The Government’s newly-launched modern crime prevention strategy is undermined by a wilful refusal at the very beginning to face how far and fast crime has gone online, writes Mark Rowe.
Whether football hooligans on the rampage – because they are highly televisual – or the August 2011 riots, or more routine and hidden crime such as burglary, crime is political. Or rather a Government has to do something about crime, and the opposing main political party will complain that the Government is falling short. For years, that party-political ding-dong has been muted, whether because there’s not that much to argue over, or the political party in power has been able to neuter the arguments, or the main two parties have in effect agreed not to argue over crime, perhaps because they don’t disagree over what to do.
Also the Coalition from 2010 had a message; crime was down, by up to 20 per cent. Whether that was genuinely believed by the Lib Dem and Conservative politicians that said it, or cynically not, it did not take account of the sheer unknown scale of online crime, that is – the modern crime prevention strategy acknowledges – rising.
In a foreword to the 50-page document, Home Secretary Theresa May treads carefully. Briefest put, she says: “Crime is down but it is changing,” thereby granting that online fraud and cyber crime has long been under-reported, while keeping the upbeat message that ‘traditional’ crimes such as burglary and theft of and from cars has fallen over the last 20 years; and that the authorities are acting on online crime. Strange though, that the conclusion has nothing to say about how to tackle online crime; the only mention of online is how Neighbourhood Watch and Crimestoppers can use it.
The strategy in her words is ‘setting out what crime prevention means in 2016’. The Coalition did have a liking for strategy documents, which even covered the security of maritime, and space. Like such documents, this one on ‘modern crime prevention’ sets out the present, such as making crime harder to commit, and less attractive to criminals. In places it speaks up for Government policies, such as its Investigatory Powers Bill. The strategy is largely divided by the ‘drivers of crime’: namely opportunity, character, ‘effectiveness of the criminal justice system’ (that is, the CJS as deterring offenders), profit, drugs, and alcohol.
For a ‘modern’ document, it often reads quite old-fashioned, in terms of target hardening of cars for instance, harking back to as far as 1971 (when steering column locks were mandated on all new cars). As for fuel theft and other crime on garage forecourts, the strategy speaks of setting up a ‘steering group on forecourt crime’, and advocating ‘preventative use of CCTV’.
The document does nothing to address the problem brought by cyber-crime compared with physical robbery and assault; your computer can be hijacked or online accounts hacked or identity stolen by someone in another country which leaves the authorities way behind in ability and aptitude to deter, detect or prosecute any except the most brazen, largest or politically damaging crimes. Hence the strategy offers nothing beyond using ‘strong passwords’, and installing security software and updates; nothing said about going after the cyber-criminals.
Hence the merely defensive strategy under ‘opportunity’ to remove or design out the opportunities to offend, offline or online. This allows the authorities to gradually inch towards dumping the responsibility for cyber-crime onto the victim; note for instance the interview in The Times of Met Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe in March. Sir Bernard was suggesting that banks should not refund cyber-crime victims, as it ‘rewards’ consumers for lax internet security.The logic here is that, as it’s claimed ‘up to 80 per cent’ of cyber crime can be prevented, if consumers and businesses take ‘simple precautions, equivalent to locking our front doors’, those that do fall victim are in some way to blame. The outcome then is that if products and services have security built in, if they are even stolen from or broken into, the police and providers of the products can wash their hands of it. Or the victim might even be prosecuted and fined for a data protection offence, if data is taken when not protected well enough?!
Crime is political, and it is indeed being fought over – over such questions as whether or what sort of cyber-insurance we should have; how to authenticate ourselves and others online, to spot fraudsters; but not that you would guess from this strategy document.
While not of direct interest to private security people, most intriguing is the chapter on ‘character’, which airs the potentially highly controversial and profound idea that ‘certain character traits in individuals are related to their propensity to commit crime’ – profound because it begs such questions as, what traits, and what if you find them in someone?! Is it a crime to have such traits, such as being violent? Are people with such traits ‘teachable’? On how the courts and prisons can deter crime, the strategy says that the Ministry of Justice is ‘exploring how satellite tracking tags can be used’ on offenders.
Comment on strategy
At the trade body the Association of Convenience Stores, ACS Chief Executive, James Lowman said: “Crime costs the convenience sector £122m a year, and along with all the costs of equipment to prevent and detect crime, the total cost to our sector equates to a 3p tax on each and every transaction in local shops. Last year, there were 10,000 incidents in which staff were injured during a violent attack in stores. Retail crime must never be seen as “victimless” or in some way secondary—it is a serious crime with real victims and consequences.
“The Modern Crime Prevention Strategy offers a chance to address the human and business cost of retail crime. We need better working relationships between retailers and the police, based on good reporting and a swift police response to reports of retail crime. We also need the courts to take retail crime seriously, rather than relying on fixed penalty notices, half of which are never even paid, in order to deal with offenders who should be taken into the justice system—not just for punishment but also for rehabilitation, as most are facing drug and alcohol dependency problems.
“As members of the National Retail Crime Steering Group, we are working closely with government and the police to improve the response to retail crime.”
“We welcome the government’s focus on partnership working to tackle problem drinking and alcohol-related disorder. Schemes like Community Alcohol Partnerships have made a huge difference by bringing together retailers, the police, council and other stakeholders to tackle underage drinking and other issues. We are committed to continued partnership working to make a lasting difference in communities up and down the country.”
