Big Data and Criminal Justice - Cyber Criminology

Big data and criminal justice examines the integration of large-scale data collection, advanced analytics, and algorithmic decision-making into the operations of policing, courts, and corrections — a transformation that promises improved accuracy and efficiency in crime control while raising fundamental concerns about privacy, equity, and the appropriate role of data-driven systems in decisions about liberty and punishment. Within Cyber Criminology, big data represents both a subject of study and a methodological resource, as the same data infrastructure that enables law enforcement surveillance and predictive analytics also generates the datasets that researchers use to study cybercrime patterns, victimization trends, and the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions. The term “big data” refers not merely to the volume of data but to the combination of volume, velocity, variety, and analytical sophistication that distinguishes contemporary data practices from the statistical methods that have informed criminal justice for decades (Mayer-Schönberger & Cukier, 2013). This article examines how big data is being applied across the criminal justice system, the empirical evidence for its effectiveness, the privacy and civil liberties concerns it generates, and the governance frameworks necessary to ensure its responsible deployment within the broader field of Criminology.

Introduction

The criminal justice system has always relied on data — crime statistics, arrest records, court dispositions, correctional populations — to inform policy and practice. What distinguishes the contemporary big data revolution from earlier data practices is the unprecedented scale and granularity of the information now available, the computational power to analyze it, and the ambition to use analytical findings not merely retrospectively (to understand what happened) but prospectively (to predict what will happen and to intervene before it does). Police departments analyze crime patterns in real time using data dashboards that integrate incident reports, 911 calls, camera footage, social media feeds, and sensor data. Courts use risk assessment algorithms that process defendants’ criminal histories, demographic characteristics, and behavioral indicators to generate predictions about flight risk and recidivism. Corrections agencies monitor parolees through GPS tracking and electronic communication surveillance, feeding data back into risk models that inform supervision decisions (Brayne, 2021; Ferguson, 2017).

The scope of data available to criminal justice agencies has expanded far beyond traditional crime data. Cell-site location information, automated license plate reader databases, social media monitoring, financial transaction records, utility usage data, and commercial data broker products collectively create an informational environment in which the movements, communications, transactions, and associations of virtually every American are documented and potentially available to law enforcement through appropriate legal process — or, in some cases, through commercial purchase that circumvents Fourth Amendment warrant requirements (Ohm, 2010). The expansion of the data environment has not been matched by a corresponding expansion of the governance framework, creating a gap between data capability and data accountability that is the central challenge of big data in criminal justice.

Big Data in Policing

Real-Time Crime Centers and Data Integration

The most visible application of big data in policing is the real-time crime center (RTCC) — a centralized facility that integrates multiple data streams to provide commanders and patrol officers with situational awareness and investigative support. Major metropolitan police departments including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Atlanta operate RTCCs that combine computer-aided dispatch data, surveillance camera feeds, gunshot detection systems (such as ShotSpotter), license plate reader databases, social media monitoring tools, and criminal records databases into unified analytical platforms (Hollywood, Boon, Silberglitt, Chow, & Jackson, 2015). Officers in the field can request RTCC queries that cross-reference multiple data sources to identify suspects, locate vehicles, establish timelines, and generate investigative leads.

The integration of disparate data sources creates analytical capabilities that exceed the sum of their parts. A license plate reader hit on a vehicle associated with a person of interest, correlated with cell-site location data placing a mobile phone in the same area, cross-referenced with surveillance camera footage showing an individual matching the suspect’s description, produces an evidentiary picture that no single data source could provide independently. Brayne’s (2017) ethnographic study of the Los Angeles Police Department’s data practices documented how data integration enabled new forms of surveillance — the capacity to reconstruct individuals’ movements across space and time by combining data from sources that were not originally collected for criminal justice purposes.

The effectiveness of RTCCs in reducing crime has been evaluated with mixed results. Levine, Tisch, Tasso, and Joy (2017) found that the deployment of Camden, New Jersey’s RTCC — combined with broader organizational reforms including the reconstitution of the city’s police department — was associated with significant crime reductions, though the attribution of these reductions to the RTCC specifically (as opposed to the broader reform package) is uncertain. The methodological challenge of isolating the crime reduction effect of data integration from the effects of accompanying organizational changes, resource reallocation, and secular crime trends limits the strength of available evidence. The Government Accountability Office (2023) found that federal law enforcement agencies’ use of big data analytics lacked systematic evaluation frameworks, making it difficult to assess whether the substantial investments in data infrastructure were producing proportionate crime control benefits.

Predictive Analytics and Proactive Policing

Predictive policing — the use of statistical and machine learning models to forecast where crime is likely to occur or who is likely to be involved in criminal activity — represents the most analytically ambitious application of big data in policing. Place-based predictive systems, including PredPol (now Geolitica), HunchLab, and similar platforms, analyze historical crime data to generate geographic predictions that guide patrol deployment. Person-based predictive systems assign risk scores to individuals based on criminal history, social network analysis, and behavioral indicators, identifying those assessed as most likely to be involved in violence (Perry, McInnis, Price, Smith, & Hollywood, 2013).

The theoretical foundation for predictive policing draws on environmental criminology’s concepts of crime hot spots and repeat victimization patterns. Research has consistently demonstrated that crime is concentrated in a small number of locations — Weisburd’s (2015) “law of crime concentration” holds that approximately 50 percent of crime occurs at approximately 5 percent of street segments — and that past crime patterns predict future crime occurrence at the micro-geographic level. Predictive policing algorithms formalize this observation by applying time-series analysis, kernel density estimation, or machine learning to generate predictions about the locations and times at which crime is most likely to occur.

The empirical evidence for predictive policing effectiveness is modest and contested. Mohler, Short, Malinowski, Johnson, Tita, Bertozzi, and Brantingham (2015) reported that PredPol predictions outperformed crime analyst-generated hot spot predictions in a randomized controlled trial in Los Angeles, though the effect size was small and subsequent analyses questioned the practical significance of the improvement. The RAND Corporation’s evaluation of the Chicago Police Department’s Strategic Subject List found limited evidence that the person-based risk scores reduced violence among those identified as high-risk (Saunders, Hunt, & Hollywood, 2016). The discontinuation of predictive policing programs by several major departments — including Los Angeles and New Orleans — in response to bias concerns and limited effectiveness evidence suggests that the technology’s promise has not been matched by its performance (LAPD Inspector General, 2020).

The equity concerns associated with predictive policing are discussed in detail in the article on Algorithmic Bias in Criminal Justice within this category. The central concern — that algorithms trained on historically biased enforcement data will perpetuate and amplify racial disparities in policing — has been demonstrated empirically by Lum and Isaac (2016) and reinforced by the feedback dynamics through which algorithmic predictions generate enforcement activity that produces the data confirming the predictions. These concerns have contributed to the growing skepticism about predictive policing among both scholars and practitioners, though the underlying technology continues to evolve and some agencies maintain or expand their predictive analytics programs.

Big Data in Courts and Sentencing

Risk Assessment Instruments

The use of actuarial risk assessment instruments in judicial decision-making — particularly at the pretrial and sentencing stages — represents the court system’s most significant engagement with big data analytics. Instruments such as the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), the Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument (VPRAI), COMPAS, and the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) assign risk scores based on factors including criminal history, age, employment status, and substance use history, generating recommendations about pretrial release conditions and sentencing (Desmarais & Singh, 2013). The adoption of these instruments has been driven by the evidence-based practice movement in criminal justice, which advocates for the replacement of unstructured professional judgment with validated actuarial tools that have demonstrated superior predictive accuracy in aggregate (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006).

The PSA, developed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (now Arnold Ventures), has been adopted in over forty jurisdictions across the United States, making it the most widely deployed pretrial risk assessment instrument. The PSA uses nine factors derived from a dataset of over 1.5 million cases to generate scores on three dimensions: failure to appear, new criminal arrest, and new violent criminal arrest. The instrument was explicitly designed to exclude factors — including race, gender, education, and employment — that are constitutionally suspect or that serve as proxies for socioeconomic status, though critics argue that the remaining factors (particularly criminal history) are sufficiently correlated with race to produce racially disparate outcomes (Stevenson, 2018).

The judicial reception of risk assessment instruments has been mixed. Judges in jurisdictions that have adopted these tools report varying levels of trust in algorithmic predictions, with some incorporating risk scores heavily into their decision-making and others treating them as marginal inputs alongside their own assessment of the defendant’s circumstances (Garrett & Monahan, 2020). The challenge of algorithmic transparency — the difficulty that judges, defense attorneys, and defendants face in understanding how risk scores are generated and in challenging scores they believe to be erroneous — remains a significant due process concern. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Loomis (2016) upheld the use of COMPAS in sentencing while requiring courts to inform defendants of the tool’s limitations, but the procedural safeguards articulated in Loomis have not been uniformly adopted across jurisdictions.

Data-Driven Court Administration

Beyond individual case decision-making, big data analytics are being applied to court administration — the management of caseloads, scheduling, resource allocation, and process optimization. Court systems analyze case processing data to identify bottlenecks, predict case durations, allocate judicial resources, and evaluate the performance of individual courts and judges. The National Center for State Courts has promoted the use of data analytics in court management, developing tools that enable court administrators to visualize caseflow patterns, identify processing delays, and benchmark performance against peer jurisdictions (Ostrom & Hanson, 2010).

The application of natural language processing to court documents — including judicial opinions, plea agreements, sentencing memoranda, and probation reports — enables large-scale analysis of judicial decision-making patterns that were previously accessible only through time-intensive manual coding. Researchers have used NLP techniques to analyze racial and gender disparities in sentencing language, to identify inconsistencies in the application of sentencing guidelines across districts, and to detect patterns of prosecutorial behavior that may indicate bias or inefficiency (Chen, 2019). These analytical capabilities create opportunities for oversight and accountability that complement traditional mechanisms of judicial review and legislative monitoring.

Big Data in Corrections and Reentry

Supervision and Monitoring

Corrections agencies employ big data technologies for the monitoring and supervision of incarcerated and community-supervised populations. Electronic monitoring — GPS ankle bracelets, radio frequency monitoring, and smartphone-based location tracking — generates continuous streams of location data that supervision officers use to verify compliance with curfew, exclusion zone, and movement restrictions. The data volumes are substantial: a single GPS-monitored individual generates thousands of location data points per day, and some jurisdictions monitor thousands of individuals simultaneously, creating data management and analysis challenges that require automated systems to flag violations and prioritize supervision attention.

Risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) assessment tools — which assess the risk of re-offense, the criminogenic needs that drive recidivism risk, and the responsivity factors that affect treatment amenability — use structured data about individuals’ criminal histories, social circumstances, and clinical characteristics to generate recommendations about supervision intensity and programming (Andrews et al., 2006; Bonta & Andrews, 2017). The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) and similar instruments assign individuals to risk categories that determine the frequency of supervision contacts, the conditions of release, and the types of programming to which they are referred. These instruments represent an application of actuarial prediction to case management that has been endorsed by the National Institute of Corrections and adopted widely across federal and state corrections systems.

The integration of data from multiple sources — criminal records, supervision contacts, drug testing results, employment records, housing stability indicators, and electronic monitoring data — creates a detailed surveillance picture of community-supervised individuals that raises privacy and proportionality concerns. Supervised individuals may be subject to a degree of data-driven monitoring that exceeds what any human supervision officer could conduct, creating conditions that some scholars have characterized as “digital incarceration” — a form of control that extends the surveillance capacity of the carceral system into the community in ways that may impede the reintegration that community supervision is ostensibly designed to promote (Kilgore, 2015; Corbett, 2015).

Reentry Planning and Predictive Analytics

Big data analytics have been applied to reentry planning — the process of preparing incarcerated individuals for release and supporting their transition to community life — through tools that predict recidivism risk, identify criminogenic needs, and match individuals to evidence-based programming. The PATTERN (Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs) instrument, developed pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, assigns risk scores to federal prisoners that determine their eligibility for earned time credits and early transfer to prerelease custody. PATTERN uses demographic, criminal history, and institutional behavior variables to generate recidivism predictions that have been validated against federal data but that have attracted criticism for racial disparities in their outputs — a concern that prompted revisions to the instrument and ongoing monitoring of its equity performance (National Institute of Justice, 2020).

The use of predictive analytics in reentry raises distinctive ethical concerns because the consequences of prediction errors — denying early release to an individual who would not have reoffended, or granting early release to an individual who subsequently commits a serious offense — are severe and asymmetric in their distribution. False positive errors (over-prediction of risk) impose continued incarceration on individuals who do not pose a genuine threat, while false negative errors (under-prediction of risk) may result in harm to community members. The social distribution of these errors — which, given the racial disparities in criminal justice data, is likely to fall disproportionately on communities of color — adds an equity dimension to the accuracy concern and connects big data in corrections to the broader algorithmic bias discourse.

Privacy and Civil Liberties

The Fourth Amendment and Data Collection

The constitutional implications of big data in criminal justice center on the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures and its evolving application to digital data collection. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Jones (2012), Riley (2014), and Carpenter (2018) have established that digital data — including location tracking, cell phone contents, and historical cell-site location information — implicates Fourth Amendment protections that require warrant-based access in many circumstances. However, significant categories of big data remain outside the warrant framework: data purchased from commercial data brokers, information collected by third-party analytics companies and shared with law enforcement, and data generated by public-facing surveillance systems (cameras, license plate readers) in public spaces may be accessible without judicial authorization (Ohm, 2010; Solove, 2004).

The practice of law enforcement agencies purchasing commercial data — including location data from mobile advertising networks, social media scraping products, and aggregated consumer data — as an alternative to obtaining warrant-authorized access to the same information has attracted increasing scrutiny. The Fourth Amendment’s protection against government searches may not apply when the government purchases data that is commercially available rather than compelling its production through legal process — a doctrinal gap that enables surveillance capabilities that the warrant requirement was designed to constrain. The FTC’s enforcement actions against data brokers who sell sensitive location data, and legislative proposals to prohibit government purchase of data that would require a warrant to obtain through legal process, represent emerging responses to this gap (Hartzog & Solove, 2022).

The aggregation problem compounds the Fourth Amendment challenge. Individual data points — a license plate reading, a social media post, a financial transaction — may not individually implicate privacy interests sufficient to trigger constitutional protection. But when aggregated into detailed profiles that reveal patterns of movement, association, communication, and behavior, the same data points collectively constitute the kind of “intimate window into a person’s life” that the Carpenter Court found constitutionally significant. The doctrinal framework for determining when the aggregation of individually innocuous data points crosses the threshold into a Fourth Amendment search remains underdeveloped, creating uncertainty about the constitutional boundaries of big data surveillance (Gray & Citron, 2013).

Transparency and Accountability

The governance of big data in criminal justice requires transparency and accountability mechanisms that enable public scrutiny of how data is collected, analyzed, and used in consequential decisions. Transparency concerns are particularly acute for proprietary analytical tools whose internal logic is protected by trade secrets — risk assessment instruments such as COMPAS, predictive policing platforms, and surveillance analytics systems whose algorithms, training data, and validation results may not be available for public or judicial review (Rudin, 2019). The tension between proprietary protection and democratic accountability has generated advocacy for open-source alternatives, mandatory algorithm disclosure requirements, and independent auditing of criminal justice analytical tools.

Several jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislation requiring transparency in criminal justice algorithm deployment. New York City’s Local Law 144 mandates bias audits for automated decision tools used in employment (a precedent applicable to criminal justice contexts). California’s SB 1001 requires disclosure when automated decision systems are used in consequential government decisions. The proposed federal Algorithmic Accountability Act would require impact assessments for automated systems that make critical decisions, including criminal justice applications. These legislative developments reflect growing recognition that big data tools in criminal justice require governance mechanisms beyond the traditional accountability structures of judicial review and democratic oversight.

The development of “algorithmic impact assessments” — systematic evaluations of the potential effects of algorithmic tools on accuracy, equity, privacy, and civil liberties, conducted before deployment and updated periodically — has been proposed by multiple scholars and policy organizations as a governance mechanism that balances innovation with accountability (Reisman, Schultz, Crawford, & Whittaker, 2018). Impact assessments would require agencies to articulate the purpose of proposed data analytics tools, evaluate their accuracy and equity across demographic groups, identify privacy and civil liberties risks, establish monitoring and correction protocols, and make assessment results available for public review. The adoption of algorithmic impact assessment as a standard practice in criminal justice data analytics deployment would represent a significant advance in governance capacity, though its implementation requires institutional commitment and analytical resources that many criminal justice agencies currently lack.

Effectiveness and the Evidence Gap

What We Know and What We Don’t

The evidence for the effectiveness of big data applications in criminal justice is less developed than the enthusiasm for their deployment would suggest. Systematic evaluations of predictive policing, risk assessment instruments, real-time crime centers, and other big data tools have produced findings that range from modestly positive to null, with few studies demonstrating large, sustained crime reduction effects that can be confidently attributed to the analytical tools rather than to accompanying organizational changes (Meijer & Wessels, 2019). The RAND Corporation’s assessments of predictive policing, the National Institute of Justice’s evaluations of risk assessment instruments, and academic reviews of big data policing have consistently identified the need for more rigorous evaluation research — including randomized controlled trials where feasible — to establish whether the substantial investments in data infrastructure produce proportionate returns in crime control, accuracy of prediction, and fairness of outcomes (Perry et al., 2013; Saunders et al., 2016).

The evidence gap reflects both methodological challenges (the difficulty of constructing appropriate counterfactuals for complex technological interventions) and institutional incentives that favor deployment over evaluation. Agencies that adopt big data tools are typically motivated by a combination of genuine belief in their effectiveness, political pressure to adopt innovative approaches, vendor marketing, and federal grant incentives that fund technology acquisition but not systematic evaluation. The result is a landscape in which big data tools are widely deployed but poorly evaluated — a condition that makes it impossible to distinguish tools that produce genuine crime control benefits from those that consume resources without measurable impact.

The Cost-Benefit Calculus

A complete assessment of big data in criminal justice must weigh not only the crime control benefits (to the extent they can be demonstrated) but also the costs — financial costs of data infrastructure and personnel, privacy costs of expanded surveillance, equity costs of algorithmic bias, and democratic costs of reduced transparency in criminal justice decision-making. The financial costs alone are substantial: major city RTCCs require millions of dollars in initial investment and ongoing operational expenses, predictive policing platforms carry license fees and staffing requirements, and risk assessment instruments require validation, training, and monitoring resources. Whether these expenditures produce greater crime reduction than equivalent investments in patrol officers, community programs, or social services is an empirical question that the current evidence base cannot answer with confidence (Lum & Isaac, 2016).

The non-financial costs may exceed the financial costs in significance. The expansion of surveillance capability creates a criminal justice system that knows more about the citizens it serves — and can act on that knowledge more rapidly and comprehensively — than at any point in history. Whether this enhanced capability produces a safer and more just society or a more surveilled and less free one depends on the governance frameworks that channel its use, the accountability mechanisms that constrain its abuse, and the political culture that determines the boundaries of acceptable state monitoring in a democratic society.

Conclusion

Big data has transformed the informational environment of the American criminal justice system, providing analytical capabilities that enable more granular crime analysis, more data-informed decision-making, and more extensive monitoring of individuals and communities than any previous generation of criminal justice technology. The applications span the system — from real-time crime centers and predictive policing in law enforcement, through risk assessment instruments in courts and sentencing, to electronic monitoring and reentry analytics in corrections. Each application carries the potential for improved accuracy and efficiency alongside the risks of bias, privacy erosion, and reduced accountability that large-scale data systems create.

The governance challenge is to develop frameworks that realize the legitimate benefits of big data while constraining its risks — frameworks that require transparency in algorithmic design, equity in algorithmic outputs, proportionality in data collection, and accountability for the consequences of data-driven decisions. The evidence base for big data effectiveness in criminal justice remains thin relative to the scale of deployment, creating an urgent need for rigorous evaluation research that can distinguish effective applications from expensive failures. Until that evidence base is developed, the criminal justice system’s embrace of big data will continue to outpace its understanding of whether and under what conditions that embrace produces the improvements in safety, accuracy, and justice that motivated it.

References

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281756
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
Brayne, S. (2017). Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 977–1008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417725865
Brayne, S. (2021). Predict and surveil: Data, discretion, and the future of policing. Oxford University Press.
Chen, D. L. (2019). Machine learning and the rule of law. In M. Livermore & D. Rockmore (Eds.), Law as data: Computation, text, and the future of legal analysis (pp. 433–441). Santa Fe Institute Press.
Corbett, R. (2015). The burdens of leniency: The changing face of probation. Minnesota Law Review, 99(5), 1697–1733.
Desmarais, S. L., & Singh, J. P. (2013). Risk assessment instruments validated and implemented in correctional settings in the United States. Council of State Governments Justice Center.
Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing: Surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement. NYU Press.
Garrett, B. L., & Monahan, J. (2020). Judging risk. California Law Review, 108(2), 439–493. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38HH6C76D
Government Accountability Office. (2023). Artificial intelligence: Federal agencies’ use and governance of AI. GAO-23-106811.
Gray, D., & Citron, D. K. (2013). The right to quantitative privacy. Minnesota Law Review, 98(1), 62–144.
Hartzog, W., & Solove, D. J. (2022). The FTC and the new common law of data security. Columbia Law Review, 122(7), 1765–1834.
Hollywood, J. S., Boon, J. E., Silberglitt, R., Chow, B. G., & Jackson, B. A. (2015). Real-time crime centers in the field. RAND Corporation.
Kilgore, J. (2015). Electronic monitoring is not the answer: Critical reflections on a flawed alternative. Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center.
LAPD Inspector General. (2020). Review of selected Los Angeles Police Department data-driven policing strategies.
Levine, E. S., Tisch, J., Tasso, A., & Joy, M. (2017). The New York City police department’s domain awareness system. Interfaces, 47(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.2016.0860
Lum, K., & Isaac, W. (2016). To predict and serve? Significance, 13(5), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2016.00960.x
Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Meijer, A., & Wessels, M. (2019). Predictive policing: Review of benefits and drawbacks. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(12), 1031–1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1575664
Mohler, G. O., Short, M. B., Malinowski, S., Johnson, M., Tita, G. E., Bertozzi, A. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (2015). Randomized controlled field trials of predictive policing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110(512), 1399–1411. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2015.1077710
National Institute of Justice. (2020). The First Step Act of 2018: An overview. U.S. Department of Justice.
Ohm, P. (2010). Broken promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA Law Review, 57(6), 1701–1777.
Ostrom, B. J., & Hanson, R. A. (2010). Achieving high performance: A framework for courts. National Center for State Courts.
Perry, W. L., McInnis, B., Price, C. C., Smith, S. C., & Hollywood, J. S. (2013). Predictive policing: The role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR233
Reisman, D., Schultz, J., Crawford, K., & Whittaker, M. (2018). Algorithmic impact assessments: A practical framework for public agency accountability. AI Now Institute.
Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x
Saunders, J., Hunt, P., & Hollywood, J. S. (2016). Predictions put into practice: A quasi-experimental evaluation of Chicago’s predictive policing tool. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(3), 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9272-0
Solove, D. J. (2004). The digital person: Technology and privacy in the information age. NYU Press.
State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016).
Stevenson, M. T. (2018). Assessing risk assessment in action. Minnesota Law Review, 103(1), 303–384.
Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12070

Related Articles