Neutralization Theory

Sykes and Matza techniques of the neutralization theory explains the motives that hackers use when committing a cybercrime. The theory is said to be that hackers are deviant, this way they feel no guilt towards their victims. The five neutralizations explain concerning this theory rely on the thoughts of the hackers. The first one being in denial of responsibility, this gives the hacker the opportunity to justify their actions. When doing so they often blame their criminal acts on a force that is out of there control. In addition, the hacker would think that there was no harm caused with the victim. Nevertheless, the denial of injury corresponds with the hacker’s unremorseful behavior. This is because they feel that the victim can afford to
pay, such as their financial status. They expressed their behavior by saying everybody is doing it.
Furthermore, the denial of victim explorers through the hacker mind as revenge towards the person, a specific group, or race of people. “When they violate social norms, they justify their behavior by means of a specific set of justification, called neutralization techniques, which enable them to drift back and forth between conventional and illegitimate behaviors” (Schmallenger & Pittaro, 2008, p.317). Hackers crave the need for self-development and self-fulfillment while praying on their victim’s lifestyles. Although, there are many types of deviants. Some of the things that these hackers have in common is the blame game and that their actions were for a good reason. The neutralization theory has become very successful, not with just hackers but with others different deviants also. For Instance, these deviants can range from multiple criminal suspects. Such as with a robbery, murder, and child predator’s suspects. Each deviant expresses their own internal justifications. “To justify an act is to assert its positive value in the face of a claim to the contrary” (Schmallenger & Pittaro, 2008,
p.317). References
F. Schmallenger & N. Pittaro (eds.) (2008). Crimes of the Internet. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Yahoo cyber breach occurred in roughly 2014, but was announced to the public this year of 2016. There were over 500 million accounts affected. Now, Yahoo believes that a person is acting on behalf of the government. Although, Yahoo does not know for sure who could be behind it. The company stated that personal information is at risk. Such as, birthdays, passwords, and telephone numbers. Yahoo believes that the users sensitive information is not at risk. For instance, a person Bank information, account number, or credit card numbers. The FBI is working with Yahoo to find out who may be involved in this data breach. “A large-scale data breach was first rumored in August when a hacker who goes by the name of “Peace” claims to be selling data from 200 million Yahoo users online” (Fiegerman, 2016). Yahoo heard of this claim and investigated this situation. Finding out that the breach was worse than they had thought. U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal called for tougher legislation. He also noted that if Yahoo knew about the breach in August when the claim came about, why didn’t they let their users know as well as officials. The cyber security breach at Yahoo could have been addressed in 2014 to prevent further damage. Yahoo should of monitor their security service better to prevent this sort of crisis. Yahoo needs to specify on their website that they are monitoring the security of their site and that these measures are to protect against cybercrime. “A prominent statement on a website that informs visitors that internet addresses will be logged may prohibit some criminals from targeting those who do business with or patronize that particular website” (Schmallenger & Pittaro, 2008, p. 310).
References
Fiegerman, S., (2016) Yahoo says 500 million accounts stolen. Retrieved from: http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/22/technology/yahoo-data-breach/
F. Schmallenger & N. Pittaro (eds.) (2008). Crimes of the Internet. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Best and Luckenbill social organization theory was for the examination of sophistication groups.
“The four groups were characterized as associates between deviance, participation in deviant individually or collectively, the division of labor within the group, and how long their deviant activities extend over time and space” (Schmallenger & Pittaro, 2008, p.338). These groups formed five different deviant groups. Loners like to act alone but they also share with each member of the group which means they are the lease sophisticated. Colleagues are more of a subculture group. They share their knowledge and skills with members of the group but they also choose to act alone by separation and division of labor. However, peers offend together but have no division of labor. Furthermore, teams last if they are progressive in finding new methods for engaging in deviant. “The formal organization is the most sophisticated deviant organization that Best and Luckenbill include in their framework. Formal organizations have all the elements of teams, as well as extended duration across time and space” (Schmallenger & Pittaro, 2008, p.338). The deviant groups experience short-term and long-term involvements with these activities. Loners being the least and formal organizations being the most effective. The impact that deviants have is that they can organize in different societies, different ways, and at different
times. References
F. Schmallenger & N. Pittaro (eds.) (2008). Crimes of the Internet. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

As an agent, I will provide each member of my team with the instructions that should be taken for this investigation. The Defcon group will be at the center of attention when trying to obtain information from the inside. First, members of the team will be subject to find information on the group’s, such as their whereabouts, their leader in charge, etc. Afterwards, three team members will join the Defcon group to capture the leader and those who are intentionally involved in hacking major websites and/or companies. The time of this investigation is unknown, these sorts of Investigations can take months to years. Furthermore, during this investigation all members are required to blend in by doing what it takes to get information but by also respectfully obeying the law. “The act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. €506 (2000) states: the government has to prove that the defendant’s infringement was for either commercial advantage or private financial gain” (Schmallenger & Pittaro, 2008, p.391). This can easily be proven with the Defcon group record of hacking company systems. The group willful destruction of hacking will be enough to charge them, along with the other information obtained by the undercover agents. References
F. Schmallenger & N. Pittaro (eds.) (2008). Crimes of the Internet. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.