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/