Critically evaluate the role of state and non-state actors involved in policing the internet. Use examples to evidence your arguments.

1.Is the threat of cybercrime over-exaggerated?
Critically discuss this question in relation to “Personal cybercrime” areas.

Use examples to support your answer.

2.Grabosky claimed in 2001 that cybercrime was just ‘old wine in new bottles’?
Critically evaluate cyber-dependent crime and cyber-enabled crimes in the light of this statement.

Illustrate your answer using one example on each of the cyber-enabled and the cyber-dependent crimes.

3.“[P]olicing the internet has evolved in such way that a wide range of non-state and commercial actors is extensively involved in the matters of internet regulation and control. This ‘pluralization’ and ‘privatization’ can be connected to wider trends in the reconfiguration of policing, associated with the shift from state-based government to networked governance in matters of social control. Yet this move to dispersed, multi-lateral internet policing brings in its wake its own challenges and difficulties…” (Yar, 2013: 143)

Critically evaluate the role of state and non-state actors involved in policing the internet.
Use examples to evidence your arguments.

4.Explain the interplay between the three chemical elements of Routine Activity Theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979).

How useful are the Routine Activity Theory as an analytical framework to study cybercrimes?

The post Critically evaluate the role of state and non-state actors involved in policing the internet. Use examples to evidence your arguments. appeared first on Essay Quoll.

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply