Say the phrase “law enforcement technology” to many people and ask them to respond with associated words and phrases. You will very likely hear “body cameras,” “DNA,” “CSI,” “Breathalyzer,” “drones,” and “computers.” You can probably come up with others.
But those responses are not “law enforcement technology;” they are examples of technology that have been adapted and adopted by law enforcement (well, all except “CSI” which is a dramatization of technology application specialists).
The public rarely has a serious opportunity to read a report that adequately portrays the challenges law enforcement administrators face in evaluating, selecting, and applying technology and in writing policies and practices to ensure consistency and legality in its application. Even more rarely does the public have an opportunity to look into the future of law enforcement administration and see the challenges 21st century chief executive law enforcement officers will face in the social and cultural environment in which they will be expected to operate. Here’s that opportunity.
In July 2014 the Rand Corporation conducted a workshop which sought “… to explore future visions of law enforcement and identify and prioritize needs in technology, policy, and practice based on those visions. Participants consisted of a diverse group of law enforcement practitioners from municipal, state, and federal law enforcement organizations and representatives from academic institutions.” The Rand workshop produced a 102-page report entitled Visions of Law Enforcement Technology in the Period 2024-2034 — Report of the Law Enforcement Futuring Workshop.
But contrary to the report’s title, the workshop and its report were not just about technology. In fact, specific technologies were mentioned peripherally, and usually then only as examples.
Necessarily although not obvious to the general public, the future of law enforcement administration and practice (including the diverse applications of technology) must regularly and consistently consider “broad societal and technology trends that may affect the future environment.” Among the trends considered and discussed at length and in detail during the workshop and included in the report:
- The dysfunction and uncertainty in the national political environment
- The aging of the population of the United States
- The legalization and decriminalization of formerly illegal drugs
- The changing expectation and capability to live anonymously
- The new risks and opportunities arising from new means of exchange for products and services through the Internet
- The free accessibility of information and knowledge that was historically difficult to obtain and interpret
- The increasingly dynamic nature of knowledge: the amount of time for which knowledge is useful shortening while the amount of available knowledge is exploding
- The shortening or elimination of supply chains, enabling at-home fabrication of weapons and biological materials
- The increased automation and augmentation of law enforcement functions, manufacturing, and personal lives
- The increasing effectiveness of management of mental health
- The increased persistence of biometric, biologic, geographic, transactional, and environmental data
- The accelerating development of technology
OpenCdA sincerely hopes that readers will look through the Rand Corporation report. Carefully reading and understanding the report’s findings and conclusions will help community members better understand why competent and effective law enforcement administrators must absolutely be broad-based and well-educated resource managers whose most important traits may be imagination, adaptation, and innovation.
I have been scanning these “Visions” … and well, that is some sort of study and almost a Twilight Zone type of publication, however, it may be a kind of scary future true.
“Automated murder” … you have to be kidding me. What is that?
This is even worse. (p.24)
“Effectiveness in the Management of Mental Health Is Increasing
There are a number of novel drugs in development or testing for diseases of the mind, as well
as automated methods for administering and monitoring the drugs and their effectiveness. For
example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association has recently advertised
Introduction 7
treatments in development for social anxiety, schizophrenia, cocaine addiction, depression,
and certain eating disorders (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, 2014).
Questions for Thought
• Will designer drugs and automated monitoring and administration devices reduce the
burden placed on police by those with mental health issues?
• Will police need less—or different—training in handling medical or mental impairment
situations?
Seriously, this is as bad as the study on the Cave people.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 15, 2015 @ 8:48 pm
Stebbijo,
The “automated murder” reference was in one of the Questions for Thought in the section headed “There is increased automation and augmentation of law enforcement functions, manufacturing, and personal lives.” It’s on page 6 of the Report (that’s page 24 of 102 if you’re using Adobe’s pagination).
The term “automated murder” may be relatively new, but the concept has been a concern of law enforcement and security for decades.
To try and answer your question without getting too specific, think of how many things can be and are remotely monitored and controlled by systems grouped under the term Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Systems or SCADA. In 2006 I did a couple of Whitecaps posts about SCADA. These are just “infrastructure” devices, but in some cases their intentional failure can result in death. For various reasons some of the hyperlinks in the posts may no longer work.
Now add the proliferation of life-sustaining personal electronic medical devices to the list, and you begin to better see how the term “automated murder” not only might but should pop into the minds of imaginative law enforcement executives. How would his investigators first investigate such a crime? How would even a qualified medical examiner (forget about elected coroners) necessarily determine that the mode and manner of death was the intentional external command and control of the decedent’s personal electronic medical device to even conclude a crime had been committed?
Law enforcement will continue to be involved in mental health interventions in the foreseeable future. Defining the timing and extent of that involvement are valid concerns for law enforcement executives, because both are prescribed or limited by law. It is the responsibility of the chief executive law enforcement officer to define and administer the procedures her employees will use to carry out the will of the people as expressed by their elected legislators in the laws they pass.
One of the recurring concerns throughout the Report is that criminal access to and exploitation of technology generally precedes social and political recognition of the criminal exploitation. Even if law enforcement sees the signs and signals early, the cops frequently hit political roadblocks higher up in the funding food chain when they encounter superiors or government officials who lack the ability or the will (often both) to understand the problem and its logical impact on their community.
Comment by Bill — May 16, 2015 @ 6:25 am
Thank you for the explanation on “automated murder” – that concept is at least to me, is perfect fodder for Hollywood. In other words where is the movie and the book? The disabling of potential criminals and nuisance people caused by the upheaval on Capital Hill through novel and designer drugs (I am thinking – shot through a pellet gun of sorts) might also be a great plot caused by “spillover” effects due to the collapse in trust of the U.S. government, of which this report mentioned as a valid future law enforcement concern, not to mention the growing number of old folks that might impact the safety of the community.
This report just begs for trouble, I think. When minds meet to solve problems, it would be nice to take their time, energy, and funds to focus on the here and now, because there is so much to be done. Research and development has it’s place, but at times I believe it is too far reaching and just another excuse for a nice vacation or business trip for folks with their ties on too tight.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 16, 2015 @ 8:26 am
Stebbijo,
It’s interesting to study criminal who exploit technology. The key word is usually “exploit” as in, the technology was almost always created for a benevolent and profitable purpose, but the engineers who designed it were oblivious to the vulnerabilities for exploitation they were engineering in. That academic oblivion creates a serious problem for law enforcement after the bad guys have exploited the vulnerability engineered into the technology. After law enforcement investigated (’cause the bad guys exploited it and committed a crime) and has identified and documented a product’s vulnerability , the logical next step is to contact the company (engineers) who built the product. You would think that the manufacturer (engineers) would want to help in any way possible, right? Sometimes that’s the case, but sometimes it’s not. Sometimes the company (execs and paid professional liars in marketing and legal) denies the existence of the exploited vulnerability after instructing their engineers to stop talking with law enforcement. Even after their denial is no longer plausible after they were provided with incontrovertible physical and documentary evidence of the vulnerability, they persist in their denial.
The point of that longwinded recitation was that if the law enforcement did not have the process in place to investigate the alleged crime because it involved technology more complicated than a 9-volt battery, the crimes would have continued. While that may seem to have little applicability to Idaho and particularly to our area, you might recall that the Post Falls Police Department was called on to investigate allegations that the historic horse racing/instant racing machines at Post Falls’ Greyhound Park and Event Center were in violation of Idaho’s gambling statutes and Constitution. That investigation necessarily involved a technical examination of the operation of solid-state electronic equipment. While the PFPD almost certainly didn’t have any investigators capable of making that highly technical exam themselves, it has people who are prepared to interact with the “experts” they would have to consult.
The Workshop and its Report was not so much a problem-solving exercise as it was a problem-anticipating exercise.
Comment by Bill — May 16, 2015 @ 12:27 pm