[author]Shan Yong

[content]

Digital Platforms and the Transformation of Crime Governance

Shan Yong

Abstract: In the face of the organizational and regulatory crisis of new cybercrime, promoting the continuation of the “ miracle of long-term social stability” in the digital society has become a transformational goal of crime governance. Under the framework of state capacity analysis. “platform-based governance” provides transformation paths in terms of technology , organization ,and system, including governance based on mega-platforms and governance based on comprehensive governance platforms. These two types of governance include technical arrangements with data control as a means , organizational arrangements with social integration as a goal , and institutional arrangements based on preventive laws, which emerge from the construction path of “technology→organization→system” and shape the “digital bureaucracy” system. The significance of the organization  system transformation of platform governance is not only limited to the transformation of the system of “digital science and technology”. The significance of the transformation of platform governance is not only limited to responding to the crisis of governance ability by “governance through platform”, but also to the return to good law and good governance and value rationality by “governance for platform”.

1. The crisis of organizational regulation of new types of cybercrime

1.1 Crisis originating from the ex post facto response model

Against the background of the "miracle of long-term social stability" and the formation of the "crime inflection point", China's overall crime situation has undergone a structural change in the digital era, with traditional crime and cybercrime competing with each other, and with "urban attraction crime" to "cyber attraction crime". Traditional crime has been fully online, and the Internet has been transformed from a criminal object and tool into a criminal space. According to the Ministry of Public Security, cybercrime accounts for 1/3 of the total number of crimes in China and is on the rise (Lian Hongyang, 2019). The number of new cybercrimes handled by procuratorial authorities in recent years has increased by 40% annually, including a 54% increase in 2020 (Guo Hongping, 2021). "From 2018-2020, procuratorial authorities prosecuted 43,900, 57,100, and 74,500 suspects of telecommunication network fraud, with an average annual increase of more than 30%" (Zhuang Yonglian et al., 2021). The number of filed cases of fraud crimes, mainly wire fraud, surpassed theft for the first time in 2020, becoming the number one crime in China. The author learned from the research that from January to July 2021, public security organs across the country filed 574,000 cases of wire fraud, a year-on-year increase of 17.6%, resulting in more than 2,500 cases with a loss of more than one million yuan.

The serious challenge of cybercrime has provoked positive governance responses and rich theoretical discussions. In practice, the State has provided a legal basis for criminal governance with the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which added a number of new offenses such as the crime of aiding information network criminal activities, forming an ex post facto response model based on responsive law (with criminal law as the mainstay). The ex post facto response model is a model of criminal governance under the criminal law system, with the political and legal authorities as the overarching form of organization and event-based governance (case-by-case handling) as the organizational mechanism. In theory, how to improve the responsive law on which the ex post facto response model relies has become the mainstream of research, including the advocacy of the positive criminal law view (Fu Liqing, 2019), the discussion of the criminal legislation system of cybercrime (Pi Yong, 2018), and the new types of crime (Liu Xianquan, 2017), among other issues. At the same time, the voice of reflection on the mode of ex post facto response has also appeared in the academic community. Some scholars have pointed out that the criminal response to punish crime in China is mainly set up on the basis of traditional crime, and the response to cybercrime along the lines of traditional crime has not fully considered the characteristics of cybercrime itself (Yu Haisong, 2018); and there is a greater limitation in the judicial control of the crime of wire fraud (Wang Jie, 2019, 2020). This reflection may have uncovered the real problem. In terms of detection rate, as the main type of fraud crime, the detection rate of remote non-contact wire fraud is much lower than the average detection rate of offline contact fraud and all criminal cases. The "responsive law" represented by criminal law can only punish a small number of detected cases, and the model is not sufficiently effective against the majority of undetected cases or even undetected criminal black numbers. The failure of the traditional "organizational regulation" system based on the ex post facto response model to deal with cybercrime has become increasingly serious, leading to a crisis of governance capacity in two ways.

First, the failure of "organized regulation of presence". The "organized regulation of presence" is mainly for the real space of theft and other street crime, based on the sectional system of territorial jurisdiction, has a distinct "presence"; and network fraud for remote non-contact type of crime, with significant "on-line". Violator in the network using technology across regions, transnational crime is the norm, the crime involves social networking, online shopping, finance and other areas, case detection, extradition of criminals, evidence fixing, international judicial assistance is difficult. A P2P platform explosion triggered by the network of crowd-related crimes sometimes cause billions of yuan in losses, involving tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of participants in the fund-raising, and its harm far exceeds that of traditional cases. It is difficult for the "organized regulation of presence" to adapt to the challenges of cybercrime that transcend the realm of reality, and law enforcement is slow to respond, ineffective in preventing it, expensive in terms of resource investment, long in terms of the handling cycle of complex cases, and difficult in terms of early warning and the recovery of stolen goods, and there is a great deal of pressure to maintain stability in cases involving the masses. Most of the crimes in the digital era have a network dimension, and the "crimes in real space" are mostly related to the network, and crime management inevitably seeks digital clues of criminal activities from cyberspace. The crime governance in digital society is neither purely targeting the real space nor only controlling the cyberspace, but always facing the "new world" in which the real space and the cyberspace are integrated. The transformation of organizational control from "presence" to "online" can be considered imminent.

Second, the "ex post organizational regulation" is sluggish. The ex post facto response model relies on a response-based approach to the event-based governance of cases, and its preventive effect is limited. The model is too far away from the governance of cybercrime. New types of crimes breed in the soil of online blackmail, and various crimes belong to different interrelated links in the blackmail industry. The complete black production includes the industrial chain composed of providing accounts, providing tools, providing trading platforms, technical assistance, implementing midstream crimes, and downstream transfer of stolen money. It has been reported that there are more than 1.5 million practitioners of cyber blackmail in China, and the scale of blackmail reaches the level of hundreds of billions (Chen Huijuan, 2018). The "middle of the criminal chain" receives more attention because it is easy to be perceived, but it is only the tip of the iceberg of blackmail, and other links are much more difficult to manage. This is manifested in the difficulty of verifying the real identity of illegal users, the difficulty of detecting illegal "threads" in a timely manner, the rapid iteration of criminal means and strong concealment, and the prominent professionalization of criminals. The limited penetration and insufficient control of network blackmail by "ex post organizational regulation", the failure to combat only a certain segment of the crime can not play a fundamental role, and the local jurisdiction of the traditional system in the real space alone can not be reached. Organizational control of real space and traditional crimes, focusing on after-the-fact response, and the governance of cyber blackmail are almost two eras, and the traditional system to deal with new types of crimes will inevitably fall into a dilemma that is the opposite of what it is supposed to be. It must be admitted that criminology over the past two hundred years has been mainly devoted to the elaboration of traditional crime, and the blending of new types of crime in cyberspace and the real world has changed the direction of criminological development. The challenge posed by new types of crime to traditional organizational control is overarching, and this challenge calls for an overall transformation of crime governance to improve the limitations of "ex ante organizational control" over "ex post organizational control".

1.2 Analytical framework of state capacity in response to the crisis

The essence of the crisis of organizational regulation lies in the crisis of state capacity for crime governance, and the doctrine of "state capacity" emphasizes the role of society in state governance, focusing on the state's penetration, absorption and control of society. State capacity includes "the ability to penetrate society, to regulate social relations, to extract resources, and to allocate or utilize them in a particular way (Migdal, 2012), pointing to the ability to penetrate, absorb and control society. The relationship between the state and society constitutes the theoretical basis for the transformation of crime governance, and relevant studies have pointed out that the relationship between the two has gone through a change from the "dichotomy between the state and society" to the "interaction between the state and society" (Yu Jianxing and Guan Shuang, 2014), which is manifested as follows "the multifaceted interaction between the hierarchical structure of the state and the reticulated structure of society" (Migdal, 2013), presenting the intermingling of the "society in the state" and the "state in the society" (Li Youmei, 2021). In traditional state governance, the interaction between the state and society occurs in the presence of the state, and the state's capacity focuses on the state's ability to penetrate, draw and control the real society. In the digital era, the social foundation of state governance has undergone a fundamental change, the real society has evolved into a digital society that blends reality and reality, the interaction between the state and the society has changed into an online interaction, and the connotation of the state capacity of criminal governance has changed into the ability of the hierarchical state to infiltrate, draw and control the digital society online. In what way, then, is this online control realized?

1.2.1 Introducing a platform approach to national capacity improvement

The rise of digital platforms provides an opportunity for change in response to the key issues mentioned above and the crisis of state capacity, with platforms becoming the connecting hub for the state to interact with society online. "A platform is a digital infrastructure that aims to enable organization and interaction between users. Platforms are data-driven, organized and operated through algorithms, interfaces that enable the formation of platform relationships within a business logic and are subject to the consent of users" (van Dijck et al., 2018). The rise of platforms has become an extremely important nascent social phenomenon. Platforms create a strongly connected and re-centered way of social organization, constituting a public facility for ubiquitous linking and information aggregation in the digital society, as well as an information hub and organizational channel for online interaction between the hierarchical state and the digital society. Nowadays, the value of platforms spreads to the field of social and criminal governance, with platforms residing in the position of gatekeepers in cyberspace (Furman & Coyle, 2019), assuming the responsibility of gatekeepers in preventing users from utilizing their services to engage in cyber offenses. In practice, mega Internet platforms such as Ali and Tencent (referred to as "mega platforms") are rich in applications for the prevention and control of cybercrime; political and legal authorities at all levels and in all parts of the world are in full swing in the construction of comprehensive governance platforms, creating benchmark applications such as the "National Anti-fraud Big Data Platform". The mega-platform and the comprehensive governance platform have become the most popular applications in the world. Mega-platforms and comprehensive governance platforms have become intermediary forces for the state to penetrate, draw on, and even control the digital society, giving rise to a new model of "platform-based governance.

1.2.2 Three dimensions of platform governance

Platform governance not only encompasses the use of information technology governance, but also shapes a new type of organizational system with the platform as the hub, and moreover gives birth to the preventive legal system represented by the norms of cyberlaw and the Anti-Telecommunications Network Fraud Law (Draft), realizing the organic integration of technical, organizational and institutional arrangements, and pointing to the transformation of overall crime governance. Established studies reflecting on the ex post facto response model have proposed, in addition to revising the criminal law incrimination standards and other improvements to the response-oriented law, countermeasures such as strengthening victimization prevention and cooperating with Internet enterprises in governance (Wang Jie, 2020; Jiang Su, 2020). Unfortunately, these countermeasures lack the support of technical, organizational and institutional arrangements. The relevant recommendations seem to be necessary, but it is not clear by which subjects, based on what institutional arrangements, and through what organizational mechanisms they will be implemented. The response of platform governance to the crisis of state capacity is different, deeply rooted in the structure of the digital society. The digital society consists of a technological system at the base of society, an organizational system at the middle, and an institutional system at the top. The three subsystems correspond to the technical, organizational and institutional perspectives of governance transformation, respectively. The overall transformation of crime governance is not only a technical arrangement that innovates governance methods, but also an organizational arrangement that adjusts the relationship between governance subjects, but also points to an institutional arrangement that provides the basis for governance transformation at the normative level, consolidating and regulating the technical and organizational arrangements.

1.2.3 Internal logic of the triple arrangement

Platform governance consists of three levels: technical arrangement, organizational arrangement and institutional arrangement. The logic of the triple arrangement constitutes the theoretical key to grasping governance transformation. On the one hand, the transformation of platform governance reflects the constructive process of "technology → organization → system". Platform governance originates from the significant innovation of the technological system; however, cyberspace is mainly constructed by the Internet platform, and the online interaction between the hierarchical state and the digital society cannot be separated from the organizational and institutional arrangements. "The load and challenges faced by the scale of national governance cannot be solved by the so-called 'technical governance means'; technical means cannot solve the substantive problems in governance by themselves, and the response to the governance crisis depends on the organizational reconstruction of the national governance system" (Zhou Xueguang. 2017:18). "Organizational and institutional arrangements intervene in the implementation of technology as a mediating factor" (Fontaine, 2010:8). On the other hand, with the expansion of platform governance and the growing data power owned by the state through platforms, how to maintain the balance between the data power of the sectional state and the national rights of the digital society has become an urgent concern. Platform governance should not be limited to efficiency-oriented instrumental rationality, let alone falling into the "digital leviathan" trap of panoramic control, but should move from "efficient governance" to "good governance". Instead, we should move from "efficient governance" to "good governance". It can be seen that the use of institutional arrangements to regulate organizational and technological arrangements is the proper meaning of platform governance, which also includes the regulatory process of "system → organization → technology".

As a result, the construction path of platform governance points to the shaping of organizational and institutional systems by technical systems, which is manifested as the efficiency-oriented "governance through platforms"; the regulation path of platform governance focuses on the regulation of organizational and technical systems by institutional systems, which is manifested as the "governance for platforms" that emphasizes value rationality. The regulatory path of platform governance, on the other hand, focuses on the regulation of organizational and technological systems by institutional systems, which is manifested as "governance for platforms" emphasizing value rationality. The dual face of platform governance and the two paths have become the focus of discussion in response to the crisis of national capacity.

2. Exploring crime governance with the introduction of platforms

2.1 Crime governance of mega-platforms

The "mega platform" is a head commercial platform that provides core platform services for the society, has hundreds of millions of users, and can control the online activities of users better than law enforcement departments, constituting a new type of infrastructure in the digital society. The mega platform's online control over users' criminal offenses is manifested in four aspects.

First, mega-platforms assist public security authorities in detecting various types of illegal crimes, mainly cybercrimes. Tencent launched an intelligent anti-fraud hub with the "Guardian Program ". Since the outbreak of the epidemic in 2020, Tencent's Guardian security team has pushed nearly 10,000 outbreak-type fraud clues to the National Anti-fraud Center on a daily basis, and has assisted public security authorities in arresting more than 4,000 suspects of electric fraud and solving more than 10,000 cases in two months (China News, 2020). The control effect of the platform on traditional cases is also extremely significant due to the mastery of the digital trajectory of social, payment, travel, shopping and other activities carried out by violators in the user's identity.

Second, mega-platforms target the special governance of cyber black and grey industries. The platform is the first line of defense in the governance of network blackmail. ByteDance launched the "Woodpecker 2019" special action against the black production of brushing volume, implemented online risk monitoring with thousands of strategies and models, blocked 2.03 million offending Jitterbug accounts for brushing volume and cheating, intercepted 91.99 million requests for black production brushing volume registration accounts, and intercepted 551 million requests for brushing volume of black production brushing likes and brushing powders (Zhongguancun Online, 2020). Specialized governance against online blackmail constitutes the traceable governance of cybercrime.

Third, mega-platforms audit the online content of users posting illegal and undesirable information. Such information is both a diversion for illegal crimes such as online gambling and a basic form of differential interaction between wrongdoers and victims. According to the provisions of the ecological governance of network information content, the major platforms have carried out self-examination and self-correction special governance. Baidu has made up for the loopholes in the system by establishing rules and regulations; the fast hand platform has set up a special group for network ecological governance; and today's headline platform has adjusted its algorithmic recommendation logic, improved its model library of pornographic and vulgar pictures, and improved its auditing efficiency with AI technology. Various platforms have cleaned up a total of 330 million pieces of illegal and undesirable information such as obscenity, pornography, vulgar speculation, gambling and fraud, and disposed of more than 3,675,000 unlawful and illegal accounts (You Yiwei, 2020). The obligation of content auditing has also become the most routine responsibility of platforms in terms of network and crime governance.

Fourthly, the market-based mechanism of cybercrime governance by market players such as mega platforms is beginning to take shape. The author learned from the research that a technology company developed a SaaS (Software as a Service) cloud computing platform with the support of a mega-platform to provide basic technical support for investigating cyber cases. Since 2017, 1,700 public security organs have received the company's services free of charge and 900 public security organs have received the company's services on a paid basis. The company develops a variety of crime analysis software, such as "Cloud Catch", "Cloud Search" and "Wind Tunnel", and provides "threads" for detecting cases through data analysis. In 2020, the company assisted the public security authorities in arresting more than 20,000 fugitives. Data analysis services based on the SaaS platform are different from traditional police-enterprise cooperation. Previously, the products provided by enterprises for public security were hardware and software intelligent systems, which were embedded in the public security intranet; the SaaS platform is independent of the police platform, which opens up a marketable channel to cyberspace for law enforcement agencies.

The first of these forms is for the platform to assist the public security authorities in detecting individual cases; the second is for the platform to carry out special management of the systemic risks of the platform's ecosystem (cyber blackmail); and the third is for the platform to audit the content of information released by users and to provide timely warnings and blocking of cyber law violations at both the pre-event and eventual phases. The first three forms are the fulfillment of the platform's obligations under the cyber law, which is a "prescribed action" for the platform to assume the main responsibility. The fourth form is the "optional action" of the platform's innovative criminal governance, forming a more efficient and flexible market mechanism. The common underlying logic of these four forms lies in the platform's online control of users' (national digital identities) violations of the law by utilizing the advantages of technology, data, network effect and scale effect. The mega-platform has changed from a traditional "technology provider" to an "online regulator" of users; the connotation of cooperative governance has changed from "providing public security with technological tools" to "online supervision of users"; and the platform has changed from "providing public security with technological tools" to "online supervision of users". The connotation of cooperative governance has changed from "providing technical tools for public security" to "online supervision of users", with the State responsible for providing the basis for legitimacy, day-to-day supervision and policy guidance for the criminal governance of mega-platforms. Platform governance has facilitated the organizational division of labour between the State and the platform, achieved the redistribution of governance power, reduced the load on the hierarchical system, and promoted the generation of a network governance community.

2.2 Crime governance on the comprehensive governance platform

In the context of the digital transformation of party and government organs, political and legal organs and other departments around the world are using the construction of comprehensive governance platforms to promote the re-organization and transformation of crime governance. Comprehensive governance platforms include two types: one is a specialized platform, such as the national anti-fraud big data platform; the other is a comprehensive platform, such as the Hangzhou "city brain" platform. The governance subjects of these two types of platforms include public security organs, political and legal commissions, grassroots governments and other departments; the objects of governance include not only major risks such as the crime of electric fraud, but also source and comprehensive problems in grassroots governance from the sources of police, lawsuits and visits. The comprehensive governance platform constitutes a digital carrier for information aggregation, comprehensive research and judgment, organizational coordination, departmental integration, and online command for all kinds of comprehensive governance issues, including cybercrime. The comprehensive governance platform is the result of the digital transformation of national governance, reflecting the national will of governance modernization, updating the system and mode of organizational regulation, and Opening up the overall intelligent governance of the "platform government". The author investigated a large number of comprehensive governance platforms in Zhejiang and Jiangsu, and selected seven representative cases (see Table 1) for in-depth analysis.

Table 1 typical examples of integrated governance platforms

Project name/ Governance philosophy	Governance initiatives based on the Integrated Governance Platform	Promotion of organizational regulation by platform transformation
1. National Anti-Fraud Data Platform (national specialized platform)	1) Docking banks, internet companies, public security databases and more Information Resources 2) Automated research and judgment based on intelligent models involving fraudulent gangs and dens, Web sites, applications, victims and other case information. 3) Docking with the criminal specialized system, realizing data sharing, establishing characteristic models, and expanding the black sample database. model, expand the black sample database, optimize the efficiency of capital investigation and control, and track the virtual currency capital flow.	1) The platform is used to synergize with more departments, correlate more data, command the whole process of electric fraud case management. 2) The platform is used to realize the internal collaboration of all levels and police departments within the public security and to realize the external cooperation with other units.
2. The National Anti-Fraud Centre App, which serves as an organizational vehicle for universal fraud control	1) Client end: integrates the functions of early warning and discouragement, risk inquiry, identity verification, reporting assistant, publicity and prevention, etc., and is interconnected with the anti-fraud platform. 2) Police end: the police receive clues, analyze and research, merge cases, and push case clues to the outside world. case merging, and pushing case clues to the outside world.	1) Early warning and discouragement system, connecting hundreds of millions of users and hundreds of thousands of police officers . 2) Service-oriented victim prevention organization carrier. 3) The client side and the police side constitute the tentacles of organized regulation of the anti-fraud platform.
3.Wenzhou Anti-fraud Brain（an organizational vehicle for public and police anti-fraud campaign)	1) the five goals of anti-fraud campaign are disassembled into 7 second-level sub-tasks,  17 third-level tasks and 35 forth-level tasks to realize the control of froud through the whole process. 2) horizontal cooperation with 23 departments, operators and banks, vertically penetrate 5 police types and grid members of every street in the city, so as to realize the minimum granularity on the screen. 3) according to 33 types of data requirements, more than 5 million pieces of data are gathered. 4)comprehensive integration of 7 application scenarios like “lamp of risk” “barrier of risk” “box of risk” etc.	1) cross-level, cross-region, cross-system and cross-department data share, command transmission, act coordination 2) break the data barrier by the data center and build multiple crime analysis models 3) promote the organizational reform of policing operation by the platform
4.Yixing warning platfrom of alicious evasion of debt of enterprises ( a special platform for preventing network and public economic crime	1) make data portraits for more than 1600 legal corporation with over 10 million yuan through the platform, and monitor enterprise risks in real time with “2333 tactics” 2) evaluate the risk of economic illegality of enterprises based on various index models 3) integrate the regulatory authorities with enterprise financial information database, data platform, business application platform and more than 10 intelligent systems, innovate the governance mechanism and penetrate business collaboration	1) prevent financial risks in advance at the front end,  and eliminate network-related economic crime in the bud 2) monitor the financial and tax data of enterprise operation, and promote the prevention-oriented organizational regulation 3) integrate financial, economic, policing and other tasks
5.major risk monitoring and early warning platform in A Province(comprehensive disposal platform for major risks)	1) investigate major risks in 22 fields with a comprehensive risk monitoring platform, realize centralized convergence of risk data, one-click circulation of early warning assignment, visual display of risk judgement and online collaboration of risk disposal through unified platform, first-level database, two-network deployment and grading application 2)connection between government cloud platform and police database	1) organized control information center and organizational hub at provincial level 2) drive 12 types of special treatment of risk control, and greatly enhance the organizational control ability of the party and government
6. Hangzhou's "City Brain" (Platform Driven Integrated Intelligent Governance)	①The integration of a comprehensive information system for grassroots social management with grid governance and group services. ② The construction of four platforms: comprehensive governance work, supervision and law enforcement, emergency management, and convenient services. ③ The operation of the city brain governance architecture of "central system+department+digital cockpit+application scenario".	① Reconstruction of the organizational control system based on the "city brain - town street cerebellum and village community microbrain". ② Online and offline integration of comprehensive management. ③Use the interactive interface of the digital cockpit to optimize the organizational control method and reconstruct the organizational system.
7. Jiaxing Social Governance Cloud Platform (rebuilding the comprehensive governance system with a platform-based government)	①Use the city brain to drive the smart governance of “one cloud + five platforms + hundreds of systems”. ② Construction of five platforms with data integration, risk warning, decision support, command and dispatch, and co-governance services as its contents. ③ Connect 2 million citizens to the WeChat group on a grid basis to achieve reorganization.	① Organizational reconstruction symbolized by platform-based government. ②Reshape and integrate the organizational control system ③Consolidate the social foundation for comprehensive management through online connection between the state and citizens.

2.2.1 A specialized platform for cyber crimes such as electronic fraud

The “National Anti-Fraud Big Data Platform” in Case 1 is the Ministry of Public Security’s national unified platform for combating electronic fraud crimes. The platform has expanded more information resources, developed more scientific crime analysis models, and collaborated with nearly 3,000 financial institutions and payment institutions to achieve intelligent risk control and precise intervention in all aspects of electronic fraud crimes. In less than half a year since its launch, the platform has issued millions of early warning data, becoming a well-deserved command center for national anti-fraud work. The "National Anti-Fraud Center App" in Case 2 is divided into a client (used by the public) and a police client. Both ends are interconnected with the anti-fraud big data platform. Relying on functions such as fraud warning, quick reporting, chat partner identity verification, and crime reporting assistant, the App has become a “firewall” for victim prevention and early warning and dissuasion. From its launch in early 2021 to the end of July of the same year, the App has issued 41.47 million warnings to users, helped verify the identities of suspicious persons 7.42 million times, and accepted 1.73 million reports. The “Wenzhou Anti-Fraud Brain” in Case 3 is a model for local police to carry out all-police anti-fraud and all-society anti-fraud. The platform uses seven major business scenarios to achieve goals such as prevention linkage, personnel management and control, early warning and stop loss, and publicity launch. In the "Wind Lantern" scenario, it can perceive the risk of electronic fraud in the entire region. While in the "Wind Resistance" scenario, it can achieve early warning and dissuasion and stop payment of funds. In the "Wind Warning" scenario, it controls key personnel with a history of fraud, returning from and staying in northern Myanmar, etc. It also supports the digital investigation of electronic fraud crimes in the "Wind Sound" scenario and assists data sharing and intelligent research and judgment with banks and other departments in the "Wind Box" scenario. In the "Wind Hole" scene, local electronic fraud and black industry dens are discovered online and offline. In the "Bagpipe" scene, digital tags of high-risk victims are traced and anti-fraud propaganda is customized. Case 4 is a special treatment for the illegal behavior of private enterprises maliciously evading debts. The malicious evasion of debts by enterprises involves loan fraud, contract fraud, false bankruptcy and other Internet-related economic crimes involving the public. Nowadays, such crimes have been fully exposed to the Internet. The Yixing Municipal Public Security Bureau used this platform to gather 30 categories, 120 items, and 12 million pieces of data from various departments, promoting efficient collaboration among regulatory authorities, and used the risk prediction model to analyze and push risk clues 137 times. With the platform's intervention, the local non-performing loan rate dropped from 6.3% in 2015 to 1.57% in 2019.

2.2.2 Comprehensive platform for social governance

Social governance is crime governance with a more holistic significance. Comprehensive platforms place crime governance in the overall plan of "safety construction", use comprehensive platforms to build an organized regulatory system for comprehensive governance, reconstruct subject relationships, and reshape organizational mechanisms. Case 5 reflects the overall platform-based transformation of the comprehensive management system in Province A. The platform conducts comprehensive risk inspections in 22 key areas such as network governance to achieve preventive control of major risks. Case 6 is Hangzhou’s comprehensive governance innovation based on the “City Brain” platform, shaping an overall smart governance pattern based on the framework of “central system + departments + digital cockpit + application scenarios”. In Case 7, Jiaxing’s social governance cloud platform has built an organizational control system of “one cloud + five platforms + hundreds of systems” to promote the rise of platform-based government with real-time perception, data analysis and precise intervention. The platform’s “Micro Jiayuan” module sets up WeChat groups and WeChat applets in grid units, including 2 million citizens (as of June 2021) in real-name online grid governance, promoting online negotiation of social conflicts and disputes and source governance. Although comprehensive platforms do not directly target cybercrime, they play a fundamental supporting role in the operation of specialized platforms.

2.3 Three mechanisms of platform governance

2.3.1 Technical arrangements based on data control

Platform governance is based on the relationship between the platform and users, and is characterized by the platform's large-scale, real-time, and precise data control over users. Super-large platform has the identity of data controller and users are data subjects. “The data obtained by the data controller are not ordinary commodities, but the life password of the data subject” (Feng Guo and Xue Yisa, 2020). The business logic of "users are data" creates a "controller online" picture where the platform monitors users, realizing closed-loop control such as identification, correlation, automated intervention, and clue output to determine whether user activities are illegal. The surveillance technology used by super-large platforms is closely integrated into the digital life of the people and gradually integrated with user's body. The operation of surveillance is becoming increasingly difficult to detect, which makes platform governance a "disappearing" governance technique. The comprehensive management platform relies on data resources such as the Internet of Things and the Internet to comprehensively collect, real-time perception, scientific judgment, and precise processing of cyber crimes and various risks, and uses data control to improve the identifiability of governance. As a result, cyberspace is not only brought into the governance horizon, but also the "organized control of presence" is digitally mirrored, and "online control" is used to unify "presence control", which promotes crime governance to front-end prevention and updates the underlying logic of organized control. As a result, data control has become a common model of modern social governance.

2.3.2 Organizational arrangements aimed at social integration

The rise of the Internet and digital platforms has created a basic structure for narrowing the distance between the country and society. This structure is based on the relationship between the platform and users. The technical arrangement of data control has externally formed panoramic online control and full-coverage online mobilization, internally promoted the reorganization and recentralization of the organizational control system, and spawned a new governance state and new organization with the platform as the hub.

On the one hand, super-large platforms have become a new organizational carrier for the state to exert online control. Through the institutional arrangement of platform responsibility, the state gives super-large platforms the main role in preventing and controlling cybercrimes, allowing them to provide platform services while also having crime prevention responsibilities. This kind of organizational arrangement avoids the crisis of "totalitarianism" caused by the overall control of crime by the state. As a "super aggregator" linking hundreds of millions of users, the platform has become the best carrier for online mobilization. Different from the state's street mobilization in physical space, the platform's online mobilization has obvious characteristics of network, cross-region, immediacy, scale, and vividness. In the special operation to combat cybercrime, it forms an instant and full coverage of the entire network scale effect. For example, there are tens of thousands of public security accounts on a certain short video platform, which plays an important role in preventing victimization. The platform uses algorithms to give public security information more traffic and higher weight, and delivers anti-fraud propaganda information to users in a vivid way.

On the other hand, the comprehensive management platform also comprehensively integrates the subjects, functions, and technologies of comprehensive management, connects all departments, levels, and links, optimizes the operating process of the comprehensive management system, and becomes an important tool to solve the dilemma of fragmented governance and low organization. In Case 7, the social governance cloud platform refined the city's 4,559 general-practice grids into 92,600 micro-grids, equipped with 158,300 micro-grid leaders with party members and cadres as the backbone, and mirrored the grids into online "micro-grids". "Jiayuan" module has attracted 2 million citizens to join with their real names, realizing the vertical connection of "city-county (district)-township-village-grid-micro-grid-household", giving birth to an integrated system that provides seamless services to the people. Governance landscape. When the user is a comprehensive management personnel, there is a command and execution relationship between the platform and the user regarding governance matters; when the user is a resident, the platform and the user present a form of online interaction and digital negotiation. This platform-type government built on a comprehensive management platform has laid the organizational foundation for front-end prevention of cybercrimes.

2.3.3 Institutional arrangements based on preventive laws

Responsive law, represented by criminal law, is the institutional basis for the post-event response model, while platform governance for cyber crimes is rooted in various cyber law norms and preventive legal systems such as the upcoming Anti-Electronic Fraud Law. The preventive law institutionalizes the technical arrangements and organizational arrangements for front-end prevention that are effective in practice, and sets systematic crime prevention obligations for Internet platforms.

First, the preventive law sets active control obligations for platforms to target users for committing online crimes. In January 2021, Article 21, Paragraph 1, of the "Measures for the Administration of Internet Information Services (Revised Draft for Comments)" stipulates that "Internet service providers shall take technical measures and other necessary measures to prevent, discover, and stop the services are used to commit illegal crimes." The draft requires platforms to proactively control illegal crimes. The "Minor Protection Law" that will be implemented in June 2021 clarifies that platforms have the obligation to actively control users who commit crimes that target minors.

Second, the preventive law sets comprehensive security obligations for the platform ecosystem. The comprehensive nature of obligations is reflected in content review, algorithm recommendation management, personal information protection, data security, and the management of illegal online products. The Regulations on Ecological Management of Network Information Content implemented in March 2020 set up preventive obligations for platforms to handle users' dissemination of illegal information. The Internet Information Service Algorithm Recommendation Management Regulations implemented in March 2022 not only provides a legal basis for platforms to carry out countermeasures against illegal content, but also requires platforms to fulfill anti-fraud prevention obligations for the elderly. The Personal Information Protection Law implemented in September 2021 sets personal information protection obligations for platforms to avoid cyber crimes caused by personal information leakage from the source. If the above-mentioned laws and regulations stipulate security protection obligations too scatteredly, then the Guidelines for the Implementation of Main Responsibilities of Internet Platforms (Draft for Comments) published in October 2021 systematically set security protection obligations, including prohibiting users from spreading illegal content, establishing a content review mechanism, user management within the platform (actively identifying and controlling users’ online violations), platform content management, sales bans and restrictions, control of illegal online products, network security, data security, personal information protection and cooperation with law enforcement .

Third, the preventive law sets specialized anti-fraud prevention obligations based on the Anti-Electronic Fraud Law. This law sets entities such as Internet service providers as “gatekeepers” for online anti-fraud. Article 5 of the law requires platforms to establish internal risk control mechanisms and security responsibility systems; Articles 18 to 23 set responsibilities for Internet service providers to implement user real-name systems, handle abnormal accounts, and monitor fraud-related industries; Articles 27 and 28 provide an institutional basis for the platform to carry out counter-technical measures and for the public security to establish an early warning and dissuasion system for potential victims.

Compared with super-large platforms, the institutional arrangements for comprehensive platform management are relatively lagging behind, but they are also reflected in provincial regulations. The Zhejiang Province Digital Economy Promotion Regulations announced in December 2020 and the Zhejiang Province Public Data Regulations implemented on March 1, 2022 provide institutional basis for the overall smart governance construction of the comprehensive governance platform.

In summary, "governance through platforms" uses unique technical arrangements, organizational arrangements and institutional arrangements to promote the transformation of the crime governance system from "on-site" to "online", from post-event response to front-end prevention, and provides a "stabilizing miracle" in the digital world. Exploring new paths for the continued development of society.

3. The internal logic of the rise of platform governance

The rise of platform governance is not only a response to external criminal challenges, but also has its own unique internal logic. This logic is externalized into the technical arrangements, organizational arrangements and institutional arrangements of platform governance. Its essence lies in the construction process of governance reform following the three-dimensional logic of "technology→organization→system".

3.1 Technical reshaping of digital platforms

Digital platforms with huge scale effects are gradually embedded in the core of society, promoting the decentralization of cyberspace and making individuals' digital survival dependent on the platform. The platform integrates digital society to the greatest extent and to the greatest extent, achieving seamless connection between cyberspace and the real world and the blending of virtual and real. The relationship among countries, platforms, and users has created a new way of interaction, shaping a platform ecosystem with the attributes of "omnipresent systems" (Zhao Tingyang, 2022). This system became the intermediary system of national governance. As the morning light of platforms shines on every corner of society, a "platform society" based on platform relationships and centered on platform ecosystems is gradually taking shape. “Platforms have penetrated into the core of society, bypassing traditional management systems, changing social and citizen behaviors, and reshaping the social structure of national life” (van Dijck et al., 2018). In terms of technical logic, the rise of platforms has reshaped crime governance, giving birth to a platform governance model in the form of "platform managing users" and with data control as its essence.

First of all, the basis of "platform managing users" is that the platform is the "storage" of data and the "toolbox" of technology. Data is gathered on various platforms through the perception and transmission of software and hardware. The platform is a carrier for mining, utilizing and creating data value, and is also a hub for data aggregation and technology integration. The platform embeds and integrates technology into the platform ecosystem, creating a data “giant machine” at the level of imagery. With the convergence of data from various platforms, the systematic data of criminals has become the best sample for online risk control, and the risk control technology for criminals is becoming more and more versatile. The data for recording criminal activities and the technology for monitoring criminal risks are both embedded in "giant machines". The transformation of crime governance must look to the platform for answers, using platform governance as an "intermediate system" that connects physical space and cyberspace, giving the platform the ability to manage users. "Intermediate power" makes platforms a key carrier for national governance entities to extend into cyberspace and implement online control.

Secondly, the nature of “platform management of users” lies in the online registration of users and their people. In the past, citizens were identified through the household registration and ID system, and the monitoring system carefully recorded their physical activities. Now, the digital identity of citizens is the platform user, and most people are identified by their unified identifier ( User account) format encoding. Under the logic of "users are data", the platform uses complex and sophisticated algorithm systems to record and automatically analyze user online activities, gradually generating massive user profiles, forming a platform where "users exchange information for services" and "the platform understands everything" relation. Platforms have expanded the scope and depth of surveillance, creating new forms of power, new means of influencing people's behavior, and new governance systems. Online household registration and population management is a technology that the platform uses to observe, record, profile, label, assign, and classify users. It is an efficient and covert control technology in the digital age. In this sense, cybercrimes are platform activities of users. The vast majority of traditional criminals have platform user identities, and traditional crimes also have rich digital images in the platform ecosystem. Given that kind of crime can be attributed to “crime within the platform” or “crime related to the platform,” platforms constitute a “natural” online regulator of crime governance.