Abstract
A growing number of studies show that the advent of the Internet has transformed the organisational life of crime, with many academic and non-academic articles and reports describing various types of organisational structures involved in cybercrimes as “organised crime”. Other researchers are more critical in applying the organised crime label to cybercrimes. These debates are not merely speculative and scholastic but have a real practical significance, as over-estimating organised crime involvement can attract more resources (which might end up being allocated in a less efficient way), additional legal powers, and support from the general public. This study aims to further this path of inquiry by investigating whether the advancement of the cyber-organised crime narrative in the UK can be identified also in the media discourse. More specifically, this study will analyse UK press to explore to what extent “moral panic” can be identified, how primary definers use particular tactics and rhetorical constructions, and what are the dominant consequences.
Highlights
A growing number of studies show that the advent of the Internet has transformed the organisational life of crime, with many academic and non-academic articles and reports describing various types of organisational structures involved in cybercrimes as Borganised crime^
It should be noted that the discussion was generally not on a specific empirical case but on a recent book published by these researchers/authors and somehow dealing with cybercrime
The same cyber-psychologist was criticised by Steinmetz (2016) for inflating the scope of cybercrime-related problems in the show
Summary
A growing number of studies show that the advent of the Internet has transformed the organisational life of crime, with many academic and non-academic articles and reports describing various types of organisational structures involved in cybercrimes as Borganised crime^ (hereafter OC) (among others, Williams 2001; Grabosky 2007; Symantec 2008; McGuire 2012; Broadhurst et al 2014). Other researchers are more critical in applying the OC label to cybercrimes (Wall 2008, 2015; Lusthaus 2013; Lavorgna 2015, 2016; Leukfeldt et al 2016) In their view, enough consistent and solid evidence to make analogies between online criminal networks and OC groups is Trends Organ Crim (2019) 22:357–374 missing, especially keeping in mind the recommendations of OC scholars on the fact that we need something Bmore^ than an organisational structure to have OC (von Lampe 2008). Enough consistent and solid evidence to make analogies between online criminal networks and OC groups is Trends Organ Crim (2019) 22:357–374 missing, especially keeping in mind the recommendations of OC scholars on the fact that we need something Bmore^ than an organisational structure to have OC (von Lampe 2008) These debates on the use of the OC label are not merely speculative and scholastic but have a real practical significance. Recent research has already showed how European and international organisations and policy-makers have relied on pairing cybercrime with OC as a way to justify the prioritisation and expansion of intelligence and law-enforcement activities in the domain of counterOC efforts (Lavorgna 2016), and to lift cybercrime into the national security agenda (in the UK) (Lavorgna and Sergi 2016)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
