Cyber Crime and Cyber Terrorism

Threats to security
Organizational factors
User
Operational environment
Security tasks
Security technologies
Human
performance
Outcomes
1. High
(e.g., multiple tasks,
speed of
communications)
1. Enhanced
security capability
2. Positive public
experience
3. Threat detection
2. Low
(e.g., unintentional
and intentional
mistakes)
FIGURE 5.2
Macro-ergonomic conceptual framework for security.
Adapted from 
Kraemer et al., 2009
.

---

49
 
Balancing technological and human capabilities
training), security technologies (e.g., the performance and usability of technologies 
used), and security tasks (e.g., task loading and the operational environment).
The central factor of the framework is the user (e.g., the frontline security operator, 
screener, inspector) who has specific skills within the security system. The security 
operator is able to use technologies and tools to perform a variety of security screen-
ing tasks that support the overall security capability. However these are influenced 
by task and workload factors (e.g., overload/under load/task monotony/repetition). 
In addition, organizational factors (e.g., training, management support, culture and 
organizational structures) as well as the operational environment (e.g., noise, climate, 
and temperature) also contribute to the overall security capability. This approach helps 
identify the macro-ergonomic factors where the complexity of the task and resulting 
human performance within the security system may include errors (e.g., missed threat 
signals and false positives) or violations (e.g., compromised or adapted protocols in 
response to the dynamic demands of the operational environment) (
Kraemer et al., 
2009
). This macro-ergonomic framework has been used to form a basis for under-
standing user requirements within counter-terrorism focusing on the interacting fac-
tors and their influence of overall performance of security systems including users and 
organizational processes (
Saikayasit et al., 2012; Stedmon et al., 2013
).
This framework provides a useful perspective on cyber-security and can be re-
drawn to embody a typical user and provides a basis for exploring user requirements 
(
Figure 5.3
).
In this way, cyber-security can be understood in terms of the user (e.g., adult or 
child) who has a range of skills but also presents vulnerabilities within the overall 
cyber-security security system (e.g., a child may not know the exact identity of some-
one who befriends them in a chat-room; an adult may not realize the significance of 
imparting details about a relative to friends on a social networking site; a lonely per-
son may be susceptible to others people’s approaches on the pretext of friendship). 
The user has a range of technologies and tools to perform a variety of tasks, some