Advertisement

The Social Organization of Actors in Stolen Data Markets

Chapter
  • 344 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Cybercrime and Cybersecurity book series (PSCYBER)

Abstract

This chapter discusses social organization frameworks, and applies Best and Luckenbill’s framework model to the study of stolen data market participants. The framework recognizes five different types of social organizations (loners, colleagues, peers, teams, and formal organizations) based on characteristics such as mutual association, mutual participation, elaborate division of labor, and extended organization. Based on these characteristics of organizational complexity, stolen data forums operate concurrently at different levels of complexity. While some forums have longer duration of operations, others provide evidence for the sophisticated division of labor via specialized roles for members. Hence, the differentiation depends on the nature of the transaction more than on the nature of the forum.

Keywords

Social organization Colleagues Formal organization Trust Escrow 

References

  1. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (2006). Self-injurers as loners: The social organization of solitary deviance. Deviant Behavior, 26, 345–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aspers, P. (2011). Markets. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  3. Best, J., & Luckenbill, D. F. (1994). Organizing deviance (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2010). The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Chu, B., Holt, T. J., & Ahn, G. J. (2010). Examining the creation, distribution, and function of malware on-line. Technical Report for National Institute of Justice. NIJ Grant No. 2007-IJ-CX-0018. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/230112.pdf
  7. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of doing qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Cross, J. C. (2000). Passing the buck: Risk avoidance and risk management in the illegal/informal drug trade. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 20, 68–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Decker, S. H., Bynum, T., & Weisel, D. (1998). A tale of two cities: Gangs as organized crime groups. In J. Miller, C. L. Maxson, & M. W. Klein (Eds.), The modern gang reader (pp. 73–93). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Decker, S. H., & Chapman, M. T. (2008). Drug smugglers on drug smuggling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Franklin, J., Paxson, V., Perrig, A., & Savage, S. (2007). An inquiry into the nature and cause of the wealth of internet miscreants. Paper presented at CCS07, October 29–November 2, 2007, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
  13. Herley, C., & Florencio, D. (2010). Nobody sells gold for the price of silver: Dishonesty, uncertainty and the underground economy. In T. Moor, D. J. Pym, & C. Ioannidis (Eds.), Economics of information security and privacy (pp. 35–53). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Holt, T. J. (2007). Subcultural evolution? Examining the influence of on- and off-line experiences on deviant subcultures. Deviant Behavior, 28, 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holt, T. J. (2009). Lone hacks or group cracks: Examining the social organization of computer hackers. In F. Smalleger & M. Pittaro (Eds.), Crimes of the Internet (pp. 336–355). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Holt, T. J. (2013). Exploring the social organization and structure of stolen data markets. Global Crime, 14, 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holt, T. J., & Blevins, K. R. (2007). Examining sex work from the client’s perspective: Assessing johns using online data. Deviant Behavior, 28, 333–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holt, T. J., & Lampke, E. (2010). Exploring stolen data markets on-line: Products and market forces. Criminal Justice Studies, 23, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holt, T. J., Strumsky, D., Smirnova, O., & Kilger, M. (2012). Examining the social networks of malware writers and hackers. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 6, 891–903.Google Scholar
  20. Holzman, H. R., & Pines, S. (1982). Buying sex: The phenomenology of being a John. Deviant Behavior, 4(1), 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobs, B. (1996). Crack dealers apprehension avoidance techniques: A case of restrictive deterrence. Criminology, 34, 409–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mann, D., & Sutton, M. (1998). Netcrime: More changes in the organisation of thieving. British Journal of Criminology, 38, 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meyer, G. R. (1989). The social organization of the computer underground. Master’s thesis, Northern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  24. Milrod, C., & Weitzer, R. (2012). The intimacy prism: Emotion management among the clients of escorts. Men and Masculinities, 15, 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Motoyama, M., McCoy, D., Levchenko, K., Savage, S., & Voelker, G. M. (2011). An analysis of underground forums. IMC’11, 71–79.Google Scholar
  26. Scott, M. S., & Dedel, K. (2006). Street prostitution. US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  27. Sharp, K., & Earle, S. (2003). Cyberpunters and cyberwhores: Prostitution on the Internet. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Dot Cons. Crime, deviance and identity on the Internet (pp. 36–52). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Wehinger, F. (2011). The Dark Net: Self-regulation dynamics of illegal online markets for identities and related services. Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference, 209–213.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.East Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  3. 3.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations