Assessing the developing knowledge-base of product counterfeiting: a content analysis of four decades of research

Considering the steady and rapid growth of product counterfeiting and the damage it causes to society, it is important for criminology and criminal justice scholars to assist criminal justice officials, industry practitioners, and law makers in understanding the product counterfeiting problem and developing strategies to combat it. However, for researchers to be effective in their advisory role they must first establish what is known about product counterfeiting. As a first step in this process, we investigated relevant published research through a content analysis of 47 articles discussing product counterfeiting published in criminal justice and criminology journals through 2014. We analyzed various characteristics about the articles themselves, their authors, the journals they appeared in, and the nature and extent of their focus on product counterfeiting. We conclude this study with an evaluation of the state of product counterfeiting research and recommendations for future research.     

Constituting 'the public' in public participation

The emphasis on public participation in contemporary policy discourse has prompted the development of a wide range of forums within which dialogue takes place between citizens and officials. Often such initiatives are intended to contribute to objectives relating to social exclusion and democratic renewal. The question of ‘who takes part’ within such forums is, then, critical to an understanding of how far new types of forums can contribute to the delivery of such objectives. This article draws on early findings of research conducted as part of the ESRC Democracy and Participation Programme. It addresses three questions: ‘How do public bodies define or constitute the public that they wish to engage in dialogue?’; ‘What notions of representation or representativeness do participants and public officials bring to the idea of legitimate membership of such forums?’; and ‘How do deliberative forums contribute to, or help ameliorate, processes of social inclusion and exclusion?’     

The Impact of Unpunished Hate Crimes: When Derogating the Victim Extends into Derogating the Group

Just world research has shown that observers derogate victims more for their misfortunes if the perpetrator is not harshly punished (Lerner in J Personal Soc Psychol 1(4):355–360, 1980). However, few studies have investigated minority group derogation as a just world preservation strategy after instances of intergroup harm-doing. This study is among the first to demonstrate the derogation of both individual victims and of the victim’s minority group experimentally, using the context of a racist hate crime in Australia. In the present experiment, participants (N = 110) read a news article describing a hate crime against an Aboriginal Australian teenager and were informed that the perpetrator was harshly or leniently punished (secure vs. justice threat condition). Our results show that in the justice threat condition, participants not only derogated the individual Aboriginal Australian victim more after his death, they also expressed greater racism toward the victim’s group. An indirect effect of the justice threat condition on modern racism via individual victim derogation was observed, along with moderating effects of individual differences in belief in a just world. These findings provide support for the alarming hypothesis that racist hate crimes are not only the manifestation of a racist society, but may also bolster racial prejudices if leniently treated. The results highlight the important role of political and judicial authorities, whose response or non-response to a hate crime can exacerbate or ameliorate existing prejudices.     

Protecting digital identity in the cloud: Regulating cross border data disclosure

Widespread use of cloud computing and other off-shore hosting and processing arrangements make regulation of cross border data one of the most significant issues for regulators around the world. Cloud computing has made data storage and access cost effective but it has changed the nature of cross border data. Now data does not have to be stored or processed in another country or transferred across a national border in the traditional sense, to be what we consider to be cross border data. Nevertheless, the notion of physical borders and transfers still pervades thinking on this subject. The European Commission (“EC”) is proposing a new global standard for data transfer to ensure a level of protection for data transferred out of the EU similar to that within the EU. This paper examines the two major international schemes regulating cross-border data, the EU approach and the US approach, and the new EC and US proposals for a global standard. These approaches which are all based on data transfer are contrasted with the new Australian approach which regulates disclosure. The relative merits of the EU, US and Australian approaches are examined in the context of digital identity, rather than just data privacy which is the usual focus, because of the growing significance of digital identity, especially to an individual's ability to be recognized and to transact. The set of information required for transactions which invariably consists of full name, date of birth, gender and a piece of what is referred to as identifying information, has specific functions which transform it from mere information. As is explained in this article, as a set, it literally enables the system to transact. For this reason, it is the most important, and most vulnerable, part of digital identity. Yet while it is deserving of most protection, its significance has been largely under-appreciated. This article considers the issues posed by cross border data regulation in the context of cloud computing, with a focus on transaction identity and the other personal information which make up an individual's digital identity. The author argues that the growing commercial and legal importance of digital identity and its inherent vulnerabilities mandate the need for its more effective protection which is provided by regulation of disclosure, not just transfer.