Responding to cybercrime: Results of a comparison between community members and police personnel

Person typing on laptop

Advancements in information technology are sources of both opportunity and vulnerability for citizens. Previous research indicates that there are significant challenges for police in investigating cybercrime, that community expectations about police responses are based largely on media representations, and that victims experience high levels of frustration and stigmatisation.

This paper examines the views of the Australian community and law enforcement officers about the policing of cybercrime. Results suggest that police personnel are more likely to view cybercrime as serious, and community members are more likely to ascribe blame to victims. Results also indicate a discrepancy between police and community members in their views of the efficacy of police responses.

These discrepancies contribute to public dissatisfaction. Therefore, the paper covers some general strategies for short-and long-term cybercrime prevention.


URLs correct as at April 2021

ACORN—see Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network

Attorney-General’s Department 2013. National plan to combat cybercrime. Now available from the Department of Home Affairs:

Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network (ACORN) 2014. What is cybercrime?

Australian Federal Police 2019. Cyber crime.

Black A, Lumsden K & Hadlington L 2019. ‘Why don’t you block them?’ Police officers’ constructions of the ideal victim when responding to reports of interpersonal cybercrime. In K Lumsden and E Harmer (eds), Online othering: Exploring digital violence and discrimination on the web. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan: 355–378.

Bond E & Tyrrell K 2018. Understanding revenge pornography: A national survey of police officers and staff in England and Wales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Bossler AM & Holt TJ 2014. Further examining officer perceptions and support for online community policing. In CD Marcum & GE Higgins (eds), Social networking as a criminal enterprise. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press: 167–96

Bossler AM & Holt TJ 2012. Patrol officers’ perceived role in responding to cybercrime. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 35(1): 165–81.

Bossler AM, Holt TJ, Cross C & Burruss GW 2019. Policing fraud in England and Wales: Examining constables’ and sergeants’ online fraud preparedness. Security Journal.

Broll R & Huey L 2015. ‘Just being mean to somebody isn’t a police matter’: Police perspectives on policing cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence 14(2): 155–76.

Casey E 2019. The chequered past and risky future of digital forensics. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 51(6): 649–664.

Chang LYC, Zhong LY & Grabosky PN 2018. Citizen co-production of cyber security: Self-help, vigilantes, and cybercrime. Regulation & Governance 12(1): 101–14.

Choo KR 2010. Harnessing information and communications technologies in community policing. In J Putt (ed), Community policing in Australia. Research and public policy series no. 111. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology: 67–75.

Christie N 1986. The ideal victim. In E Fattah (ed), From crime policy to victim policy: Reorienting the justice system. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan: 17–30.

Cross C 2020. Reflections on the reporting of fraud in Australia. Policing: An International Journal 43(1): 49–61.

Cross C 2019. ‘Oh we can’t actually do anything about that’: The problematic nature of jurisdiction for online fraud victims. Criminology & Criminal Justice.

Cross C 2018a. Denying victim status to online fraud victims: The challenges of being a ‘non-ideal victim’. In M Duggan (ed), Revisiting the ideal victim concept: Developments in critical victimology. Bristol, UK: Policy Press: 243–62

Cross C 2018b. Expectations vs reality: Responding to online fraud across the fraud justice network. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 55: 1–12.

Cross C 2018c. Victims’ motivations for reporting to the ‘fraud justice network.’ Police Practice and Research 19(6): 550–564.

Cross C, Holt T, Powell A & Wilson M 2021. Responding to cybercrime: Perceptions and need of Australian police and the general community. Report to the Criminology Research Advisory Council. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology

Cross C, Richards K & Smith RG 2016. The reporting experiences and support needs of victims of online fraud. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 518. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Crow MS, Snyder JA, Crichlow VJ & Smykla JO 2017. Community perceptions of police body worn cameras: The impact of views on fairness, fear, performance, and privacy. Criminal Justice and Behavior 44(4): 589–610.

Davis B & Dossetor K 2010. (Mis)perceptions of crime in Australia. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 396. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Department of Home Affairs 2020. Australia’s cyber security strategy 2020.

Dodge C & Burruss G 2020. Policing cybercrime: Responding to the growing problem and considering future solutions. In R Leukfeldt & TJ Holt (eds), The human factor of cybercrime. London: Routledge: 339–58

Dodge A & Spencer DC 2018. Online sexual violence, child pornography or something else entirely? Police responses to non-consensual intimate image sharing among youth. Social & Legal Studies 27(5): 636–57.

Gorard S 2017. Research design: Creating robust approaches for the social sciences. London: Sage

Hadlington L, Lumsden K, Black A & Ferra F 2018. A qualitative exploration of police officers’ experiences, challenges, and perceptions of cybercrime. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice.

Henry N, Flynn A & Powell A 2018. Policing image-based sexual abuse: Stakeholder perspectives. Police Practice and Research 19(6): 565–81.

Hinduja S 2004. Perceptions of local and state law enforcement concerning the role of computer crime investigative teams. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 27(3): 341–57.

Hinduja S & Schafer JA 2009. US cybercrime units on the world wide web. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 32(2): 278–96.

Holt TJ 2018. Regulating cybercrime through law enforcement and industry mechanisms. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 679(1): 140–57.

Holt TJ & Bossler AM 2016. Cybercrime in progress: Theory and prevention of technology-enabled offenses. London: Routledge

Holt TJ & Bossler AM 2012a. Police perceptions of computer crimes in two southeastern cities: An examination from the viewpoint of patrol officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice 37(3): 396–412.

Holt TJ & Bossler AM 2012b. Predictors of patrol officer interest in cybercrime training and investigation in selected United States Police Departments. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15(9): 464–72.

Holt TJ, Bossler AM & Fitzgerald S 2010. Examining state and local law enforcement perceptions of computer crime. In TJ Holt (ed), Crime on-line: Correlates, causes, and context. Raleigh, NC: Carolina Academic Press: 221–46

Holt TJ, Brewer R & Goldsmith A 2019. Digital drift and the ‘sense of injustice’: Counter-productive policing of youth cybercrime. Deviant Behavior 40(9): 1, 144, 156.

Huey L, Nhan J & Broll R 2013. ‘Uppity civilians’ and ‘cyber-vigilantes’: The role of the general public in policing cyber-crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice 13(1): 81–97.

Jang H, Joo HJ & Zhao J 2010. Determinants of public confidence in police: An international perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice 38(1): 57–68.

Kremer J 2014. Policing cybercrime or militarizing cybersecurity? Security mindsets and the regulation of threats from cyberspace. Information & Communications Technology Law 23(3): 220–37.

McGuire M & Dowling S 2013. Cybercrime: A review of the evidence—Summary of key findings and implications. Home Office Research Report no. 75.

Millman CM, Winder B & Griffiths MD 2017. UK-based police officers’ perceptions of, and role in investigating, cyber-harassment as a crime. International Journal of Technoethics 8(1): 87–102.

New South Wales Police Force 2018. Annual report 2017–2018. Sydney: New South Wales Police Force.

Nouh M, Nurse JRC, Webb H & Goldsmith M 2019. Cybercrime investigators are users too! Understanding the socio-technical challenges faced by law enforcement. Paper to 2019 Workshop on Usable Security, 24 February 2019, San Diego, CA.

NSWPF—see New South Wales Police Force

Powell A 2010. Configuring consent: Emerging technologies, unauthorized sexual images and sexual assault. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 43(1): 76–90.

Powell A & Henry N 2018. Policing technology-facilitated sexual violence against adult victims: Police and service sector perspectives. Policing and Society 28(3): 291–307.

QPS—see Queensland Police Service

Queensland Police Service 2019. Reporting cybercrime.

Randa R 2013. The influence of the cyber-social environment on fear of victimization: Cyberbullying and school. Security Journal 26(4): 331–48.

Riek M, Bohme R & Moore T 2015. Measuring the influence of perceived cybercrime risk on online service avoidance. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 13(2): 261–73.

Wall DS 2008a. Cybercrime and the culture of fear: Social science fiction(s) and the production of knowledge about cybercrime. Information, Communication & Society 11(6): 861–84.

Wall DS 2008b. Cybercrime, media and insecurity: The shaping of public perceptions of cybercrime. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 22(1–2): 45–63.

Wall DS 2007. Policing cybercrimes: Situating the public police in networks of security within cyberspace. Police Practice and Research 8(2): 183–205.

Weimann G 2016. Going dark: Terrorism on the dark web. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 39(3): 195–206.

Willits D & Nowacki J 2016. The use of specialized cybercrime policing units: An organizational analysis. Criminal Justice Studies 29(2): 105–24.