We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 January 2019
In this chapter, we outline the most important similarities and differences in the results of the two survey waves. We stress that caution is needed in interpreting the results, as these are not based on longitudinal data, but on two crosssectional studies. This means that the respondents in the second survey wave were not necessarily the same as the first one.
If we compare the victimization rates of cybercrime between the two waves, we observe a substantial decrease in the percentage of businesses reporting victimization of at least one type of cybercrime (from 66.5% in the first wave to 53.6% in the second wave; see figure 4 for a visual representation). In particular, the victimization rates of illegal access to IT systems and data/system interference are substantially lower in the second wave than in the first wave (32.7% compared to 50.0% and 20.2% compared to 44.0%, implying declines of -17.3% and -23.8%, respectively). The percentage of businesses reporting victimization of cyber extortion has also decreased, but to a lesser extent (from 24.1% to 18.9%: -5.2%). However, the victimization rate of cyber espionage has increased from 3.6% in the first wave to 10.6% in the second wave (+7%). The percentage of businesses admitting victimization of internet fraud is more or less equal in both waves.
In both waves, we see that, for illegal access to IT systems, data/system interference and internet fraud, there are more repeated victims than single victims. For cyber espionage, on the contrary, there are more single victims than repeated victims in both waves; for cyber extortion there are more repeated victims in the first wave, but more single victims in the second wave.
A comparison of the incidences of each cybercrime type reveals that businesses in the second wave (M = 0.96, SD = 1.74; M = 0.35, SD = 0.77; M = 0.27, SD = 0.62, respectively) are less oft en confronted with illegal access to IT systems, data/system interference and cyber extortion than businesses in the first wave (M = 1.53, SD = 1.98; M = 0.91, SD = 1.25 and M = 0.41, SD = 0.83, respectively; t (559.13) = 3.653, p < .001; t (491.10) = 6.330, p < .001 and t (514.58) = 2.308, p = .021, respectively).
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.
