This week I use the portfolio in a different manner. Rather than using it as a summary of the lecture, I will instead make an account of the first assessment. In order to give a full account of this process I will be completing this post after the group presentations have taken place as this will enable me to take a full reflection of the process. I have attached the presentations to this portfolio, which is work that I have contributed to. For details on this topic contents of ‘Criminality, hacking, fraud, identity theft, addiction, obsession, stalking, pornography and cyberbullying’, please see the slides.

 The first group activity was the creation of Student Created Support Materials (SCSM). Each group was tasked with developing additional materials for the use of the class on that week’s topic, with the intention that this would be the basis of the graded group presentation. This allowed the groups to work together and allowed us an avenue for development of that graded presentation. While we used different materials in the slides that were graded, this task familiarised us with the topics as assigned to us.

 My contribution to these slides was primarily in the addiction and obsession slides, as well as a in a question provided in the end. I believe that as a group we matched the requirements of this mini-assignment closely, with enough multiple choice questions and plenty of academic journal articles.  

The assessed presentation.

The next stage of the group work was the marked presentation. As always, before work began on the assignment we looked at the brief. One of the first decisions we took was to limit the topic, as ‘Criminality, hacking, fraud, identity theft, addiction, obsession, stalking, pornography and cyberbullying’ would covers a vast amount of research. If we had decided to explore, however briefly, each topic we would not have been able to been the requirements as laid out in this brief.

As outlined in the assignment brief, the “top 3 things we’re looking for” are:

1. Organization:
   1. The type of presentation is appropriate for the topic and audience.
   1. Information is presented in a logical sequence.
   1. Presentation appropriately cites sufficient references.
2. Content:
   1. Introduction is attention-getting, lays out the problem well, and establishes a framework for the rest of the presentation.
   1. Technical terms are well-defined in language appropriate for the target audience.
   1. Presentation contains accurate information.
   1. Material included is relevant to the overall message/purpose.
   1. Appropriate amount of material is prepared, and points made reflect well their relative importance.
   1. There is an obvious conclusion summarizing the presentation.
3. Presentation:
   1. Delivery is poised, controlled, and smooth.
   1. Good academic language skills and pronunciation are used.
   1. Visual aids are well prepared, informative, effective, and not distracting.
   1. Length of presentation is within the assigned time limits.
   1. Information was well communicated.

 On top of these requirements was the time limit, which was defined as between 6 and 10 minutes. From these requirements and the time limit it was clear that our only option was to limit the content in our presentation. The common theme between all of our topics was cybercrime, so we decided to take a focused look on this issue as whole. This process began with the theories Space Transition and Rational Choice. Then we examined different kinds of cyber-crime through the lens of ‘cyber-enabled crime’ and ‘cyber-dependent crime’. Although I will not go into detail of the definitions in this paragraph I will offer a brief explanation, for the full description please see the slides as embedded below. ‘Cyber-enabled’ crime are those criminal activities that exist in spaces outside the internet yet are enhanced by the use of technology. The primary example we focused on was cyber-bullying. Although it may not be seen as a crime in the eyes of some individuals, it is a form of harassment that is explicitly illegal in legislation. Despite this, the issue is often kept as an internal issue for the institutions it occurs in to deal with (such as schools and the workplace). Cyber-dependent crime are those actions that cannot be achieved without the use of technology, such as hacking.

Another decision taken by the group following on from our reading of the brief was the presentation of these materials. With the permission of our lecturer, we collectively decided that for the sake of coherence and organisational presentation, that we would limit our speakers. We were a group of six, and although we were one of the smaller groups, we decided that our presentation would be more effective without the distraction of us taking turns in talking. When it came time to present, we were the only group who had taken this decision. This surprised me, but after we had presented we all thought we made the right choice. Our presentation flowed smoothly, and I believe this was one of our key strengths. In order to make up for Katie and Jeana presenting on the day, the others in the group (including me) took on extra responsibility in designing the presentation itself. We were also prepared to be the ones to answer questions from the class: although on the day we only received one or two.

Overall the presentation went well, and although at the time of writing we have not received a grade for the work I think we will score highly. Our oral presentation was concise and filled with additional information, while still explaining the slides well. The slides themselves were picture rich with a pleasant colour balance for the theme. The information contained was rich with technical, accurate detail. Our conclusion was oral and summarised the presentation well.  

Bibliography:

Becker, G. (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. The Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217. Available online:  https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/259394?fbclid=IwAR1RUUMb1pVcHs8pYINrlapoj0aVmY9wcM3fVMcPhEIOGAQ1qjWznhTx0pk& [Accessed: 28/03/19].

Bedfordshire Police. (N.d). What is Cyber Crime? Retrieved from Bedfordshire Police: Protecting People and Fighting Crime: Available online: https://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/information-and-services/Crime/Cyber-crime-and-online-safety/What-is-cyber-crime. [Accessed: 22/03/19].

Cook, S. (2018) Cyberbullying facts and statistics for 2016-2018. Available: https://www.comparitech.com/internet-providers/cyberbullying-statistics/?fbclid=IwAR141bY2OtiykwqOqjltF3IG7FenNRhB39tj6_5fqYywrMsug6_2ZJol-jY [Accessed: 28/03/19].

Cross, D.,  Dooley, J.J. & Pyżalski, J. (2009) Cyberbullying versus face-to—face bullying: a theoretical and conceptual review. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182-188.

Danquah, P., & Longe, O. (2011). An empirical test of the space transition theory of cyber criminality: Investigating cyber crime causation factors in Ghana. African Journal of Computing & ICT, 2(1), 37-48.

Giddens, A. (2006) Sociology, 5^th edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Jaishankar, K. (2007) Establishing a Theory of Cyber Crimes. International Journal of Cyber Criminology. 1(2), 7-9. Available online: http://www.cybercrimejournal.com/Editoriaijccjuly.pdf [ Accessed 22/03/19].

Jaishankar, K. (2008) Space Transition Theory of Cyber Crimes. In Schmallager F., & Pittaro, M. (ed) Crimes of the Internet. NJ: Pretice Hall, 283-301.

Keith, S. & Martin, M. (2005) Cyberbullying: creating a culture of respect in a cyber world. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13(4), 224-228. Available online: https://search.proquest.com/docview/214193728/fulltext/495738890C0148A7PQ/1?accountid=11528&fbclid=IwAR0Lv_LmImPuyqt13jj3T6Rp9NoILZ4JO4fkfu1ILcEMSeOri_5pq6Fiq7g [Accessed: 28/03/19].

McGuire, M., & Dowling, S. (2013) Cyber Crime: A review of the evidence. Home Office. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/246751/horr75-chap1.pdf.

Megele, C., & Buzzi, P. (2018).Safeguarding children and young people online: A guide for practitioners. Bristol, UK; Chicago, IL, USA: Bristol University Press. Available online: doi:10.2307/j.ctt1x76gnp. [Accessed: 22/03/19].

Newburn, T. (2017) Criminology, 3^rd edition. Oxon: Routledge.

Pogue, C., et al. (2018) The Black Report: Decoding the Minds of Hackers, Virginia, USA: Nuix. –Papacharissi, Z.A. (2010) A private sphere: democracy in a digital society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Patchin, J. and Hinduja, S. (2006) Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: Preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2),148-69.

Smith, P.K, Mahdavi, J. et al (2008) Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376-85.