This article is devoted to the study of the phenomenon of digital criminology - an emerging field of scholarship that examines the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) to be used by offenders, including the category of offences conventionally referred to as AI-crime. The object of the study is crime, victimization, and justice under the conditions of digital society, where the boundaries between online and offline reality are increasingly blurred; the subject of the study is the risks and ethical dimensions of employing AI for criminal purposes. The aim of the work is to define the contours of digital criminology on the basis of an interdisciplinary, techno-social approach that integrates criminology, philosophy of technology, and cyberlaw. The methodological foundation of the study comprises comparative-legal, systemic, and structural-functional analysis, along with elements of predictive modeling. The article examines such manifestations of digital crime as automated cyberattacks, deepfake generation, algorithmic fraud, and the manipulation of user behavior through recommendation systems. It is shown that the emerging field of techno-ethics has yet to develop stable criteria for assessing deviant online behavior, and that existing legal mechanisms insufficiently account for the specific nature of algorithmic and autonomous forms of unlawful activity, including the problem of attributing responsibility where autonomous systems are involved. Particular attention is given to issues surrounding the legal classification of acts committed with the use of generative models, as well as gaps in the evidentiary basis for digital crimes. The article substantiates the need to improve criminal legislation, to develop specialized educational programs, and to train personnel capable of countering cybercrime in a «hybrid» world, where the line between human and machine agency is becoming increasingly indistinct, and where traditional models of guilt and intent require reconsideration.

KHASANOVA V.V.

Police lieutenant colonel, Deputy head of the department of administrative law and administrative responsibility of the department of internal affairs, Aktobe law institute of the ministry of internal affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan named after Malkejar Bukenbayev, Aktobe, Kazakhstan.

E-mail: vikakiper85@bk.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5579-1565

1. Schneier B. Inside the twisted mind of the security professional. // Wired. — 2008. — 20 march. — URL: https://www.wired.com/2008/03/securitymatters-0320/
2. Mayer D. Why Google was smart to drop its «Don’t Be Evil» motto // Fast Company. — 2016. — 9 february. — URL: https://www.fastcompany.com/3056389/why-google-was-smart-to-drop-its-dont-be-evil-motto
3. Ife C. C., Davies T., Murdoch S. J., Stringhini, G.. Bridging information security and environmental criminology research to better mitigate cybercrime. — 2019. — 35 p. — arXiv:1910.06380. — DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1910.06380.
4. Interpol and UNICRI. Artificial intelligence and robotics for law enforcement. INTERPOL, United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. — Lyon: INTERPOL; Turin: UNICRI, 2019. — 44 p. — URL: https://www.interpol.int/content/download/13060/file/INTERPOL-UNICRI%201st%20AI%20and%20Robotics%20Report.pdf
5. Piper K. The case for taking AI seriously as a threat to humanity. // Vox. — 2018. — 21 december. — URL: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/21/18126576/ai-artificial-intelligence-machine-learning-safety-alignment
6. Kasperkevic J. Swiss police release robot that bought ecstasy online. // The Guardian. — 2015. — 21 april. — URL: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/21/swiss-police-release-robot-random-darknet-shopper-ecstasy.
7. Huang S., Papernot N., Goodfellow I., Duan Y., Abbeel, P. Adversarial attacks on neural network policies. // — 2017. — arXiv:1702.02284. — DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.02284.
8. Goodfellow I. J., Shlens J., Szegedy C. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. // — 2015. — arXiv:1412.6572. — DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1412.6572.
9. Yampolskiy R. V. Taxonomy of pathways to dangerous AI. — 2015. — arXiv:1511.03246. — DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1511.03246.
10. Ciancaglini V. et.al. Malicious uses and abuses of artificial intelligence. Trend Micro Research, United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre. — 2020. — URL: https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/malicious_uses_and_abuses_of_artificial_intelligence_europol.pdf
11. Brundage M., Avin S., Clark J. et al. The malicious use of artificial intelligence: forecasting, prevention, and mitigation. // — 2018. — 101 p. — URL: https://www.eff.org/files/2018/02/20/malicious_ai_report_final.pdf

artificial intelligence, cybercrime, law, crime, technoethics, digital criminology, digital technologies