. . .And you haven’t heard about the “New Paradigm”
May 26, 2010
I heard a fellow on the radio yesterday saying he wasn’t worried about the government sharing his information for no reason. He was not concerned about the possibility of information collected by ALPR (Automatic License Plate Recognition) cameras with private companies. I don’t think he even considered the possibility of how this information could be combined with other data to give even more intimate detail to the digital factoids collected, collated analyzed and shared about each of us.
This gentleman is under the widely shared impression that it is not legal to share such information without just cause. This mis-perception combined with fact that he considers himself to be a law abiding person made him unconcerned about possible abuses of this system.
I think this man like many of us remember the adage repeated often by those in law enforcement that information is shared “on a need to know basis”
Unless you are paying close attention, the changes taking place in technology, policy and law are still largely imperceptible though you might have a sneaking suspicion that things just ain’t what they used to be.
Our government is fully on board with a new method of policing called “Intelligence Led Policing”. The International Chiefs of Police like to call it “The New Paradigm” of policing. An import from the UK and based upon utilitarian thought, Intelligence Led Policing is focused on preventing or predicting who among us might be predisposed to committing a crime, an act of terrorism or in some manner be a “threat to public safety” well before the actual threat manifests.
Traditionally, police officers wait for intelligence. To be preventative, however, authorities must actively seek information and intelligence, and actively search for persons who may be suspicious—not simply respond to calls of suspicious persons or circumstances.
Police officers should seek to assess threats that may not rise to a level of suspicion that police would traditionally use to justify arrest or detention. link
Russell Porter who, in 1997 was the Special Agent in Charge of the Intelligence Bureau, Iowa Department of public Safety pitched ILP like this;
Why Do We Need Intelligence-Led Policing
Physicians are trained to diagnose a patient — before initiating a medical intervention. Good mechanics figure out what’s really wrong with a car’s motor —before they start replacing engine parts.Professional football teams utilize scouts — before the players take the field — to gather information that will improve the team’s chances of winning.
So with ILP, according to Russell Porter, widespread surveillance is a necessary part of the diagnostic process.
Where is Mr. Porter now?
- Russell Porter, Director, Intelligence Fusion Center, Iowa Department of Public Safety
Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU)
Chairman of the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council
He also serves as Chairman of the Global Intelligence Working Group (part of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, affiliated with the U.S. Department of Justice). The GIWG supported the development of the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) as a blueprint to assist law enforcement personnel in their crime-fighting, public safety, and anti-terrorism efforts.
Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder
October 07, 2004
As part of its continuing effort to enhance the safety and security of communities throughout the United States and the world, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and a broad-based group of private sector/law enforcement professionals, released a comprehensive report entitled: Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder. The 38-page report outlines a national strategy to strengthen existing partnerships between private security and public law enforcement agencies and to assist in the creation of new ones.
The report is the outgrowth of a national policy summit on this issue that was held earlier this year by IACP, supported by its Private Sector Liaison Committee, and co-sponsored by the American Society of Industrial Security International (ASIS), the International Security Management Association (ISMA), the National Association of Security Companies (NASCO), and the
Security Industry Association (SIA). (remember these guys? They are the ones who went over our heads by writing a letter to Gov Henry asking him to veto the anti -RFID bill which would have given us a measure of protection from being tracked through our ID cards and driver’s licenses. What is our privacy compared to profit? Say Mooooo….)
I understand why the notion of stopping a violent act before it happens is such an attractive idea but besides the fact that there is no evidence that we can discern intent through various means of surveillance, such a policy clashes mightily with the fundamentals of our form of government and philosophy of law.
As far as sharing personal information with private industry-Yes. They do and they will. I get my information from reading source documents-thousands of them. Partnering with private business for the purpose of two way sharing is a core tenant for every domestic security policy I know of since 9 11.
Commercial databases. A majority of state and local intelligence fusion centers subscribe to services from consumer database vendors such as LexisNexis, Lexis’s Accurint, and ChoicePoint, which house public-record data as well as personal data like credit applications or unlisted mobile telephone numbers. Read More Fusion Centers Forge Ahead
The Information Flow Model of ChoicePoint’s Operations. The rounded boxes below
the center ChoicePoint rectangle represent data leaving ChoicePoint, while the rectangles above ChoicePoint’s name reflect sources of data entering the company
What are Fusion Centers.
Information collected and shared about us has real consequences.
People in this country have been denied jobs, hauled into the police station, denied or overcharged on insurance, turned down for credit, been put onto a watch list or entered into a database or maybe even treated to the third degree at the airport, without ever knowing why or connecting these events to the new policies of broad information sharing that have been adopted since 9 11. Mistakes happen, right?
It is important when evaluating the merit of any of these new “security” features being heaped upon us to understand that things have changed quite drastically in the last decade and our assumptions need to be checked against new realities.
The development of Public Private Partnerships and seamless sharing of information that is cross jurisdictional and international is deemed essential to the “New Paradigm”.
We are under surveillance and it is profitable. This spells big trouble for freedom.