Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.
Drones have had a bit of a moment with Ukraine, where they are presented as evening up the fight, providing a cheap way of countering Ukraine’s disadvantages in remote strike capability. I was thinking of the shift in how drones are normally seen in liberal Western circles, as weapons that confer unlimited killing power and which allow the US military to dish out death with impunity anywhere in the world. Usually these critiques imagine nobody else has them or is capable of the meld of surveillance and analysis that makes US drones so utterly lethal. Military drones are presented as dangerous technology which can bring war into anyone’s living room. The are melded with targeting and data analytic assemblages into a sinister combination of fuzzy but deadly power.
This shift from drones as buzzing terrors to drones as legitimate military tech was cemented when I came across Neha Ansari (2022) writing in War on the Rocks on support for drones among the people of North West Pakistan. She reported that US military drones far from being instruments of imperialism cooking up the next generation of jihadis are locally popular. In contrast to the legacy imagination prevalent in the West, they are seen as targeted taker outers of bad folk. Locals who spoke positively about the effect of drone strikes said they were targeted, with limited civilian casualties, and preferable to the alternatives. The positive response to drones comes from improved targeting and rules of engagement which have seriously reduced the harm they cause. Effective use of drones disrupted the Pakistani Taliban’s ability to wield power locally.
The improved effectiveness and reception of drone strikes does not mean we can leave aside questions about ‘necro-politics’ (Allinson, 2015), states’ ability to decide who lives and who dies which are funnelled through drone tech. It does show that the effects of drones can be calibrated, and that they can be seen as working for or against the interests of people in whose territories they operate. The picture is more complex than drones being another round of colonial pacification. Improved targeting is possible and desirable.
This has fairly inverted my thinking about what military drones are as effective technologies, and on other technologies closer to my work, and the capacity for technology to be refined effectively in the interests of people. It makes me rethink sociology’s default critical analysis which tends to see technology in sinister terms rather than engaging with the range of effects it has and responses to it. From a critical perspective you could see it as an effective legitimation strategy. We tend to emphasise failure rather than change and adaptation. The US military proved to be fairly good at intelligence led adaption. Intelligence led policing has also been effective, for example, in the defeat of the IRA. We tend to resist these facts because they do not fit the grand narrative of a failing liberal order, and they suggest that self-correction and effective policing are possible solutions to terrorism.
Allinson J (2015) The necropolitics of drones. International Political Sociology 9(2). Oxford University Press: 113–127.
‘If you want a picture of the future, Winston, imagine a coddled manbaby dancing at his wedding to his sixth babymamma … forever.’
There is a very short video making the rounds of Finnish PM Sanna Marin dancing in a friend’s apartment. Somehow this has become a news item. Reporting on this is out of all proportion to any conceivable public interest. It made it onto Radio 4’s flagship PM broadcast. The formally articulated agenda by which the focus is justified is:
She is partying too much and not focused on governing. Putin could roll his tanks over the border while she’s lipsyncing to Kelis.
Finnish Prime Ministers should observe some decorum, because we complain politicians are not like us, and then insist they behave… not like us. We are complex.
Maybe someone alluded to drugs and drugs are bad, because we cannot understand that someone might use the word #jauhojengi in jest
The fact that this story made it into the foreign-policy averse British media tells you the newsiness of it is nothing to do with that, and as for the idea that PMs should exhibit the dignity of the office … There is always an unspoken element to any news agenda.
The unspoken element to the reporting on this one is:
She is a young, attractive woman
She is in power
She seems to be aware of, or not ashamed of and trying to actively hide, fact number 1
It is that last one that really does for her. In our society this is pretty damning and really not seemly at all. Women are permitted to: be attractive; be in power; enjoy themselves. They are not allowed to do any 2 or more of these things at once. Attractive must be mitigated by being competitive with other women and a bit broken (Love Island). Powerful must be mitigated by being repellent (Cersei Lannister) or murdered by your sulky bidey in (Khaleesi). It would be simple if this unspoken element was articulated so we know where we stand. Notably none of the reporting on Marin mentions her politics or anything that would normally make a politician newsworthy, or which might matter to listeners in the UK. ‘Marin, who brought her country into NATO at a time of unprecedented crisis, overturning 70 years of Finnish policy, has enjoyed a drink in private with some friends’. The punishment for any editor insisting the last bit of that is what should be on the news agenda should be being forced to watch Boris dancing at his wedding on repeat until the end of time.
One of the predictions made in global health was that as low/mid income countries became wealthier, their populations would adopt the illnesses characteristic of high income counties. Causes of death would shift away from neonatal conditions, violence and communicable disease to obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer and other what are often called lifestyle conditions.These were called diseases of affluence. Then we learnt better.
The great disease shift has largely been borne out – many countries have overcome these causes of death. As lifespan increases and consumption and living patterns change we see some of the expected disease pattern where most diseases are those of old age. But we have another problem: that many of these conditions are now detached from affluence. They are concentrated in lower income groups within higher income countries. They spread throughout the globe and are most prevalent where countries are most connected into the global economic and cultural system. Chronic mental health problems, problems of long term addiction, and chronic life diseases are not diseases of affluence. Hence concepts like affluenza do not really capture the processes at work. While these inequalities are a result of the operation of the global economy, they affect those who are most disadvantaged by it, whose communities are most hollowed out by it.
The concept of ‘the user’ or ‘person who uses drugs’ is central to how we talk about drug supply and distribution. It implies a singular individual who has a continuous relationship with drugs and a defined trajectory through which they become drug experienced. The non human elements of drug use contexts have been integrated by Duff (2011), Dennis (2019) and others, who have sought to move away from the user as the centre of the universe. Research into digital drug distributions still often works with the background assumption that user=a single individual. To question that we can draw on research in human computer interaction.
Baumer and Brubaker’s concept of post-userism describes how the design of digital systems is evolving away from the ground truth assumption that the start and end point is the actions of a single human user. They sketch out the historical evolution of the basic assumptions in human computer interaction, from a single person sitting in front of a single fixed terminal, to the use of multiple mobile devices, IOT devices, and other digital things that take on some of what would previously be attributes of the user. Attributes such as distributed cognition are to the for here. That parallels a lot of new materialism and actor-network theory work. I would go further and say that the classic period of the ‘user’ also had some of these attributes baked in, but they were hidden due to who the users were. There was a near one to one relationship between the user’s cultural habitus and the design of the systems they were using.
They set out some attributes we should be alert to. There is indirection, where the system operator is acting for someone else. There are many instances where a device might be shared among a group, or where it is mediated by an operator. Then there is transience, where individuals interact with a system repeatedly without it retaining a singular ‘trace identity’ for them. Multiplicity is a common happening in some systems where people can have varied identities representing different uses or subject positions. Systems also work with user Absence where they are not centred on any one user, but have effects nonetheless. They give an example of Google searches for classically African American names, as a prospective employer might do, throw up adverts implying the person may have a criminal record. User absence or withdrawal does not guarantee they can avoid the effects systems have. Human and non-human also work together as hybrids, for example the automod we are working with operates as an ally for the human moderators. All sorts of interesting challenges come up here, such as how the trend towards biometric authentication works when the person using the interface is not the end user.
In drug market studies this perspective is apt, as we see systems which have these attributes. There are automated drug market systems such as Televend. Users operate drug purchase systems for others and insert themselves into the market as buyers, secondary distributors and social suppliers. In drug market studies we can systematically acknowledge how these changes have altered the nature of distribution and consumption. For example, the rise of performance/image enhancing drugs decenters the hedonic self, instead involving multiple selves. Legal liability and culpability are also in question when the systems are complex and distribute responsibility among different individuals and systems.
Baumer EPS and Brubaker JR (2017) Post-userism. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver Colorado USA, 2 May 2017, pp. 6291–6303. ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3025453.3025740.
Dennis F (2019) Injecting Bodies in More-than-Human Worlds. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780429466137.
Duff C (2011) Reassembling (social) contexts: New directions for a sociology of drugs. International Journal of Drug Policy 22(6): 404–406. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.09.005.
When the whole world has been opened to capital, there is nowhere to expand into. There are no more sources of cheap labour or raw materials, and no more ways to mechanise complex tasks. You can only expand inward, through every more fiendish financial engineering, engineered solutions to non-problems such as WeWork, and to what are effectively non-places like space tourism. Cypto is an example of this failure mode. It has not lead to the development of any new technologies, or ways of doing things, that have had any positive impact on human affairs. It will leave nothing behind. It sucks in human and financial capital and destroys it. The other main stumble is the loss of any understanding of what progress means. Progress used to mean increasing the material capacities of humanity, creating solidarity between peoples, ensuring the fruits of the economy were distributed fairly. The demands made of capitalism were to do that better. Now it means stopping people doing or saying things. It is highly risk avoidant.
The main problems are:
The shift to asset and credential capital over income locks in middle class/Boomer douchebaggery.
Migration has ceased to be a source of social mobility and change but is now used for inter-elite circulation or to service global centres.
Social sorting means networks are increasingly homogenous
Local communities have no power
We no longer generate energy
The welfare state now serves the needs of the middle class and well off older groups.
Proposals:
Build a lot of houses. Like, a lot – upwards of two million a year. Get rid of the Town and Country Planning Act, reinstate council house building, and build some new cities while you are at it. This will seriously annoy everyone who has locked in their wealth into overvalued housing stock, so win-win.
End fractional reserve banking. This will reduce misallocation of capital. Reintroduce building societies.
Replaces middle class welfare with a single payment to every person in the country.
Ontology (‘what is’) is a topic students often have difficulty grappling with in their work. It tends to end up being a set of buzzwords that people lay fealty to (interpretivist! Social constructionist!) and generalist statements about society being ever changing and such. It should be a set of thinking tools that should help you work through the research problem you are examining. Let’s start by asking why we care about this dimension, and what it means. Ontology has two aspects. First, it is the set of ground truths that you take as elemental to your study which limit how you can study it. Second it is a set of disputes about the nature of social reality and evidence about it which both affect your research and that can be studied as part of it.
To illustrate both, here are some competing ontological statements:
What we call society is just the observed outcome of social interaction.
People’s identities are intersectional
IQ is destiny
Each statement claims a ground truth about an element of social life which is fundamental to it. Each is structured something like ‘before we consider anything, we have to consider this’. Before talking about education outcomes, we have to consider that children enter the education system with a set of capacities measured by IQ, which shape outcomes far down the line. Before examining how people group themselves into functioning units we need to see how they create boundaries through interaction. Before considering experience we must understand position.
How are research problems produced from these statements? Consider what might falsify each of these statements. For example, if you studied intersectionality and found that class position was dominant. Or that sex mattered in a way that was fundamentally different from other identity categories.
Questions to ask yourself:
What tangible entities shape human life but are independent of it?
How do human categories map onto naturally occurring taxonomies?
What purpose do cultural categories serve?
Are there natural laws in social life?
The best way to understand ontology as a concept is through tracking disagreements in your field. Here is one: at the moment medical startups are seeking to develop psychedelic treatments that do not have psychedelic effects. This is part of legitimating the treatment as a medicine. But many people in the psychedelic community do not see the positive effects as separable from the psychedelic experience and see this is a questionable, somewhat hostile move. You cannot alter your state without altering your state. The same disagreement played out over cannabis’ analgesic properties. Can you produce a drug that separates out its intoxicant effect? Is it the same drug, and the same experience? These are ontological question. Questions about what the object is, fundamentally.
Another example, which is about how people position themselves in relation to natural entities. People say ‘follow the science’ until the science disagrees on something they care about. Then they question the science. ‘The science’ is treated as some unified final court of appeal about whatever the issue is. When they do not like what the science is saying, they immediately seek to discredit it, pointing to various epistemological limitations and biases. Its ontological status changes from a bias free revealed truth to a politicised, human shaped process which can be questioned. Is one true and one false?
This takes us from ontology to epistemology, which asks where knowledge about the world derives its authority from. In the above case, the source of authority is political expediency. In other places it is traditional authority, or ‘it’s aye been that way’. The quality these have is there is something that refuses to be questioned.
As Olivia Rodrigo so wisely said ‘it’s brutal out there’. But we are never so brutal as with ourselves.
Apply widely and be adaptable – you can fit into more posts and get something from them than you may realise. Recognise what they are looking for.
Aim high and value yourself – even if you do not get it you will get on people’s radar.
Show ambition for yourself and them – it is exciting to think how you might energise a place.
Before you begin think through why you want the job, what you will do with the post and where it will take you. That last step is the most important. Every job leads somewhere. Think ahead to where you will be in a year or two if you were to take up the post, what you would have liked to have made happen in it, and put that in the your cover letter. Talk over with a more senior colleague/your PhD supervisor about what the post is asking for and how it fits with your goals. Look at the job requirements and be strict with yourself. Is there anything missing and what can you do about it? As an example: many lecture jobs ask for experience of course leadership which is hard to obtain as a PhD student. Something you can do to bridge that gap is design a course that would be taught if you get the post, lay out the curriculum, course themes and so on. You do not need to actually do it, just show that you have potential. For your research, show your publication plan and your intentions as well as what you have done. Demonstrate you recognise and can meet the demands of the post even if you might not have met them all yet.
Some specific advice about your application:
Write your cover letter for the job you are applying for. When applying for a teaching position do not write an epic 4+ page cover letter detailing your interesting research and then have half a paragraph at the end about your teaching. It makes it seem like you do not really care about the job. Put that bit up front.
ALSO do not write epic 4+ page cover letters. Cover letters should be 2 sides maximum. Try and hit all the requirements in the job specification. Tell your story about your take on the post, what you want to bring with it and do with it. You are a whole package, so show that. Use the language of the job specification in the letter.
Structure your cover letter as a 3-step: Here is why I want the job, and why I am the best fit for it, here are a few examples of why that is the case and here is what I would do if I got the job. The cover letter should show the challenges you met and what happened as a result of the fabulous work you did. Do not rely on anything to speak for itself. For example:
“One of the big challenges in higher education is giving students feedback they value. I asked the students I was tutoring what they did with their feedback and most were not using it. I scheduled a session where we read our feedback together. I then held a session for other tutors and lecturers showing how this improved student satisfaction with their feedback”. This example shows: your ability to think about the bigger picture, to recognise a problem and address it, and show leadership in bringing your solution to others. It could be done as one of the ‘fill in’ examples I mention above. If you are a tutor you could easily do that in preparation for your job applications to show your nascent leadership skills. Then you can show how the job might allow you scale that up into something more ambitious.
Teaching qualifications are really starting to matter, both in themselves and because they help you reflect on your teaching in the way described above. So do take the Edinburgh Teaching Award or equivalent Advance HE qualification. Look at the Advance HE professional standards framework and draw on that language in your application. Again show how this helped you, where it took you. Applications should be forward looking.
Rule 3.5 They have to want you. But you also have to want them. Do not flay yourself for a job that is not for you.
In my quest to expose the writing process I have structured this paper using named paragraphs. Each paragraph has a title showing the purpose it performs as part of the overall paper structure. This should help putting the paper together as a coherent argument, showing how each bit adds to the whole. Here we go:
A crime script analysis of vendor of forged US dollars and their community
Abstract
This article presents a crime script analysis of a darknet cryptomarket based counterfeit currency vendor and their community, putting the script into a technical-material context. It outlines the two interlinked crime scripts covering the last two stages of the counterfeit currency distribution system, for the currency vendor and middleman, ‘Benjamin’, and the buyer who will use the currency. The discussion forum allows each script to be fine tuned and creates feedback for the vendor on the quality and effectiveness of the notes. The online community is critical to the distribution of the notes and to their effective use.
Introduction: Community developed modus operandi
What the study does: This paper describes the final stages of a counterfeit currency distribution network operating using a Tor darknet cryptomarket, covering the phase from secondary distribution to retail use. The cryptomarket is shown to function as the ‘last mile’ distributor (Dittus, Wright, and Graham 2017) of counterfeit currency to buyers who will use it in the field, either individually or in tandem with an organised group. The case shows an example of a functioning supply chain from producer to final user and demonstrates how the darknet functions as both a distribution mechanism for the product and a learning environment for distributor and users, where they share user defined crime scripts for the successful use of counterfeit currency. The paper focuses mainly on the process by which users develop and test effective crime scripts, what it tells about their priorities, their accounts of motive, and how they position themselves in relation to the wider illicit economy.
Suggest an audience: Counterfeiting is tackled by a range of bodies including the specialist policing taskforces such as the UK National Crime Agency Central Office for the Suppression of Counterfeit Currency and Protected Coins, central banks, and retailer/banking business organisations . Why it matters: Forged currency involves immediate risks to those handling the notes and longer term potential harms in damaging trust in the cash economy. There is a concentration of harm among frontline staff and smaller businesses. Cashiers or waiting staff who unwittingly handle fake notes might have their wages docked or be prosecuted. Smaller businesses which handle more cash will likewise be more at risk. It damages trust and costs are socialised to the rest of the economy. The most cash depending demographic in society is also the part of the population that has least access to banking systems and credit and are most reliant on cash for paying and being paid. As economies become more digitised and cash is steadily squeezed out of mainstream payment processes the harm of counterfeiting is increasingly concentrated among the more marginalized groups. Concerted efforts to tackle counterfeiting by reducing dependence on cash and actively targeting counterfeiting does not improve their position nor create alternative routes to finance for them. In fact it may have a damaging effect on the unbanked swathe of society, particularly in developing country contexts (Wang 2020).
Get this in proportion: Currency counterfeiting is relatively uncommon in the West. In 2003 the US Federal Reserve estimated that less than 1 in 10000 currency notes were counterfeit (Judson and Porter 2003), a result also reported for the Canadian dollar (Chant 2004) and estimated at 1 in 40,000 for the UK Pound Sterling (Bank of England 2022) and 1 in 14000 for the Mexican peso [Bank of Mexico]. Counterfeiting of the Indian Rupee is more common and appears to be rising significantly from 2019 (Reserve Bank of India 2019, 2022). Money laundering through electronic means and crimes such as cheque fraud and card-not-present fraud are much more significant in terms of loss and harmful in spreading corruption and funding the activities of organised criminal groups. Changes in the era of debt led/credit fueled capitalism have further limited the opportunities for counterfeiting currency when more lucrative rewards lie in defrauding the banking sector (Kahn and Roberds 2008). Improved detection of fakes and improved note design have increased the technical demands on counterfeiters. Despite that there is still enough of an incentive for the practice to persist and even grow among some currencies such as the rupee, while there has in contrast been a decline in counterfeit euro circulation.
We should still care: Despite the challenges presented to counterfeiters, money forgery persists. It evolves and shifts with the value put on various cash types and denominations, and the security/detection technology employed by central banks. Increasingly banknotes are designed as one element of a technological whole which encompasses processing and detection technologies. The rise of automated processing points such as supermarket autopay terminals changes the process away from human detection. Machines can be designed to be more sensitive to particular aspects of the note such as precise weight or shape. These changed technological assemblages shift common understandings of what cash is in symbolic and practical terms, for example, from a store of capital to an object of value that can vary independently of its stated face value (Lemon 1998).
Hinge – it’s a niche but an interesting one: Much research and intervention focuses on electronic money laundering and large scale counterfeiting. The growth in currency during 2020/21 also makes it likely that there are more opportunities for counterfeiting. Narrative justification: Forgery may be beginning to matter more. At November 2021, US currency in circulation amounted to 2,116.4 US$ billion in seasonally adjusted figures, 9.9% of the M2 money supply (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 2021). Up to two thirds of the cash dollar supply is held outwith the USA [find another reference]. Despite the general move to digital payments, the cash supply has steadily grown throughout 2020/21 along with a broad increase in the money supply. The growth reflects central banks’ intervention in the economy under the Covid-19 pandemic. Counterfeit seizure rates have also fallen dramatically.
A theoretical postulate shows my contribution: The role of counterfeiting the crime business model. The main problem in maintaining the counterfeit currency economy is that to have any use value notes must circulate into the real economy quickly and in so doing are effectively nullified. They are detected and eliminated or become in any case useless to criminals. Criminals depend on that to wash fake notes into real money or goods. As a result the counterfeit economy is inherently parasitic on both the legal and illegal economies and is no way self sustaining. Furthermore there a tension in the business model. To make the most counterfeit notes need to be of high value ($50 and $100) which are likely to attract more scrutiny when used. The largest value is in these denominations and the largest number of notes in circulation are $100. Many more transactions will have to take place to put them into use, raising the time and labour cost. All that makes it difficult to keep a counterfeit currency business going.
The topic in techno-social history: Digital crime is a technosocial construct. It is a hybrid of different systems and exploits. Technological demand/affordances matter. Counterfeit currency is characterised by many embedded techno-material factors such as the advent of desktop publishing and laser printing. The US Federal Reserve in 2003 note the cost of creating plausible counterfeits (Judson and Porter 2003). However distributed digitally enabled manufacturing appears to have brought some of the startup/fixed capital costs down (Li and Rocheteau 2011) and offset lithography can produce quality notes rapidly (NCA). Distribution is still very costly as they must be widely spread in order to be successful used. That may be an area where things have changed given the expansion in money mule and other distributed money laundering activity which lends itself more easily to counterfeit currency distribution.
Introduce the conceptual construct: the criminal community shares and tests the crime script against real world practice. Scripts are not wholly evolved and are going to be adapted all the time. The community closes the loop on that. The crime script consists of three basic stages prepare/pre-empt, doing/actualizing, end state/reset. It has to function as a whole set, a failure in one element cause the script to cease functioning. The crime script encapsulates the conditions for the act to occur, the preparation, entry/action and exit requirements and the post-condition. Dividing the script into its strategic and tactical components allows interventions to be planned which disrupt the criminal opportunity.
Second contribution I make: I analyse the technology used in material terms rather than as the crime medium. Beyond tech as a modality/fabric for crime (Van Nguyen 2021) and onto tech as a material context constitutive of actors. Given how embedded technology is in everyday life (Hine 2015) and the rise of crime as a service we can move past the idea of technology as a quality existing on a scale, from cyber-assisted through cyber-enabled to cyber-dependent. As technology is now so embedded we have to move past that and think of tech as part of the material matrix. Consider a phone scam that’s highly centralised, using phone lists, combines high and low tech. A helpline fraud might use largely the same setup and be fairly low tech given the tools they use are basic – hence the high level of hacking back against them. So tech is mostly too mixed and crime is too mixed skill to make this determination. [analysis should reflect this – be sensitive to different types of action/interaction]. Embedded security features in currency – polymer notes, holograms and other design features. These features also work as part of a whole system so that tellers can spot fakes.
Show direction: This article will examine the micro-process of last mile distribution and the interface between user purchase and practice. Research Questions this paper addresses:
What crime scripts are used by currency vendors and buyers?
How do counterfeit vendor and user make use of the technical/material qualities of the notes?
How does the social structure of the vendor-user relationship work with or against the CS?
How does counterfeit currency operate as part of its own technical assemblage
Method
The field make an effective case study because: Cryptomarkets are open, anonymous markets hosted using the Tor onion hosting service. Combined with bitcoin or another cryptocurrency payment system they allow goods to be sold in relative anonymity and without buyer and seller meeting. The seller posts a product listing and the buyer pays using a decentralised cryptocurrency which is held in market escrow. The drug package is sent to them through postal service, courier or dead drop. On receipt, or after a certain amount of time has elapsed, the payment is released to the seller. At least in theory that is the process, however increasingly sellers requirement payments immediately, showing that the power lies in the market with them. The process was adapted for sellers of counterfeit dollars.
How the large case set links to the concept: Cryptomarkets are a place of ‘offender convergence’ (Felson 2006) characterized by ‘extended co-offending’ (Felson 2009), and they have some unique qualities as criminogenic spaces. Offenders can liaise and share intelligence and material without meeting. They provide a quality feedback loop where buyers discuss and compare products. They can be a testing ground for new products and new criminal business models. The particular cryptomarket hosting Benjamin is an open model. Anyone can join. Most goods and services can be offered, other than child pornography. Vendors may restrict customers according to location, willingness to spend, or a preexisting relationship.
The research design is constrained by the data: The project uses a single case study of a discussion between counterfeit dollar vendor and their customers. The discussion takes place over a long time period, allowing the evolving practice of both vendor and users to be followed. Mapping vendor and user crime scripts allowed me to systematise my understanding of their practice and develop a generalised outline of each players’ approach to executing their crime.
The paper makes a methodological contribution: Methodologically, the paper addresses a challenge of criminological research with dispersed entities, non-synchronous interactions, non-human. Draw on existing social research such as ethnography of infrastructures, multi-sited ethnography, hybrid ethnography ‘Material’ = : I analyse the technology used in material terms rather than as the crime medium. Beyond tech as a modality/fabric for crime and onto tech as a material context constitutive of actors.
Outline the general processof how I got here: Crime script analysis is a sequence analysis method of criminal knowledge formation. It follows four broad stages: Preparation – identification of opportunity and means. Assembly – putting the criminal into place, assembling the necessary precursors. Commission – the crime commission itself. Post-activity – getting away, extracting value, other necessary end states to reset the sequence (Chainey and Alonso Berbotto 2021). Each stage can be broken down into further elements depending on need. Dehghanniri and Borrion (2016) model the process to produce the crime script. The first step defines the problem, such as wage theft or dumping waste in the environment. It also shows what the crime script is intended to do which guides the analyst to the level of detail needed. An analysis that will be used in deploying surveillance will have different needs to one which seeks to change compliance rules. The second step elaborates the information requirements which flow from that: the analyst might be interested more in how this crime is committed, who is involved, and/or what facilitates it. The narrative analysis was key to allowing me to understand much more about how the script was developed and finessed by the group.
The specific process, neatly: The discussion was first open coded and then recoded according to the crime script stages for both the vendor and currency users as in table 1. Critical stages, cast and conditions for each process, vendor and user, were identified as detailed by Thompson and Chainey (2011). Contextualisation codes such as ‘Deference to community’ were also created. Context codes were in part derived from the existing literature, for example, the importance of claims to ‘insider’ roles and knowledge (Holt and Lee 2020). This was done in order to place the CSA in a material context. Matrix coding was then conducted cross tabulating the contextualizing codes with the CSA codes. These codes fed into the crime script coding, for example, technical features were coded and then distributed according to their function in the precondition/actualisation parts of the script. That exposed the technical, stealth, performative and organisational features at different stages of the CS execution. Cases were created for each contributor to the forum and the attribute function was used to record their role/stance. Text was coded to every contributor. Possible roles were: vendor, valid buyer, sock puppet. The forum has 72 cases of which x were xx. Vignettes were created for each participant, providing a sketch of their participation, for example, whether they changed position or left over time. Open data principles have been applied. The dataset is available and archived by the University of Edinburgh.
Findings
Meta criminal context: Benjamin (gender unknown) is a re-seller for the supplier Willy.Clock who had developed a public profile at the time and was known to the other members of the forum, and who was supported by another distributor, Mr. Mouse (Krebs 2014). Willy.clock is a Uganda based counterfeiter, Ryan Andrew Gustafson who was arrested in 2014 and who pled guilty in 2018 to charges of counterfeiting.
There is a network of sites validating each other so participants do not take anything on trust: Another onion site hosted support for note users and was used to validate the identities of distributors as a basic authenticity check. There was a well known distribution logic at work: The NCA states that criminal networks operate by breaking bulk production into smaller units that can be distributed and used by lower level criminals, so this appears to be a case of that being done. Benjamin introduces themselves in what becomes a long thread where buyers return to critique their product and debate how it should be used. Benjamin responds by defending the product, saying that buyers are using it improperly, and eventually agreeing that the counterfeit notes are not what they were.
Define the process in stages: The process is one of a spiral where the notes are tested in real world use and refined. The scrip derived from Benjamin and friends is therefore part of a meta-crime script involving the testing and innovation of the production process. Benjamin’s second stage role meant they could palm off some of the responsibility for poor quality product onto the supplier. The discussion was characterised by in depth explorations of the technical features of the notes, their consistency and reliability. Some participants appeared to be much closer to Benjamin and interacted with them outside the forum via a messaging service. Contributors ranged from these close accomplices to more casual users of the notes who were much less committed to the crime script.
The group context: To an extent the group as a whole worked on developing their crime script through comparing different experiences with using the notes, their opinions on their technical qualities, and advice about how to successfully use them without being detected. In this way what mattered to them became apparent. The technical qualities of the notes were a means to an end: their ability to use them successfully and then use the knowledge gained to buy more. Successful repeat use was
The interactional context: the forum allows for critique and requires a level of commitment from Benjamin. Benjamin introduces themselves as a known quantity, with feedback from another cryptomarket, the Black Market. They set out the security features of the product they are selling. It is claimed to be single ply, a security strip on the $100 dollar note, the ability to pass the pen test, a watermark, accurate colour using offset lithography, colour shifting ink, microprinting, a believable physical texture and resilience when dunked in water. The product seems to be high quality. Benjamin immediately adds a caveat. The bills do not contain magnetic ink, ferrofluid added to the bill to give it a distinct magnetic signature. That allows machines to distinguish between denominations and to reject fakes. Benjamin begins with a clear statement: any problems in passing the currency off as real are due to the failure of the buyer to adhere to an effective protocol.
Narrative breakdown: the thread begins positively. It all began so well – the golden period: sales and feedback are good. Benjamin begins with $100 notes and teases customers with the prospect of $50s and $20s. Early on after the thread begins they claim to have sold 300 $100 notes, for a face value of $30,000. Amounts purchased ranged up to 100 notes, $10,000 face value. They charge 50% of the face value of the notes though bulk buyers can obtain a larger discount. Buyers express excitement and anticipation for Benjamin receiving new stocks to pass onto them. The first bat h is well received. The second batch Benjamin sends out much less so. The quality of the notes deteriorates and users become disgruntled. A back and forth happens with one critic called out as a shill, and gradually disgruntlement builds as other users who had previously praised the notes now begin to question them. At this point the forum starts to divide. Users who have success with the notes allege that it is buyer failure to use them properly that is responsible for any problems.
If anybody finds their notes so atrocious, dunk them in water and wash all of the pen treatment off. It won’t pass the pen test, but it will sure as hell feel like real money … Alternatively, read through the forums and pay attention to what others to do give them their own touch. I’m not into replying to this negative BS, but I’ll manage to give you these few pointers.” Benjamin
One instance of a general phenomenon: As with other illicit and legal markets, there is a tendency towards bulking up sales following initial success. Benjamin decides to set a five note minimum order. Some buyers respond that this freezes them out. Note quality starts to decline:
“Lastly, and this is what is everyones biggest complain/concern so far, is the feel. Unless the clerk is wearing gloves I don’t know how they wouldn’t notice most of the bills waxy feel in comparison to the real notes. So that would be a dead give away to people who handle money regularly.”
Narrative turn with some colour: There then begins a conflictual phase in which Benjamin alternatively defends themselves and disappears for a time, stating they are working on fixing the problems with the notes that buyers have started to identify. Some participants sought to defend the operation from criticism. In one section, the discussion focused on security researcher Krebs (link) was sent counterfeit notes which he described as not being of very good quality. Several participants explained this away as a fakeout by Willy.Clock, the producer:
I think it was an inside operation by WC and Mouse if I had to guess, and ya thousands and thousands of retailers use Krebs and even catch up with him on Twitter, and everything seen on Krebs gets instantly passed down to loads of other websites and news sites too, if you google Mr Mouse counterfeits he’s all over the place thanks to Krebs.
The aim, they allege, was for the producer to spread misinformation to retailers about what they should look for in counterfeit notes.Complaints pile up on the forum. Orders do not arrive on time, quality suffers and communication with Benjamin becomes patchy. Benjamin stalls for time, promising refunds if the deliveries do not appear, which annoys customers whose money Benjamin has. Benjamin blames the market’s administrative system for problems and asks buyers to contact them directly and pay in bitcoin, triggering another round of criticism as this process gives the buyers no guarantees. The tone of the forum changes. Previous supportive members write long, highly critical posts. Benjamin struggles with justifying the perceived declining quality of the notes and promising improvements. They claim that the loss of quality is a matter of perception, that initial enthusiasm for the notes inflated expectations, and admits to some lower quality notes being shipped due to the influx of new orders limiting their quality control processes. Benjamin is suspended for a time by his supplier for failing to communicate well with their clients, and for not properly prepping the notes before sale, as the supplier begins to worry about the blowback from negative experiences with the notes Benjamin sells.
Benjamin complains about his relationship with the forum and sometimes the supplier, Willy.Clock. There is some suspicion that starting with good stock is a strategy to then switch buyers to less convincing notes. Some buyers acknowledge that they are on the lowest point on the food chain, and are unlikely to be offered supernotes which sell for much more and go to better invested users. Buyers argue with Benjamin and each other about the work they needed to do to the notes to make them look and feel more plausible.
I also went and just tried to play around with a note myself and I sprayed it with acrylic matte spray after putting it in water and drying it off and pressed it in the pages of a book and put a table leg on that. Now it’s fantastic! If the paper is good the rest of the note is great!!
Narrative closure: Benjamin in response goes on sabbatical in order to address the problems with the notes that buyers have identified, returning with what are claimed as notes that pass the pen test and feel close to the real thing. Enthusiasm resumes as these notes are distributed. As this wave of enthusiasm builds, the supplier is arrested, bringing the thread to an end.
Now about the context, the forum is a social space: Benjamin enjoys support from thread participants who advise on fine tuning note design and use. Benjamin had a number of buyers who were very positive about the product. As problems emerged they were accused of being sock puppet accounts. These acolytes proposed that if people were finding problems getting the notes accepted they were doing it wrong. They were following the wrong strategy, or were inherently suspicious individuals who invited greater scrutiny. Benjamin endorses these readings. Although one can never be sure, it did appear that these were genuine accounts who had made purchases through the system. Tell us why we now need to know about crime scripts: The business logic required a supporting chorus of satisfied buyers who could validate the quality of the notes and how they were used, in the form of a shared crime script.
Using the crime script
Start with a basic taxonomy: Participants had various roles: structuring, supporting, guiding, questioning, and various degrees of investment in Benjamin’s success. Some were highly critical of the entire process and said that passing of fake currency was only good for people who could not make it as drug dealers. Others saw their role as validating the genuineness of Benjamin’s efforts. One user, thisoldman, became critical in guiding buyers through the crime script, and users reported success with guidance from them. Thisoldman offered a guide for purchase to passing notes which could be bought through the site. They passed out tips on how to improve the passability of the notes by altering their appearance and feel.
The two separate scripts for Benjamin and their customers are set out side by side in Table 1. There was more information on the customers’ script as they participated much more in the discussion which involved troubleshooting their use of the notes. I have included both as they both centre around the forum in different ways. The forum was crucial to both scripts in different ways.
Table 1 Crime Script
Benjamin
Buyer
Entry
Set up cryptomarket account
Target scoping
Precondition
Bulk order from supplier
Reputation
Receive currency
Choose high traffic setting
Work notes
Selection
Market/sales/advertise
Select/stealth person/car
Select young cashier/busy time
Instrumental initiation
Receive orders from buyers
Pricing and divide up note ‘packs’
Identify high value/good return good
Instrumental actualisation
Process orders, select consumer/delivery
Buy goods/swap out cash
Continuation
After sales support/manage reputation/expectations on forum
Recycle bad product into good notes
Post condition
Close the feedback loop with supplier
Transfer legit cash
Exit/reset
Cash out/repost
Return to thread/leave
Showing there is more than a technical function/aptitude needed: From the point of view of Benjamin, creating a plausible cryptomarket identity was the first technical step. Then they needed to satisfy two reputational requirements. They needed to be in good standing with their supplier in order to secure a large enough order of notes to make redistribution profitable, and to appear both plausible and reliable to the users of the crytpomarket. Buyers were taking a risk buying the notes as they had little recourse if they turned out to be unusable. Throughout the process Benjamin had to calibrate their expectations of what they have, do the technical work of processing and sending orders, review users experience in the forum, send feedback to the supplier and cash out. Engagement with the forum was needed to manage the customer base and keep them involved:
My supplier has just informed me that a rather LARGE shipment is in DHL processing now, and should be coming out of customs shortly. Keep your fingers crossed people!”,,
A notable aspect of this was Benjamin’s willingness to expose their own process. A key instrumental precondition was prepping and batching notes for distribution and Benjamin wrote often about the process of preparing the notes, showing how the process might go wrong and acknowledging the uncertanties:
It means that MrMouse and I among other retailers are having to treat notes ourselves with makeshift methods from the boss, and we aren’t artists like Willy, so we struggle. We don’t have access to the chemicals that Willy does on his end for proper treatment. We get the job done (as in your notes will definitely pass the pen test), but recouping the pure authentic feel has been a challenge.
Closing the feedback loop with the supplier was necessary to continue the script. Benjamin had to give feedback to Willy.Clock and inform the forum of how the notes were changing in response.
Benjamin and some key contributors maintained a modus operandi document, effectively their own literal crime script, to guide users through the process. The document involved ensuring users did not try too high and invite suspicion, for example, by buying a one dollar item with a one hundred dollar note.
Showing how the findings are structured: The relationship between Benjamin and their buyers was one where Benjamin acted as an avatar for the notes. From the point of view of the user the central elements of the process were identifying a point to swap out fake notes for real ones, turn the counterfeit into goods that can be used or returned for cash or otherwise realise real money from the fake notes. That could involve working with an insider at a bank or a retail outlet where there would be considerable cash flow. Most contributors however used them at retail level by selecting a plausible target and time of day to buy small value items with a large note. Users selected targets according to their judgment on whether the note would be accepted. Some split targets by denomination, using $20s and $50s in busy outlets, or buying more $100s when they were confident the note quality and the target merited it. In their discussion the buyers mentioned how they slipped the counterfeits into the supply chain. Their varied tactics were aimed at laundering bad notes into good. Buying a small value item with $50 or $100 notes and obtaining change would do that. However there was a risk that cashiers would be more likely to scrutinise or refuse large value notes for small value items. Another route to actualisation was buying easily cashable tokens such as money cards.
A labour structure was in evidence in some cases. Most buyers used the notes as individuals. One buyer claimed to be running a larger operation with a team who would spend the notes. There was a sense that these were not major players and would be buying small amounts to use in ways that would not attract attention.
They discussed various failures and how to exit the scene after notes were rejected. None reported the police being called in response to an attempt to use fake notes.
Give a feel for the process: A skill promoted was the ability to work the notes into a consistent product, using the inevitably variable supply provided by Benjamin to produce something consistently workable:
My only issue now is that this batch was different then the last one, not because of quality but because Ink clearly did something wrong to the paper, personally I shut the fuck up and just fixed it myself by putting them in water like I said before, but some people just think they should get supernotes in the mail and not have to touch anything because they are really petty customers, so in your best interest Ink we think you should fix
Linking both ends together: Material skills were in evidence. Working the notes showed how the physical qualities of the notes were seen as features that had to be enacted in practice, through a combination of the ability of the buyer to work the notes into plausible currency, select the right target and approach in the right way. The combination of technique and technology came together to enact the counterfeit currency as a technology applied to a specific situation. In that sense the currency is only enacted in place.
Discussion
Remind the reader of the context: Distribution of counterfeit currency in this way is an example of a hybrid crime combining online distribution of the product and offline implementation of the crime, actually using the notes in a fraudulent way. The script required understanding the meta-criminal context in which Benjamin and the users operated. Benjamin was a secondary vendor for a primary note producer. Therefore they had to manage both their supply and manage expectations within the darknet community about the effectiveness of the notes. Benjamin’s second stage role meant they could palm off some of the responsibility for poor quality product onto the supplier but still needed to maintain a reasonably high hit rate among their customers. It was vital in order to keep selling the notes that users reported success with them. This is not an unusual element of digital crime. Some organisations have guides and helplines for both associates and victims in order to ensure the script goes smoothly, allowing for negation between victim and offender (Hernandez-Castro, Cartwright, and Stepanova 2017). A further analysis is invited which treats the counterfeit notes as part of a criminal assemblage. In this perspective the discourse around it, the production and distribution system, is part of a set of practices that produce the product as a workable entity.
Fit it into the literature: Though cryptomarkets focus on drug distribution some attempt to branch out into sales of weapons, counterfeit cigarettes and other goods such as counterfeit currency. This example shows that the system can be adapted so that the cryptomarket takes over the last mile of counterfeit distribution, and also the problems adapting the cryptomarket verification and quality control systems to a very different product. The community had great difficulty verifying the quality of the notes and had a single point of failure in the person of Benjamin, making it much less resilient than the section of the cryptomarket dealing in illicit drugs.
Size the issue: Overall the counterfeit trade in the cryptomarkets is fragile compared to the drug trade, as many participants recognised in their discussions. Another reason for the lack of resilience was the limited profit to be gained. Notes sell for 50% of face value. Therefore most profit is made in the production/distribution phases. When users take into account risk and the expense of crime commission the likely profit is much less than the theoretical profit of using counterfeit notes. Profits are further reduced if the user needs to employ others and share profits as part of their business model.
Talking about limits shows how the findings can be adapted in other contexts: The context limits some inferences that can be drawn. Participants do not disclose their country of operation. The darknet can be accessed from many countries, though it is difficult to access it from China. Data show most darknet use takes place in European, North America and Australia and the language/tone of the participants indicate they are based in the USA. References to the Federal Reserve and the fact they are using dollars in retail transactions indicates they are American. What is missing? There are a number of dark players in the cryptomarkets. The administrators and moderators govern who gets to create an account. They can ban accounts though a persistent hostile user can easily recreate another. Benjamin’s crime script is oriented towards his or her actions in the forum and there is a missing part to it, their relationship with their supplier.
What’s new/different? The cryptomarket provides a space for discussion and a hub for distribution. The counterfeit vendors/users employ an adaptable crime script. There is more variation in the buyers’ script. Benjamin’s script is constrained by the quality of the product available and the willingness of the buyers to pay for and use it. To an extent the group as a whole worked on developing their crime script through comparing different experiences with using the notes, their opinions on their technical qualities, and advice about how to successfully use them without being detected. In this way what mattered to them became apparent. The technical qualities of the notes were a means to an end: their ability to use them successfully and then use the knowledge gained to buy more. Successful repeat use was vital in order to make any kind of return, which was why consistent supply was so important to them. New context: insertion of market forum into crime script development and adaption. Discussion forums are critical in criminal evolution and innovation and we can also include other media such as Telegram channels in this. Users hybridise different modes to produce a workable modus operandi.
Why technology matters in one sense: The forum has certain technological affordances that matter. It is an example of a self-generated hierarchy. Why technology matters in another sense, and why we need to modify what we understand by crimetech: the notes have to be worked in different stages to make them plausible to different audiences, from the buyer to the target. That goes from batching to distribution, prepared for use and then distributed. Both Benjamin and the buyers treated the notes they received. Crime is embodied as craft work, recognising the personal, emotional labour that has to be involved in crime commission.
Finesse existing theory: The organisational context and the character of the criminal relationship is quite limited as Bejnamin has no control over the buyers so this relationship is voluntary. In comparison money mules are sometimes coerced through threats or debt relationships [ref]. The character of the crime is one of mutual exchange. It can be understood in terms of an dapted rational choice theory, but with added recognition of positionality/identity as motivating factors, materiality. Both vendor and buyer morally orient themselves to each other and the crime itself. ‘Rational’ is often drawn narrowly in terms of interests and should include the person’s identification of their own moral positioning in relation to the criminal activity, their motivation.
What can I infer? Both Ink and the buyers engage in innovation and fine tuning of their crime scripts. For Ink, reputation management and playing the role of the vendor willing to learn and respond to their critics is a key part of maintaining their status. For the buyers, they discuss how to successfully make use of the currency, avoid incurring legal liability while adapting to potential surveillance conditions.
Conclusion
What are the consequences of this paper (and I’d better rethink the title now): I have argued that understanding the crime script in this context is something supported by the community as a social organization and also as a material structure enacted through craft practices. As a consequence, intervention might consider taking place at the level of craft labour. There is a great degree of tacit knowledge involved in criminal enterprises. Crime script analysis tends to focus on the technical steps which foregrounds a rational choice approach when it comes to attacking the incentive structure. This analysis shows how reputation and plausibility are crucial elements at different stages, and the labour needed to achieve them.
Acknowledgements
For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
References
Bank of England. 2022. ‘Counterfeit Banknotes’. Retrieved 7 June 2022 (https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/counterfeit-banknotes).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. 2021. The Fed – Money Stock Measures – H.6 Release – December 28, 2021. Washington, D.C.: The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.
Chainey, Spencer P., and Arantza Alonso Berbotto. 2021. ‘A Structured Methodical Process for Populating a Crime Script of Organized Crime Activity Using OSINT’. Trends in Organized Crime. doi: 10.1007/s12117-021-09428-9.
Chant, John F. 2004. ‘The Canadian Experience with Counterfeiting’. 14.
Dehghanniri, Hashem, and Hervé Borrion. 2016. ‘Toward a More Structured Crime Scripting Method’. Pp. 94–97 in 2016 IEEE 24th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW).
Dittus, Martin, Joss Wright, and Mark Graham. 2017. ‘Platform Criminalism: The “Last-Mile” Geography of the Darknet Market Supply Chain’. Pp. 277–86 in WWW ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference. Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
Felson, Marcus. 2006. ‘THE ECOSYSTEM FOR ORGANIZED CRIME’. P. 20 in HEUNI 25th Anniversary Lecture. Helsinki.
Felson, Marcus. 2009. ‘The Natural History of Extended Co-Offending’. Trends in Organized Crime 12(2):159–65. doi: 10.1007/s12117-008-9056-7.
Hernandez-Castro, Julio, Edward Cartwright, and Anna Stepanova. 2017. ‘Economic Analysis of Ransomware’. ArXiv:1703.06660 [Cs].
Hine, Christine. 2015. Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Holt, Thomas J., and Jin R. Lee. 2020. ‘A Crime Script Analysis of Counterfeit Identity Document Procurement Online’. Deviant Behavior 1–18. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2020.1825915.
Judson, Ruth, and Richard Porter. 2003. Estimating the Worldwide Volume of Counterfeit U.S. Currency: Data and Extrapolation. Washington, D.C.: Division of Monetary Affairs Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Kahn, Charles M., and William Roberds. 2008. ‘Credit and Identity Theft’. Journal of Monetary Economics 55(2):251–64.
Krebs. 2014. ‘Fun With Funny Money – Krebs on Security’. Retrieved 27 January 2022 (https://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/09/fun-with-funny-money/).
Lemon, Alaina. 1998. ‘“Your Eyes Are Green like Dollars”: Counterfeit Cash, National Substance, and Currency Apartheid in 1990s Russia’. Cultural Anthropology 13(1):22–55. doi: 10.1525/can.1998.13.1.22.
Li, Yiting, and Guillaume Rocheteau. 2011. ‘On the Threat of Counterfeiting’. Macroeconomic Dynamics 15(S1):10–41.
Reserve Bank of India. 2019. Annual Report 2019. Delhi.
Reserve Bank of India. 2022. Annual Report 2022.
Tompson, Lisa, and Spencer Chainey. 2011. ‘Profiling Illegal Waste Activity: Using Crime Scripts as a Data Collection and Analytical Strategy’. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 17(3):179–201. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10610-011-9146-y.
Van Nguyen, Trong. 2021. ‘The Modus Operandi of Transnational Computer Fraud: A Crime Script Analysis in Vietnam’. Trends in Organized Crime 1–22. doi: 10.1007/s12117-021-09422-1.
Wang, Yujie. 2020. ‘Effect of Demonetization on India’s Financial Sector’. Pp. 308–11 in. Atlantis Press.
Cultural accounts of illicit markets and criminal activities are the best way to develop a feel for them. Here are my recommendations:
Podcasts
Some of the most insightful sociology is done in economics, so Planet Money is my go to for understanding how the economy shapes our lives. Episodes on illegal markets in avocados, sand, eco-crimes and various other shady stuff, as well as the bigger picture on supply chains, blockchains, and the effects of the financialisation of everything. The show as a whole offers mind shifting insights into why the world fits together in the way it does.
The Cryptoqueen is an engaging documentary about a cryptocurrency scam/MLM scheme. It doesn’t skimp on describing the harms caused .
Criminal, a podcast that covers all different stories related to crime and justice, many involving OCGs
Season 9 of Command Line heroes examines the origins of malware in an insightful social-technological history.
Vice’s Cyber covers dark and manipulative goings on from the harms of algorithmic capitalism to the wily tricks of malware operators.
Dr. Death – for those who think white collar crime is harmless. A podcast about a doctor who bamboozled the hospital and healthcare system into committing 33 acts of criminal malpractice on patients, causing lifelong suffering. It also discusses the sociological effects of his scam, including distrust in the Texas hospital system. It is a good study of how some people can become plausible in the eyes of others.
Documentary
Netflix
Cartel Land – the drug trade, violence and community resistance on the US/Mexico border.
Don’t F**k with Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer – how the attention economy may create an incentive to worse behaviour
Narco Cultura – contrasts the glamour of high value criminal operations with the harsh reality of everyday violence
The Making of a Murderer – somewhat off our topic but a good examination of how the criminal justice system ‘produces’ offenders
Vice
Leaving the Yakuza – a documentary about redundant members of the Japanese crime syndicate trying to find their way
Fiction
I’ve selected TV shows that are about the experience of being involved in criminal activity or being victimised:
Breaking Bad – a good contrast to the romanticised vision of organised crime and trafficking often shown by Hollywood
Better Call Saul – another show that’s heavy on moral decline and life in a the neoliberal warzone
The Night of – though not very close to course themes it captures the brutal indifference of the criminal justice system well
The Sopranos – what’s not to love about combining the mafia, domestic drama and therapy
The Wire – the most sociologically informed crime drama, whose writers drew a lot on social science research
Hannibal – famous American TV show that is fictional (and brutal), but shows behaviour analysis, particularly motive and modus operandi, very well)
Top Boy – thanks Abby – conflict and exploitation in the UK drug trade, drawing on County Lines research.
Film
The film Traffic (2000) and the TV series Traffik (1989) are effective studies of the drug trade from the perspective of different participants. You can find Traffik on Channel 4’s catchup service
I want to engage with a type of argument that is self-undermining. The months after Al-Qaeda’s attacks on New York and Washington in 2001 birthed an immoral decision. The USA at the highest level began publicly legitimising torture as a means to an end in the War on Terror. As opposed to having the decency to pretend not to. Opponents would often use a two step argument. First they would lay out why torture was repugnant. It harms the tortured, stains the torturer, and degrades the society that permits it. Second, they would add as a final flourish ‘torture doesn’t even work!’. Torture produces bad, unreliable intel. That’s lucky, I thought. What if it did work? Any argument where morality is reliant on pragmatism is going to risk the equation changing against it. Where do you stand then?
The same argument tends to bubble up over AI. In my work outlandish claims are often made about police AI by those developing the systems. These are private solutions offered by companies promising to use data integration to be able to predict where crime will happen so that police resources can be distributed accordingly. In response critics rehearse the damage to democracy when decisions are taken beyond any possible oversight, the danger to human autonomy, and then we say, ‘And it doesn’t even work’! Critics are usually right. These systems over promise and deliver little more than a beat cop’s common sense (crime happens where lots of young males hang out, where there are targets, and little oversight). We also point to the biases being worked in here so that systems without any explicit racial categorisation element will still faithfully reproduce racial biases in their effects.
If someone then designed a workable pre-crime system, one that did not simply replicate existing biases in the datasets, then what? These arguments do not go away, and we should continue to critique the effect as well as the principle, but the problem is that the pragmatic argument is a dodge. It is a way of avoiding the claim morality places on us, that we have to take decisions against our own interests and convenience. That there are paths we should not follow. A workable pre-crime system is something that should never be developed because it removes any notion of culpability and effectively end runs due process. Systems cease to have any hope of having democratic oversight, and they shift power from communities to states and remote techbrotopia corporations.
On the other hand that argument might be too purist. It is through their practical effects that we approach technologies and policies, and therefore leading with the in-context pragmatism is not a bad move to make. Further, we should not assume pragmatism is downstream of morality. Mostly we reason in the other direction. We say ‘how does this affect me … how does it affect my context … and maybe after a bit, how does it affect the world I will come to live in’. The two are more closely bound in than presented as we see in eg the ‘effects’ of bitcoin. Therefore the role of sociology is to interject at that point, where human visions of a moral life intersect with human realities about how once can live well.
