By Daniel C.K. Chow 

The proliferation of counterfeits for sale on e-commerce sites has created new and more dangerous challenges to brand owners than counterfeits sold through brick and mortar establishments. Most brand owners are currently focusing their efforts on simplifying and streamlining Notice and Takedown (“NTD”) procedures set up by ecommerce platforms to remove illegal listings. The shortcomings of these efforts are that NTDs do not directly reach the counterfeiter who remains free to conduct its illegal activities with impunity and that NTDs do not prevent delisted counterfeiters from reappearing in short order under a new fictitious name and identity. Brand owners should seek to induce China to rigorously enforce its recently enacted Electronic Commerce Law (“ECL”), which was designed by China’s lawmakers to create a “choke point” that excludes counterfeiters and other unscrupulous merchants from gaining access to online accounts. The ECL requires multiple layers of government review and approval that were designed so that they can be satisfied only by legitimate and economically viable business entities. To date, e-commerce sites in China do not strictly comply with the ECL, and U.S.-based ecommerce sites do not require any compliance whatsoever with the ECL. Rigorous enforcement of the ECL should result in preventing counterfeiters from gaining access to e-commerce sites based in China and the United States and should lead to a decrease in sales of counterfeits on the internet.

By Alina D. Machande 

The burgeoning field of cyberdeviance lacks a unified conceptual framework, hindering classification and understanding of its subtypes and underlying psychological mechanisms. To address this gap, we conducted two studies. In Study 1 (N = 20), employing the repertory grid technique, we identified five key dimensions of cyberdeviance. In Study 2 (N = 268), participants rated 16 cyberdeviant behaviors on these dimensions, revealing three subtypes: data-oriented, interpersonal, and non-prototypical cyberdeviance. Our findings suggest a shift from singular cyberdeviance investigation toward recognition of its diverse subtypes, each necessitating tailored interventions. By adopting a dimensional approach, we transcend categorical and technocentric perspectives, enabling examination of behavior clusters across cultural and temporal contexts. Our work underscores the importance of integrating foundational deviance theories and expanding conceptual frameworks to comprehensively grasp cyberdeviance phenomena.

The Information Society, 1–19. 2025.

By Steven Schuetz, et al.

  Context Service weapon activity, including instances where an officer’s firearm is drawn, pointed, or discharged, plays an important role in understanding events transpiring during a police–public encounter. Detection, documentation, and communication of these events in a way that is accurate, timely, and dependable is vital for enhancing transparency and accountability of law enforcement service weapon use. About this Report The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) requested the Criminal Justice Technology Testing and Evaluation Center (CJTTEC) to investigate the landscape of commercially available and emerging technologies that could meet this need. CJTTEC conducted a review of technologies capable of detecting when a service weapon has been unholstered, pointed, or discharged; documenting when a law enforcement officer discharges their service weapon (or initiating documentation such as body-worn camera (BWC) recordings in such incidents); and communicating the information to dispatchers. CJTTEC’s methodology to understand this technology landscape included secondary research (e.g., reviewing patents, trade literature, press releases, news articles, and publications) and primary research with technology experts, product representatives, and researchers. This brief provides a high-level summary of technology systems capable of documenting, detecting, and communicating service weapon activity, focusing specifically on technology integrated into or onto the weapon, in a holster, in a BWC, in a wearable device, or in environmental sensing tools. Conclusion Although no single commercially available tool is capable of detecting, documenting, and communicating service weapon activity, law enforcement agencies may be able to rely on a suite of products to help them address these needs.  Key Takeaways ¡ Agencies are facing increased pressure to document service weapon activity. From 2015 through 2020, on average, an estimated 1,769 people were injured annually—979 fatally and 790 nonfatally— from shootings by police in the United States.1 Because of the impact that officer-involved shootings (OISs) have on the community, law enforcement agencies are facing increased public pressure and policy mandates to document service weapon activity. ¡ There is a need for tools or technologies that can objectively detect, document, and communicate service weapon activity. OISs are stressful incidents that can occur quickly and under poor visual circumstances, which can impact accurate documentation of events. Further, obtaining reliable service weapon activity data can be challenging because of noncompliance with body-worn camera (BWC) policies, lack of BWCs, or inaccurate witness and officer accounts. ¡ There is no single commercially available product that meets service weapon activity needs. No single product can currently (1) detect service weapon activity, such as recording actual shots fired in an incident involving law enforcement weapons; (2) document the activity, such as initiating BWC recordings; and (3) communicate information about service weapon activity to police dispatchers. ¡ Agencies can rely on a suite of products to address these needs or choose specific products, each with strengths and limitations. Available technologies may be integrated into or onto the weapon, in a holster, in a BWC, in a wearable device, or in environmental sensing tools. Weapon-integrated tools offer the most functionality to detect and document multiple types of service weapon activity during a use-of-force incident, but many of these products, such as those developed by Armaments Research Company and Yardarm, are not commercially available. These products often lack the capability to communicate updates in real-time with dispatch. Holster-integrated tools can sense officer unholstering activity, activate BWC, and communicate with dispatch, but they cannot detect activity related to pointing or firing a weapon. BWCs, activated by multiple types of triggers, can document audio and video of the incident and communicate with dispatch, but they cannot specifically detect officer firearm activities (e.g., weapon unholstering, pointing, gunshot detection). Wearable devices can detect officer firearm activities, document metadata, and communicate with dispatch, but most products are still in a development phase for law enforcement applications. Environmental sensing tools may detect and document activities transpiring within a certain area, including shots fired in an incident, and communicate information to dispatch, but they cannot detect or attribute gunshot activities specifically to an officer's service weapon. ¡ Technology advancements and independent testing, evaluation, and implementation research are needed to accelerate adoption. Technology developers are currently working through several technical hurdles and are leveraging insights from BWC to improve technology uptake. Some commercially available products have been evaluated for performance, but more studies are needed as technologies are further developed and released into the market.  

Criminal Justice Testing (and Evaluation Consortium, 2024. 15p.

By The Nacro Justice ExChange

Electronic monitoring plays an important role in the criminal justice system, acting as an alternative to prison. Current Government proposals mean that its use is set to increase significantly. In this context, it is important to understand what works and where improvements can be made to ensure that its use supports people’s rehabilitation, and ultimately safer communities. Through our survey and interviews, we heard from people who were positive about the impact of electronic monitoring, including how it had provided accountability and structure. We also heard from people for whom electronic monitoring had put in place barriers to rehabilitation, such as being unable to find and take up work and keep in contact with families, factors well evidenced to reduce the risk of reoffending. This briefing explores these issues in more detail along with problems with the fitting and functioning of tags, and specific challenges some groups face. We urge Government to address these barriers before expanding the use of electronic monitoring to ensure it has the best chance of success

The Better Futures Project Briefing 4

London: Nacro Justice Exchange 2025.