystem Observatory. https://meo.ca/work/how-ai-models-use-and-distribute-canadian-journalism Owen, T., & Bridgman, A. (2026). AI News Audit: AI, Canadian Journalism, and Paths for Policy Action. Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy. https://www.mediatechdemocracy.com/all-work/ai-canadian-journalism-and-paths-for-policy-action Other: Media Ecosystem Observatory https://meo.ca/ Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy https://www.mediatechdemocracy.com/

    34 min.
  3. Public Interest Technology: Making Sense of Security in an AI World

    1. maj

    Public Interest Technology: Making Sense of Security in an AI World

    Notes: The conversation begins with his path into teaching public policy, despite never having planned a conventional academic career, and why translating technical subjects for non-technical students became rewarding work. He explains the importance of analogies and memorable language when communicating difficult concepts, noting that terms such as “security theatre” can help audiences quickly grasp complex ideas before deeper nuance is added. The original meaning of security theatre was intentionally critical, though he later came to recognize that symbolic security measures can sometimes provide reassurance and psychological value even when they do little to reduce objective risk. Effective cybersecurity often depends on economics, incentives, usability, and human behaviour, not simply technical controls. He reflects on the development of fields examining both the economics and psychology of security. The discussion examines AI-generated content, manipulated images, and why many current concerns about authenticity are extensions of older problems that existed throughout the history of photography and media. He warns that conversational AI systems can create parasocial relationships in which users relate to corporations as though they were trusted companions or advisers. On harmful technologies, he argues that regulation remains one of society’s most effective tools, comparing AI governance to safety regulation in aviation, pharmaceuticals, and food systems. He emphasizes the need for more “public interest technologists” capable of translating between engineering, policy, and social science perspectives. AI is likely to enhance both cyber offenders and defenders. He suggests phishing and scams may scale through automation, while defenders will also use AI to detect fraud and patch vulnerabilities. The conversation also explores whether AI will deepen inequality through access to computing power, with a more optimistic view offered that increasingly efficient models may broaden access rather than restrict it. About our guest:  Bruce Schneier  https://www.schneier.com/ https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty/bruce-schneier https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/ Papers or resources mentioned in this episode: Schneier, B. (2003). Beyond fear: Thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world. Copernicus Books. Schneier, B. (2018). Click here to kill everybody: Security and survival in a hyper-connected world. W. W. Norton & Company. Schneier, B. (2023). A hacker's mind: How the powerful bend society's rules, and how to bend them back. W. W. Norton & Company. Schneier, B. (2025). Rewiring democracy: AI, governance, and the future of politics. MIT Press. Other: Public Interest Technology University Network  https://pitun.org/  Bruce Schneier Essays and Writing https://www.schneier.com/essays/ The Cottingley Fairies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies Bicentennial Man (Film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicentennial_Man_(film) The Fifth element (Film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Element Thank you to the CICC (https://www.cicc-iccc.org) for enabling this interview. Mental note, next time don’t bring water in a plastic bottle.

    35 min.
  4. Who You Gonna Call?: Cybercrime Types and Expectations of Police Response

    1. apr.

    Who You Gonna Call?: Cybercrime Types and Expectations of Police Response

    Notes: Cybercrime is often treated as a distinct phenomenon, but there are strong continuities with offline crime that are frequently overlooked. Digital technologies change behaviour and scale, but do not fundamentally alter the social dynamics underlying crime. There is a significant gap between the harms experienced by individuals and the institutions available to respond to those harms. Federal law enforcement has expanded cyber capabilities, but local and state-level responses to individual victimization remain limited. Private sector actors, particularly financial institutions, play a major role in responding to financially motivated cybercrime. Non-financial cyber harms, such as sextortion or image-based abuse, often fall outside both private and public response systems. In the absence of clear response pathways, private companies are emerging to fill the gap, sometimes exploiting victims seeking help. Public attitudes toward police in cybercrime contexts are shaped by perceptions that police do not care or are unable to help. These attitudes mirror broader perceptions of policing, indicating continuity between offline and online trust dynamics. Perceptions of police capability differ depending on the type of cybercrime: Computer-focused crimes (e.g., malware) are associated with lower perceived police usefulness Interpersonal cybercrimes (e.g., sextortion) are associated with higher perceived police relevance Perceived likelihood of victimization reduces confidence in police effectiveness, while fear increases it. Gender differences emerge, with men less likely to believe police can help in cybercrime contexts. A central problem is definitional ambiguity: There is no consistent definition of cybercrime across agencies This limits measurement, comparison, and policy design Reporting systems are fragmented and often poorly understood by the public. Cybercrime often involves chains of offences, making classification and response assignment difficult. Comparative research suggests that investment and coordination can improve public confidence, but large-scale successes do not always translate to individual-level trust. About our guest: Rachel McNealey https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-mcnealey-4b8720284/ Papers or resources mentioned in this episode: McNealey, R. L., Figueroa, C. I., & Maher, C. A. (2025). “Police can't help you”: Exploring influences on perceptions of policing cybercrime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 101, 102542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102542 Hale, R., & Penzendstadler, N. (2025, March 20). Digital forensics firms promise help to sextortion victims. Some leave them worse off. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2025/03/20/digital-forensics-sexortion-blackmail-recovery-services/81934584007/ Other: Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3): https://www.ic3.gov/

    31 min.
  5. Disordered Sense-Making: Conflict Narratives in the Digital Era

    1. mar.

    Disordered Sense-Making: Conflict Narratives in the Digital Era

    Notes: Dr Samuel Tanner began his doctoral research examining war crimes and armed militias involved in mass violence in the Balkans, conducting extensive fieldwork and interviews with participants on multiple sides of the conflict. A central puzzle of his PhD research was not denial of violence, but how individuals who acknowledged their participation struggled to explain how they came to commit acts of mass violence. This led to an intellectual shift from viewing violence as purely intentional to understanding it as embedded in structures, representations, and processes of sense-making. Following a postdoctoral year at MIT working with political scientist Roger Petersen, Dr Tanner deepened his focus on the relationship between political violence, identity narratives, and institutional structures. After joining the Université de Montréal, he shifted toward research on policing and later co-led a major project examining right-wing extremism in Canada beginning in 2013. The Canadian project revealed that relatively few participants were “true believers.” Many were navigating economic precarity, cultural uncertainty, and political confusion, often influenced by moral or ideological entrepreneurs. Fieldwork in this area involved significant challenges, including surveillance, threats, cancelled interviews, and difficulties accessing participants. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr Tanner and colleagues examined anti-restriction movements and observed how disinformation and fragmented information ecosystems shaped divergent interpretations of shared events. He argues that information is not neutral. Information produces order. The ways in which information is produced, amplified, and consumed shape how individuals interpret reality and coordinate socially. Social media platforms function as privatized public spaces, structuring discourse through governance mechanisms that are not democratically accountable. Dr Tanner’s more recent research focuses on the evolution of extremist discourse, particularly the emergence of “pop masculinism,” where gendered and anti-feminist narratives are embedded within popular culture, fitness culture, gaming aesthetics, and entrepreneurial self-discipline discourse. The “sigma” discourse operates as a gateway into broader manosphere ideologies by framing personal discipline and self-improvement in opposition to women, feminism, and equality discourse. Interviews with young men and women reveal perceptions of a growing gender gap, including feelings among some young men of status loss and lack of positive role models. Dr Tanner raises concern about the erosion of shared institutional facts and the desynchronization of social expectations, suggesting that social trust depends upon shared informational baselines. He argues for an expanded criminology attentive to digital environments, disinformation, and the governance of online prejudice, aligning with broader developments in digital criminology. Central to his work is the question: how do people make sense of their world when institutional anchors weaken and informational environments fragment? About our guest: Dr Samuel Tanner https://crim.umontreal.ca/repertoire-departement/professeurs/professeur/in/in15014/sg/Samuel Tanner/ Papers or resources mentioned in this episode: Tanner, Samuel & Gillardin, François (2025).Toxic Communication on TikTok: Sigma Masculinities and Gendered Disinformation.Social Media + Society, 11(1).https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251313844 Open access PDF:https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251313844 Leman-Langlois, Stéphane, Campana, Aurélie & Tanner, Samuel (2024).The Great Right North: Inside Far-Right Activism in Canada. McGill-Queen’s University Press. (Book overview: https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.20829378) People mentioned in this episode: Jean-Paul Brodeur — Presses de l’Université de Montréal (institutional collection page) https://pum.umontreal.ca/collections/jean-paul-brodeur/ Roger D. Petersen — MIT Political Science profile  https://polisci.mit.edu/people/roger-petersen Aurélie Campana — Université Laval (Faculté des sciences sociales)   https://www.fss.ulaval.ca/notre-faculte/repertoire-du-personnel/aurelie-campana Stéphane Leman-Langlois — Université Laval (Faculté des sciences sociales)   https://www.fss.ulaval.ca/notre-faculte/repertoire-du-personnel/stephane-leman-langlois François Gillardin — Centre international de criminologie comparée (CICC), Université de Montréal  https://www.cicc-iccc.org/fr/personnes/etudiants-supervises/gillardin Francis Dupuis-Déri — UQAM Professor   https://professeurs.uqam.ca/professeur/dupuis-deri.francis Anastasia Powell — RMIT University   https://www.rmit.edu.au/profiles/p/anastasia-powell Other: The term enrobage naïf (or naïf enrobage, as said) refers to a veneer of naivety; in this case, a problematic discourse wrapped in innocent or everyday cultural forms, akin to a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    36 min.
  6. Beyond “The Cybercriminal”: Understanding Diversity in Cyber Offenders

    1. feb.

    Beyond “The Cybercriminal”: Understanding Diversity in Cyber Offenders

    Notes:Dr Bekkers describes his academic pathway from psychology to criminology and explains why his research focus has consistently been on offenders and their behaviour rather than on offences or technologies.Cybercrime offenders are often portrayed as a homogeneous group of highly skilled hackers, but research shows they are a heterogeneous population with distinct motivations, skills, and pathways into crime.A key distinction can be made between financially motivated cybercrime, such as online fraud, and more technically complex cyber-dependent crimes such as hacking, DDoS attacks, and website defacement.Financially motivated cybercrime offenders often resemble traditional offline offenders and may commit both online and offline crimes, with similar risk factors, peer influences, and personality profiles.Technically skilled cyber offenders tend to show different characteristics, including higher levels of self-control and intrinsic motivations such as curiosity, challenge, and skill development.Research suggests that traditional criminological theories still help explain some forms of cybercrime, particularly financially motivated offences, while other forms require additional or adapted theoretical approaches.Gaming environments may act as pathways into certain forms of cybercrime by facilitating skill development, exposure to deviant peers, and access to illicit online forums, though gaming may also be protective in some contexts.Parental supervision and open communication may play a role in shaping online behaviour, similar to the role of guardianship and social control in offline offending.Law enforcement responses differ depending on the type of cybercrime, with financially motivated offences often handled by local police and more technical crimes investigated by specialized units.Dr Bekkers highlights the need for longitudinal research and greater engagement with offenders to better understand pathways into cybercrime and to inform prevention and intervention strategies.About our guest:Dr Luuk Bekkers https://www.thuas.com/research/research-groups/team-cybercrime-cybersecurity https://www.linkedin.com/in/luuk-bekkers-79621b162/ Papers or resources mentioned in this episode:Bekkers, L. M. J., Moneva, A., & Leukfeldt, E. R. (2025). Distinct group, distinct traits? A comparison of risk factors across cybercrime offenders, traditional offenders and non-offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2025.2546311 Bekkers, L. M., Holt, T. J., & Leukfeldt, E. R. (2025). The psychological correlates of cybercrime offending: Exploring the self-control/social learning relationship in serious cyber-dependent crime. European Journal of Criminology, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708251378356 Bekkers, L. M. J., Holt, T. J., & Leukfeldt, E. R. (2025). Exploring the factors that differentiate individual and group offenders in cyber-dependent crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 101, 102522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102522

    25 min.
  7. Systematically Improving Cybersecurity Training

    1. jan.

    Systematically Improving Cybersecurity Training

    Notes:Julia Prümmer describes her transition from legal psychology into cybersecurity research and how psychological methods shape her approach to cybersecurity training.The discussion explores the role of systematic reviews in mapping what a research field actually knows, rather than relying on highly visible or frequently cited studies.Findings from a large-scale systematic review of cybersecurity training methods are discussed, highlighting the diversity of training approaches used across the literature.The episode examines results from a meta-analysis assessing the overall effectiveness of cybersecurity training and the gap between improvements in precursors such as knowledge and intentions versus observable behaviour.Julia explains why many cybersecurity training programmes lack explicit behavioural theory and rely on trial-and-error design choices.A key theme is the distinction between cybersecurity behaviours that require active engagement, such as phishing detection, and behaviours that may benefit from habit formation, such as screen locking or password management.The conversation draws on research into email habits and phishing susceptibility to illustrate how habitual behaviour can increase vulnerability in certain contexts.Julia discusses the use of psychological theory, including habit formation and implementation intentions, to design and evaluate cybersecurity training interventions.The episode concludes with reflections on the future of cybersecurity training research and the need for behaviour-specific, theory-informed models.About our Guest:Julia Prümmer https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/medewerkers/julia-prummer#tab-1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/julia-prümmer-376778159/ Papers or resources mentioned in this episode Prümmer, J., van Steen, T., & van den Berg, B. (2024). A systematic review of current cybersecurity training methods. Computers & Security, 136, 103585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2023.103585 Prümmer, J. (2024). The role of cognition in developing successful cybersecurity training programs: Passive vs. active engagement. In D. D. Schmorrow & C. M. Fidopiastis (Eds.), Augmented cognition. HCII 2024 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 14695, pp. 185–199). Springer. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/4093101 Prümmer, J., van Steen, T., & van den Berg, B. (2025). Assessing the effect of cybersecurity training on end-users: A meta-analysis. Computers & Security, 150, 104206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2024.104206 Vishwanath, A. (2015). Examining the distinct antecedents of e-mail habits and its influence on the outcomes of a phishing attack. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 570–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12126 Other If this topic of training as an intervention to reduce susceptibility to cybercrime, you might also enjoy the recent Episodes 123, 116, 110, 106, 60, and 59 that are all on related topics. If you are brave you can even go right back to Episodes 6, 7 and 8, there is a lot to listen to.

    49 min.
  8. The Human beneath the Hoodie: Profiling pathways into cybercrime

    01.12.2025

    The Human beneath the Hoodie: Profiling pathways into cybercrime

    otes: Melissa completed her PhD after two decades of operational work, bringing a pracademic perspective to cyber profiling and offender pathways. Her research focuses on understanding the human behind the keyboard through developmental history, motivation and lived experience. Initial motivations among hackers often centre on curiosity, challenge seeking and belonging rather than financial gain. Many participants reported early interest in technology, solitary online activity and experiences they described as destabilising events. Melissa distinguishes between lawful and criminal pathways using indicators such as modifying games, low self-control and a history of property offending. Her work highlights misunderstandings about intent, the role of gamification and the abstraction of harm when offending takes place online. She argues that cybercrime is a societal problem requiring early education, parental and teacher capability building and partnerships with tech and gaming companies. Diversion programs are essential to guide youth with technical interest toward prosocial cybersecurity roles rather than criminalisation. About our guest: Dr Melissa Martineau https://www.linkedin.com/in/melissa-martineau-369bb5258/ https://www.captechu.edu/webinar-series-melissa-martineau Papers or resources mentioned in this episode: Martineau, M. (2023). The pathways of cyber dependent offenders. Journal of Cybercriminology, 3(3), 32. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-6756/3/3/32 Martineau, M. (2024). Distinguishing lawful and criminal hacker trajectories. Journal of Cybercriminology, 4(4), 45. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-6756/4/4/45 Other: Dr Martineau wanted to share something called PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) which is a helpful guideline designed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews. You can find out more about it here.    http://www.prisma-statement.org

    34 min.

Om

Cybercrimeology is a podcast about cybercrime, its research and its researchers. We talk to top researchers from around the world to learn about different forms of cybercrime and their research. We learn about cybercrime theory, organized crime online, Darknet drug markets, cybercrime awareness and crime prevention, technology-facilitated intimate partner violence and much more. The podcast has been running since November of 2019 and there is still so much to learn. I am happy to have you along for the journey into this fascinating subject.

Måske vil du også synes om