Guest Editor’s Introduction

This paper describes the latest stage of an ongoing attempt to update and upgrade CPTED’s concepts and actions and link them more closely to developments in architecture, design and crime science. The concept of territoriality, for example, is central to the practice domain of CPTED. Yet territoriality is only vaguely defined within that domain, as are the other core concepts such as activity support and target hardening; and all of them confusingly intersect and overlap. The paper attempts a remedy by developing a suite of definitions in depth, relating the core concepts to various frameworks and discourses developed for crime prevention and design against crime, and more generally exploring ways in which CPTED could become richer and more subtle. It will also consider the ‘dark side’ of the environment, covering offenders’ countermoves to prevention and their own counter-exploitation of space, buildings and what they contain. The ultimate intention is to produce a more rigorous, yet deeper and better-integrated conception of CPTED useful for practice, research and theory alike. The paper should be considered as work in progress, indicating what might be possible and stimulating debate rather than offering a definitive resolution of the issue. Further steps are suggested and constructive contributions from readers are invited.     

Editor’s Note

In the context of today’s big data and cloud computing, the global flow of data has become a powerful driver for international economic and investment growth. The EU and the U.S. have created two different paths for the legal regulation of the cross-border flow of personal data due to their respective historical traditions and realistic demands. The requirements for data protection have shown significant differences. The EU advocates localization of data and firmly restricts cross-border flow of personal data. The U.S. tends to protect personal data through industry self-regulation and government law enforcement. At the same time, these two paths also merge and supplement with each other. Based on this, China needs to learn from the legal regulatory paths of the EU and the US, respectively, to establish a legal idea that places equal emphasis on personal data protection and the development of the information industry. In terms of domestic law, the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China needs to be improved and supplemented by relevant supporting legislation to improve the operability of the law; the industry self-discipline guidelines should be established; and various types of cross-border data need to be classified and supervised. In terms of international law, it is necessary to participate in international cooperation based on the priority of data sovereignty and promote the signing of bilateral, multilateral agreements, and international treaties on the cross-border flow of personal data.