Economic cybercrime is one of the unwelcomed consequences of unprecedented intrusion of the Internet in our daily lives. Academic interest in understanding the causes and adverse impacts of cybercrime is growing. Opportunity perspective, which perceives individuals’ daily routines and lifestyles as the primary facilitator of victimization, has been widely applied as a theoretical and conceptual framework in cybercrime victimization research. However, this approach put the responsibility of the victimization on victims explicitly, which hampers the application of crime prevention and reduction efforts. This book presents the Contextual Vulnerabilities approach based on the significant findings of a doctoral study conducted at Durham University in the United Kingdom. Contextual vulnerabilities approach posits that cybercrime victimization is the outcome of the confluence of contextual factors that are mostly beyond victims’ control. This approach presumes that controlling individual (micro-level), macro-level and socio-cultural vulnerabilities may prevent cybercrime victimization. Though the preliminary goal of this book is to provide a new theoretical perspective to scholars researching victimization in cyberspace, I hope the wider audience would find it informative.

Underlying all these questions of right is the question how they are to be secured and maintained. By enforcing the responsibility of the executive and legislature to the community as a whole? Such is the general answer, and it indicates one of the lines of connection between the general theory of liberty and the doctrine of universal suffrage and the sovereignty of the people. The answer, however, does not meet all the possibilities of the case. The people as a whole might be careless of their rights and incapable of managing them. They might be set on the conquest of others, the expropriation of the rich, or on any form of collective tyranny or folly. It is perfectly possible that from the point of view of general liberty and social progress a limited franchise might give better results than one that is more extended. Even in this country it is a tenable view that the extension of the suffrage in 1884 tended for some years to arrest the development of liberty in various directions. On what theory does the principle of popular sovereignty rest, and within what limits does it hold good? Is it a part of the general principles of liberty and equality, or are other ideas involved? These are among the questions which we shall have to examine.

1. T. HOBHOUSE – 1911