Speaker 1: Pushkin, This is solvable. I'm Ronald Young Jr. Leave a
Speaker 1: whole generation that have grown up as virtual shoplifters, pirating music,
Speaker 1: pirating movies. By time they're in college, they're pirating crack software.
Speaker 1: So for that cohort, the line between rights and wrong
Speaker 1: becomes a little blurred. I went to college in two
Speaker 1: thousand and two. Back then, we were still on black Planet,
Speaker 1: using live Journal, exchanging AOL screen names, and leaving up
Speaker 1: pointed emo song lyrics as a subliminal away message for
Speaker 1: the crush who broke our hearts. And I was also
Speaker 1: a virtual shoplifter. Before we had music streamers, before Apple
Speaker 1: Music and Spotify. We downloaded everything from what we're called
Speaker 1: peer to peer networks, music movies, that hot new warcraft
Speaker 1: game we wanted to play, and for poor college students,
Speaker 1: this was just the exciting new way of experiencing the world.
Speaker 1: We didn't see anything wrong with what we were doing.
Speaker 1: It was predicted that this year cybercrime would cost the
Speaker 1: global economy just over one trillion US dollars. To put
Speaker 1: that in perspective, that's like over six million tesla's being stolen,
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty thousand dollars each, or approximately three
Speaker 1: Hope diamonds valued at three hundred and fifty million. It's
Speaker 1: just about equal to the entire infrastructure bill President Biden
Speaker 1: just side into law. Some estimate that if cybercrime is
Speaker 1: not addressed, it could cost a global economy over ten
Speaker 1: trillion dollars by twenty twenty five. It would seem that
Speaker 1: with every advancement in technology, criminals and opportunists find a
Speaker 1: new way to exploit it. The pace of technological innovation
Speaker 1: seems to move too fast for regulations to keep up,
Speaker 1: and not everyone is on board with all the ways
Speaker 1: we could bring order to the madness right now, when
Speaker 1: I talk to people about surveillance, they get really upset
Speaker 1: about this, and they were like, I don't want any
Speaker 1: government or any law enforcement agency practicing surveillance because I
Speaker 1: don't want to be surveilled. But you are being surveilled
Speaker 1: by social technology companies. You are offering everything up. They
Speaker 1: can practically predict what colored socks you're going to wear tomorrow.
Speaker 1: It's just surveillance by a different entity. Doctor Mary Aiken
Speaker 1: is an expert in forensic cyberpsychology, which is the study
Speaker 1: of criminal deviant and abnormal behavior online, So that means, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: she's kept pretty busy. In addition, she's a researcher and
Speaker 1: teacher and an academic advisor to Europole, the Cybercrime Center,
Speaker 1: the EC three, and she's a member of the interpoll
Speaker 1: Global Cybercrime Expert Group. She's doing a lot. I'm not overwhelmed.
Speaker 1: I maintain my sense of humor. I remain optimistic cybercrime
Speaker 1: and online harms are solvable. In two thousand and sixteen,
Speaker 1: NATO ratified cyberspace as an environment, acknowledging that the wars
Speaker 1: of the future would take place on land, see air,
Speaker 1: and on computer networks. This is a space, and this
Speaker 1: space comes with incredible opportunities but also risks. And I
Speaker 1: would argue that cybercrime and online harms are solvable problems
Speaker 1: if we understand the cyber behavioral dynamics in this space.
Speaker 1: So let's think about it like an iceberg. Whatever search
Speaker 1: engine they're using, like Google or Safari. Yeah, who, that's
Speaker 1: what we call the surface web, and that's between one
Speaker 1: and three percent of the Internet. It's the tip of
Speaker 1: the iceberg, and then of the whole part of the Internet,
Speaker 1: which is what we call what lies beneath, and that's
Speaker 1: the deep web, and certainly the spate helps to facilitate
Speaker 1: cybercriminal behavior. And what happens is that human behavior mutates
Speaker 1: or changes in this environment. So anonymity is a powerful
Speaker 1: psychological driver. In other words, it's a superhuman power. It
Speaker 1: is the age old mythical power of invisibility, and that
Speaker 1: comes with tremendous responsibility. So let's take anonymity. And often
Speaker 1: I debate on this topic, people will push back and say, oh, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we can't do anything to change anonymity online because anonymity
Speaker 1: is a basic fundamental human right. No it is not.
Speaker 1: And yes, we want people in oppressed regimes to be
Speaker 1: able to post or blog or do whatever they want.
Speaker 1: But at what cost. And if the cost of that
Speaker 1: is cyber fraud and cyber crime and exploitation and coercion
Speaker 1: and extortion and what is described as revenge porn and
Speaker 1: all the things that we see that are going wrong online,
Speaker 1: then maybe the cost is too high. Now, before you
Speaker 1: get too far into that, let me let me back
Speaker 1: up for a second. I liked what you said about
Speaker 1: anonymity as being one of the vulnerabilities and the pitfalls
Speaker 1: between the human technology relationship. One are some other big
Speaker 1: vulnerabilities of the human technology relationship besides anonymity. Well, you
Speaker 1: have the online disinhibition effect, and it dictates people will
Speaker 1: do things online that they will not do in the
Speaker 1: real world. So it's like a form of innbriation or
Speaker 1: being drunk online. So what you see is that human
Speaker 1: behavior changes. You can also see more vulnerability expressed. Online.
Speaker 1: Hypochondria is excessive concerns about your symptoms. Cyberchondria is you
Speaker 1: have a headache which could be from too much coffee
Speaker 1: or could be a hangover, and you start googling symptoms
Speaker 1: about your headache and you end up reading about brain
Speaker 1: tumor and you start feeling anxiety as a result. That
Speaker 1: sounds familiar. So you might be perfectly well but end
Speaker 1: up with a nasty case of health anxiety as a
Speaker 1: result of careless search escalation during search. So with the pandemic,
Speaker 1: we had the infhodemic, this information overload which actually increased
Speaker 1: people's anxiety in the general population. And what we saw
Speaker 1: was that cybercriminals are incredibly adaptable and agile. They tapped
Speaker 1: into that anxiety by creating malicious u URLs are malicious
Speaker 1: links offering you discount personal protection equipment, offering you a
Speaker 1: vaccine click here, before vaccines were even readily available, offering
Speaker 1: you all sorts of cures. So people are anxious, they
Speaker 1: want to protect themselves in their families, so they're further
Speaker 1: more likely to click on a link and compromise their tech.
Speaker 1: And that's how the cyber criminals moved in. This doesn't
Speaker 1: feel different or that different from how crime and scams
Speaker 1: happen even when they were an analog, you know, before
Speaker 1: they went digital. Because we're talking about like things like
Speaker 1: you know, snake oil and what you're talking about an
Speaker 1: opportunism and people using vulnerable periods of time in which
Speaker 1: to actually enact a crime or to make someone a victim.
Speaker 1: In this case, it feels like the existence of this
Speaker 1: sort of technology, the existence of the Internet, creates a
Speaker 1: space for constant vulnerability. It makes it much easier. It
Speaker 1: opens up the range of victims from you weren't going
Speaker 1: to weren't going to fly halfway across the world to
Speaker 1: target somebody burgle their house, to fly all the way back,
Speaker 1: which you can do that online and what you know,
Speaker 1: your point about this feels like, you know, old school
Speaker 1: crime I would argue that in an age of technology,
Speaker 1: it's almost impossible to commit a crime that doesn't have
Speaker 1: some technology component to it. In twenty twenty, so last year,
Speaker 1: it was predicted that this year cybercrime would cost the
Speaker 1: global economy just over one trillion US dollars. It's predicted
Speaker 1: going forward that by twenty twenty five, the cost of
Speaker 1: cybercrime is going to be over ten trillion dollars. Do
Speaker 1: you think that the same people who would commit regular
Speaker 1: crime are the same people who will commit cyber crime? Again,
Speaker 1: it's complicated. You have existing hardcore organized crime groups who
Speaker 1: look at technology as a faster, better, cheaper way of
Speaker 1: conducting regular crime. You then have a group of people
Speaker 1: who are not career criminals but sort of get involved
Speaker 1: in using technology to engage in sort of entry level crime.
Speaker 1: Because we have a whole generation that have grown up
Speaker 1: as virtual shoplifters. So they've been pirating music, you know,
Speaker 1: like nineteen eleven, Then they are pirating movies. By time
Speaker 1: they're in college, they're pirating crack software. So for that cohort,
Speaker 1: a line between right and wrong becomes a little blurred. Yes,
Speaker 1: and you're a problem with your finances and somebody says, look,
Speaker 1: there's this great scheme whereby you can sign up to
Speaker 1: be some sort of logistics person for a corporation. All
Speaker 1: you've got to do is open a bank account. They
Speaker 1: put ten thousand dollars in. Then you just have to
Speaker 1: transfer it on somewhere else and you get to keep
Speaker 1: a thousand dollars And you might, oh, there feels like
Speaker 1: there's something real wrong with that, but it's a fast
Speaker 1: way to make money, and I need to pay my
Speaker 1: rent to be clear. You know, that's money laundering. It's
Speaker 1: a crime. So I think there's that cohort growing up
Speaker 1: where the boundaries are blurred, and that's where we've really
Speaker 1: got to educate. And then I think you've got another
Speaker 1: cohort who are young entrepreneurs, but they're cybercriminal entrepreneurs. This
Speaker 1: is a career path. And then you also have activists.
Speaker 1: You've activists, you have state sponsored and state condoned actors.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a there is a wide range of
Speaker 1: people engaging in harmful and criminal behavior in cyberspace. What's
Speaker 1: the next step? What do we do? What happens in
Speaker 1: cyberspace impacts on the real world. What happens in the
Speaker 1: real world impacts on cyberspace, so this is continuous relationship
Speaker 1: between the two. I think the first thing is that
Speaker 1: we've got to really think about governance and policing in cyberspace.
Speaker 1: And what we see from a law enforcement point of
Speaker 1: view is that law enforcement started in the real world,
Speaker 1: and as technology has evolved, law enforcement has tried to
Speaker 1: evolve to keep up with technology. But that presents a
Speaker 1: lot of challenges. For example, the encryption debate. You remember
Speaker 1: all that the Apple you know, hack me if you can. Yeah,
Speaker 1: law enforcement wanted Apple to hand them encrypted data, and
Speaker 1: Apple refused to do it because they said, this is
Speaker 1: our thing. It's encrypted. If you want to hack it,
Speaker 1: you can get it, but we're not just going to
Speaker 1: hand you encrypted data from our customers. There was all
Speaker 1: sorts of issues about that, about backdoors, about encryption, but
Speaker 1: these are really important issues to talk about as a
Speaker 1: society because we want law enforcement to deliver on safety
Speaker 1: and security in the real world. How are they going
Speaker 1: to deliver on safety and security in cyberspace when there
Speaker 1: exists in crypto domains that are effectively operating beyond the law.
Speaker 1: And if we accept as a relationship between the two,
Speaker 1: then it's going to continue to be more and more
Speaker 1: complicated going forward, so you know, we have to be
Speaker 1: involved have a voice in the governance of this space,
Speaker 1: just the way we have a voice in the governance
Speaker 1: of the real world. I am listening to you talk
Speaker 1: about policing and in and I think that there definitely
Speaker 1: is a way to regulate, especially criminal activity online. I
Speaker 1: was a victim of a cyber crime, and it occurred
Speaker 1: to me that there is really no way that I
Speaker 1: could ever catch this person or or chase them down
Speaker 1: based on what had happened. So it was, and it
Speaker 1: was it felt I felt pretty helpless at the time.
Speaker 1: I will say also, I was a victim of a
Speaker 1: real crime in which my car was broken into and
Speaker 1: my bag was stolen, and the police were not very
Speaker 1: much help in that case either. I do there was
Speaker 1: no way they're going to be able to catch this
Speaker 1: person and chased it down. I felt the same in
Speaker 1: both and both scenarios. The other part of this is historically,
Speaker 1: for some marginalized groups, policing has been a problematic conversation,
Speaker 1: and so even when we're talking about it now, there's
Speaker 1: a part of me that's like, I don't know who
Speaker 1: I want regulating this online, especially when you know historically
Speaker 1: there has been you know, racism, misogyny, homophobia, all those
Speaker 1: things involved in policing also taking part in defining what
Speaker 1: crime is, which is a whole other conversation. So how
Speaker 1: do we regulate at actually catch criminals, catch cyber criminals
Speaker 1: without also overcorrecting in a way that continues to oppress
Speaker 1: the marginalized groups that continually feel oppressed by unjust policing. Ronald,
Speaker 1: You're right about policing and racism and all the stuff
Speaker 1: that's going down. So I'm trying not to be prescriptive there.
Speaker 1: And you don't want a non national telling Americans had
Speaker 1: to govern themselves either. I'm sensitive to that. So I
Speaker 1: think that that's why we need to have the conversation.
Speaker 1: And the conversation might be we don't need any police
Speaker 1: on the internet. That might be if we want to
Speaker 1: have a conversation, then everything should be on the table.
Speaker 1: For example, we could say, well, how about the companies
Speaker 1: who profit in this space? How about the police are governed.
Speaker 1: Let's not use the word police, let's say governed cyberspace.
Speaker 1: Because this is the problem. You have huge corporations that
Speaker 1: ultimately lie under the radar and may have aspirations of
Speaker 1: statehood operating in cyberspace, and law enforcement thinly stretched resource
Speaker 1: trying to clean up, you know, as they go along.
Speaker 1: And what's happening in countries like the UK. I work
Speaker 1: closely with government there, And we have a new piece
Speaker 1: of legislation coming through called the Online Safety Bill, and
Speaker 1: it's going to force a duty of care for those
Speaker 1: corporations to profit in cyberspace. So let's take crimes like
Speaker 1: cyberbulling or harassment or what is described as revenge porn,
Speaker 1: and let's make these companies responsible for cleaning that up.
Speaker 1: Then let's take mists and disinformation. And while that's not
Speaker 1: criminal activity per se, it can certainly lead to racist attacks,
Speaker 1: and it can lead to all sorts of threats, and
Speaker 1: it can hate speech, can lead to when you know,
Speaker 1: this is a broad spectrum of what we describe as
Speaker 1: online harm. But are these issues policing issues? Are are
Speaker 1: these civil society issues? And let's think about, for example,
Speaker 1: child pornography. If you have a young person who's sexually curious,
Speaker 1: then they're eleven or twelve or thirteen, and they take
Speaker 1: an image and they send it to their boyfriend, or
Speaker 1: girlfriend who's also thirteen or fourteen. If you've generated an
Speaker 1: image and it's explicit and you are under age, then
Speaker 1: de facto you are generating and distributing child pornography, albeit
Speaker 1: of yourself. That doesn't make sense to criminalize that behavior.
Speaker 1: So let's take all of that behavior and think is
Speaker 1: this a police issue or is this an issue that
Speaker 1: needs to be dealt with separately? And then if you
Speaker 1: look at youth hackers, you know, if you've got a
Speaker 1: tech talented youth upstairs in the bedroom of their parents home,
Speaker 1: and if that kid becomes curious and starts probing around
Speaker 1: the edges of a network and then breaches accidentally or
Speaker 1: through curiosity, is that child a hacker or is that
Speaker 1: somebody who needs to be educated? You know, if we
Speaker 1: can't identify tech talent and young people, how can we
Speaker 1: stage interventions. We have IQ, we have EQ, we have CQ,
Speaker 1: we have no TQ, no technology quotient, So we can't
Speaker 1: screen from them. We can't identify. Then, we can't educate them.
Speaker 1: We can't stage intervention. But what we can do is
Speaker 1: when the fourteen or fifteen is prosecute them. It sounds
Speaker 1: like you're saying that there's multiple ways that we need
Speaker 1: to examine the behavior that's happening online. And then we
Speaker 1: need to also define what criminal activity is and who
Speaker 1: can be criminals online, and then three, we need to
Speaker 1: regulate it. We then need to regulate that behavior. Am
Speaker 1: I mischaracterizing that as being a solution? No? I think
Speaker 1: that's fair. And we have a chance here to renegotiate
Speaker 1: the social contract that has existed for thousands of years
Speaker 1: and more recently in the US. I'm Europeans, so I
Speaker 1: can say thousands, okay, but the social contract we can
Speaker 1: talk about that. We can say, right, let's take online harms,
Speaker 1: this range of undesirable behaviors, harmful behaviors, in some cases
Speaker 1: criminal behaviors. Well, how about we make Facebook or Twitter
Speaker 1: or Instagram responsible for that and say, guys, you profit
Speaker 1: in this space, and in fact, many of your technologies
Speaker 1: exacerbate these problems, So you go figure and go deal
Speaker 1: with that. Then let's take young people and what they do,
Speaker 1: what we describe as juvenile cyber delinquency pathways into cybercrime,
Speaker 1: and let's deal with them separately and not criminalize young
Speaker 1: people who are tech curious, who don't have parents who
Speaker 1: can teach them who don't have teachers who are as
Speaker 1: knowledgeable about technologies they are, and let's deal with them separately.
Speaker 1: And then let's look at technology solutions to technology facilitated
Speaker 1: problem behaviors, because we can't solve this with human intervention.
Speaker 1: We're going to need AI artificial intelligence and mL machine
Speaker 1: learning solutions because there's just too much stuff happening. But
Speaker 1: we have to be able to quip law enforcement to
Speaker 1: carry out investigations, to actually deal with issues around encryption,
Speaker 1: to deal with issues around privacy and surveillance. And when
Speaker 1: I talk to people about surveillance, they get really upset
Speaker 1: about this, and they're like, I don't want any government
Speaker 1: or any law enforcement agency practicing surveillance because I don't
Speaker 1: want to be surveilled. But you are being surveilled by
Speaker 1: social technology companies. You are offering everything up. They can
Speaker 1: practically predict what color socks you're going to wear tomorrow.
Speaker 1: It's just surveillance buy a different entity by people who
Speaker 1: are not elected, by people who don't have a duty
Speaker 1: of care, who don't have a mandate. Are you Are
Speaker 1: you optimistic that this is going to be solved? Because
Speaker 1: I hear you talking through a lot of theories. Are
Speaker 1: you optimistic about the actionable steps? I am increasingly optimistic.
Speaker 1: If you'd asked me that ten years ago, I would
Speaker 1: have said no. I'm increasingly optimistic for a couple of reasons. One,
Speaker 1: I understand cyber behavioral science. Secondly, are work closely with
Speaker 1: law enforcement, with policy makers, and I'm solutions focused. And thirdly,
Speaker 1: class and group actions. This is the money piece. We've
Speaker 1: been here before cigarettes asbest us. There is going to
Speaker 1: come a point when the social technology companies who are
Speaker 1: responsible for some of these harms are going to have
Speaker 1: to do better. And they won't do better because we
Speaker 1: tell them too, And they won't do better because the
Speaker 1: government asked them to do better. They will do better
Speaker 1: when it financially hurts them not to do so. And
Speaker 1: I think that gives people hope, and we always want
Speaker 1: to you know, humans need hope. Doctor Aiken, you talked
Speaker 1: about asking companies that profit in this space to take
Speaker 1: action to regulate themselves. You mentioned Facebook and Twitter and Instagram,
Speaker 1: and I'll add YouTube at four Chad at eight Chad,
Speaker 1: all places where disinformation can flourish. And I have to
Speaker 1: say I'm not so impressed with their self regulating so far.
Speaker 1: I mean when I think about January sixth, the insurrection
Speaker 1: at the Capitol, which happened just earlier this year, I
Speaker 1: get emotional. I'm angry. I'm just like, y'all have to
Speaker 1: be responsible for this disinformation. And I mean that's easy
Speaker 1: for me to say from a soapbox, y'all need to
Speaker 1: regulate this. But how are you feeling about this? As
Speaker 1: an expert in cybercrime and criminal psychology, I think, and
Speaker 1: this is just my opinion, I think they know a
Speaker 1: lot more than they admit too. I think social media
Speaker 1: companies have their finger on the pulse of the Internet.
Speaker 1: I think they know along before any of us when
Speaker 1: something is moving. That said, can they admit that they should?
Speaker 1: And when you talk about the events of Capitol Hill,
Speaker 1: what we saw there was very interesting in terms of cyberpsychology.
Speaker 1: I mean tragic, but interesting because that's the first real
Speaker 1: world example of what happens when the online world facilitates
Speaker 1: the normalization and socialization of fake news, of misinformation syndicates
Speaker 1: to bring people together and creates virtual echo chambers to
Speaker 1: reinforce and normalize and socialize belief systems, and then that
Speaker 1: explodes into the real world with tragic consequences, and I
Speaker 1: think that got the attention of all agencies. In fact,
Speaker 1: the day after it happened, I got a call for
Speaker 1: a senior person in a US agency who said, Mary,
Speaker 1: you stood in front of us five years ago and
Speaker 1: told us this what happened, and it did. And I
Speaker 1: just wanted to say that you were right. So I
Speaker 1: don't want to be right after the fact. I want
Speaker 1: to say this is eminently predictable. This is a very
Speaker 1: very powerful tool technology, the Internet, the connectivity. And people
Speaker 1: ask me about causation, you know, they say, does the
Speaker 1: internet cause bad behavior? Online harms criminal behavior? And there's
Speaker 1: two ways of looking at this. So what we can
Speaker 1: say is the connectivity, how we are connected with each
Speaker 1: other afforded by technology. We can say, yeah, maybe that
Speaker 1: causes bad behavior. Maybe it causes us to do things
Speaker 1: we would normally not have done. Or maybe what it's
Speaker 1: doing is shining a very bright light into the darkest
Speaker 1: reaches of the human psyche what Young called the two
Speaker 1: million year old man or woman. And maybe we're all
Speaker 1: just Game of Thrones underneath it all. Doctor Aked, you
Speaker 1: are blowing my mind. I just I want to end
Speaker 1: on a lighter note. There's a show called CSI Cyber
Speaker 1: where Patricia Arquette plays a character based off of you.
Speaker 1: How does that feel? Incredible? I'm going to write another book,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to write a book about how to
Speaker 1: get ahead in Hollywood without even trying. I have survivors
Speaker 1: guilt for all the authors and the people who pitched
Speaker 1: TV shows, and I know how hard they work. I
Speaker 1: had one one meeting, one meeting, and they commissioned the
Speaker 1: show on the spot. Wow, that's amazing. That was it.
Speaker 1: And I had one meeting with CBS and the head
Speaker 1: of Broadcasting and Entertainment. It was fifteen minutes. It turned
Speaker 1: into three hours. They stood up at the end of
Speaker 1: the meeting. The CBS lead looked left and right and said,
Speaker 1: are we all agreed? And then they looked at me
Speaker 1: and they said, we want to make a TV show
Speaker 1: CSI Cyber, based on you. And I issued the immortal words,
Speaker 1: can I get back to you? CBS called me back
Speaker 1: into the meeting and they said, they said, we're going
Speaker 1: to make you a producer on the show. Hey. I
Speaker 1: didn't know what it meant, though, so I said I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I can do that, and they said is this a
Speaker 1: negotiation strategy, and I said no, I just don't have
Speaker 1: that sort of money, and they're like, no, no, we
Speaker 1: don't want your money. We want to give you more money.
Speaker 1: I've only ever seen the movie the producers know where
Speaker 1: they were trying to raise money for the show, and
Speaker 1: I just thought they were asking me for money. So
Speaker 1: they tell they tell that story. I was the first
Speaker 1: person they'd ever offered this deal too, and I was like, no,
Speaker 1: thank you, thanks, but no thanks. Doctor Aikin. Before we wrap,
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about what listeners can do
Speaker 1: to get more involved. You've invited them to the conversation,
Speaker 1: but what would that look like. I think we have
Speaker 1: to think about global solutions because cyberspace is a global construct.
Speaker 1: But I think equally we have to be respectful of
Speaker 1: national criteria of cultural differences in different countries who want
Speaker 1: to approach cyberspace in their own way for their own population.
Speaker 1: So I think that you have solutions that are local
Speaker 1: country by country, and then you have agreed solutions in
Speaker 1: shared spaces in cyberspace. We have maritime law for shared waters,
Speaker 1: we have aviation law for the shared airspace. So I
Speaker 1: think they're basic things we can agree on and then
Speaker 1: there's some things that will need to be legislated country
Speaker 1: by country. I would ask listeners to reach out to
Speaker 1: their local legislators, their local politicians. There are a number
Speaker 1: of bills that are being debated at the moment in
Speaker 1: the US, for example, Center Warners Safetech Bill, which will
Speaker 1: address some of these issues. So get involved, become an
Speaker 1: activist in cyberspace, a good activist. One thing that I
Speaker 1: can mention is that for any listener that is now
Speaker 1: fascinated by cyberpsychology and the way that I am, we
Speaker 1: are offering the world's first online Masters at Capital Tech
Speaker 1: and online PhD in cyberpsychology. So if you feel like
Speaker 1: you want to complete your education, reach out to us online.
Speaker 1: Doctor Aikin, this has been a great conversation, very eye opening.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for being on the show. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Ronald absolutely enjoyed it. Doctor Mary Aiken is a cyberpsychologist
Speaker 1: and chair of the Department of Cyberpsychology at Capital Technology
Speaker 1: University in Laurel, Maryland. You can find links to her
Speaker 1: recent publications about cybercrime and to the degree program she
Speaker 1: mentioned in our show. Notes. Solvable is produced by Jocelyn
Speaker 1: Frank research by David Jack, booking by Lisa Dunn. Our
Speaker 1: managing producer is Sasha Matthias and our exact producer is
Speaker 1: Meil LaBelle. I'm Ronald Young Junior. Thanks for listening. M