The 3rd International Workshop on Cybercrimes and Emerging Web Environments (CEWE’15). Co-located with DASC-2015. 26-28 October 2015, Liverpool, UK.

1. MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES IN
CYBER CRIME
Raian Ali, John McAlaney, Shamal Faily, Keith
Phalp, Vasilios Katos.
Bournemouth University
The 3rd International Workshop on Cybercrimes
and Emerging Web Environments (CEWE’15). Co-
located with DASC-2015. 26-28 October 2015,
Liverpool, UK.

2. BACKGROUND
 Mitigating circumstances in criminal law are
conditions which lessen the degree of
responsibility of an offender
 Intention to cause less harm than actually
caused; lack of premeditation; mental disorder;
disability; provocation; self-defence; misbelief of
doing a merciful job
 Very little current consideration in relation to
cyber crime or online deviancy

3. BACKGROUND
 The design of cyber system is often explicitly
intended to produce an immersive experience
that engages the user completely
 Possibly creating a flow state and impaired
decision making ability
 Coupled with the disinhibition effect, perceived
anonymity and the ability to post messages/
information quickly and easily

4. CYBER DESIGN
 The lack of precautionary and preventative
measures within the design of online platforms
could form the basis for a claim of mitigation
 Arguably similar to the case of McDonalds being
sued after a person scalded themselves with hot
coffee
 Raises issues of if individuals could use the
possibility of mitigation to retrospectively claim
digital addiction or impaired decision making

5. CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY

6. WARNING LABELS

7. PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS
 Lack of understanding of the technology
involved and reliance on informational influence
 Possible manipulation by others (e.g. Anonymous
vs Scientology)
 Group decision making biases and increased risk
 Debate around digital addiction and diminished
responsibility

8. DIGITAL ADDICTION
 Also known as internet addiction, compulsive
internet use, iDisorder and many other names
 Not in the main text of the DSM-5, although
included in the appendix of something in need
of further research
 Raises questions of corporate social responsibility
by digital technology companies
 Unique opportunities within digital technology for
real time prevention and intervention

9. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
 If the online environment is designed in such a
way that it encourages people to act in a
deviant manner should users be held completely
responsible?
 For example if a pedestrian crosses the road
without looking and is hit by a car the driver may
not be held entirely responsible, due to the
negligence of the pedestrian
 Given the aforementioned ability of software to
monitor and actively intervene in the case of risky
behaviour could software companies be argued
to be especially negligent for failing to protect
users?

10. CHALLENGES
 Establishing blame and responsibility
 Criminal or deviant acts taking part across
several countries
 And several legal frameworks
 Generating supporting evidence when a claim
for mitigating factors is made

11. Come and visit us in sunny Bournemouth!
Contact:
Dr Raian Ali – rali@bournemouth.ac.uk
Dr John McAlaney – jmcalaney@bournemouth.ac.uk