Technology, crime and security

Technology is a rich and complex aspect of human life. But even here, in this very practical domain, theory is important. It aids the efficient generation of innovative solutions that are plausible (rather than random and likely to fail), and can guide development, testing and refinement. Somewhat surprisingly, until recently the field has had few theorists of its own. Two exceptions are Mitcham and Arthur.

Mitcham (1979) identifies four dimensions: artefact (tools, manufactured products etc.), knowledge (scientific, engineering, technological know-how, plus insight from social and physical sciences), process (problem-solving, research and development, invention, innovation), and volition (ethics, technology as social construction).

Arthur’s (2009) seminal attempt to provide a theory of technology characterises it on different scales: as a means to fulfil a particular human purpose; an assemblage of practices and purposes; and the entire collection of devices and engineering practices available to a culture. These levels interact with each other and the entire economy: “As the collective technology builds, it creates a structure within which decisions and activities and flows of goods and services takes place.” (p.194).

For Arthur, technology starts with phenomena — natural effects (e.g. gravitation or electricity) that exist independently in nature. Technology is organised around central principles, which are the application of one or more phenomena for some purpose; principles in turn are expressed in the form of physical or informational components which are combined, often hierarchically, to meet that purpose. Technological domains are toolboxes of potential, which are clustered around some common set of phenomena or applied principles such as movement of mechanical parts, or of electrons.

The above two theories equally apply to technology in the field of crime and crime prevention, but need particularisation. Mitcham’s volitional dimension for example, could include the social institution of crime and the social forces of conflict between individuals, or between individuals and wider social groups like the state. Arthur refers to multiple purposes; extending these to the multiple stakeholders that hold them is especially important in the case of criminal conflicts. The adversarial nature of crime requires special qualities of technology in crime and security, in terms of resistance to diverse forms of attack, resilience and upgradeability.

Publications

A major review of technology, crime and crime prevention is in this article:

Presentations

The first presentation below focuses on drones, but with general lessons to be drawn. The rest cover the field of technology, opportunity and crime in general.