CRIM2010 Chap.2 Classifying Cybercrime: Dichotomies to Taxonomies
Classifying Cybercrime: Dichotomies to Taxonomies
There is no single agreed definition of cybercrime, and no jurisdiction has one offence by that name, so the field relies on classification schemes. This chapter compares them: the widely used split between cyber-dependent and cyber-enabled crime, the Type I to Type II continuum, the trichotomies of Wall, the European Commission and Sarre and colleagues, and hierarchical offence taxonomies.
It closes with the wine and bottle analogy and the open problems the Phillips review identifies, including artificial intelligence and the place of cyberdeviance.
Classification is not only an academic exercise. A clear category shapes which agency responds, which offence is charged and how prevention is designed, and the review warns that vague definitions slow responses to harms everyone already recognises.
The lecture therefore suggests sorting by offender, victim, motive or harm when technology moves faster than the categories, and it asks students to test each scheme against a well-known case of their choice.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Why no definition commands consensus
- 02
Cyber-dependent against cyber-enabled crime
- 03
The Type I to Type II continuum
- 04
Against, using and in the machine
- 05
Sarre’s third type for AI and bots
- 06
Old wine, new bottles
- 07
Classifying by harm rather than tool
Worked example · free
Placing three offences on the continuum
- 1DDoS. Cannot exist without computers, so cyber-dependent; technical, so near Type I; in Wall’s cyber-dependent group.
- 1Phishing. Deception on a new channel, so cyber-enabled; mid-continuum because it mixes a technical lure with persuasion; Wall’s cyber-enabled group.
- 1Online gambling. Involves human contact and predates the Internet, so it sits at the Type II end.
Key terms
- Cyber-assisted crime
- In Wall’s 2010 scheme, a traditional crime in which the computer’s role is incidental, such as criminal communications.
- Type I cybercrime
- An offence that is mainly technical, such as hacking.
- Type II cybercrime
- An offence that relies mainly on human contact, such as cyberbullying or online gambling.
- Content-related offence
- A crime in the machine, where the harm lies in the material itself, such as online hate.
- Offence taxonomy
- A hierarchical scheme that sorts offences by the goal or outcome the offender pursues.
- Cyber laundering
- Moving the proceeds of crime through online or digital channels, listed among complex offences in revised taxonomies.
- Trichotomy
- A three-way classification, such as crimes against, using and in the machine.
Classifying Cybercrime: Dichotomies to Taxonomies FAQ
What is the difference between cyber-dependent and cyber-enabled crime?
Cyber-dependent offences arose with computers and cannot happen without them, such as malware or denial of service. Cyber-enabled offences existed before the Internet and are merely made easier by it, such as fraud or trafficking. Researchers and policy makers use this split more consistently than any other.
Why did Sarre and colleagues add a Type III?
Their 2018 scheme keeps Type I for technical offences and Type II for those involving human contact, then adds a third type for offences carried out by artificial intelligence, bots or self-learning technology, which the two older categories do not describe well.
What does old wine in a new bottle mean here?
It is Grabosky and Wall’s shorthand for a crime whose nature is unchanged while the medium is new, as with online fraud. The alternatives are new wine in a new bottle, a new crime in a new medium, and new wine with no bottle, where existing frameworks cannot capture the harm.
Why does the Phillips review say a single cybercrime offence does not exist?
Its search across jurisdictions found no country with one offence called cybercrime. Instead, laws define specific acts such as unauthorised access, data modification or online fraud. That is why classification schemes, rather than a legal definition, organise most research and teaching about the subject.
What is the difference between crimes against, using and in the machine?
Crimes against the machine attack computer systems themselves, such as hacking or denial of service. Crimes using the machine are traditional offences carried out with computers, such as piracy and scams. Crimes in the machine are content offences, where the material itself, such as online hate, is the harm.
Assessment move
Make a single comparison sheet: scheme, categories, what decides the category, and one example. Test yourself with mixed offences such as ransomware, romance scams and online hate until you can place each under every scheme and explain any disagreement between them.
Learn the three tests, counterfactual, channel and content, as quick decision rules for select-all items, and keep the Phillips review’s main findings ready for essay-style answers about why definitions remain contested. Add one sentence for each open problem the review names, such as artificial intelligence and cross-national differences, so you can explain why the schemes keep changing.
Working through Classifying Cybercrime: Dichotomies to Taxonomies in CRIM2010? Sia is AskSia’s AI Sociology tutor — ask any CRIM2010 Classifying Cybercrime: Dichotomies to Taxonomies question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how CRIM2010 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
