Who You Gonna Call?: Cybercrime Types and Expectations of Police Response

Notes: Cybercrime is often treated as a distinct phenomenon, but there are strong continuities with offline crime that are frequently overlooked. Digital technologies change behaviour and scale, but do not fundamentally alter the social dynamics underlying crime. There is a significant gap between the harms experienced by individuals and the institutions available to respond to those harms. Federal law enforcement has expanded cyber capabilities, but local and state-level responses to individual victimization remain limited. Private sector actors, particularly financial institutions, play a major role in responding to financially motivated cybercrime. Non-financial cyber harms, such as sextortion or image-based abuse, often fall outside both private and public response systems. In the absence of clear response pathways, private companies are emerging to fill the gap, sometimes exploiting victims seeking help. Public attitudes toward police in cybercrime contexts are shaped by perceptions that police do not care or are unable to help. These attitudes mirror broader perceptions of policing, indicating continuity between offline and online trust dynamics. Perceptions of police capability differ depending on the type of cybercrime: Computer-focused crimes (e.g., malware) are associated with lower perceived police usefulness Interpersonal cybercrimes (e.g., sextortion) are associated with higher perceived police relevance Perceived likelihood of victimization reduces confidence in police effectiveness, while fear increases it. Gender differences emerge, with men less likely to believe police can help in cybercrime contexts. A central problem is definitional ambiguity: There is no consistent definition of cybercrime across agencies This limits measurement, comparison, and policy design Reporting systems are fragmented and often poorly understood by the public. Cybercrime often involves chains of offences, making classification and response assignment difficult. Comparative research suggests that investment and coordination can improve public confidence, but large-scale successes do not always translate to individual-level trust. About our guest: Rachel McNealey https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-mcnealey-4b8720284/ Papers or resources mentioned in this episode: McNealey, R. L., Figueroa, C. I., & Maher, C. A. (2025). “Police can't help you”: Exploring influences on perceptions of policing cybercrime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 101, 102542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102542 Hale, R., & Penzendstadler, N. (2025, March 20). Digital forensics firms promise help to sextortion victims. Some leave them worse off. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2025/03/20/digital-forensics-sexortion-blackmail-recovery-services/81934584007/ Other: Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3): https://www.ic3.gov/