Jaarlijks wordt een aanzienlijk deel van de Nederlandse burgers en bedrijven slachtoffer van onlinecriminaliteit. Hieronder vallen zowel nieuwe delicten, zoals het hacken van een emailaccount of het platleggen van een website (ook wel cybercriminaliteit), als traditionele vormen van criminaliteit waarbij ICT een steeds belangrijkere rol speelt, zoals onlinefraude of onlinebedreigingen (ook wel gedigitaliseerde criminaliteit). Uit eerdere studies blijkt dat ondanks deze hoge prevalentie van onlinecriminaliteit, slachtoffers zelden aangifte doen bij de politie. Er is echter nog weinig bekend over de delict- en persoonskenmerken die samenhangen met de aangiftebereidheid van slachtoffers van onlinecriminaliteit, de motieven die slachtoffers hebben om wel of juist niet aangifte te doen en de tevredenheid van slachtoffers die aangifte deden. Om deze lacune in onze kennis over aangiftebereidheid na onlinecriminaliteit te voorzien wordt in dit onderzoek zowel het beoogde als daadwerkelijke aangiftegedrag van burgers en ondernemers onderzocht.
Copyright enforcement by private third parties – does it work uniformly across the EU? Since the inception of Napster, home copying of digital files has taken a flight. The first providers of software or infrastructure for the illegal exchange of files were held contributory or vicariously liable for copyright infringement. In response, they quickly diluted the chain of liability to such an extent that neither the software producers, nor the service providers could be held liable. Moving further down the communication chain, the rights holders are now requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that provide access to end customers to help them with the enforcement of their rights. This article discusses case-law regarding the enforcement of copyright by Internet Access Providers throughout Europe. At first glance, copyright enforcement has been harmonised by means of a number of directives, and article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC) regulates that EU Member States must ensure the position of rights holders with regard to injunctions against ISPs. Problem solved? Case law from Denmark, Ireland, Belgium, Norway, England, The Netherlands, Austria and the Court of Justice of the EU was studied. In addition, the legal practice in Germany was examined. The period of time covered by case law is from 2003 to 2013, the case law gives insight into the differences that still exist after the implementation of the directive.
While traditional crime rates are decreasing, cybercrime is on the rise. As a result, the criminal justice system is increasingly dealing with criminals committing cyber-dependent crimes. However, to date there are no effective interventions to prevent recidivism in this type of offenders. Dutch authorities have developed an intervention program, called Hack_Right. Hack_Right is an alternative criminal justice program for young first-offenders of cyber-dependent crimes. In order to prevent recidivism, this program places participants in organizations where they are taught about ethical hacking, complete (technical) assignments and reflect on their offense. In this study, we have evaluated the Hack_Right program and the pilot interventions carried out thus far. By examining the program theory (program evaluation) and implementation of the intervention (process evaluation), the study adds to the scarce literature about cybercrime interventions. During the study, two qualitative research methods have been applied: 1) document analysis and 2) interviews with intervention developers, imposers, implementers and participants. In addition to the observation that the scientific basis for linking specific criminogenic factors to cybercriminals is still fragile, the article concludes that the theoretical base and program integrity of Hack_Right need to be further developed in order to adhere to principles of effective interventions.
