政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/138992
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113318/144297 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51055706      線上人數 : 991
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/138992


    題名: 白帽駭客法外創新模式研究-兼論駭客社群與企業的互動
    Research on Outlaw Innovation Models of White Hat Hackers including Discussions on Interactions between Hacker Communities and Enterprises.
    作者: 王仁甫
    Wang, Jen-Fu
    貢獻者: 吳豐祥
    Wu, Feng-Shang
    王仁甫
    Wang, Jen-Fu
    關鍵詞: 法外創新
    白帽駭客
    個人特質
    社群中介
    社群支援
    Outlaw innovation
    White hat hacker
    Personal characteristics
    Community mediation
    Community support
    日期: 2021
    上傳時間: 2022-02-10 13:19:37 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 企業藉由打破內部研發的疆界，以導入其他團體或企業的創新資源或觀念，試圖提高創新績效的行為模式，在學理上稱為開放式創新。相對的，如果企業的創新行為抵觸國家法規或制度時，則被文獻定義為法外創新(Outlaw Innovation)。當企業為了創新而打破法規或制度疆界時，則很有可能會轉往地下或違法的市場發展，所以不論是就學術上或實務上都亟需找出將法外創新轉往合法化發展的機制與關鍵影響因素，以期能有效地將法外創新者的成果導向合法市場發展，創造出更多的效益，進而提升國家競爭力。
    但由於法外創新理論仍在發展階段，多數文獻僅討論法外創新的定義、方式與參與者，對於有關法外創新者的個人特質、其參與社群的運作機制、其與政府和企業互動的模式，以及如何將法外創新正當化等重要議題的研究，都付之闕如。緣此，本研究的主要目的，即希望針對這些議題進行深入探討，試圖彌補上述缺口。
    本研究以白帽駭客社群發展法外創新模式做為研究核心，以行動者網路理論的概念及多重個案研究之方法，針對駭客社群成員以及與其互動的資安企業、政府相關人士與駭客新創公司等，進行深入的訪談與分析。主要結論如下 ：
    一、白帽駭客因具備正向與負向人格特質，而不同於一般研究人員，使得駭客新創公司會採取不同的管理方式，以提高其法外創新的效益。
    二、白帽駭客社群於法外創新的知識分享體系中，會扮演著引導駭客成員進行法外創新以及協助企業與政府發展法外創新的重要角色。
    三、白帽駭客社群突破法律疆界發展法外創新的關鍵，在於企業是否能依靠社群發展法外創新；另外一方面則視政府是否能透過活動補助來賦予社群角色正當化，並成為法外創新的中介者。
    四、資安企業與駭客社群交流與合作，會先嘗試獲取法外創新的知識，再進行小規模的創新採納，以有效控制外部法律風險、降低社會疑慮並提高社會可接受性。
    此外，過往文獻討論法外創新時，集中於討論政府發展「創新法規沙盒」的機制以及緩解法外創新的議題，鮮少討論其他可能的解決方案。因此，本研究結果彌補上述缺口，主要研究貢獻如下：
    一、本研究彌補有關法外創新者特質的研究缺口。
    二、本研究補足有關白帽駭客社群突破法規制度發展法外創新的研究缺口。
    三、本研究建構白帽駭客社群影響廠商進行法外創新的行為模式。
    四、本研究特別探討了企業如何選擇與駭客社群合作，並突破法規限制，進行法外創新，因而補充過往文獻在這方面之不足。
    最後，本研究也分別針對政府、企業及社群，從政策、法規、創新策略等面向，提出政策上與實務上的建議。
    The behavioral model by which companies break the boundaries of internal research and development (R&D) and introduce innovative resources and concepts from other groups or companies for innovation is referred to as open innovation. Outlaw innovation refers to the corporate act of promoting innovation and violating national regulations and institutional boundaries in the process. Enterprises practicing outlaw innovation are likely to involve themselves in black markets. Therefore, whether in theory or in practice, exploring the key factors and mechanisms governing the legalization of outlaw innovation warrants urgent attention. Such investigations would aid “outlaw innovators” in promoting their achievements legally. Moreover, they would assist the government in designing relevant systems to encourage outlaw innovators to shift their activities in black markets to legal markets, thereby creating benefits and increasing national competitiveness.
    Theories on outlaw innovation remain immature, with the literature primarily focusing on its definition and approaches, as well as the actors involved. Few studies have examined the characteristics of outlaw innovators, the operative mechanism of relevant communities, or the model of business–government interaction in this regard. Furthermore, the legalization of outlaw innovation has rarely been explored. To close these research gaps, these topics are discussed herein.
    At the core of this study is the outlaw innovation model developed by white hat communities. By using actor–network theory and a multiple-case design, we interview and investigate the members of hacker communities, the information security companies with which they maintain contact, and their government affiliates, as well as hacker startups. The conclusions are as follows:
    1.White hat hackers have positive and negative personality traits to be different from ordinary researchers, which makes hacker startup companies adopt different management methods to improve the efficiency of outlaw innovation.
    2.White hat hacker communities play an important role and guide hacker members to support their government and assist enterprises to develop outlaw innovation in the outlaw innovation relationship and knowledge sharing system.
    3.White hat hacker communities break the legal boundaries is the key to develop outlaw innovations. Enterprises tend to rely on hacker communities to develop outlaw innovation knowledge, while government offer subsidies for communities legitimately to transfer outlaw innovation to be the intermediaries.
    4.Cybersecurity enterprises communicate and cooperate with hacker communities to obtain outlaw innovation knowledge, adopting small-scale innovations to control external legal risks, reduce social doubts, and improve social acceptability.
    Outlaw innovation studies have discussed the regulatory sandboxes, mechanisms launched by the government to mitigate problems relating to outlaw innovation. However, the evidence on other potential solutions is scant. The present study explores these possibilities. Its contributions to the literature are as follows:
    1. This research addresses a research gap on the characteristics of outlaw innovators.
    2.This study addresses the gaps that white hat hacker communities break through the legal system and developing outlaw innovations.
    3.This research constructs a model about how white hat communities affect industril firms’ outlaw innovation behaviors.
    4.This study specifically explores how enterprises choose to cooperate with communities in order to break through legal restrictions and develop outlaw innovations for making sense out of existing literature.
    參考文獻: 一、 英文期刊
    [1] Ahmad, Atif et al. (2019). Strategically-motivated advanced persistent threat: definition, process, tactics and a disinformation model of counterattack. Computers & Security, 86, 402–418.
    [2] Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
    [3] Antunes, Joao, Neves, Nuno, Correia, Miguel, Verissimo, Paulo & Neves, Rui (2010) Vulnerability discovery with attack injection. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 36(3), 357-370.
    [4] Baba, Y., & Walsh, J. P. (2010). Embeddedness, social epistemology and breakthrough innovation: The case of the development of statins. Research Policy, 39(4), 511-522.
    [5] Barron, A. (2012). Kant, copyright and communicative freedom. Law and Philosophy, 31(1), 1-48.
    [6] Bashir, M., Wee, C., Memon, N., & Guo, B. (2017). Profiling cybersecurity competition participants: Self-efficacy, decision-making and interests predict effectiveness of competitions as a recruitment tool. Computers & Security, 65, 153-165.
    [7] Battistella, C., De Toni, A. F., De Zan, G., & Pessot, E. (2017). Cultivating business model agility through focused capabilities: A multiple case study. Journal of Business Research, 73, 65-82.
    [8] Benjamin, V., Zhang, B., Nunamaker, J. F., & Chen, H. C. (2016). Examining hacker participation length in cybercriminal internet-relay-chat communities. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(2), 482-510.
    [9] Benson, T. (2016). Open source paradigm: A synopsis of the cathedral and the bazaar for health and social care. Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics, 23(2), 488-492.
    [10] Bodford, J. E., & Kwan, V. S. Y. (2018). A game theoretical approach to hacktivism: Is attack likelihood a product of risks and payoffs? Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, 21(2), 73-77.
    [11] Boe, O., & Torgersen, G. E. (2018). Norwegian “digital border defense” and competence for the unforeseen: A grounded theory approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 555–555.
    [12] Boon, W., & Edler, J. (2018). Demand, challenges, and innovation. Making sense of new trends in innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 435-447.
    [13] Bradford, E. (2016). All hail the “innovation champion”: Using social identity theory to understand being an “innovation champion.” Strategic Direction, 32(5), 13-15.
    [14] Breznitz, S. M., & Feldman, M. P. (2012). The engaged university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(2), 139-157.
    [15] Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development - past research, present findings, and future-directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343-378.
    [16] Buisson, F. (2014). How do investors communicate with innovators such as "geeks"? A case study of HackFwd. International Journal of Arts Management, 16(3), 20-32.
    [17] Burstyn, H. L. (1990). Computer whiz guilty. Aba Journal, 76, 20-20.
    [18] Buss, A. H., & Finn, S. E. (1987). Classification of personality-traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(2), 432-444.
    [19] Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E., & Yang, X. H. (2009). Varieties of Asian capitalism: Toward an institutional theory of asian enterprise. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(3), 361-380.
    [20] Castells, M. (2002).The cultures of the Internet. Queen`s Quarterly, Fall, 109(3), 333-345.
    [21] Cavusoglu, H., Mishra, B., & Raghunathan, S. (2005). The value of intrusion detection systems in information technology security architecture. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 28-46.
    [22] Cederstrom, C., & Fleming, P. (2016). On bandit organizations and their (IL) legitimacy: Concept development and illustration. Organization Studies, 37(11), 1575-1594.
    [23] Chesbrough, H. (2004). Managing open innovation. Research-Technology Management, 47(1), 23-26.
    [24] Chiang, Y. H., & Hung, K. P. (2010). Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from the perspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows. R&D Management, 40(3), 292-299.
    [25] Choi, J. P., Fershtman, C., & Gandal, N. (2010). Network security: Vulnerabilities and disclosure policy. Journal of Industrial Economics, 58(4), 868-894.
    [26] Citron. D. K. (2009). Law’s Expressive Value in Combating Cyber Gender Harassment. Michigan Law Review, 108(3), 373–415.
    [27] Cloatre, E. (2018). Law and ANT (and its Kin): Possibilities, challenges, and ways forward. Journal of Law and Society, 45(4), 646-663.
    [28] Cook. (2018). Cross-border data access and active cyber defense: Assessing legislative options for a new international cybersecurity rulebook. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 29(2), 205–236.
    [29] Dahlander, & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709.
    [30] de Graaf, M. M. A., Ben Allouch, S., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2018). A phased framework for long-term user acceptance of interactive technology in domestic environments. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2582-2603.
    [31] Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027-1055.
    [32] DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307-336.
    [33] Dosi, G.(1989). The nature of the innovation process. In Dosi GG, Freeman C, Nelson R, Silverberg G, Soete L (Eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory (pp. 221–238). London: Printer.
    [34] Dosso, Martin, B. R., & Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P. (2018). Towards evidence-based industrial research and innovation policy. Science & Public Policy, 45(2), 143–150.
    [35] Dunn, A. G., Day, R. O., Mandl, K. D., & Coiera, E. (2012). Learning from hackers: Open-source clinical trials. Science Translational Medicine, 4(132), 132-132.
    [36] Eberhart, R. N., Eesley, C. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2017). Failure is an option: Institutional change, entrepreneurial risk, and new firm growth. Organization Science, 28(1), 93-112.
    [37] Eichensehr, K. E. (2017). Public-private cybersecurity. Texas Law Review, 95(3), 467-538.
    [38] Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
    [39] Emery, A. C. (2017). Zero-day responsibility: The benefits of a safe harbor for cybersecurity research. Jurimetrics Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 57(4), 483-503.
    [40] Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311-316.
    [41] Esteves, J., Ramalho, E., & de Haro, G. (2017). To improve cybersecurity, think like a hacker. Mit Sloan Management Review, 58(3), 71-77.
    [42] Fitzgerald, B. (2006). The transformation of open source software. Mis Quarterly, 30(3), 587-598.
    [43] Flores, O., Rayle, L. (2017). How cities use regulation for innovation: The case of Uber, Lyft and Sidecar in San Francisco. Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 3756-3768.
    [44] Flowers, S. (2008). Harnessing the hackers: The emergence and exploitation of outlaw innovation. Research Policy, 37(2), 177-193.
    [45] Funk, R. J. & Hirschman, D. (2017). Beyond nonmarket strategy: Market actions as corporate political activity. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 32-52.
    [46] Gad, M. (2014). Crime ware marketplaces and their facilitating technologies. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(11), 28-33.
    [47] Gao, X. & Zhong, W. J. (2016). Economic incentives in security information sharing: The effects of market structures. Information Technology & Management, 17(4), 361-377.
    [48] Garriga, H., von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. (2013). How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1134-1144.
    [49] Gaspareniene, L. & Remeikiene, R. (2015). Digital shadow economy: A critical review of the literature. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(6), 402-409.
    [50] Gassmann. O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: Towards an agenda. R&D Management, 36(3), 223-228.
    [51] Geroski, P. A. (2000). Models of technology diffusion. Research Policy, 29(4), 603-625.
    [52] Giboney, J. S., Proudfoot, J. G., Goel, S., & Valacich, J. S. (2016). The Security Expertise Assessment Measure (SEAM): Developing a scale for hacker expertise. Computers & Security, 60, 37-51.
    [53] Goel, R. K., Sauoris J. W., & Zhang, X. (2015). Innovation and underground entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(5), 800–820.
    [54] Goodman, M. (2011). What business can learn from organized crime: Global criminals are now sophisticated managers of technology and talent. A guide to their best practices. Harvard Business Review, 89(11), 27-.
    [55] Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317-371.
    [56] Guo, D., Guo, Y., & Jiang, K. (2016). Government-subsidized R&D and firm innovation: Evidence from China. Research Policy, 45(6), 1129-1144.
    [57] Guo, J., Su, Q., & Zhang, Q. (2017). Individual Creativity during the ideation phase of product innovation: An interactional perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(1), 31-48.
    [58] Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476-501.
    [59] Harison, E., & Koski, H. (2010). Applying open innovation in business strategies: Evidence from finnish software firms. Research Policy, 39(3), 351-359.
    [60] Hastbacka, M. (2004). Open innovation: What’s mine is mine…What if yours could be mine, too? Technology Management Journal, 12, 1-3.
    [61] Hausken, K. (2017). Security investment, hacking, and information sharing between firms and between hackers. Games, 8(2), 23.
    [62] Head, B. W.(2010).Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges. Policy and Society, 29(2), 77–94.
    [63] Hemmi, A., & Graham, I. (2014). Hacker science versus closed science: Building environmental monitoring infrastructure. Information Communication & Society, 17(7), 830-842.
    [64] Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation - the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9-30.
    [65] Hiatt, S. R., Sine, W. D., & Tolbert, P. S. (2009). From Pabst to Pepsi: The deinstitutionalization of social practices and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(4), 635–667.
    [66] Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52-61.
    [67] Holt, T. J. (2013). Examining the forces shaping cybercrime markets online. Social Science Computer Review, 31(2), 165-177.
    [68] Hua, J., & Bapna, S. (2013). The economic impact of cyber terrorism. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22(2), 175-186.
    [69] Huang, K., Siegel, M., & Madnick, S. (2018). Systematically understanding the cyber attack business: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(4), 1-36.
    [70] Huizingh. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9.
    [71] Hutter, K., Fuller, J., Hautz, J., Bilgram, V., & Matzler, K. (2015). Machiavellianism or morality: Which behavior pays off in online innovation contests? Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(3), 197-228.
    [72] Jacobides, Knudsen, T., & Augier, M. (2006). Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. Research Policy, 35(8), 1200–1221.
    [73] Jardine, E. (2018). Tor, what is it good for? Political repression and the use of online anonymity-granting technologies. New Media & Society, 20(2), 435-452.
    [74] Jeong, S. (2014). Strategic collaboration of R&D entities for technology convergence: Exploring organizational differences within the triple helix. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(2), 227-249.
    [75] Kannan, K., Rahman, M. S., & Tawarmalani, M. (2016). Economic and Policy Implications of Restricted Patch Distribution. Management Science, 62(11), 3161-3182.
    [76] Katila, & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.
    [77] Klerkx, L., & Aarts, N. (2013). The interaction of multiple champions in orchestrating innovation networks: Conflicts and complementarities. Technovation, 33(6-7), 193-210.
    [78] Koops, B. J., & Kosta, E. (2018). Looking for some light through the lens of "cryptowar" history: Policy options for law enforcement authorities against "going dark". Computer Law & Security Review, 34(4), 890-900.
    [79] Kraemer-Mbula, E., Tang, P., & Rush, H. (2013). The cybercrime ecosystem: Online innovation in the shadows? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 541-555.
    [80] Kraft, P. S., & Bausch, A. (2018). Managerial social networks and innovation: A meta-analysis of bonding and bridging effects across institutional environments. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 865-889.
    [81] Kung, L., Cegielski, C. G., & Kung, H. J. (2015). An integrated environmental perspective on software as a service adoption in manufacturing and retail firms. Journal of Information Technology, 30(4), 352-363.
    [82] Lanzolla, G., & Suarez, F. F. (2012). Closing the technology adoption-use divide: The role of contiguous user bandwagon. Journal of Management, 38(3), 836-859.
    [83] Laursen, & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation:the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.
    [84] Lee, E. (2005). The ethics of innovation: p2p software developers and designing substantial noninfringing uses under the sony doctrine. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(2), 147-162.
    [85] Lee, H., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. (2003). The effect of new product radicality and scope on the extent and speed of innovation diffusion. Journal of Management, 29(5), 753-768.
    [86] Lee, J. & Seo, D. (2016). Crowdsourcing not all sourced by the crowd: An observation on the behavior of Wikipedia participants. Technovation, 55-56, 14-21.
    [87] Leukfeldt, R., Kleemans, E., & Stol, W. (2017). The use of online crime markets by cybercriminal networks: A view from within. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(11), 1387-1402.
    [88] Lewis, & Usher, N. (2013). Open source and journalism: Toward new frameworks for imagining news innovation. Media, Culture & Society, 35(5), 602–619.
    [89] Li, Z., & Liao, Q. (2018). Economic solutions to improve cybersecurity of governments and smart cities via vulnerability markets. Government Information Quarterly, 35(1), 151-160.
    [90] Liu, M. L., Hull, C. E., & Hung, Y. T. C. (2017). Starting open source collaborative innovation: The antecedents of network formation in community source. Information Systems Journal, 27(5), 643-670.
    [91] Macleod, C. (2007). Exposed! Top hacker secrets. Management Services, 51(2), 46-47.
    [92] MAgnigbAto. E. (2018). Modelling the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relationships with game theory: Core, shapley value and nucleolus as indicators of synergy within an innovation system. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1118–1132.
    [93] Maheux, B. (2014). Assessing the intentions and timing of malware. technology innovation. Management Review, 4(11), 34-40.
    [94] Mangano, R. (2018). Blockchain securities, insolvency law and the sandbox approach. European Business Organization Law Review, 19(4), 715-735.
    [95] Mansfield-Devine, S. (2009). Darknets. Computer Fraud & Security, 2009(12), 4-6.
    [96] Massa, F. G. (2017). Guardians of the internet: Building and sustaining the anonymous online community. Organization Studies, 38(7), 959-988.
    [97] Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36(1), 121-140.
    [98] Mollick, E. (2005). Tapping into the underground. Mit Sloan Management Review, 46(4), 21-27.
    [99] Mookerjee, V., Mookerjee, R., Bensoussan, A., & Yue, W. T. (2011). When hackers talk: Managing information security under variable attack rates and knowledge dissemination. Information Systems Research, 22(3), 606-623.
    [100] Moralles, H. F., & Rebelatto, D. A. D. (2016). The effects and time lags of R&D spillovers in Brazil. Technology in Society, 47, 148-155.
    [101] Mulhall, T. (1997). Where have all the hackers gone? Computers & Security, 16(4), 285-290.
    [102] Nelms, T. C., Maurer, B., Swartz, L., & Mainwaring, S. (2018). Social payments: Innovation, trust, bitcoin, and the sharing economy. Theory Culture & Society, 35(3), 13-33.
    [103] Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Hackers and the contested ontology of cyberspace. New Media & Society, 6(2), 195–217.
    [104] OCASIO. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 187–206.
    [105] Paleari, S., Donina, D., & Meoli, M. (2015). The role of the university in twenty-first century European society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(3), 369-379.
    [106] Piva, Rentocchini, F., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2012). Is open source software about innovation? Collaborations with the open source community and innovation performance of software entrepreneurial ventures. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 340–364.
    [107] Powell, A. (2016). Hacking in the public interest:Authority, legitimacy, means, and ends. New Media & Society, 18(4), 600-616.
    [108] Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 53-66.
    [109] Prahalad, C.K. & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.
    [110] Ransbotham, S., Mitra, S., & Ramsey, J. (2012). Are markets for vulnerabilities effective? Mis Quarterly, 36(1), 43-64.
    [111] Roche, E. M. (2016). Information and communication technology still a force for good? Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 19(2), 75-79.
    [112] Rogers, M. K. (2006). A two-dimensional circumplex approach to the development of a hacker taxonomy. Digital Investigation, 3(2), 97-102.
    [113] Rottleuthner, H. (1989). A purified sociology of law: Niklas Luhmann on the autonomy of the legal system. Law & Society Review, 23(5), 779–797.
    [114] Ruggeri, D., & Rizza, C. (2017). Accounting information system innovation in interfirm relationships. Journal of Management Control, 28(2), 203-225.
    [115] Sales, N. A. (2018). Privatizing cybersecurity. Ucla Law Review, 65(3), 620-688.
    [116] Samtani, Chinn, R., Chen, H., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2017). Exploring emerging hacker assets and key hackers for proactive cyber threat intelligence. Journal of Management Information Systems, 34(4), 1023–1053.
    [117] Sarpong, D., Dong, S., & Appiah, G. (2016). `Vinyl never say die`: The re-incarnation, adoption and diffusion of retro-technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103, 109-118.
    [118] Sedore, M. (2014). When technocultures collide: Innovation from below and the struggle for autonomy. Canadian Journal of Communication, 39(4), 672-674.
    [119] Seebruck, R. (2015). A typology of hackers: Classifying cyber malfeasance using a weighted arc circumplex model. Digital Investigation, 14, 36-45.
    [120] Seidel, V. P., Langner, B., & Sims, J. (2017). Dominant communities and dominant designs: Community-based innovation in the context of the technology life cycle. Strategic Organization, 15(2), 220-241.
    [121] Seigfried-Spellar, K. C., O`Quinn, C. L., & Treadway, K. N. (2015). Assessing the relationship between autistic traits and cyberdeviancy in a sample of college students. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(5), 533-542.
    [122] Sergeeva, N. (2016). What makes an "innovation champion"? European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(1), 72-89.
    [123] Serracino-Inglott, P. (2013). Is it ok to be an anonymous? Ethics & Global Politics, 6(4), 217-244.
    [124] Sherer, P. D., & Lee, K. (2002). Institutional change in large law firms: A resource dependency and institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 102-119.
    [125] Siebers, L. Q. (2017). Hybridization practices as organizational responses to institutional demands: The development of Western retail TNCs in China. Journal of Economic Geography, 17(1), 1-29.
    [126] Skute, I., Zalewska-Kurek, K., Hatak, I., & de Weerd-Nederhof, P. (2019). Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of the literature on university-industry collaborations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(3), 916-947.
    [127] Soderberg, J. (2010). Misuser inventions and the invention of the misuser: Hackers, crackers and filesharers. Science as Culture, 19(2), 151-179.
    [128] Stock, von Hippel, E., & Gillert, N. L. (2016). Impacts of personality traits on consumer innovation success. Research Policy, 45(4), 757–769.
    [129] Stockton, P.N., Golabek-Goldman, M. (2013). Curbing the market for cyber weapons. Yale Law & Policy Review, 32, 101-128.
    [130] Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy-strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
    [131] Tavassoli, S., & Karlsson, C. (2015). Persistence of various types of innovation analyzed and explained. Research Policy, 44(10), 1887-1901.
    [132] Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
    [133] Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
    [134] Tran, H., Campos-Nanez, E., Fomin, P., & Wasek, J. (2016). Cyber resilience recovery model to combat zero-day malware attacks. Computers & Security, 61, 19-31.
    [135] Triana, M. (2018). Is selling malware a federal crime? New York University Law Review, 93(5), 1311-1350.
    [136] Tu, K. V., & Meredith, M. W. (2015). Rethinking virtual currency regulation in the bitcoin age. Washington Law Review, 90(1), 271-347.
    [137] van der Panne, van Beers, C., & Kleinknecht, A. (2003). Success and failure of innovation: A literature review. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(3), 309–338.
    [138] van Erp, J. (2017). New governance of corporate cybersecurity: A case study of the petrochemical industry in the port of rotterdam. Crime Law and Social Change, 68(1-2), 75-93.
    [139] van Oorschot, J. A. W. H., Hofman, E., & Halman, J. I. M. (2018). A bibliometric review of the innovation adoption. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 134, 1-21.
    [140] Vanhaverbeke, Van de Vrande, V., & Chesbrough, H. (2008). Understanding the advantages of open innovation practices in corporate venturing in terms of real options. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(4), 251–258.
    [141] Vanslette, S. H., & Boyd, J. (2011). Lawbreaking jokers: Tricksters using outlaw discourse. Communication Quarterly, 59(5), 591-602.
    [142] von Briel, F., & Recker, J. (2017). Lessons from a failed implementation of an online open innovation community in an innovative organization. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(1), 35-46.
    [143] Wang, J. (2018). Innovation and government intervention: A comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong. Research Policy, 47(2), 399-412.
    [144] Wang, T. Y., Thornhill, S., & De Castro, J. O. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation, legitimation, and new venture performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(4), 373-392.
    [145] West, & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3), 319–331.
    [146] West, R. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Learning to design collaboratively: Participation of student designers in a community of innovation. Instructional Science, 39(6), 821-841.
    [147] Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation - review, critique and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 405-431.
    [148] Wu, C. H., Parker, S. K., & de Jong, J. P. J. (2014). Need for cognition as an antecedent of individual innovation behavior. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1511-1534.
    [149] Yunlu, D. G., Clapp-Smith, R., & Shaffer, M. (2017). Understanding the role of cultural intelligence in individual creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 29(3), 236-243.
    [150] Zahra, S., Hayton, J., Marcel, J. & O’Neill, H. (2001), Fostering entrepreneurship during international expansion: managing key challenges. European Management Journal, 19(4), 359-369.
    [151] Zhang, X., Tsang, A., Yue, W. T., & Chau, M. (2015). The classification of hackers by knowledge exchange behaviors. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(6), 1239-1251.
    [152] Zibarras, L. D., Port, R. L., & Woods, S. A. (2008). Innovation and the `dark side` of personality: dysfunctional traits and their relation to self-reported innovative characteristics. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(3), 201-215. 
    二、英文書籍與書章
    [1] Borrás, S., & Edler, J. (eds.) (2014). The Governance of Socio-technical Systems: Explaining Change. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Press.
    [2] Callon, M. (2002). From science as an economic activity to socioeconomics of scientific research: The dynamics of emergent and consolidated techno-economic networks. In: P. Mirowski & E-M. Sent (Eds), Science Bought and Sold: Essays in the Economics of Science (pp. 277-317). Chicago, IL: University of Chicao Press.
    [3] Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West J (eds.) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm (pp 3–11). Oxford, MA: Oxford University Press.
    [4] Chen P., Desmet L., Huygens C. (2014). A Study on Advanced Persistent Threats. Communications and Multimedia Security (pp.63-72). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg Press.
    [5] Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma : When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
    [6] Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist Society. New York, NY: HarperBusiness Press.
    [7] Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
    [8] Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (2016). The Common Law: With Linked Table of Contents. Lanham, MD: Dancing Unicorn Press.
    [9] Jordan, T. (2008). Hacking: Digital Media and Technological Determinism. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    [10] Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [11] Luhmann, N., Ziegert, K. A., & Kastner, F. (2004). Law As A Social System. In F. Kastner, R. Nobles & D. Schiff. Oxford, MA: Oxford University Press.
    [12] North, D. C., (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [13] Schumpeter, J. A., & Opie, R. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business cycle. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
    [14] Yin, R.K., (2013). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Press.
    [15] Zadig, Sean M., (2016). Understanding the Impact of Hacker Innovation upon IS Security Countermeasures (Doctoral dissertation, College of Computing and Engineering). Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_etd/976/ (最後查詢日2021年12月30日)
    [16] Zimbardo, Gerrig, R. J., & Ruch, F. L. (1999). Psychology and Life / Philip G. Zimbardo, Richard J. Gerrig. (15th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
     
    三、中文期刊
    [1] 王士帆 (民108)。當科技偵查駭入語音助理－刑事訴訟準備好了嗎？臺北大學法學論叢第，112，191-242。
    [2] 周信輝、蔡志豪(民102)。網絡組織間關係治理的搭架：行動者網絡理論的動態觀點。臺大管理論叢，23(S1)，135-163。
    [3] 林添貴(譯) (2017)。Z世代效應：改變未來企業經營的六股力量(原作者：Koulopoulos, T. & Keldsen, D.)。台北市：時報出版。(原著出版年：2014)
    [4] 施育傑(民109)。科技時代的偵查干預處分-兼論我國法方向。月旦法學雜誌，36，154-174。
    [5] 袁建中、彭弼聲、吳勝銘（民101）。創新與網路結構關係：以次世代微影技術發展與技術前景評估為例。創新管理，9(4)，1-35。
    [6] 陳蕙芬 (民104)。柔韌設計：化機構阻力為創新助力。中山管理評論 23(1)，13-55。
    [7] 彭玉樹、梁奕忠、于卓民、梁晉嘉(民99)。台灣管理學門質性研究之回顧與展望。中山管理評論，18(1)，11-40。
    描述: 博士
    國立政治大學
    科技管理與智慧財產研究所
    102364501
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102364501
    資料類型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202200097
    顯示於類別:[科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    450101.pdf8527KbAdobe PDF20檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋