NESTA Crime Online - University of Brighton Repository

1.5 Global distribution of cybercrime
Cybercrime is a global industry but the combination of poor economic
opportunities and high skills is driving many developing regions to surface as
major players in cybercrime.
Cybercrime has experienced a higher degree of globalisation 77 perhaps due to its ability
to gravitate to permissive environments – countries with minimal legal restrictions – and
the nature of the technology involved. All the published evidence and our interviews
strongly confirmed that cybercrime is a global issue, and international collaboration
among the cybercriminals is expected to grow in the future. The global nature of the
Internet facilitates participants from all locations, while law enforcement authorities
struggle to unify their laws on cybercrime.
The increasingly even distribution of the required skills to perpetrate cybercrimes,
coupled with uneven prosecution procedures and legislations, are driving the fast global
redistribution of the geographical location of cybercrime. 78
Unsurprisingly, most cybercrime attacks are currently directed to the US and the UK,
since they account for a high proportion of financial traffic globally. A recent report
confirmed the US as the most widely targeted country in November 2008, absorbing 53
per cent of the world’s phishing attacks. The UK was the second highest targeted
country at 15 per cent, followed by Italy, Spain and Canada. 79 Figure 6 shows that the
origin of phishing activities is also concentrated in a few international locations, namely
the US, Southern Asia and Eastern Europe. Other locations, such as Brazil and India are
also rapidly entering the global cybercrime scene.
77 Kshetri, N, (2006), “The Simple Economics of Cybercrimes”, IEEE Security and Privacy, Vol. 4, No. 1.
78 Although 34 countries initially signed the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime in November 2001
many have not, as yet, ratified the convention, including the UK.
79 RSA Anti-Fraud Command Center (November 2008): A Monthly Report from the Phishing Repository.
Page 28