In 2024, the number of data compromises in the United States stood at 3,158 cases. Meanwhile, over 1.35 billion individuals were affected in the same year by data compromises, including data breaches, leakage, and exposure. While these are three different events, they have one thing in common. As a result of all three incidents, the sensitive data is accessed by an unauthorized threat actor. Industries most vulnerable to data breaches Some industry sectors usually see more significant cases of private data violations than others. This is determined by the type and volume of the personal information organizations of these sectors store. In 2024 the financial services, healthcare, and professional services were the three industry sectors that recorded most data breaches. Overall, the number of healthcare data breaches in some industry sectors in the United States has gradually increased within the past few years. However, some sectors saw decrease. Largest data exposures worldwide In 2020, an adult streaming website, CAM4, experienced a leakage of nearly 11 billion records. This, by far, is the most extensive reported data leakage. This case, though, is unique because cyber security researchers found the vulnerability before the cyber criminals. The second-largest data breach is the Yahoo data breach, dating back to 2013. The company first reported about one billion exposed records, then later, in 2017, came up with an updated number of leaked records, which was three billion. In March 2018, the third biggest data breach happened, involving India’s national identification database Aadhaar. As a result of this incident, over 1.1 billion records were exposed.

The largest reported data leakage as of January 2025 was the Cam4 data breach in March 2020, which exposed more than 10 billion data records. The second-largest data breach in history so far, the Yahoo data breach, occurred in 2013. The company initially reported about one billion exposed data records, but after an investigation, the company updated the number, revealing that three billion accounts were affected. The National Public Data Breach was announced in August 2024. The incident became public when personally identifiable information of individuals became available for sale on the dark web. Overall, the security professionals estimate the leakage of nearly three billion personal records. The next significant data leakage was the March 2018 security breach of India's national ID database, Aadhaar, with over 1.1 billion records exposed. This included biometric information such as identification numbers and fingerprint scans, which could be used to open bank accounts and receive financial aid, among other government services.

Cybercrime - the dark side of digitalization As the world continues its journey into the digital age, corporations and governments across the globe have been increasing their reliance on technology to collect, analyze and store personal data. This, in turn, has led to a rise in the number of cyber crimes, ranging from minor breaches to global-scale attacks impacting billions of users – such as in the case of Yahoo. Within the U.S. alone, 1802 cases of data compromise were reported in 2022. This was a marked increase from the 447 cases reported a decade prior. The high price of data protection As of 2022, the average cost of a single data breach across all industries worldwide stood at around 4.35 million U.S. dollars. This was found to be most costly in the healthcare sector, with each leak reported to have cost the affected party a hefty 10.1 million U.S. dollars. The financial segment followed closely behind. Here, each breach resulted in a loss of approximately 6 million U.S. dollars - 1.5 million more than the global average.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) is a survey of the extent of crime and crime related issues experienced by business premises in England and Wales. It provides additional detail on the extent of crime to be used alongside the other main sources of information on crime. These are the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) (formerly the British Crime Survey), which covers crimes against private individuals and households, and the Police Recorded Crime statistics, which cover crimes reported to the police. In common with the CSEW, the CVS also includes crimes that are not reported to the police. The Police Recorded Crime data tables are available from the GOV.UK website.The CVS was previously run as a standalone survey in 1994 and again in 2002. The CVS was then run as an annual publication from 2012 onwards. A break occurred from 2019 to 2021 where CVS underwent a re-design following a consultation, where the coverage of the survey was expanded to cover all commercial business premises. A standalone CVS was run in 2021, covering only the Wholesale and Retail sector, to provide insights on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.Further information on the CVS, with links to findings by year, can also be found on the GOV.UK Crimes against businesses statistics webpage. Main Topics:Businesses were asked which of a number of types of crime they had experienced in the 12 months prior to being interviewed. For each one they had suffered, they were asked about the number of occasions they had been victim to that type of crime, the effect of it on their business and the cost of the most recent incident. The survey also asked respondents whether they had reported the incidents to the police; the extent of the losses suffered; their crime prevention precautions; and their concerns about problems of crime and antisocial behaviour in the local area. The 2017 dataset includes details of the extent of crime against business premises for the core CVS crime types. These include burglary, vandalism, vehicle-related theft, robbery, assaults and threats, theft and fraud. In addition, details on cyber crime, experience of anti-social behaviour and crime prevention are also included.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) asks a sole adult in a random sample of households about their, or their household's, experience of crime victimisation in the previous 12 months. These are recorded in the victim form data file (VF). A wide range of questions are then asked, covering demographics and crime-related subjects such as attitudes to the police and the criminal justice system (CJS). These variables are contained within the non-victim form (NVF) data file. In 2009, the survey was extended to children aged 10-15 years old; one resident of that age range was also selected from the household and asked about their experience of crime and other related topics. The first set of children's data covered January-December 2009 and is held separately under SN 6601. From 2009-2010, the children's data cover the same period as the adult data and are included with the main study.The Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales (TCSEW) became operational on 20 May 2020. It was a replacement for the face-to-face CSEW, which was suspended on 17 March 2020 because of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It was set up with the intention of measuring the level of crime during the pandemic. As the pandemic continued throughout the 2020/21 survey year, questions have been raised as to whether the year ending March 2021 TCSEW is comparable with estimates produced in earlier years by the face-to-face CSEW. The ONS Comparability between the Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales and the face-to-face Crime Survey for England and Wales report explores those factors that may have a bearing on the comparability of estimates between the TCSEW and the former CSEW. These include survey design, sample design, questionnaire changes and modal changes.More general information about the CSEW may be found on the ONS Crime Survey for England and Wales web page and for the previous BCS, from the GOV.UK BCS Methodology web page.History - the British Crime SurveyThe CSEW was formerly known as the British Crime Survey (BCS), and has been in existence since 1981. The 1982 and 1988 BCS waves were also conducted in Scotland (data held separately under SNs 4368 and 4599). Since 1993, separate Scottish Crime and Justice Surveys have been conducted. Up to 2001, the BCS was conducted biennially. From April 2001, the Office for National Statistics took over the survey and it became the CSEW. Interviewing was then carried out continually and reported on in financial year cycles. The crime reference period was altered to accommodate this. Secure Access CSEW dataIn addition to the main survey, a series of questions covering drinking behaviour, drug use, self-offending, gangs and personal security, and intimate personal violence (IPV) (including stalking and sexual victimisation) are asked of adults via a laptop-based self-completion module (questions may vary over the years). Children aged 10-15 years also complete a separate self-completion questionnaire. The questionnaires are included in the main documentation, but the data are only available under Secure Access conditions (see SN 7280), not with the main study. In addition, from 2011 onwards, lower-level geographic variables are also available under Secure Access conditions (see SN 7311).New methodology for capping the number of incidents from 2017-18The CSEW datasets available from 2017-18 onwards are based on a new methodology of capping the number of incidents at the 98th percentile. Incidence variables names have remained consistent with previously supplied data but due to the fact they are based on the new 98th percentile cap, and old datasets are not, comparability has been lost with years prior to 2012-2013. More information can be found in the 2017-18 User Guide (see SN 8464) and the article ‘Improving victimisation estimates derived from the Crime Survey for England and Wales’. Fraud and Cyber Crime Module The Office for National Statistics have recently completed a substantial project to develop new questions on fraud (both online and offline) and other types of cyber crime for inclusion in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). The project involved the development, cognitive testing and piloting of a number of screener questions designed to identify who had experienced different types of fraud and cyber crime. The final screener questions were incorporated into the live survey in April 2015 and are now being asked of half the sample of survey respondents. New victimisation module questions have also been developed to capture more detailed information about the offence and to allow accurate coding of the offences recorded. These were introduced into the live survey from October 2015, following testing in a large-scale field trial which took place between May and August 2015, and which was beneficial in testing how the screener and victimisation module questions work together in a live setting. More information about this project can be found on the Office for National Statistics webpage. Main Topics: Experiences of fraud and cyber crime among resident household population in England and Wales. Multi-stage stratified random sample Face-to-face interview 2014 2015 ADMINISTRATION OF J... ADOLESCENTS ADVICE AGE AGGRESSIVENESS ALCOHOL RELATED CRIME ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ASSAULT ATTITUDES AUDIO EQUIPMENT BICYCLES BURGLARY CHRONIC ILLNESS CLUBS COMMUNITIES COMMUNITY ACTION COMMUNITY BEHAVIOUR COMPUTER SECURITY COMPUTER VIRUSES COMPUTERS COSTS CREDIT CARD USE CRIME AND SECURITY CRIME PREVENTION CRIME VICTIMS CRIMINAL DAMAGE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SY... CRIMINALS CULTURAL GOODS CULTURAL IDENTITY CYBERCRIME Community Crime and law enfor... DAMAGE DISCIPLINE DOMESTIC RESPONSIBI... ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ECONOMIC VALUE EDUCATIONAL ATTENDANCE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRON... ELECTRONIC MAIL EMPLOYEES EMPLOYMENT ETHNIC CONFLICT ETHNIC GROUPS EVERYDAY LIFE EXPOSURE TO NOISE England and Wales FAMILIES FAMILY MEMBERS FEAR FEAR OF CRIME FINANCIAL CRIME FRAUD FRIENDS GENDER GUNS HARASSMENT HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD HEALTH HEALTH STATUS HOME OWNERSHIP HOUSEHOLD HEAD S EC... HOUSEHOLD HEAD S OC... HOUSEHOLDS HOUSING TENURE Health behaviour INDUSTRIES INTERNET ACCESS INTERNET USE INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT LANDLORDS LAW ENFORCEMENT LEGAL PROCEDURE MARITAL STATUS MOBILE PHONES NEIGHBOURHOODS NEIGHBOURS OFFENCES ONLINE SERVICES PARENTS PERSONAL CONTACT PERSONAL FASHION GOODS PERSONAL IDENTIFICA... PERSONAL SAFETY POLICE OFFICERS POLICE SERVICES POLICING PREJUDICE PUBLIC HOUSES PUBLIC TRANSPORT QUALIFICATIONS QUALITY OF LIFE RECIDIVISM REFUSE RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION RENTED ACCOMMODATION RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY RESPONSIBILITY RISK ROAD SAFETY ROBBERY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE SCHOOL PUNISHMENTS SECURITY SYSTEMS SELF EMPLOYED SIBLINGS SMARTPHONES SOCIAL ACTIVITIES L... SOCIAL HOUSING SOCIAL PARTICIPATION SOCIAL SUPPORT STUDENT BEHAVIOUR STUDENTS Social behaviour an... THEFT TRAINING COURSES UNDERAGE DRINKING UNEMPLOYMENT UNWAGED WORKERS VOLUNTARY WELFARE O... WEAPONS WORKPLACE YOUTH YOUTH CRIME YOUTH CULTURE YOUTH EMPLOYMENT YOUTH GANGS YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT urban and rural life

This dataset gives the state shares of Internet crime complainents in the U.S. The data was extracted from the 2007 Internet Crime Report prepared by the National White Collar Crime Center, the Bureau of Justice Assistance and FBI. Further details are provide in the report (see URL link below)

The data in this table comes from the Security Monitor (VM). Up to and including 2017, this is an annual (from 2019 a 2-yearly) recurring population study into safety, quality of life and victimization. Attention is also paid to nuisance in the neighbourhood, disrespectful behaviour, prevention measures, the functioning of the police and the municipal safety policy. This provides unequivocal figures on the (perception of) safety at national, regional and (below) local level. This table focuses on the victimization of common crime among young people aged 15 to 25 years. It concerns traditional offenses such as violence, property crime and vandalism, as well as computer crime or cyber crime. The data is shown for the personal characteristics gender, age and for the total. The research is a sample survey. This means that the figures shown are estimates, for which confidence margins apply. These margins are also included in the table. The figures refer to persons aged 15 to 25 years. The survey was conducted in the last quarter of the year. In order to show how young people in the Netherlands are doing, the National Youth Monitor describes more than 70 topics in addition to this topic. The subjects are called indicators. Data available from 2012 to 2019 Status of the figures: The figures in this table are final. Changes as of May 25, 2022: None, this table has been discontinued. Changes as of July 17, 2020: The figures for 2019 have been added. As of 2018, no figures will be available for even years. Changes as of March 8, 2019: The figures for the personal characteristics gender, age and sexual preference for the reporting period 2014 were incorrect. This has been corrected in this version. When will new numbers come out? Not applicable anymore. This table is followed by the table Feelings of insecurity and victimization; young people aged 15 to 25. See section 3.

India saw a significant jump in cyber crimes reported in 2022 from the previous year. That year, over ****** cyber crime incidents were registered. Karnataka and Telangana accounted for the highest share during the measured period. Uttar Pradesh leads the wayThe northern state of Uttar Pradesh had the highest number of cyber crimes compared to the rest of the country, with over * thousand cases registered with the authorities in 2018 alone. India’s tech state, Karnataka, followed suite that year. A majority of these cases were registered under the IT Act with the motive to defraud, or sexually exploit victims. It's a numbers game It was estimated that in 2017, consumers in India collectively lost over 18 billion U.S. dollars due to cyber crimes. However, these were estimates based only on reported numbers. In a country like India, it is highly likely that the actual figures could be under-reported due to a lack of cyber crime awareness or the mechanisms to classify them. Recent government initiatives such as a dedicated online portal to report cyber crimes could very well be the main factor behind a sudden spike in online crimes from 2017 onwards.

What the general public thinks about crime and punishment is a vexed question. In an effort to bring systematic data to bear on this question, I have assembled the largest compilation of aggregated survey data on attitudes to crime and punishment in England and Wales to date. The dataset contains 1,190 question-year pairs, which track popular attitudes across four areas: (i) Crime concern 1965-2023, (ii) Punitiveness 1981-2023, (iii) Support for the death penalty 1962-2023, and (iv) Prioritisation of crime/law-and-order as a social issue 1973-2023. For example, in 2014, 58% of respondents to the British Election Studies Internet Panel thought that the level of crime was increasing. By 2019, this number had increased to 83%, and by 2023 it had fallen back to 77%. For 16-24 year olds, the numbers are 38%, 69% and 65%. Harmonised latent trends for each area can be derived from the aggregated survey data using Stimson’s (2018) Dyad Ratio Algorithm for different demographic groups using the R script below. This deposit contains aggregate survey responses for four different dimensions of public opinion about crime and punishment: - Crime concern = perceptions of the crime rate and the degree to which the public is fearful or concerned about crime - Punitiveness = the degree to which public opinion supports being tougher on crime or supports less punitive and more rehabilitative policies - Prioritisation of crime as a social issue = the degree to which people prioritise crime as the number one most urgent or important issue facing the country - Support for the death penalty = support for capital punishment in any situation 1190 question-year pairs were collected from the following sources: - British Election Study (1963-2023, 15 post-election cross-sectional studies and 9 panel studies): - British Social Attitude Survey (1983-2021): NatCen Social Research (2023) British Social Attitudes Survey. [data series]. 3rd Release. UK Data Service. SN: 200006. - British Crime Survey / Crime Survey for England and Wales (1982-2021): Office for National Statistics (2021) Crime Survey for England and Wales. [data series]. 3rd Release. UK Data Service. SN: 200009. - YouGov Crime Trackers (2019-2023): - YouGov MII Tracker (2011-2023): - Ipsos Issues Tracker (1974-2023): - A. King, R. Wybrow, A. Gallup. (2001) British Political Opinion 1937-2000: The Gallup Polls. London: Portico's Publishing. - G. Gallup (ed.) (1976) The Gallup International Public Opinion Polls: Great Britain 1937-1975. New York: Random House. - W. Jennings, J. Kenny, A. Roescu, S. Smedley, N. Or, K. Weldon, P. Enns, K. Norek, J. Riggs (2022) UK Gallup Poll collection, 1956-1991. Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. In each case, I calculate the weighted average response to each question per year for different demographic subgroups. For example, in 2014, 58% of respondents to the British Election Studies Internet Panel thought that the level of crime was increasing. By 2019, this number had increased to 83%, and by 2023 it had fallen back to 77%. For 16-24 year olds, the numbers are 38%, 69% and 65%.

The Second National Juvenile Online Victimization Study (NJOV-2) was conducted in 2007-2008 and designed to update and expand upon the First National Juvenile Online Victimization Study (NJOV-1) conducted in 2001-2002. Researchers collected information from a national sample of more than 2,500 law enforcement agencies about Internet sex crimes against minors during 2006, providing detailed information about the types of Internet sex crimes, as well as numbers of arrests, characteristics of offenders and victims, dynamics of the crimes, and criminal justice system responses. Data, which are weighted to provide national estimates, were collected via mail surveys followed by telephone interviews with investigators about specific cases reported in the mail surveys.

Investigators: Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K., & Wolak, J.

In the United States, a number of challenges prevent an accurate assessment of the prevalence of hate crimes in different areas of the country. These challenges create huge gaps in knowledge about hate crime--who is targeted, how, and in what areas--which in turn hinder appropriate policy efforts and allocation of resources to the prevention of hate crime. In the absence of high-quality hate crime data, online platforms may provide information that can contribute to a more accurate estimate of the risk of hate crimes in certain places and against certain groups of people. Data on social media posts that use hate speech or internet search terms related to hate against specific groups has the potential to enhance and facilitate timely understanding of what is happening offline, outside of traditional monitoring (e.g., police crime reports). This study assessed the utility of Twitter data to illuminate the prevalence of hate crimes in the United States with the goals of (i) addressing the lack of reliable knowledge about hate crime prevalence in the U.S. by (ii) identifying and analyzing online hate speech and (iii) examining the links between the online hate speech and offline hate crimes. The project drew on four types of data: recorded hate crime data, social media data, census data, and data on hate crime risk factors. An ecological framework and Poisson regression models were adopted to study the explicit link between hate speech online and hate crimes offline. Risk terrain modeling (RTM) was used to further assess the ability to identify places at higher risk of hate crimes offline.

In 2024, online frauds were the most reported cyber threat incidents announced by Cybersecurity Malaysia with more than ***** reports. This was followed by content related cyber crime with *** cases. CyberSecurity Malaysia is a government agency that deals with internet safety and operates under the Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Risks of scams in e-commerce leading internet activities. Meanwhile, the Malaysian internet users have experienced cybercrime, only **** percent

This dataset explores Computer systems design and related services by province for 2006. Notes: - North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), 2002 - 54151. - Estimates for the most recent year are preliminary. Preliminary data are subject to revision. Due to rounding, components may not add to total (where applicable). - Operating revenue excludes investment income, capital gains, extraordinary gains and other non-recurring items. - Operating expenses exclude write-offs, capital losses, extraordinary losses, interest on borrowing, and other non-recurring items. - Salaries, wages and benefits include vacation pay and commissions for all employees for whom a T4 slip was completed and the employer portion of employee benefits for items such as Canada/Qubec Pension Plan or Employment Insurance premiums. - Operating profit margin is derived as follows: operating revenue minus operating expenses, expressed as a percentage of operating revenue. Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table (for fee) 354-0005 and Catalogue no. 63-018-X. Last modified: 2008-05-23.

Over ******* cases of cyber crime were reported to the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) in India within the first four months of 2024 alone. The number of cyber crimes in the country saw a massive spike between 2019 and 2020 and has been on the rise ever since. Roughly ** percent of the reports in 2024 were related to online financial fraud.