What Do You Mean, ‘Is It Secure?’ Redesigning Language to be Fit for the Task of Assessing the Security of Domestic and Personal Electronic Goods



Project MARC aimed to develop a mechanism to assess the risk of theft of consumer electronic products, and their corresponding security; and to devise an operational scheme for EU level to influence manufacturers to make their products less criminogenic. The project encountered serious difficulties in the assessment process due, among other things, to limitations of concepts and terminology. This paper describes and analyses those limitations; discusses an approach to redesigning language that draws on biological and risk management concepts; proposes a ‘basic grammar’ of risk and security covering their dual dimensions of probability and harm (underemphasised in crime prevention); focuses on sources of risk centred on the product, based on ‘crime scripts’ and criminal motivation; and explores wider ecological and evolutionary issues. It makes suggestions for improving any assessment scheme and raises wider issues on how crime science should tighten its terminology and bring together approaches to crime prevention and risk management. The present contribution comprises proposals for discussion and development rather than a perfected schema.


CRAVED Crime prevention Crime science Crime proofing Crime scripts Design against crime Electronic products Harm reduction Hot products Risk management Security 


  1. Armitage, R., Clarke, R. V., Pease, K., Savona, E., Montauti, M., & Di Nicola, A. (2006). Definition of final crime risk assessment mechanism to measure the risk of theft of electronic products and proof them against theft. Final Report to European Commission.Google Scholar
  2. Armitage, R., & Pease, K. (2007). Predicting and preventing the theft of electronic products. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, doi: 10.1007/s10610-007-9039-2.
  3. Clarke, R.V. (1999). Hot products: Understanding anticipating and reducing demand for stolen goods. Police Research Series Paper 112. London: Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. (2003). Become a problem solving crime analyst in 55 small steps. London: Jill Dando Institute, University College London.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, R. V., & Homel, R. (1997). A revised classification of situational crime prevention techniques. In S. P. Lab (Ed.), Crime prevention at a crossroads (pp. 17–27). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, R. V., & Newman, G. (2002). Secured goods by design - a plan for security coding of electronic products. London: Department of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, R. V., & Newman, G. (2005a). Modifying criminogenic products - what role for government? In R. V. Clarke, & G. Newman (Eds.), Designing out crime from products and systems. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 18, 7–84. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press and Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, R. V., & Newman, G. (2005b). Security coding of electronic products. In R. V. Clarke, & G. Newman (Eds.), Designing out crime from products and systems. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 18, 231–265. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press and Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, R.V., & Newman, G. (2006). Outsmarting the terrorists. Praeger Security International.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, L., Vila, B., & Machalek, R. (1995). Expropriative crime and crime policy: An evolutionary ecological analysis. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 4, 197–219.Google Scholar
  12. Cornish, D. (1994). The procedural analysis of offending and its relevance for situational prevention. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies, Vol. 3, 151–196. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. V. (Ed.) (1986). The reasoning criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Eck, J. E., Clarke, R. V., & Guerette, R. T. (2007). Risky Facilities: Crime concentration in homogenous sets of establishments and facilities. In G. Farrell, K. Bowers, S. Johnson, & M. Townsley (Ed.), Imagination for crime prevention: essays in honour of Ken Pease. Crime Prevention Studies. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ekblom, P. (1994). Proximal circumstances: a mechanism-based classification of crime prevention. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies, Vol. 3, 185–232. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ekblom, P. (1997). Gearing up against crime: A dynamic framework to help designers keep up with the adaptive criminal in a changing world. International Journal of Risk Security and Crime Prevention, 24, 249–265.Google Scholar
  17. Ekblom, P. (1999). Can we make crime prevention adaptive by learning from other evolutionary struggles? Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 8, 27–51.Google Scholar
  18. Ekblom, P. (2000). The conjunction of criminal opportunity - a tool for clear, ‘joined-up’ thinking about community safety and crime reduction. In S. Ballintyne, K. Pease, V. McLaren (Ed.), Secure foundations: key issues in crime prevention, crime reduction and community safety, (pp. 30–66). London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  19. Ekblom, P. (2001). The conjunction of criminal opportunity: a framework for crime reduction toolkits. Retrieved 31/01/07 from Crime Reduction website: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/learningzone/ccofull.doc
  20. Ekblom, P. (2002a). From the source to the mainstream is uphill: the challenge of transferring knowledge of crime prevention through replication, innovation and anticipation. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Analysis for crime prevention. Crime prevention studies, Vol. 13, 131–203. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ekblom, P. (2002b). ‘Towards a European knowledge base’ and ‘The five i’s: Experimental framework for a knowledge base for crime prevention projects’. In European Crime Prevention Conference 2002, 1, 62–97. Copenhagen: Danish Crime Prevention Council.Google Scholar
  22. Ekblom, P. (2005a). Designing products against crime. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Handbook of crime prevention and community safety (pp. 203–244). Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
  23. Ekblom, P. (2005b). The 5Is framework: Sharing good practice in crime prevention. In E. Marks, A. Meyer, & R. Linssen (Eds.), Quality in crime prevention. Hannover: Landespräventionsrat Niedersachsen.Google Scholar
  24. Ekblom, P. (2005c). How to police the future: scanning for scientific and technological innovations which generate potential threats and opportunities in crime, policing and crime reduction. In M. Smith, & N. Tilley (Eds.), Crime science: New approaches to preventing and detecting crime (pp. 27–55). Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
  25. Ekblom, P. (2007). Making offenders richer. In G. Farrell, K. Bowers, S. Johnson, & M. Townsley (Eds.), Imagination for crime prevention: Essays in honour of Ken Pease. Crime prevention studies. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ekblom, P., & Tilley, N. (2000). Going equipped: Criminology, situational crime prevention and the resourceful offender. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 376–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Farrell, G. (2001). Crime prevention. In C. D. Bryant (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of criminology and deviant behaviour (pp. 124–133). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  28. Felson, M. (1986). Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes. In D. B. Cornish, & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal (pp. 119–128). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Felson, M. (1998). Crime and everyday life, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  30. Felson, M. (2006). Crime and nature. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  31. Gamman, L., & Pascoe, T. (2004) ‘Design out crime? Using practice-based models of the design process’. Crime Prevention and Community Safety Journal, 6, 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Garwood, J. (2004). Perceiving opportunity? Reawakening the criminological imagination? Paper presented at British Criminological Society conference, Leeds University, England, July 2004.Google Scholar
  33. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  34. Gill, M. (2005). Reducing the capacity to offend: Restricting resources for offending. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Handbook of crime prevention and community safety (pp. 306–328). Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
  35. Gill, M. (2006). Introduction. In M. Gill (Ed.), The handbook of security (pp. 1–18). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Haddon, W. (1980). Options for the prevention of motor vehicle crash injury. Israeli Journal of Medical Science, 16, 45–68.Google Scholar
  37. Johnson, S. D., & Bowers, K. J. (2004) The stability of space-time clusters of Burglary. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Killias, M. (2006). The opening and closing of breaches. A theory on crime waves, law creation and crime prevention. European Journal of Criminology, 3, 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loss Prevention Certification Board (2006). Draft Requirements and testing procedures for the LPCB approval and listing of “theft resistant” electronic products. Watford: BRE Certification.Google Scholar
  40. Norman, D. (1998). The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books.Google Scholar
  41. Orwell, G. (1946) Politics and the English Language. In S. Orwell, & I. Angus (Eds.), The collected essays, journalism and letters of George Orwell. London: Secker & Warburg.Google Scholar
  42. Pease, K. (2001). Cracking crime through design. London: Design Council Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Pease, K. (2005) No through road: Closing pathways into crime. In K. Moss, & M. Stephens (Eds.), Crime reduction and the law (pp. 50–66). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Savona, E., & Di Nicola, A. (2002). Assessing the risk of organised crimes: A user-friendly methodology for law enforcement agencies and policy-makers.Google Scholar
  45. Shover, N. (1996). Great pretenders: Pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. London: Westview Press/Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  46. Tilley, N. (1993). After Kirkholt: Theory, methods and results of replication evaluations. Crime Prevention Unit Paper 47. London, UK: Home Office.Google Scholar
  47. Villagrán, J. C. (2006) Vulnerability: A conceptual and methodological review. Studies of the University: Research, counsel, education. Publication series of UNU Institute for Environment and Human Security, UNU-EHS, No. 4.Google Scholar
  48. Walsh, D. (1994). The obsolescence of crime forms. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies, 2, 149–164. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.Google Scholar
  49. Whitehead, S., Mailley, J., Storer, I., McCardie, J., Torrens, G., & Farrell, G. (2007). Mobile phone anti-theft design: a review. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, doi: 10.1007/s10610-007-9040-9.
  50. World Health Organisation (2004). Handbook for the documentation of interpersonal violence prevention programs. Geneva:WHO.Google Scholar
  51. Wortley, R. (1996). Guilt, shame, and situational crime prevention. In R. Homel (Ed.), The politics and practice of situational crime prevention, crime prevention studies, vol. 5 (pp. 115–132). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  52. Wortley, R. (2001). A classification of techniques for controlling situational precipitators of crime. Security Journal, 14, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zipf, G. K. (1950). The principle of least effort. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Design Against Crime Research CentreCentral Saint Martins College of Art & DesignLondonUK
  2. 2.UCL Jill Dando Institute of Crime ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations