Using original data gathered within Australia, this paper argues that specialist cyber-policing units experience a pronounced level of low visibility within the police. This low visibility has three key dimensions. Firstly, there is low ‘vertical’ visibility as higher management and supervisors often have a limited understanding of the nature of the work and the needs of these units. Secondly, there is low ‘horizontal’ visibility as peers and colleagues within the wider organisation are similarly lacking in terms of their understanding of cyber-policing. The third dimension of low visibility concerns the external–internal visibility of the units as they relate to outside stakeholders including politics, media, the wider community and the judiciary. It is argued there is also a significant level of disinterest, disengagement and ignorance along this external–internal dimension. The implications of this ‘low visibility’ is explored and it is argued that there are consequences for the effectiveness of the units while also raising concerns around accountability and the overall prospects for progressive change.
BayleyD. (2008).
Police reform: Who done it?Policing and Society,
18(1), 7–17.
3.
BoesS.LeukfeldtE. R. (2017). Fighting cybercrime: A joint effort. In S. Hakim, E. Blackstone, & R. Clark (Eds.), Cyber-physical security: Protecting critical infrastructure at the state and local level (Vol. 3). Switzerland: Springer, pp. 185–203.
4.
BosslerA.HoltT. (2012).
Patrol officers’ perceived role in responding to cybercrime. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management,
35(1), 165–181.
5.
ChangL. (2013).
Formal and informal modalities for policing cybercrime across the Taiwan Strait. Policing and Society,
23(4), 540–555.
6.
DavisT. (2012).
Examining perceptions of local law enforcement in the fight against crime with a cyber component. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management,
35(2), 272–284.
7.
DupontB. (2012).
Bots, cops and corporations: On the limits of enforcements and the promise of polycentric regulation and as way to control large-scale cybercrime. Crime, Law and Social Change,
67(1), 97–116.
8.
GilmourS. (2014).
Policing crime and terrorism in cyberspace: An overview. The European Review of Organised Crime,
1(1), 143–159.
9.
GogolinG.JonesJ. (2010).
Law enforcement’s ability to deal with digital crime and the implications for business. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective,
19(3), 109–117.
10.
GoldsteinJ. (1960).
Police discretion not to invoke the criminal process: Low-visibility decisions in the administration of justice. The Yale Law Journal,
69(4), 543–594.
11.
HensonB.BradfordW.FisherB. (2013).
Fear of crime online? Examining the effect of risk, previous victimization, and exposure on fear of online interpersonal victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,
29(4), 475–497.
12.
HindujaS. (2004).
Perceptions of local and state law enforcement concerning the role of computer crime investigation teams. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management,
27(3), 341–357.
13.
HoltT.BosslerA. (2016). Cybercrime in progress: Theory and prevention of technology-enabled offenses.
London, England:
Routledge.
14.
HueyL. (2002).
Policing the abstract: Some observations of policing cyberspace. Canadian Journal of Criminology,
44(3), 243–254.
15.
JewkesY. (2010). Public policing and internet crime. In JewkesY.YarM. (Eds.), Handbook of internet crime.
Devon, England:
Willan Publishing, pp. 525–545.
16.
JonesT. (2008a). The accountability of policing. In NewburnT. (Ed.), Handbook of policing (2nd ed.).Devon, England:
Willan Publishing, pp. 693–724.
17.
JonesT. (2008b). Accountability and governance. In NewburnT.NeyroudP. (Eds.), Dictionary of policing.
Devon, England:
Willan Publishing, pp. 1–3.
18.
JonesT.NewburnT.SmithD. J. (1996).
Policing and the idea of democracy. British Journal of Criminology,
36(2), 182–198.
19.
LepanenA.KiravuoT.KajantieS. (2016).
Policing the cyber-physical space. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles,
89(4), 290–310.
20.
LeukfeldtR.VeenstraS.StolW. (2013).
High volume cyber crime and the organization of the police: The results of two empirical studies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Cyber Criminology,
7(1), 1–17.
21.
LeviM.WilliamsM. (2013).
Multi-agency partnerships in cybercrime reduction: Mapping the UK information assurance network cooperation space. Information Management and Computer Security,
21(5), 420–443.
22.
LoaderI.WalkerN. (2007). Civilizing security.
Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
23.
LoftusB.GooldB. (2011).
Covert surveillance and the invisibilities of policing. Criminology and Criminal Justice,
12(3), 275–288.
24.
ManningP. K. (2010). Democratic policing in a changing world.
London, England:
Paradigm Publishers.
25.
MareninO. (1998).
The goal of democracy in international police programs. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management,
21(1), 159–177.
26.
MawbyR. (1999).
Visibility, transparency and police‐media relations. Policing and Society,
9(3), 263–286.
27.
NhanJ. (2010). Policing cyberspace: A structural and cultural analysis.
New York, NY:
LFB Publishing.
28.
NhanJ.HueyL. (2013). We don’t have these laser beams and stuff like that’. Police investigations as low-tech work in a high-tech world. In Leman-LangloisS. (Ed.), Technocrime: Policing and surveillance.
Abingdon, England:
Routledge, pp. 79–90.
29.
Nnameziri NdubuezeP.Uzodinma Mazinda IgboE. (2013).
Third parties and cyber-crime policing in Nigeria: Some reflections. Policing,
8(1), 59–68.
30.
PinoN.WiatrowskiM. (2006). The principles of democratic policing. In PinoN.WiatrowskiM. (Eds.) Democratic policing in transitional and developing countries.
Aldershot, England:
Ashgate, pp. 69–98.
31.
RoweM. (2007).
Rendering visible the invisible: Police discretion, professionalism and decision-making. Policing and Society,
17(3), 279–294.
32.
SarreR.Yiu-Chung LauL.ChangL. (2018).
Responding to cybercrime: Current trends. Police Practice and Research,
19(6), 515–518.
33.
WallS. (2007).
Policing cybercrimes: Situating the public police in networks of security within cyberspace. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal,
8(2), 183–205.
34.
WhelanC.DupontB. (2017).
Taking stock of networks across the security field: A review, typology and research agenda. Policing and Society,
27(6), 171–187.
35.
WillitsD.NowackiJ. (2016).
The use of specialized cybercrime policing units: An organizational analysis. Criminal Justice Studies,
29(2), 105–124.
36.
YarM. (2013).
The policing of internet sex offense: Pluralised governance versus hierarchies of standing. Policing and Society,
23(4), 482–497.
37.
YinR. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods(5th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
