'Crime in the Age of the Smart Machine: A Zuboffian Approach to Computers and Crime' by Kevin F. Steinmetz in (2022) 11(1) International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 225-238 comments
This analysis ruminates on the quintessential qualities that underpin the relationship between computers and crimeby drawing from the foundational work of Shoshana Zuboff, a scholar whose work has to date been largely ignored in the study of crime. From this perspective, computers are best described as “informating” machines that require “intellective skills” in both licit and illicit forms of work. The first part of this analysis describes the role of such skills in the commission of computer-related crimes and considers factors that affect the degree to which such skills are necessary for perpetration. The second part considers how a Zuboffian approach can inform examinations of other subjects that have historically been considered important for criminological inquiries, including learning and subculture, the emotional experience of crime, and perceptions held by offenders and victims.
Steinmetz argues
Over the past half a century, computers have become a fixture of everyday life. An increasing share of the workforce regularly uses computers for their jobs, many people in developed countries carry smartphones everywhere, and internet use has become a necessity for social and civil life (Pew Research Center 2019). Likewise, crimes mediated through or targetingcomputers have similarly proliferated (Furnell 2017). Scholars have made significant strides during this period to understand the new topography of crime introduced by computers and networking technologies (e.g., Holt and Bossler 2014; Powell, Stratton, and Cameron 2018; Wall 2007; Yar and Steinmetz 2019). Among other changes, research has found that computer technologies have significantly affected the scope and scale of crimes, reshaped the social relationships involved in crime commissions, rearranged the political economy of crimes and control, and introduced new challenges for law enforcement and security regarding criminal detection, prevention, and investigation.
Criminologists have utilized a diverse assortment of approaches to dissect the complexities that computers have introduced to criminal enterprises. For instance, some criminologists have chosen to adapt standard criminological theories (e.g., routine activities theory, social learning theory, and self-control theory) for computer-related crimes (Yar and Steinmetz 2019). Others have forged novel approaches tailored for digital contexts like extension theory (Brey 2017), actor–network theory (Brown 2006; Latour 2005; van der Wagen 2018; van der Wagen and Pieters 2015), digital drift (Goldsmith and Brewer 2015), and digital criminology (Powell, Stratton, and Cameron 2018). The breadth and depth of theorizing and scholarship to date in the area have been laudable. Amidst such advances, however, it is worth pausing to ruminate on the quintessentialqualities that underpin the relationship between computers and crime—qualities from which all other considerations of such crimes proceed. Such an endeavor can provide a unifying and parsimonious base to ground computer crime scholarship and theorizing.
This analysis applies Shoshana Zuboff’s (1988) treatise on computer technologies and work, In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power (Smart Machine), to accomplish this task.While widely influential in the fields of science and technology studies, Smart Machine has been largely ignored by criminologists. In this work, Zuboff (1988) examined multiple worksites during a historical period of significant industrial changes as computers, then new and novel devices, were increasingly integrated into the workplace. She considered the effects of computers on the experience of labor, the skills required to accomplish occupational tasks, the structure of the workforce within an organization, and the role of authority in the workplace. While her study was detailed and thorough, two foundational concepts comprised the fulcrum of her analysis. The first concerned the characteristic that, according to her, distinguishes computers from other machines—they “informate.” In addition to automating tasks, computers process data and provide textual feedback to the user. Thus, computers mediate work, adding a layer of abstraction to the labor process. Second, “intellective skills” or abstract reasoning and processing skills are necessary to conduct informated work. As her analysis revealed, these deceptively simple concepts bear significant implications for the nature of work in a computerized era.
This analysis argues that the same concepts that Zuboff (1988) applied to the transformation of legitimate work are equally applicable to illegitimate forms of labor. Just as Zuboff (1988: 13) discarded the “natural attitude” that takes for granted the role of computers in work and everyday life, this analysis requires taking on an “attitude of strangeness” to examine the subtle yet profound ways that computers affect the relationship between criminals and their crimes—to reconsider the very notion of what computers do to crime (Neuman 2007: 284). Additionally, the application of Smart Machine to the study of crimes necessitates a willingness to view crime itself as a kind of work. Letkemann (1973: 6) noted decades ago that the “various dimensions of work appear to be as applicable ... to the illegitimate as the legitimate worker.” In other words, crime is a form of labor, criminals are laborers, and both can be understood in terms like those applied to legitimate enterprises (Fagan and Freeman 1999; Letkemann 1973; Steinmetz 2016; Sutherland 1937). Just as information technologies fundamentally reconfigured legitimate work, similar changes are evident as crime is computerized (Wall 2007: 42-44).
The current analysis builds from Zuboff’s (1988) conceptual work to reframe the issues of computer crime and criminality in two parts. Part 1 elaborates on the concepts of informating and intellective skills. It also describes their immediate application for understanding the relationship between computers and crime. Regarding informating, this analysis contends that criminologists should consider examining computer crimes not as a distinct type of crime but simply variants of preexisting forms of crime shaped by thedegreeto which they are informated or reliant on computers. For intellective skills, this essay traces the transition of these skills from “action-centered” skills and the criminological implications of such changes. Further, it argues that though intellective skills are important for computerized work, not all tasks are equally dependent on computers, nor are all criminals equally willing to utilize such technologies. As such, the factors that affect the extent to which intellective skills are required in crime commissions are considered, including centrality, availability, and engagement.
Part 2 of this analysis considers how a Zuboffian approach can inform examinations of other subjects that have historically been considered important for criminological inquiry. It begins by considering the role of information technology and intellective skills for knowledge transmission, addressing criminological concerns like social learning and subcultures. Further, Zuboff’s (1988) insights are applied to the emotional experience of crime, a domain of longstanding fascination for criminologists. Finally, the implications of the distance between what Zuboff (1988: 84) described as a “symbol and reality” for perceptions held by both criminals and their victims are explored. These dynamics are considered in turn.
