Technological innovation in policing and crime prevention

 

Technological innovation in policing and crime prevention: Practitioner perspectives from London

Digital technology now plays a critical role in policing and security management, with policing apps, drones and body-worn cameras potentially being game-changers. Adoption of such technologies is, however, not straightforward and depends upon the buy-in of senior management teams and users. This study examines what obstacles practitioners face in the procurement, deployment and use of crime prevention and detection technologies. The issue is explored through a number of expert interviews conducted with practitioners in London between August 2019 and March 2020. This work expands previous, more theoretical, literature on the topic by adding a practical perspective and advances the understanding of issues faced in innovation processes and their management. We identified a variety of issues and obstacles to technological innovation for policing. These include the deployment of new systems at the cost of old ones, lack of financial and political support, issues in public–private partnerships, and public acceptability. Although individual practitioners may have the expertise and willingness to unleash the full potential of surveillance and crime-reduction technologies, they are usually restrained by institutional rules or, in some cases, inefficiencies. In terms of the latter, this study especially highlights the negative impact of a lack of technical interoperability of different systems, missing inter- and intra-agency communication, and unclear guidelines and procedures.

Background

Innovation and practitioner perspectives – beyond theoretical issues

The first important question to answer is why focusing on practical issues of the deployment of new SOSTs and especially practitioners’ perspectives is important. Although discussing overarching and often philosophical issues of security versus privacy and questions of individual rights is crucial, it rarely provides direct insight into how new technologies are actually used on the ground, and therefore perhaps into the types of outcomes they can be expected to achieve. In many instances, the voices of those working in the field and using new technological solutions in their daily work are not part of the discussion when examining issues of surveillance and crime prevention. As such, this article does not seek to discuss the broad issues where public discussion often invokes images of a surveillance state and ‘big brother’. An example of this is the controversial issue of facial-recognition technologies for policing and security purposes. The heated discussion surrounding the deployment of facial recognition around a large multimodal transport hub in London (Sabbagh, 2019) and trials by London's Metropolitan Police Services between 2016 and 2020 are just the tip of the iceberg (Bradford et al., 2020; Fussey and Murray, 2019). Against this dystopian backcloth of public debate, academics have been assessing the societal impacts of smart technology and technological innovation in general, often framing them as conflicts between security and privacy or between public order and individual rights. In many instances, however, these discussions have neglected the fact that technological innovation can be instrumental in bridging the gaps between increasing demand for police services and decreasing public funding. In the past decades, for example, many organisations, including police forces across the world, have initiated a digital ‘transformation’ (ICT) in the hope of reducing operating expenses and improving service effectiveness, accountability and procedural regularity (Adams et al., 2009; Chan, 2001; Crow and Smykla, 2019; Ekblom, 2005; Laufs et al., 2020b; Lum et al., 2017; Weisburd and Braga, 2019).

This shows that technological innovation in policing and crime prevention is not an obscure scenario in the distant future, but rather a necessity that dictates routines and day-to-day activities for practitioners. Indeed, digitalisation and technological innovation play a key role in the Policing Vision 2025 published by the National Police Chief's Council (2016) and the Metropolitan Police Service (2017a, 2017b), which stresses that more must be done to exploit the operational benefits of advances in technology in coming years. This highlights that it is crucial to go beyond the broad philosophical discussions and to explore questions of practical realities in the deployment of new technologies for crime prevention and policing.

Privacy versus security – an outdated debate?

Public support for crime-reduction measures fluctuates over time and often as a result of critical events. Deployment of new surveillance technologies or the introduction of new surveillance powers, for example, often occur in the aftermath of tragedies or mass-casualty events, when the perceived need for increased security within the population is highest (Dinev et al., 2008; Thompson et al., 2020), or as a way to cope with otherwise scarce resources by means of automation (Joh, 2019; Leese, 2021; D Wilson, 2019). By contrast, public support is lowest after data leaks and surveillance scandals such as the Snowden revelations (Hintz and Dencik, 2016; Lischka, 2017; Murata et al., 2017).

As a result, the introduction of more technology-oriented security policies and increasingly intrusive SOSTs has provoked two main reactions in most countries, ranging from those who support increased surveillance in the name of (national) security and efficiency to those who argue that restrictions are undemocratic, unjustified or plain useless (Tsoukala, 2006). This dichotomy goes back to the age-old debate of security versus privacy. Often, this discussion is portrayed as a cost–benefit problem and as a trade-off where one has to choose between security improvements gained through better SOSTs or privacy (Pavone and Esposti, 2012; Pavone et al., 2016).

Several studies examine different angles of this trade-off discussion (Bowyer, 2004; Davis and Silver, 2004; Riley, 2007; Strickland and Hunt, 2005). Nevertheless, pitting privacy and security against each other, and viewing the debate as a zero-sum game, is far from uncontroversial (Pavone and Esposti, 2012). One important criticism of the framing is that it oversimplifies an otherwise highly complex discussion (Monahan, 2006; Tsoukala, 2006). At the same time, it deepens the divide between practitioners aiming to improve security and civil society organisations and citizens concerned about their privacy rights. Although both issues are important and should work in balance, the way the debate is framed has negative consequences for both sides.

In addition, it is questionable to what extent this debate applies today and whether it is still timely in its current form. As discussed before, both security and privacy are conceptually shifting. New SOSTs and smart capabilities growingly blur the lines between private and public, between volunteered and mandated data. With the rise of the age of data and information, the trade-off between security and privacy becomes increasingly blurry. Today, privacy of one's information and personal data also means security from at least some forms of crime in both the online and offline realms (Braun et al., 2018; Sen et al., 2013; van Heek et al., 2017).

Potential issues in the deployment of new technologies

This study discusses known issues that can substantially hinder or even stop the use of new technologies in an organization. For enterprise risk assessment, the |ISO31000 (2018) standard distinguishes between internal factors (that pertain to the organization) and external ones. In the following, we focus especially on internal factors because these were overwhelmingly identified by the participants. This section not only provides background about the topic, but also lays out a reference frame for the subsequent analysis. The issues and themes discussed herein will guide the analysis and help to contextualize the experiences and information gathered from participants.

A key issue that may occur when deploying a new technology is the impact it can have on the working practices and the working culture within an organisation (Rogers and Scally, 2018). This goes especially for law enforcement environments, with often complex subcultures, as discussed by Reiner (2010). New technologies that promise to change the status quo of individual labour realities can be seen as threatening and potentially be rejected by workers (Eugene III, 2001; Hassell, 2006; Nhan, 2014). An example is the introduction of computer-aided dispatch in many US law enforcement agencies in the 1970s and 1980s (Rogers and Scally, 2018). The system was initially widely disliked because of the significant changes it brought to the way police operated. Although police agencies have made significant strides in changing attitudes towards new technologies, there might still be some concern, especially in light of the significant potential offered by smart applications and artificial intelligence (Bartsch, 2011).

Another pitfall that might occur when deploying new security technologies is the tendency to impose them on existing structures instead of taking more holistic approaches and ensuring they are integrated into existing systems and can be used to their full potential (Rogers and Scally, 2018). In addition, the use of new technologies in existing systems (both physical and organisational) can lead to the improper use of technologies because they are used to solve problems in the traditional way rather than innovate processes as a whole (Chan, 2001). This issue is especially hard to tackle in countries like the UK and the USA due to the decentralised and, to some extent, fragmented nature of the policing system. Although some constabularies might be frontrunners in deploying new technologies, many of the deployed smart technologies cannot live up to their full potential until inter- and intra-force structures change. This is especially the case in areas such as common databases or county lines where intelligence and information-exchange structures between forces often require common standards (Allen et al., 2008; Elliott-Davies et al., 2016; Grace, 2019; Newell, 2013).

 DO SHARE YOUR VIEW ON OUR BLOG THROUGH YOUR VALUABLE COMMENT.

 STAY TUNED.