RESUMEN
Introduction: Few studies have examined the sales of stolen account credentials on darkweb markets. In this study, we tested how advertisement characteristics affect the popularity of illicit online advertisements offering account credentials. Unlike previous criminological research, we take a novel approach by assessing the applicability of knowledge on regular consumer behaviours instead of theories explaining offender behaviour. Methods: We scraped 1,565 unique advertisements offering credentials on a darkweb market. We used this panel data set to predict the simultaneous effects of the asking price, endorsement cues and title elements on advertisement popularity by estimating several hybrid panel data models. Results: Most of our findings disconfirm our hypotheses. Asking price did not affect advertisement popularity. Endorsement cues, including vendor reputation and cumulative sales and views, had mixed and negative relationships, respectively, with advertisement popularity. Discussion: Our results might suggest that account credentials are not simply regular products, but high-risk commodities that, paradoxically, become less attractive as they gain popularity. This study highlights the necessity of a deeper understanding of illicit online market dynamics to improve theories on illicit consumer behaviours and assist cybersecurity experts in disrupting criminal business models more effectively. We propose several avenues for future experimental research to gain further insights into these illicit processes.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This paper argues that cyber-dependent offending differs in important ways from other types of offending, which poses challenges to established life-course criminological explanations. Moreover, this study examines to what extent life circumstances in both private and professional life are differentially related to cyber-offending and traditional offending. METHODS: This study analyzes longitudinal registration data of all adults who have been at least once suspected of a cybercrime (N = 870) and/or a traditional crime (N = 1,144,740) in the Netherlands during the period of 2000-2012. Using fixed effects panel models, within-person effects of household composition, employment, and enrollment in education on the likelihood of cyber-offending are compared with those for traditional offending. RESULTS: Similar results are found with respect to individual's private lives. An individual is less likely to commit cybercrime as well as traditional crime in years in which that individual shares a household with a partner, whether with or without children, than in other years. For the professional life, several important differences are found. Employment and enrollment in education are not statistically significantly related to cyber-offending, whereas they reduce the likelihood of traditional offending. In fact, for these professional life circumstances, opposite effects are found in this population. CONCLUSIONS: This first study to empirically compare cyber-offending and traditional offending over the life-course finds important similarities and differences. The results hint at the importance of possible cybercriminal opportunities provided by otherwise preventive professional life circumstances.
RESUMEN
While DNA analysis is considered by many the gold standard in forensic science, there is ample room for variation in interpretation and reporting. This seems especially the case when working with (complex) mixed DNA profiles. Two consecutive studies on differential DNA reporting were conducted. In Study 1, we first examined type and magnitude of differences when forensic DNA experts across institutes and jurisdictions are handed an identical forensic case with mixed profiles. In Study 2, we explore the impact of the observed differential reporting on jurists' evaluation of the DNA evidence. 19 DNA expert reports from forensic institutes across Western jurisdictions were obtained. Differences between the reports were many and include extensiveness of the reports, explanations of technical issues, use of explanatory appendices, level of reporting, use of context information, and, most markedly, type and substantive content of the conclusions. In Study 2, a group of criminal law students judged a selection of these reports in a quasi experimental study design. Findings show that these differing reports have quite different evidentiary value for jurists, depending on which expert authored the report. It is argued that the impact of differential reporting on jurists' evaluation was so fundamental and substantive that it is seems reasonable to claim that in an actual court case it could make the difference between acquittal and conviction.