Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

When Trust Fades, Facebook Is No Longer a Friend: Shifting Privatisation Dynamics in the Context of Cybersecurity as a Result of Disinformation, Populism and Political Uncertainty

Carrapico, Helena, Farrand, Benjamin·2021·JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies
DOI 10.1111/jcms.13175
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article discusses how populism and political uncertainty are impacting on one of the main current trends in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, namely the privatisation of JHA. Through an exploration of a cybersecurity policy case study, the article proposes to understand how the privatisation of internal security, which has resulted in private actors shaping JHA policies and regulation, is currently being disrupted. Through the use of the theoretical lenses of Regulatory Capitalism, the article argues that this change is directly related to a reduction in trust relations between the State and certain private sector actors, which occurs when priorities in addressing populism and political uncertainty are perceived to diverge.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcms.13175

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. 10.1007/s10611‐016‐9656‐0 · DOI
  2. Abrahamsen R., 2016, Routledge Hanbook of Private Security Studies, 1
  3. 10.1017/CBO9780511974441 · DOI
  4. Ballou T., 2016, U.S. Energy Sector Cybersecurity: Hands‐off Approach or Effective Partnership?, Journal of Information Warfare, 15, 44
  5. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198739487.001.0001 · DOI
  6. 10.1007/s10611‐016‐9653‐3 · DOI
  7. Braithwaite J. B.(2005)‘Neoliberalism or Regulatory Capitalism’. Regnet Occasional Paper No. 5. · DOI
  8. 10.2139/ssrn.3539587 · DOI
  9. Bryden A., 2006, Private Actors and Security Governance
  10. Bures O., 2016, EU Counter‐Terrorism and Intelligence – A Critical Assessment, 17
  11. Bures O., 2017, Security Privatization: How Non‐security‐related Private Businesses Shape Security Governance
  12. Button M., 2002, Private Policing
  13. 10.1093/yel/yey018 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/jcms.12575 · DOI
  15. 10.1007/s10611-016-9652-4 · DOI
  16. 10.1093/ia/iix189 · DOI
  17. Christou G., 2015, Cybersecurity in the European Union: Resilience and Adaptability in Governance Policy
  18. 10.1111/tran.12118 · DOI
  19. Duffy B., 2018, The Perils of Perception: Why We're Wrong About Nearly Everything
  20. Dunn Cavelty M.(2013)‘A Resilient Europe for an Open Safe and Secure Cyberspace’ (No. 23). Swedish Institute of International Affairs. · DOI
  21. Harvey D., 2007, A Brief History of Neoliberalism
  22. 10.1177/1354066102008003003 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1093/oso/9780190699765.001.0001 · DOI
  24. 10.1057/978-1-137-37064-8_8 · DOI
  25. 10.1080/09662839.2012.688812 · DOI
  26. 10.1080/02604020903276834 · DOI
  27. 10.1080/00396338.2011.555595 · DOI
  28. 10.1017/CBO9781139042727 · DOI
  29. 10.1057/jird.2013.4 · DOI
  30. Laclau E., 2007, On Populist Reason
  31. Larson D.W., 1997, Anatomy of Mistrust: U.S.–Soviet Relations during the Cold War
  32. 10.1177/03058298050330030601 · DOI
  33. 10.1177/0967010610382108 · DOI
  34. 10.1177/0002716204272590 · DOI
  35. Li T. Fei F.andYanqing H.(2018) ‘Governing Social Media Platforms as Critical Information Infratructures’. InBeyond the Boundaries: Challenges for Business Policy and Society. Presented at the the 22nd Biennial Conference of the International Telecommunications Society Seoul pp. 1–21.
  36. 10.1080/1553118X.2019.1613661 · DOI
  37. Marwick A., 2018, Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online
  38. 10.1093/jleo/6.special_issue.213 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Moffitt B., 2017, The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation
  40. 10.1080/23738871.2018.1462395 · DOI
  41. 10.1017/9781108595841 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.2307/j.ctv8jp0hk · DOI
  43. 10.1177/030437540803300204 · DOI
  44. 10.1017/S1752971909990121 · DOI
  45. Riikonen A., 2019, Decide, Disrupt, Destroy: Information Systems in Great Power Competition with China, Strategic Studies Quarterly, 13, 122
  46. 10.1007/978-3-319-90875-5_2 · DOI
  47. 10.1080/21515581.2015.1009082 · DOI
  48. 10.1080/02185377.2011.600163 · DOI
  49. Singer P.W., 2007, Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry
  50. 10.1080/13600834.2020.1677369 · DOI
  51. Uslaner E.M., 2018, The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Carrapico, H., & Farrand, B.
Affiliations
  • Northumbria University Newcastle‐upon‐Tyne
  • Newcastle University Newcastle‐upon‐Tyne
ORCID
Venue
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-02-11
Volume
59
Issue
5
Pages
1160-1176
ISSN
  • 0021-9886
  • 1468-5965
DOI
10.1111/jcms.13175
Cited by
14
References
0
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.