New Book. Shipped from UK. Established seller since Seller Inventory CA More information about this seller Contact this seller. Language: English. Brand new Book. Attitudes toward crime, criminals, and rehabilitation have shiftedconsiderably, yet the idea that there is a causal link between drugaddiction and crime prevails. As law reformers call for addictiontreatment as a remedy to the failing war on drugs, it is also time toconsider the serious implications of joining legal and therapeuticpractices in an assumedly benevolent bid to cure the offender.
Drawing on theoretical tools inspired by Foucault, Latour, andGoffman, Criminal Artefacts casts doubt on the assumption thatdrugs lie at the heart of crime. Case studies from drug treatmentcourts and addiction treatment programs illustrate the tensions betweenlaw and psychology, treatment and punishment, and conflicting theoriesof addiction. By looking curiously on the criminal addict as anartefact of criminal justice, this book asks us to question why thecriminalized drug user has become such a focus of contemporary criminaljustice practices.
This interdisciplinary book will appeal to students, academics, andpractitioners in law, social theory, criminology, criminal justice,addictions, cultural studies, sociology, and science studies. Seller Inventory AAJ Book Description Seller Inventory BTE Condition: Brand New.
In Stock. Brand New. Seller Inventory Book Description Condition: New. The Author s further warrant that the article contains no defamatory or otherwise unlawful matter and that it makes no improper invasion of the privacy or personal rights of anyone. The Author s undertake that all statements in it purporting to be facts are true; and that they will advise us of any statements that might be construed as defamatory or otherwise unlawful.
We may require substantive revision of the manuscript to avoid including material that may infringe rights or be defamatory or otherwise unlawful. In the unlikely event of any claim, action, or proceeding based on an alleged violation of any of these warranties, we shall have the right to defend the same through counsel of our own choosing. The Author s agree to pay all resulting costs and damages, except that this indemnity shall not apply to any changes in the manuscript by us that were not approved by the Author s in advance of publication, or to any material that the Authors had warned us in advance of publication might be construed as defamatory or otherwise unlawful.
In order to protect both Author s and CJS from unauthorized use of the article, the Author s agree to refer to us any subsequent requests to publish it or a substantial portion thereof. This could lead to careless behavior towards data artifacts Ponemon It has been established that any digital artifact is embedded in a wider technical ecosystem. In consequence, its use depends on the existence of the various elements of this ecosystem.
Thus, technical obsolescence due to changing technical equipment poses a major threat for the long term preservation of data Rothenberg This may apply to the obsolescence of the media: the medium disappears from the market, appropriate drives capable of reading the medium are no longer produced, and media-accessing programs capable of controlling the drives and deciphering the encoding used on the medium are no longer available for new computers.
Data are inherently software-dependent and can only be interpreted by a computer program. Application programs can also become obsolete.
To keep these programs running, the proper operating system environment is needed. Operating systems are bound to specific computer hardware, which itself becomes obsolete relatively quickly. Subsequently, all the digital artifacts affected would be rendered obsolete, even though they might physically be retained. Protecting digital artifacts against these various threats demands an awareness of potential threats and constant efforts to maintain the value of the stored data. In our remarks on digital artifacts and their characteristics, we established that any digital artifact is embedded in, and depends on, a wider ecosystem.
Pursuant to a narrow technical interpretation, a digital ecosystem consists of all hardware devices, program files and data files that the user needs in order to process data. Information systems, however, may be interpreted as socio-technical systems in which human actors and technical components are related and interact with one another Bostrom and Heinen ; Ropohl ; Mumford Thus, in a wider sense, the digital ecosystem involves not only the technical components, but also the social elements.
We characterize the relationship between the digital artifacts and their social ecosystem as acts of creation and use of digital artifacts. While digital artifacts represent recorded information, the surrounding ecosystem of individuals and organizations Messerschmitt and Szyperski ; Bosch ; Kallinikos et al. To obtain a deeper insight into important principles governing the behavior of the social ecosystem towards the creation and use of digital artifacts, we will now explore the domains of knowledge management and digital goods.
With respect to knowledge, it is important to distinguish between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge Nonaka ; Polanyi Explicit knowledge is expressed in some form of record digital artifact. Tacit knowledge exists in the brains of people and consists of cognitive e. There are different forms of transformation of knowledge between persons Nonaka and Konno : the transformation between tacit and explicit knowledge is handled by externalization tacit to explicit and internalization explicit to tacit , while the transfer of tacit knowledge is achieved through socialization tacit to tacit.
Wenger noted that knowledge is based not only on individuals, but also on the community of practice to which individuals belong, which helps them decide what is right and wrong. Only within the community of practice do people understand the difficulties and insights associated with explicit knowledge represented as digital artifacts to a sufficient degree to improve learning.
Criminal Artefacts - Governing Drugs and Users by Dawn Moore - | Fruugo
For a community of practice to prosper, knowledge cannot be hoarded; sharing and stewarding of knowledge can be applied by other practitioners, allowing them to increase the performance of the entire community. Thus, shared tacit knowledge either by socialization or externalization is important for using knowledge in a group to achieve certain goals.
However, the sharing of tacit knowledge is not per se sufficient to establish a fruitful cooperation. In addition, a participatory culture is needed so that productive ecosystems can be attained Wenger The difference in the definition from digital artifacts lies in the economic value.
The economic value of goods stems from the fact that they serve as a means of satisfying a need or a desire. In the economy, people usually have to pay for the goods because the producers demand a price in return for their efforts. Because digital artifacts can be replicated easily, the reproduction of a digital artifact results in marginal costs only Faulkner and Runde ; Rifkin Therefore, digital records can be distributed easily. Furthermore, digital artifacts are characterized as being non-rival, among other things Quah ; Hess and Ostrom ; Baldwin and Clark ; Wasko et al.
This means that the use of these artifacts by other people usually does not impair their own use. As a result, they are more inclined to share their digital artifacts with others Benkler Because individuals cannot be effectively excluded from using digital artifacts and the use by one individual does not necessarily exclude another person from using them, Kogut and Metiu claim that, in fact, digital artifacts have the basic properties of a common-pool resource.
Thus, it might be difficult to convince people to pay some price for these products as the effort involved in distribution results only in marginal costs. Contrary to the reproduction of digital artifacts, the development of digital artifacts is not without cost. The question, therefore, is under which circumstances people are motivated to develop these resources.
In their work, von Hippel and von Krogh analyzed two commonly known models for innovation: the private model Arrow ; Dam and the collective action model Hardin The private model of innovation is driven by the incentive of intellectual property rights of firms. In return for being innovative, firms can protect their property with copyrights and patents, thus dictating the licensing costs or the selling price of their products. The benefit of this model is that there is a strong incentive for innovation. The downside is a loss of societal knowledge.
This relative loss of knowledge occurs because the amount of absolute knowledge in society remains constant if an innovative firm is able to enlarge its knowledge but does not make that knowledge available to society. In the collective action model, innovation is provided as a public good. The benefit of this model is that society does not experience any loss in knowledge, neither absolutely nor relatively.
The downside is that there are less extrinsic incentives for innovation. This may lead to a collective action problem, since those with extrinsic motivations are unlikely to want to take responsibility for the creation and maintenance of the public good. However, there are several papers that show that there may be sufficiently high numbers of individuals with intrinsic motivation, circumventing the collective action problem Malone et al. As the analysis of the two innovation models reveals, the two models have opposing benefits and downsides relating both to the production side creating and maintaining innovative goods and to the user side availability of societal knowledge.
There may be some ways of potentially overcoming these trade-off problems: one rather traditional argument for the provision of public goods is that the state should provide them, rendering the collective action problem irrelevant. With respect to non-state activities, von Hippel and von Krogh propose a private-collective innovation model, which can be seen as a combination of both other models. The private-collective innovation model assumes the development of common-pool resources, as in the collective action model. To overcome the downside of the lack of innovation, it is assumed that there are incentives for firms and individuals to develop common-pool resources without being incentivized by property rights.
Stuermer et al. This approach demands business models that combine open licensing regimes with services that generate revenues for the participating companies. The specific characteristics of digital artifacts and their surrounding ecosystems outlined above have significant implications for the creation and use of digital artifacts.
In order to better understand these implications, we define the difference between natural resources and digital artifacts. It is important to highlight two dimensions: on the one hand, the creation and improvement of the artifacts and on the other hand, their use and sharing. Natural resources already exist in nature, whereas digital artifacts have to be created by humans and machines. Individual or organizational effort is necessary to create digital artifacts.
However, the use of digital artifacts does not diminish their value. On the contrary, the value to society as a whole increases the more people have access to its use. In contrast, the use of natural resources needs to be regulated in order to reduce consumption of non-renewable resources and prevent the over-consumption of renewable resources Wackernagel and Rees ; Porritt Distinguishing between the two dimensions of creation and use leads to the conclusion that a sustainable development of natural resources environmental sustainability is critical with respect to the use-dimension, whereas sustainable development of digital artifacts sustainability of digital artifacts and their ecosystem is critical with respect to the creation-dimension.
With respect to sustainability, over-consumption is a problem with natural resources, while under-production is the challenge with digital artifacts. Because the use of digital artifacts produces value but no deterioration, it appears desirable from the societal perspective that digital artifacts, which potentially have a positive impact on sustainable development are used as much as possible.
This is an inversion of the situation with natural resources, which are limited and, therefore, should not be exploited excessively. There may be several reasons why digital artifacts are not exploited to their full potential. Individuals or organizations may not be aware that relevant knowledge exists or are unaware of where or how to find it.
Furthermore, man-made barriers such as intellectual property rights may restrict access to knowledge Shapiro In addition, knowledge recorded as digital information can also become inaccessible due to technical obsolescence Smith Rumsey All of these reasons may cause knowledge to become unsustainable when underused.
In our view, the sustainability of digital artifacts and their ecosystem is achieved by producing, developing, maintaining and ensuring access to digital artifacts in a way that ensures their creation and facilitates their use. This allows the potential of knowledge for achieving goals of sustainable development to be exploited to the fullest. In this chapter, we propose ten basic conditions that build a foundation for achieving sustainability of digital artifacts and their ecosystem.
According to our distinction between the digital artifacts themselves, the surrounding ecosystem in which they are embedded, and the position of the ecosystem in the whole world, we assign each of these conditions to one of the three concepts. The first group of basic conditions can be considered to be content-specific properties.
They cover explicit knowledge e. The conditions elaborateness, semantic data, transparent structures, as well as distributed location, describe the substance of the digital artifact. These five basic conditions all pertain to the surrounding community in regard to legal requirements, knowledge creation, organizational and financial management: an open licensing regime, shared tacit knowledge, participatory culture, good governance, and diversified funding.
The last basic condition refers to the contribution to sustainable development, which should be positive.
- Assessing Climate Change: Temperatures, Solar Radiation, and Heat Balance.
- Principles of Chemistry: The Molecular Science.
- Collaborative Quality Assurance in Information Systems Development: The Interaction of Software Development Techniques and Team Cognition?
- American Indians, the Irish, and Government Schooling: A Comparative Study (Indigenous Education).
- UBC Press | Criminal Artefacts - Governing Drugs and Users, By Dawn Moore?
All ten basic conditions together result in sustainable digital artifacts. Subsequently, each basic condition is explained and discussed in more detail. In discussing the theoretical foundations of digital artifacts above, we characterized the transmutability editable and reprogrammable of digital artifacts as an important property. Even though every digital artifact may, in principle, be edited or reprogrammed, it is important how easily this can be done. In order to continuously enhance a digital artifact and to obtain reliable information from it, its content and structure need to be well elaborated from the start.
The quality of the data or software, defined by properties like correctness, modularity, integrity, accuracy, robustness, and other characteristics Stamelos et al. In an ideal world, a vibrant ecosystem of a sustainable digital artifact is capable of enhancing and adapting the artifact continuously. How such processes succeed in detail is the subject of many current studies e.
Ekbia Benkler et al. Both documents and software are often encoded in machine-readable data formats such as binary files. These types of digital artifacts are not comprehensible for humans and thus cannot be corrected or enhanced Bradley In order to benefit from the transmutability of digital artifacts and, therefore, the possibility to use them in another context transparent structures are required. Transparent structures lead to technical openness in the form of the detailed specification of data structure and formats, openly accessible source code of software, or freely available information architecture and documentation Corrado ; Coyle ; Park and Oh Such digital artifacts can be verified and improved by interested data scientists or programmers, thus reducing errors and increasing trust in technologies.
As discussed in the theoretical foundations, digital artifacts represent a syntactical dimension. There are also semantics associated with the data, representing its meaning. Information on the meaning and properties of data is meta-data, i. Semantic data is necessary for the automated linking of data by software algorithms. The vast amount of digital knowledge available leads to information overload Edmunds and Morris , while meta-data allows information to be pinpointed more precisely, thus reducing information overload Jackendoff and Jackendoff ; Sheth Semantic data allows large and complex digital artifacts, such as data or software components, to be found more easily and linked by humans and machines with other items of information.
This facilitates the use and enhancement of such digital artifacts, allowing them to be combined logically with previously created knowledge and thus advancing that knowledge. In the theoretical foundation chapter, we asserted that digital artifacts are both immaterial and material objects. Every digital artifact is at any time always physically present, since it has a persistent location on some storage unit. Therefore, digital artifacts such as data and software are at risk of being lost as a result of data loss, hardware crashes or other accidents.
Server systems may become dysfunctional when the server is hacked or disconnected due to technical problems, for example. A decentralized architecture through the distributed location of the digital artifacts decreases the vulnerability of the network Baran and thus increases the long-term availability of data and software. Peer-to-peer technology presents an ideal approach of redundancy on different locations reducing data loss and system failure to a minimum Ripeanu ; Schollmeier Each individual computer of a peer stores a redundant part of a digital artifact, or even an entire copy of it.
In the theoretical foundation section, we discussed the issues inherent in the private innovation model and the role of intellectual property rights in this approach. Because of their specific properties, digital artifacts are hard to control, rendering the private innovation model even more problematic. Within the ecosystem, a licensing regime defines the legal options and restrictions as far as intellectual property is concerned, and, in our case, digital artifacts. Open licenses for software such as the GNU General Public License Stallman or the Creative Commons licenses Katz for content such as text, photos, or music allow unrestricted use and modification of existing digital artifacts, thus maximizing the benefit for sustainable development.
In addition to condition number 3, representing technical openness, an open licensing regime ensures the legal openness of a digital artifact. While the Open Definition Open Knowledge clearly sets out the fundamental requirements of an open license, it is flexible if the derived work needs to be licensed under the same terms or if it can be integrated into proprietary digital artifacts. This may hinder the use of such licensed software or other digital artifacts when users do not want their enhancements to be openly published.
Skills and experience are necessary to use and in particular to advance digital artifacts Nonaka and Konno Due also to the rapidly changing environment, the structures of digital artifacts need to be continuously adapted with respect to new interfaces, standards, and other technologies Banker et al. Thus, tacit knowledge of digital artifacts is necessary to preserve and enhance their value within the ecosystem by means of socialization and externalization.
Independence from single individuals or institutions reduces the risk of deterioration and abandoning of digital artifacts. Thus, shared tacit knowledge among many humans and organizations increases independence and longevity of such ecosystems. Communities of practice Wenger as introduced above, as well as collective intelligence within peer production Benkler et al. Another aspect related to the notion of tacit knowledge-sharing is a stimulating environment, leading to contributions by the ecosystem. In open source communities, for example, Lakhani and von Hippel found that individuals contribute their time and skills for an open source project because they use the software for their own needs, because they enjoy programming, and because they want to boost their reputation.
Such motivations indicate a community in which contributions are welcome and, thus, participation is part of the cultural rules and norms.
Similarly, Benkler defined peer production as open creation and sharing performed by online groups, another setup in which participatory culture is required. Integrating knowledge and experience from various stakeholders demands effective quality control. Nowadays, many digital artifacts are centrally controlled by a single corporation. In the interests of sustainable digital artifacts, governance ought to be shared among many stakeholders. To this end, an ecosystem should be organized with clear rules that apply to all participants.
In the theoretical foundations, we discussed the economic dimension of digital artifacts and its implications for innovation. Some services related to the creation and use of digital artifacts may be provided by voluntary contributors, but others have to be generated by paid activities.
Operating the servers, managing the platform with employees and taking care of administrative work may require substantial funding. Many digital artifacts are funded by a single organization and, therefore, depend on the existence of that organization. It seems to be less risky if financing is diversified among many stakeholders, since this reduces centralized control of a single entity, as well as the risk of conflicting interests. Crowd-funding is a common approach used by NGOs and startup companies to cover initial investment costs Belleflamme et al.
Recurring donations are used to cover operational costs of providing digital artifacts Mary-Ann Russon In addition, it is common for a non-for-profit association or foundation to be set up in order to manage donations and provide operational services for the digital artifact Baars and Jansen ; Riehle Among other tasks, such organizations manage the fair use of the financial resources received from its members, which can include corporations, governments, and universities.
The existence of digital artifacts, as well as their creation and use, may have manifold effects on sustainable development, both positive and negative. In order to better analyze the different contributions made by digital artifacts to sustainable development, a differentiated approach is valuable. Hilty and Aebischer suggest distinguishing between effects on three different levels. These consist of material resources and, therefore, are part of the problem of achieving sustainable development.
These may lead to changes in production and consumption on the micro level. The changes may result, e. These may lead to persistent changes on a structural and institutional level and, therefore, occur on a macro level. The effects on climate change of the distribution of information through digital media may result, e. The impacts of both Level 2 and Level 3 with respect to sustainable development can be positive, but may also be negative.
Furthermore, these positive impacts should outweigh the negative effects of Level 1. In our view, the ten basic conditions are key for the sustainability of digital artifacts and their ecosystems. However, we have to look into specific cases to validate whether these conditions hold in practice. These cases are well documented in the various papers referenced below. We have marked what we see as deficiencies in grey. The basic conditions we have formulated are quite challenging and, therefore, difficult to achieve.
Nevertheless, there are some digital artifacts and ecosystems that can be considered to at least partly achieve the basic conditions. While all four cases illustrate well the way in which sustainable digital artifacts and initiatives function, none of them fulfill all basic conditions completely. In the following, we discuss the conditions and the relationships between them. In our paper, we propose ten basic conditions for the sustainability of digital artifacts, their ecosystems, and the position of the ecosystem in the world as a whole.
The four cases illustrate the role of the basic conditions in the context of various well-known open source or open data projects.
Criminal Artefacts Governing Drugs and Users
The overview of the results shows that most of the basic conditions apply to the relevant cases. Some of the conditions are fulfilled for all of the cases: transparent structures, distributed location, open licensing regime, and diversified funding. The criteria met by at least three cases are semantic data, shared tacit knowledge, participatory culture, and good governance. Elaborateness and contribution to sustainable development are the only basic conditions not met by several cases. Of course, the compliance of the cases to some of the basic conditions is attributable to the choice of cases.
On the other hand, the rather negative assessment of elaborateness ought to be relativized since the projects concerned are highly complex and, thus, automatically more prone to a multitude of errors. The negative assessment of the contribution of this factor to sustainable development lies in the fact that digital artifacts can often be used for activities beneficial to sustainable development and also for detrimental purposes.
Often, their mere existence does not pre-define their intended use. Furthermore, the analysis of the cases reveals how the basic conditions are interrelated to one another. They present a dynamic set of characteristics continuously influencing the sustainability of the digital artifacts and ecosystems, as the following explanations indicate.
The four cases illustrate how difficult it is to provide an elaborate digital artifact. Due to the continuously expanding requirements of the Linux kernel, it is basically impossible to provide flawless software. While Bitcoin has a robust technical foundation, use and integration of its technology is complex, making its usability a deficiency.