Police 'futurists' walk fine line between goals and liberties.
A forward-thinking group of law enforcement elite, academic types and technology executives called The Society of Police Futurists International grapple with balancing security and civil liberties
In the Information Age, law enforcement can’t get too much of a good thing, right? Data flowing from RFID chips, images streaming in real time from surveillance video, light or vibration readings taken by microscopic sensors called smart dust, unmanned aerial vehicles reporting locations … it’s all good. Or is it?
These are just some of the technological advances, many of them in working order today, that will no doubt make upholding the law easier going forward. However, as police officials begin to consider using more cutting-edge technology – the kind that criminals and terrorists are quickly becoming well-versed in – they are faced with two significant issues: First, how does law enforcement use this information to help prevent crime without becoming paralyzed by awesome amounts of data? Second, how do authorities use these tools while maintaining civil liberties?
A forward-thinking group of law enforcement elite, academic types and technology executives called The Society of Police Futurists International (PFI ) is grappling with these very issues. The nonprofit group, formed in 1991, brings together individuals with an interest in the future of law enforcement and homeland security. While the group doesn’t itself fund research, it places emphasis on “Futures Research” – long-range planning and forecasting – to shape the way policing develops.
“There’s the possible future, the probable future and the preferable future,” says Tom Cowper, second vice president of PFI and a police executive, who declines to identify his department. “There are things we can do today to make a better future.”
The group, which is independent and self-funded, aims to be a link between law enforcement, academia and the private sector. It promotes research, dialogue and information sharing related to the profession of policing, according to its Web site. While PFI has no official role within law enforcement, following the Sept. 11 attacks it formed a subgroup with the FBI called Futures Working Group to “maximize the effectiveness . . . of law enforcement bodies.” The group publishes articles and white papers on topics such as police professionalism and forecasting crime.
Members of PFI concern themselves with just about anything having to do with the future of law enforcement: social trends, cultural issues, new and changing legislation, technology. The idea behind the group evolved from a course taught in 1982 by then special agent William Tafoya at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va., titled “Futuristics in Law Enforcement.” Current board members include police chiefs, criminal justice professors and security professionals.
For Cowper, who concerns himself with technology issues at work and as a member of PFI, the advance of modern technology has put policing at a crossroads.
“The biggest issue going forward is information and our ability or inability to deal with the vast amounts of information available and that will be increasingly available to law enforcement,” he says. Dealt with in an effective manner, information becomes a tool for not just solving crime, but preventing it.
Cowper offers an example: The World Health Organization and Center for Disease Control are using “information fusion” tools to help identify potential epidemics, such as bird flu, in their earliest stages. He defines information fusion tools as “IT tools that allow you to mine, sort, collate and handle information to make sense of it.” Collaboration software and decision support tools fall under this category.
But it’s also possible that authorities can become so bogged down in the oceans of data now available that gleaning pertinent information amid the ones and zeros becomes impossible.
It would seem a no-brainer that law enforcement officials take advantage of such information fusion tools to catch the bad guys. But in the act of policing, the rights of individuals must remain intact, and many believe that granting law enforcement access to all the information it might want to do its job is a direct violation of those rights.
|
“Law enforcement is one of the few realms that’s really behind the curve in its ability to handle information, and a lot of that stems from civil liberty issues,” Cowper says. “The potential to infringe upon people’s rights is certainly there. Law enforcement has to use information in an Information Age way; we can do our jobs and be successes and still protect free citizens.”
It’s a tricky tightrope, Cowper admits. Indeed, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Total Information Awareness Program, launched shortly after Sept. 11 as a way to track terrorists by using revolutionary technology to collect and sort through information – including personal data such as credit card information and airline ticket purchases – was dismantled by Congress largely because of civil liberty concerns.
“In my experience, we in PFI are as concerned about the protection of civil liberties as the [American Civil Liberties Union],” Cowper says. “The issue for me is we have to live in the real world; all this information is out there, we’ve got to find ways to deal with it.”
Criminals and terrorists have access to practically any information they want, as the recent climb in identity theft demonstrates. This puts law enforcement on an uneven playing field. n
