Consensus Study Report

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Contract No. 15F06723C0001869. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309- 73461-5
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/29048
Library of Congress Control Number: 2025938656

This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; https://nap.nationalacademies.org.

The manufacturer’s authorized representative in the European Union for product safety is Authorised Rep Compliance Ltd., Ground Floor, 71 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin D02 P593 Ireland; www.arccompliance.com.

Copyright 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Cybercrime Classification and Measurement. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/29048.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

PANEL ON CYBERCRIME CLASSIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT

HAL S. STERN (Chair), Distinguished Professor of Statistics, University of California, Irvine

LYNN A. ADDINGTON, Professor of Justice, Law, and Criminology, American University

ERICA R. FISSEL, Research and Evaluation Manager, ICF, Tallahassee, Florida

THOMAS J. HOLT, Professor in the School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University

JIN REE LEE, Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology, Law, and Society, George Mason University

DAVID MAIMON, Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Georgia State University

MARIE-HELEN (MARIA) MARAS, Professor in the Center for Cybercrime Studies, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

MICHAEL C. MILLER, Chief of Police, Colleyville, Texas

OJMARRH MITCHELL, Professor of Criminology, Law, and Society, University of California, Irvine

ALEXIS R. PIQUERO, Professor of Sociology and Criminology, University of Miami

STACEY A. WRIGHT, Director of Cyber Threat Intelligence, CyberWA, New York

Study Staff

DANIEL L. CORK, Study Director

ANTHONY S. MANN, Senior Program Associate

KATRINA BAUM STONE, Senior Program Officer

EMILY BACKES, Deputy Director, Committee on Law and Justice

THO NGUYEN, Senior Program Officer, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board

Consultant

ADAM DEAN, New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services

COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS

KATHARINE G. ABRAHAM (Chair), Distinguished University Professor of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park

MICK P. COUPER, Research Professor Emeritus, University of Michigan

WILLIAM (SANDY) A. DARITY, JR., Samuel DuBois Cook Distinguished Professor of Public Policy, Duke University

ROBERT M. GOERGE, Senior Research Fellow, NORC at the University of Chicago

ERICA L. GROSHEN, Senior Labor Market Advisor, Cornell University

ROEE GUTMAN, Professor of Biostatistics, Brown University

COLLEEN M. HEFLIN, Professor of Public Administration and International Affairs, Syracuse University

DANIEL E. HO, William Benjamin Scott and Luna M. Scott Professor of Law, Stanford Law School

HILARY W. HOYNES, Chancellor’s Professor of Economics and Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley

HOSAGRAHAR V. JAGADISH, Edgar F. Codd Distinguished University Professor, University of Michigan

SHARON LOHR, Emeritus Professor, Arizona State University

LLOYD B. POTTER, Texas State Demographer, University of Texas at San Antonio

NELA RICHARDSON, Chief Economist, ADP Research Institute

ELIZABETH A. STUART, Frank Hurley and Catharine Dorrier Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

FLORENCIA TORCHE, Edwards S. Sanford Professor of International Affairs and Sociology, Princeton University

SALIL VADHAN, Vicky Joseph Professor of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, Harvard University

Staff

MELISSA CHIU, Director

CONSTANCE F. CITRO, Senior Scholar

BRIAN HARRIS-KOJETIN, Senior Scholar

COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE

ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD (Chair), Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Washington

JOHN M. MACDONALD (Vice Chair), Professor of Criminology and Sociology, University of Pennsylvania

MONICA C. BELL, Professor of Law, Yale Law School

ANTHONY A. BRAGA, Jerry Lee Professor of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania

ROD K. BRUNSON, Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park

ELSA Y. CHEN, Professor in the Department of Political Science, Santa Clara University

JENS LUDWIG, Edwin A. and Betty L. Bergman Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago

SAMUEL L. MYERS, JR., Professor in the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota

EMILY OWENS, Deans’ Professor of Criminology and Economics, University of California, Irvine

ALEXIS R. PIQUERO, Professor of Sociology and Criminology, University of Miami

JESENIA PIZARRO, Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University

LAURIE O. ROBINSON, Clarence J. Robinson Professor of Criminology, Law, and Society, George Mason University

ADDIE C. ROLNICK, San Manuel Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

VINCENT SCHIRALDI, Secretary of Maryland Department of Juvenile Services

CHRISTOPHER UGGEN, Regents Professor, University of Minnesota

EMILY A. WANG, Professor in the Yale School of Medicine and Public Health, Yale University

Staff

NATACHA BLAIN, Director

EMILY BACKES, Deputy Director

COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD

LAURA M. HAAS (Chair), Donna M. and Robert J. Manning Dean, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

DAVID DANKS, Professor of Data Science & Philosophy, University of California, San Diego

CHARLES LEE ISBELL, JR., Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, University of Wisconsin–Madison

ECE KAMAR, Partner Research Area Manager, Microsoft Research, Redmond, Washington

JAMES F. KUROSE, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

DAVID LUEBKE, Vice President of Graphics Research, NVIDIA

DAWN C. MEYERRIECKS, Senior Visiting Fellow, MITRE Corporation

WILLIAM L. SCHERLIS, Professor of Software and Societal Systems, Carnegie Mellon University

HENNING G. SCHULZRINNE, Julian Clarence Levi Professor of Mathematical Methods and Computer Science, Columbia University

NAMBIRAJAN SESHADRI, Professor of Practice, University of California, San Diego

KENNETH E. WASHINGTON, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology and Innovation Officer, Medtronic

JOHN L. MANFERDELLI, Independent Consultant (ex officio member)

Staff

JON EISENBERG, Director

Reviewers

This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions

or recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by JAMES P. LYNCH, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, and DOUGLAS S. MASSEY, Department of Sociology, Princeton University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring panel and the National Academies.

Acknowledgments

The Panel on Cybercrime Classification and Measurement is pleased to submit this final report, and we are deeply thankful to all participants who contributed to our work.

Foremost, we appreciate the support and diligence of the project’s sponsor, the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Department of Justice. We benefited from our interactions with Edward Abraham, unit chief. Amy Snider began as the panel’s lead contact within CJIS until her retirement, when Drema Fouch added liaison work with our panel to her Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program duties; they were both great partners in this work.

Though the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) was not a formal sponsor of our study, BJS remained a deeply interested party, commensurate with its joint sponsorship with CJIS of our predecessor Panel on Modernizing the Nation’s Crime Statistics. In particular, this panel benefited greatly from regular interactions with BJS staff members Rachel Morgan, Erica Smith, and Erika Harrell over the course of our information-gathering sessions.

The project’s schedule was such that our members and invited speakers alike had to support a grueling back-to-back series of information-gathering public sessions in quick succession in April–June 2024. In addition to the already mentioned Edward Abraham, Drema Fouch, and Rachel Morgan, we express our thanks to the speakers who contributed to our public meetings on short notice:

• Mary Aiken and Julia Davidson, Institute for Connected Communities, University of East London;

• Detective First Lieutenant James Ellis and Lieutenant Gordon Armstrong, Michigan Cyber Command Center, Computer Crimes Unit, Michigan State Police;
• Mark Fetterhoff, AARP;
• Emma Fletcher, Federal Trade Commission;
• Lauren Boas Hayes, Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
• Matt LaVigna, National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance;
• Lawrence (Wes) Quigley, Internet Crime Complaint Center, FBI;
• Warren Silver and Julie Sauvé, Statistics Canada;
• Joan Smith, Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (on behalf of the Association of State Uniform Crime Reporting Programs); and
• Eva Velasquez and James Lee, Identity Theft Resource Center.

The panel’s work was greatly aided by its principal staff from the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT). As study director, Daniel Cork brought to bear his deep experience leading the predecessor Panel on Modernizing the Nation’s Crime Statistics (as well as the Panel to Review the Programs of the Bureau of Justice Statistics) among other studies of the decennial census and federal statistics, and we benefited from his drafting of the panel’s work. Dan’s steady hand and resolute commitment allowed the panel to address its charge while adhering to a challenging timeline. Katrina Baum Stone contributed to the panel’s discussion by drawing from her experience of previous work at BJS, including developmental work on several of the cybercrime-related supplements to the National Crime Victimization Survey. Anthony Mann provided smooth logistical support to the panel’s operations, particularly in the fast-paced round of public sessions, while CNSTAT director Melissa Chiu provided important overall direction to the panel’s work. Emily Backes, deputy director of the Committee on Law and Justice, participated in several panel meetings and stepped in to draft some background materials, while Tho Nguyen from the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board provided input during the panel formation and scoping process.

All members of the panel contributed their keen insights over a hectic series of meetings, and the group produced a remarkable sense of camaraderie despite having to do much of its work through virtual communications. We are particularly grateful to Adam Dean, deputy commissioner of operations and innovation at the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, for serving as an unpaid consultant to the panel, allowing him to contribute his knowledge as a state law enforcement practitioner while also continuing his role as chair of the UCR subcommittee of the FBI CJIS Advisory Policy Board. His perspective was a great asset to our

discussions, and we look forward to further discussion on implementing improved cybercrime metrics.

Hal S. Stern, Chair
Panel on Cybercrime Classification and Measurement
April 2025

This page intentionally left blank.

Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Summary

1 Introduction: Cybercrime Measurement, the Panel, and Its Charge

THE PANEL AND ITS CHARGE

INTERPRETING THE CHARGE: THE CHALLENGES OF CLASSIFYING AND MEASURING CYBERCRIME

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

2 Treatment of Cybercrime in Current Data Collections

CYBERCRIME HANDLING IN THE NATIONAL INCIDENT-BASED REPORTING SYSTEM

CYBERCRIME HANDLING IN THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY AND ITS SUPPLEMENTS

OTHER ENTITIES COLLECTING CYBERCRIME-RELATED DATA, PARTICULARLY FRAUD

COLLECTION OF CYBERSECURITY INCIDENT INFORMATION AND CYBERCRIME-RELATED INFORMATION FROM BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

EMERGING COLLECTIONS OF CYBERSECURITY AND CYBERCRIME-RELATED INCIDENTS

INTERNATIONAL PARALLELS: CYBERCRIME DATA COLLECTION IN CANADA

3 Approaches to Cybercrime Classification

CYBER-SPECIFIC TAXONOMIES: CYBERCRIME IN ISOLATION

CYBERCRIME IN CONTEXT OF ALL-CRIME TAXONOMIES

RECOMMENDED CLASSIFICATION OF CYBERCRIME

4 Recommendations and Implementation Challenges

CALIBRATE EXPECTATIONS: MARKERS OF CYBERCRIME, NOT EXACT MEASUREMENT

MEASURING CYBERCRIME BY LEVERAGING EXISTING DATA-COLLECTION EFFORTS

ASPIRATIONAL GOALS FOR CYBERCRIME MEASUREMENT

References

Appendix A: Recent Federal Law on Cybercrime Classification

Appendix B: Detailed Definitions and Inclusions, Panel’s Recommended Classification of Cybercrime

Appendix C: Cybercrime Offenses Defined in Current Systems and Law

Appendix D: Biographical Sketches of Panel Members and Principal Staff

Boxes, Figures, and Tables

BOXES

1-1 Statement of Task

2-1 Crime Classification in the Uniform Crime Reporting Summary Reporting System

2-2 Crime Classification in the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2017

2-3 Response Options for Why Incident Was Not Reported to Law Enforcement, 2017 Supplemental Fraud Survey and 2021 Identity Theft Supplement

2-4 Question 1, Types of Stalking Behaviors Measured, Supplemental Victimization Survey, 2019

2-5 Types of Computer Security Incidents Covered by the 2005 National Computer Security Survey

2-6 Response Options on Reporting and Nonreporting of Computer Security Incidents, 2005 National Computer Security Survey

2-7 Report Categories in the Federal Trade Commission Consumer Sentinel Network

2-8 Covered Threat Actions in the Vocabulary for Event Recording and Incident Sharing Framework

2-9 Required Information for Covered Cyberincident Reports under the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act

3-1 Basic Cybercrime Types Identified in the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (2001) and the Draft United Nations Convention on Cybercrime (August 2024)

FIGURES

S-1 Schematic of proposed classification of cybercrime

2-1 Computer crime questions on the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2001–2004

3-1 Schematic of proposed classification of cybercrime

TABLES

2-1 National Incident-Based Reporting System Offense Codes

2-2 Participation in National Incident-Based Reporting System by Law Enforcement Agencies, 2021–2022

2-3 Current Use of Computer-Related Indicators in National Incident-Based Reporting System, 2022

2-4 Overview of Cybercrime-Related Supplements to the National Crime Victimization Survey

2-5 Victim Count in Crime Types Reported in Internet Crime Complaint Center Annual Reports, 2018–2023

Acronyms and Abbreviations