1 minute read

When attempting to gather statistics about digital crime and investigations in different countries, and sometimes on a national level, the inconsistency in categorization of different digital crimes makes measurement and analysis difficult. Looking at various digital crime categorization schemes, like those described in Casey's Digital Evidence and Computer Crime categorization is limited to categorizing the role of the technology in the crime. Crime categorization by law enforcement, however, is based on crime type. From what I have seen, digital investigators would categorize crimes they are interested in not based on the role of technology in the crime, but the type of crime committed. The digital component seems to rarely be a factor in categorization - the digital component is assumed - but practical classification instead relies on the type of crime.

The Australian Federal Police have made available their crime categorization and prioritization model (CCPM), and to my knowledge this is the only publicly available one that I have found. If you know of another case categorization and prioritization model that is available, either publicly or for law enforcement specifically, please leave a comment or contact us. The CCPM is a good starting point for the categorization of all types of crime.

We are currently looking at applying the AFP's model as a template for the categorization and prioritization of crime with a digital component. Prioritization is an interesting problem, that will be discussed further later. But in attempting to prioritize, it is important to have crime categories clearly and meaningfully defined. We will be working on this more over the next few days.

Update: Financial fraud category reference: http://fightfraud.nv.gov/fin_fraud_types.htm