Abstract
Johnny Nhan’s Policing Cyberspace: A Structural and Cultural Analysis is a qualitative study describing cybersecurity in California, including pertinent actors and stakeholders and the relationships between them. This is a timely study, and one that adds substantially to knowledge on cybercrime. Dr. Nhan, who received his PhD from the University of California at Irvine and is currently an assistant professor at Texas Christian University, defines the main research goals of the study as identifying stakeholders, examining the control mechanisms that govern stakeholder behaviors, and determining how the Internet impacts institutions and relationships (p. 13). The author begins by providing an account of the recent increase in cybercrime and the accompanying financial and social ramifications.
The six substantive chapters that follow the introduction describe the theory, methods, and results of the study. Chapter Two explains how the work draws on two main theories, the nodal governance theoretical model and the system capacity model, and provides a general overview of each of the theories as well as describing why they are appropriate choices for the topic of cybercrime. Numerous resources are tapped and cited in APA format. Chapter Three discusses the methods of the study; qualitative methods were used because of the exploratory nature of the work and the small number of actors and organizations involved. The author identifies four main stakeholder groups involved in cybersecurity in California: law enforcement, government, private industry, and the general public. The study involved conducting interviews with representatives of the first three stakeholder groups; the general public was not interviewed because of the time and resources that would have been involved.
Chapter Four describes how nodal networks that fight cybercrime are formed and how they function. California uses a task force model to combat cybercrime, which involves members of several different law enforcement and court agencies working together and pooling resources. Chapter Five maps the key security stakeholders involved in fighting cybercrime and defines each group. The law enforcement node consists of the five cybercrime task forces, the government node is represented by state government, and the private industry node is divided between the tech sector and the film industry. Chapter Five also discusses the relationships between nodes and how the different security actors interact. Chapter Six is a discussion of the compatibility of the different nodes in terms of the outcomes that they desire from their work against cybercrime. Law enforcement and the film industry emphasize the catching and prosecuting of lawbreakers, while the tech sector emphasizes the prevention of such actions and the protection of company assets. Chapter Seven discusses the role of the general public, with emphasis on the idea that members of the public must be included as key security stakeholders if there is ever to be long-term success in policing cyberspace. In the current situation, the other stakeholders view the public as consumers, potential lawbreakers, or both, but not as security partners. The public largely views the other stakeholders as oppressive and controlling of the Internet. The author suggests that a potential method of getting the public to buy in to the idea that cybercrime is “real crime” would be through the use of collective efficacy.
The final chapter is reserved for conclusions, policy implications, and directions for future research. Six policy implications are discussed, with the most important (as defined by the author) being that the public should be given recognition and incentive to participate as security stakeholders. There is also a brief discussion of research limitations and potential directions for future research.
Policing Cybercrime is innovative, and Dr. Nhan does a good job of legitimizing the need for the research. He makes a convincing argument that cybercrime is a big problem that has lost out on needed attention and resources because of more visible and traditional street crimes. Dr. Nhan makes the information accessible to those who do not have an in-depth knowledge of technology. The ideas in the book flow logically, and the information is organized well. The reasoning is clear and convincing, and the qualitative methodology is appropriate to a topic for which so little is known.
The main drawback while reading the book is the number of grammar issues present. There are multiple errors on most pages to the point that readability is affected. Besides these problems, the work is strong. The results are limited to California, but in a qualitative study of this depth, geographical limitations are to be expected. The other potential problem is that the public is included in the study as a main stakeholder, and the public is included in the analyses, but no information was actually obtained directly from the public through the course of the study. Data about the public were obtained from the other stakeholders, which may be a source of bias considering the contentious relationship that some of the actors and agencies have with the public in the context of cybercrime.
Overall, this study is solid and the information provided is useful and timely. The study is appropriate and accessible for anyone who studies or works with cybercrime as well as anyone who is interested in criminal justice policy and controversy. Many of the problems uncovered in the study were related to the argument over whether cybercrime should be considered a niche crime or simply a crime in general, comparable to street crimes. This discussion opens up the relevancy of the study to researchers and students in many subdisciplines of criminology. While the grammar issues do affect readability, the study is organized well and adds substantially to knowledge on cybercrime, how it is currently being combated, and the changes that are needed to make methods of fighting cybercrime more effective.