medi@4sec | new social media & public security ...media4sec.eu/downloads/d2-3.pdfmedi@4sec the...

MEDI@4SECTheEmergingRoleofNewSocialMediainEnhancingPublicSecurityGrantAgreementno700281

Co-funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union

Workshop1Report:DIYPolicingDeliverable2.3

SebastianDenef

FraunhoferIAO


PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS A FINAL DRAFT AND IS AWAITING FINALACCEPTANCEBYTHEEUROPEANCOMMISSION.

Whencitingpleaseuse:MEDIA4SEC(2016)ReportonStateoftheArtReview

Authors

SebastianDenef(FhG)ArnoutDeVries,MarijnRijken,ArnoldRoosendaal&HansvanVliet(TNO)JonCoaffee&KatHadjimatheou(UoW),AlbertMeijer(UU),JolandaModic(XLAB),NikosMoustakidis&ManolisKermitsis(KEMEA),KlaudiaTani(EOS),PilarDeLaTorre(EFUS)

CoverImageSource,CCLicense:Flickr,lourencoparente

TheresearchleadingtotheseresultshasreceivedfundingfromtheEuropeanUnion’sHorizon2020ResearchandInnovationProgramme,underGrantAgreementno700281.


ContentsExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................................................i

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 MEDI@4SEC......................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Work Package 2: Implementation: Improved Dialogue, Collaboration andPractices.............................................................................................................................................................1

2. WorkshopSetupandMethod..............................................................................................................3

2.1 WorkshoponDIYPolicing..........................................................................................................3

2.2 Method.................................................................................................................................................4

3. IntroductiontoDIYPolicing.................................................................................................................6

3.1 CitizensassistingLEAs,ortakingoverLEAstasks...........................................................6

3.2 Opportunities,challengesandethicalconsiderations....................................................6

3.3 Practicepatterns.............................................................................................................................7

4. StakeholderAnalysis...............................................................................................................................8

4.1 IdentifyingStakeholdersinDIYPolicing..............................................................................8

4.2 ResponsibilitiesandRoles:TodayandTomorrow...........................................................8

5. SWOTAnalysis:DIYPolicingforLawEnforcementAgencies............................................12

6. RelevantTools,BestPractices,Recommendations.................................................................18

6.1 Relevanttoolsandbestpractices..........................................................................................18

6.2 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................18

7. ConclusionandOutlook......................................................................................................................21

Appendix1 ParticipantList....................................................................................................................22

Appendix2 WorkshopAgenda..............................................................................................................23

Appendix3 WorkshopEvaluation.......................................................................................................28


i

ExecutiveSummary

ThisdocumentprovidesresultsfromaworkshoponDo-It-Yourself(DIY)Policing,heldas part of European research projectMEDI@4SECheld on January 10, 2017 inBerlinGermany. The workshop brought together 58 people, including police officers,researchersandcitizenactivists,todiscussthenewphenomenaofdigitalcitizen-ledand-influenced activities that are relevant for public security and within the activitiestraditionallyonlylawenforcementagencies(LEAs)wouldengagein.

Basedon40groupdiscussions,theauthorshavederivedaSWOTanalysis,descriptionsofstakeholdersandtheirpresentandpotentialrolesinpublicsecurityaswellasalistofrecommendations.

TheSWOTanalysisdetails,amongothers,howpolicingexperienceand trustedcitizenrelationsareinternalstrengthsofLEAs.Also,whenexisting,experienceinsocialmediasupports citizen interaction for DIY Policing. Lack of digital experience, equipment,authorised applications as well as incompatible judicial frameworks can hinder DIYPolicing. Externally, DIY Policing providesmany opportunities to increase security byusingavailablecitizenresources.Atthesametime,DIYPolicingposesseriousthreatsofvigilantism and includes new citizen activities that question existing roles inmaintainingpublicsecurity.

ThestakeholderanalysisshowsthesubstantialimpactthatDIYPolicinghasonexistingrolesandresponsibilitiesofLEAsandcitizens.DIYPolicingdisruptspublicsecurityasroles andmodels of how public security are re-organized and newly distributed. DIYPolicing is not only about changing or outsourcing tasks but requires LEAs to changeorganisationalcultureinordertoincludedigitallyempoweredcitizens.DIYPolicingalsoputmoreresponsibilityoncitizensandrequiresthemtounderstandandabidelawsinthe digital space. Other stakeholders, such as social media companies, schools, localgovernments and politicians are affected as well and need to provide technology,education,supportandpoliciesforDIYPolicing.

Finally, in our recommendations, we describe the need for LEAs to innovate theirpractice with digital tools in order to cope with DIY Policing. LEAs need to becomeknowledgeableandwellpreparedtodopolicinginaworldthatincreasinglyisimpactedby digital technology andwhere citizens use these technologies inways that directlyimpact policework. Beyond simply adopting or implementing digitals tools into dailywork, DIY Policing requires LEAs and citizens alike to rethink their role andresponsibilitiesinpublicsecurity.


1

1. Introduction

1.1 MEDI@4SEC

MEDI@4SEC focuses upon enhancing understanding of the opportunities, challengesandethicalconsiderationofsocialmediauseforpublicsecurity:thegood,thebadandthe ugly. The good comprises using social media for problem solving, fighting crime,decreasing fear of crime and increasing the quality of life. The bad is the increase ofdigitisedcriminalityand terrorismwithnewphenomenaemerging through theuseofsocialmedia.Theuglycomprisesthegreyareaswheretrolling,cyberbullying,threats,orlivevideo-sharingoftacticalsecurityoperationsarephenomenatodealwithduringincidents.Makinguseofthepossibilitiesthatsocialmediaoffer,includingsmart‘work-arounds’iskey,whilerespectingprivacy,legislation,andethics.Thischangingsituationraisesaseriesofchallengesandpossibilities forpublicsecurityplanners.MEDI@4SECwill explore this through a series of communication and dissemination activities thatengageextensivelywith a rangeof end-users tobetterunderstand theusageof socialmediaforsecurityactivities.MEDI@4SECwillseekabetterunderstandingofhowsocialmedia can, and how social media cannot be used for public security purposes andhighlight ethical, legal and data-protection-related issues and implications. Activitiescentre around six relevant themes: DIY Policing; Everyday security; Riots and massgatherings:Thedarkweb;Trolling;andInnovativemarketsolutions.MEDI@4SECwillfeedinto,supportandinfluencechangesinpolicy-makingandpolicyimplementationinpublic security that can be used by end-users to improve their decision making. Bystructuring our understanding of the impact of social media on public securityapproaches in a user-friendly way MEDI@4SEC will provide an evidence-base androadmapforbetterpolicymaking including:bestpracticereports;acatalogueofsocialmedia technologies; recommendations for EU standards; future training options; and,ethicalawarenessraising.

1.1 Work Package 2: Implementation: Improved Dialogue, Collaboration andPractices

Following the results of the first work package, which focused on identifying bestpractices and providing a state-of-the-art overview, the second work package of theMEDI@4SECprojectsaimstodistributethesefindingsandtoengageadiscussionwiththewider communityofpublic security.Theworkpackage therebycontributes to theimplementation of socialmedia for public security and fosters an improved dialogue,collaborationandthesharingofexistingpractices.

Whiletheworkpackagealsowill identifyopportunitiesandchallengesinsocialmediause, analyse available technologies and discuss the need for standards, a corecomponentoftheworkpackagetwoisaseriesofworkshops,onededicatedtoeachofthethemesmentionedbefore.


2

TheworkshopontheDIYPolicingthatwereportoninthisdeliverableisthefirstinthisseries and marks an important milestone for the creation a community thatMEDI@4SECcreatesintheareaofsocialmedia.

Interested parties can follow the activities of the project and register for upcomingworkshops on the project website www.media4sec.eu, and in our LinkedIn group:https://www.linkedin.com/groups/12000103.


3

2. WorkshopSetupandMethod

2.1 WorkshoponDIYPolicing

Figure 2.1 DIY Workshop in Berlin

The workshop took place on January 10, 2017 in Berlin, Germany (Figure 2.1). Theworkshopwashostedby theMEDI@4SECpartnerFraunhofer IAOandcollaborativelypreparedforbytheentireMEDI@4SECconsortium.

Participation was limited and interested parties needed to apply with an emailexplaining theirbackgroundandmotivation for theirparticipation. In total, 58peopleparticipated in theworkshop,ofwhich36wereexternal (notpartof theMEDI@4SECproject). Participants came from France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands,Portugal,Slovenia,Switzerland,theUKandtheUSAwithbackgroundaspoliceofficers,


4

cityofficials, fromNGOsandresearchorganisations.Alistofparticipantscanbefoundattheendofthisdocument.

2.2 Method

With the aim to think beyond the status quo and to design the future of policing,wecombinedthe“5-Dmethod”,basedonappreciativeinquirytheory,thattookparticipantsthrough the steps of Defining, Discovering, Dreaming, Designing and Developing thetopicofDIYPolicing.Toallowforaninteractiveexchangeandtobuildacommunity,weadditionallyusedtheWorldCafégroupdiscussionstyle,fortheDreamingphase.Inthisway,participants,inteamsoffive,discussedthevariousissuesofDIYPolicing.

Overall,theworkshopincluded:

1. IntroductiontotheMEDI@4SECProject2. IntroductionofpreviousMEDI@4SECresearchonthetopicofDIYPolicing3. Participant presentations related to DIY Policing, from citizen and police

perspectives4. GroupsessionsonthepotentialofDIYPolicinginvaryingusecases5. GroupsessionsontheimplementationandchallengesofDIYPolicing6. Conclusionandoutlook

In total, we had 40 group sessions, comprising 30 sessions and 30 minutes and 10longersessionsof75minutes(Figure2.2andFigure2.3).MembersoftheMEDI@4SECconsortiumfacilitatedeachgroupsessions, theywereresponsible forreportingonthesessions.ATwitterwallmadethediscussionsvisibletotheoutsideworld(Figure2.3)Basedonastructuredreportingtemplate,facilitatorsprovidedstructuredresultsfromthe group discussions. Additionally, the sessions developed sketches of the outcomes(Figure2.4).

Figure 2.2 Presentations and Workshop Discussion

The following report and results have been created based on these reports. Theythereforedonotnecessarilypresentanagreedconsensusamongstallparticipantsbutrather reflect the main discussion points and issues that were raised during theworkshop.


5

Figure 2.3 Group Sessions and Twitter Wal

Figure 2.4 Recommended actions for DIY Policing stakeholders


6

3. IntroductiontoDIYPolicing

[email protected],weprovidesummaryoftheworkearlierreported.1

3.1 CitizensassistingLEAs,ortakingoverLEAstasks

The internet,smartphonesandsocialmediahavebecometools forcitizenstoperformactivities that fallwithintherangeofpoliceworkandtheworkofotherorganisationsdealingwithpublicsecurity.AsModernSherlockHolmescitizensassistthepoliceandgobeyond.Theyreportoncrimes,investigate,identifysuspectsandformvigilantegroups.Citizens employ social media for criminal investigation, for crime prevention or forensuring public security independent of police and towatch and publicly share LEAsactions(‘watchdog’).

Open data sources have proved to be valuable for gathering intelligence and solvingcrimes and open up professional work to citizens. The information, tools and expertknowledgehavespreadthroughtheweb.Socialmedia-DIY(do-it-yourself)Policingbycitizens puts pressure on professional security workers that now have people andorganisationsfromallovertheworldonthesidelinesoratthecentre,doingsomeorallof their work. Citizens, however, have neither the authority nor the same legalframeworkfortheiractionsaspoliceforcesdo.

3.2 Opportunities,challengesandethicalconsiderations

OpportunitiesarethatDIYpolicingmakesavailabletheresourcesofcitizensforpublicsecurityorganizations.Citizen interactionwithpolice forces canhaveapositiveeffectonpolicelegitimacy.

Threats are that vigilantes carrying out retributive actions can endanger fairness,respect and democratic values. Evidence posted by citizens lack context and remainsunclear, raising the chance for citizens to be wrongfully accused. Undefined legalframeworks threaten police-citizen collaboration. Furthermore, the involvement ofcitizenscanproduceanoverwhelmingamountofdatathatisdifficulttohandleforlawenforcementagencies.

Thekeyquestions formanysecurityplannerswhenadvancingasocialmediastrategythereforerelatetotheconsequencesofwhereandhowtocooperatewithcitizens,whentotakecontrolandhowtoavoidnegativeethicalandlegaleffects,e.g.:

• CanweunderstandDIYpolicingactivitiesassignalsformissingactivitiesinlawenforcement?

• Inwhich areas canDIY policing be ameaningful addition to traditional policework?

• Whattoolscanbestmanagepolice-citizensinteraction?

1 For a more in depth description please refer to MEDI@4SEC D1.1 ‘Report on State of the Art Review’, MEDI@4SEC D1.2 ‘Worldwide Mapping of Best Practices and Lessons Learnt’ and MEDI@4SEC D1.3 ‘Ethics and Legal Issues Inventory.


7

• WhatarethemeanstocontainDIYpolicingandpreventthenegativeeffectsandrisksofDIYpolicing?

• HowdoesandwillDIYpolicingimpacttherelativerolesofcitizensandLEA’s?• HowcanpublicsecurityprovidersengagewithDIYpolicinginitiativesinorder

tomonitorandsteertheinitiativestowardsmostbeneficial?• Canpublic securityprovidersbecomepartofDIYpolicing initiativesandwhat

doesthismeanfortheircompetencesandqualificationoftheiractivitiesfromalegalperspective?

3.3 Practicepatterns

Takingthingsintotheirownhands,citizensusesocialmediatoaddresspublicsecurityissues.ThefollowingpatternsdescribetheuseofsocialmediaforDIYPolicing:

• ORGANISEPROTESTS:Citizensmayopposeactionsofgovernmentor issues insociety. Therefore, citizens use social media to organise protests or massgatherings.

• DIYJUSTICE:Citizensareoffendedbyothercitizens,companiesorgovernmentactivity and want to correct the wrong. Therefore, citizens respond throughcoordinated retaliation on digital media, including mobile devices and socialmediaplatforms.

• DIY CITIZEN JOURNALISM: to broadcast and share a situation that otherwisenobodyreportsabout.Therefore,citizensreportnewsthemselves,e.g.byusinglive streaming video applications to create situational awareness for othercitizensandalsoothergovernmentalagencies.

• DIY ACCOUNTS: Authorities can be slow in adopting social media. Therefore,citizensprovidesecurityrelevantinformationtoothercitizensbythemselves.

• DIYINTELLIGENCE:Opendataallowscitizenstomakesenseofinformationfortheirownpurposes.Therefore,citizenscollectandstoredata,sometimesmapit,anddistributeandshareittomakeitusefulforaspecificcontext.

• DIYWATCH DOG: Authorities can act outside the law. Therefore, citizens usesocialmediatowatchundpubliclyshareLEAsactions.

• DIY INVESTIGATION: Authorities can be slow, limited or unwilling to makeinvestigations. Therefore, citizens use public sources to investigate and puttogetherthepiecesofinformationthatis(publicly)available.

• NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH: Citizens might not feel safe or well protected intheir neighbourhood. Therefore, citizens organise their own neighbourhoodwatch,supportedbysocialmediause,e.g.WhatsAppgroupsandspecificapps.


8

4. StakeholderAnalysis

4.1 IdentifyingStakeholdersinDIYPolicing

During theworkshop, participants discussed the roles and interactionof thedifferentstakeholdersinDIYPolicing.

● LawEnforcementAgencies(LEAs)● Citizens● Schools● NationalandLocalGovernments● Industry:SocialMediaPlatformProviders

Aswewill detail below,DIYPolicing challenges the roles and responsibilitiesof LEAsandcitizens. It is still anopenquestionhow,howmuchand ifLEAswill embraceDIYPolicingandchangetheircurrentrole.

4.2 ResponsibilitiesandRoles:TodayandTomorrow

In many ways, digital DIY Policing is a new phenomenon and the future roles andresponsibilitiesareyet tobedefined. Inthe following,wesummarizethemaintrends,conceptsandideasdiscussedattheworkshop.

The following table contrasts the current situationwith the potential future situationandextrapolatescurrentdevelopments.Whilewecannotanddonotwanttoproclaimafuture,theresultsshouldserveasinputforfuturedebate.

Overall,digital toolsempowercitizens tobecomeamuchmoreactiveplayer inpublicsecurityand,inreturn,requireLEAstoopen-upandworkwithcitizensinamuchmoredirectandinteractiveway.

ThefollowingtablesdetailrolesandresponsibilitiesforLEAs(Table4.1),citizens(Table4.2)andotherstakeholders(Table4.3).


9

Stakeholder AsIs ToBe

LEAs Protectcitizens. Co-producesecuritywithcitizens,andgovernment.

Enforcethelaw.Investigatecrimeontheirown.

Devolveresponsibilitiesandmaybealsopower.Investigatecrime,shareinfowithcitizensandmakeuseofDIYPolicinginitiatives.

Donotcurrentlyassigninvestigationtaskstocitizens.Considerthesetaskstheirresponsibility,notcitizens'.

Candistributepartoftheirinvestigativeworktovolunteercitizensengagingthecommunity.

Showavaryingdegreeofvisibilityinthevirtualspace.

Increasevisibilityandpresenceinthevirtualspaceandpro-activelyaskthepublicforinformation.Askforsupportandinvolvecitizensincrisisresponse.Joinonlineneighbourhoodwatch-groups.

Disseminateinformation. Receiveinformation.

Mainlyrespondandreacttocitizens’requestswithtraditionalmeans.Oftendonothavesocialmediatoolsforend-usersandcentralplatformstogivecitizensthechancetocommunicateandinteractonline.

Havevariousspecificsocialmediatoolsandroles.AuthorityandresponsibilitywillbeassignedtoLEAs’personnelforthemanagementandadministrationofthecommunicationplatformsandapplications.

Althoughhavingasocialmediapresence,donothaveaclearornosocialmediapolicyatall,northeappropriateorganizationalstructureandresourcestofaceandrespondtoDIYPolicingneeds.

Havenewrolesandassociatedjobsdefinedunderaspecificsocialmediapolicyandcommunicationstrategyplan,whichisdevelopedwithandissuedtothepublicfordisseminatingLEAsactivitiesandplatform'sfeatures.

Gatherevidenceofcrimewithtraditionalmeans.

Havesystemsthatsupportsortingandscreeningdatagiventothembycitizenstofindevidenceofcrime.

Providesolutiontocitizens’requests. Morerapidlyrespondtocitizens'actualdemandsandhavemoreresourcestofocusonsolvingcrime.

Refuterumoursinmostcases. Refuteinvalidinformation,shareappropriatemessagesandgatherinformationaboutthosespreadingrumours.

Table 4.1: LEAs Stakeholder Roles

AsshowninTable4.1,DIYPolicingcallsLEAsforrevisingtheirrole.Insteadofbeinga“monopolist”inprovidingpublicsecurity,publicsecuritybecomesamatterofcooperation,requiringLEAstoopenup,shareandcooperatewithcitizenswhiledoingtheirwork.


10


Citizens Usetraditionalcommunicationandcontactmeanswiththepolice.Makelimiteduseofdigitalmediaforreportingincidentsandveryrarelyforinvestigationcasesasanon-goingprocess.

Becomemembersofanonlinesocialnetworkingcommunitydevelopedwithinaplatformtocommunicatewiththepolice.Asmembersoftheirnational/localsocialmediaDIYcommunity,canbeentitledtousecertaincertifiedend-userapplicationsinordertointeractwiththeirlocalauthorities.

Passiveparticipation.Readonlinenewsaboutcrime.

Activeparticipation.Participateinpolicingandcrimereporting.AssistpolicebyprovidinginformationandKeepaneyeaboutperpetrators.

Havenosayingaboutprioritiesofpublicauthorities.

Influenceprioritiesbydrawingattentiontocrimesthatpublicauthoritieshavenotidentified.

Provideinformationtopolicebyspeech. Provideinformationtopolicealsowithpictures,videosandalsoscenarios,hypotheses,orevencompletecasedossiers.

Sharetheirexperienceswithothercitizens. Sharingtheirexperiencesalsowiththepolice.

Reportincidents. Reportincidents,geteducatedonlegal/ethicalissues,takeanactiveroleinone'spersonalsecurity.

Areonthesidelines,hesitanttoshareinformation,sometimesafraidofnegativelegalconsequences.

Activerole,shareinformation,awareoftheircontributiontopolicework.

HavenoofficialandlegalauthoritytomakeinvestigationsonbehalfofLEAs.

Takeonspecificrolesrelatedwithcertaintasksandresponsibilitiesthroughaformalagreementfortheprovisionofvariouspossibleservicesneededinspecificinvestigationcases.

UsesocialmediaforDIYpolicing. EducatethemselvesabouttherightandwronguseofsocialmediaforDIYPolicing.

Takepartincrisisresponseandrecovery,mostlyindependentfromprofessionalresponders.

Arealignedwithprofessionalrespondersandjointlycoordinatetheiractivitiesincrisisresponseandrecovery.

MakeonlylimituseofuncertifiedmobileapplicationsforDIYPolicing.

Areprovidedwithcertifiedapplications.

Investigativepolicingactionsarelimitedtosearching,finding,andprovidinginformationasevidencestoLEAs.

Additionalinvestigation-relatedservicesenrichinvestigatorsrolessothattheycancontributetoLEAsworkusingtheirspecialexpertiseandtoolstheyhaveintheirsector.

Table 4.2: Citizen Stakeholder Roles

AsshowninTable4.2,DIYPolicingallowscitizenstoholdmoreresponsibilityinpublicsecurity. Public security is no longer provided by the government, it becomes anachievementofthecommunity.


11


Industry:SocialMediaPlatformProviders

Mostlyprovidegenericapplicationsnotdedicatedtospecificneedsandfeaturesforinvestigationpurposesthatarenotlinkedtospecificpoliceauthorities.

CooperatemorecloselywithLEAsforthedesignanddevelopmentofspecificappsforDIYPolicingespeciallyforinvestigationcases.

Provideinfrastructure. Supportenforcingrulesfortheplatform.

Schools AdviseoverSocialMediarespectandresponsibilities.

Educateabouttheproperuseandrisksofsocialmediaandfacilitaterulesforuse.

National/LocalGovernments

Communicatetocitizens. Interactwithcitizensinatwowayscommunication,integratetheminthemanagementonthelocalsecurityandmediatebetweenpoliceforcesandcitizens.

Areinchargeofcrimepreventiontask. Involvecitizensinthevolunteerworkinsomeofthesepreventiontasks.

Providesolutiontothecitizens'requests. Identifyprioritiesbasedonthecitizens’demandsandcontributionsandreallocateresources.

Designandimplementregulationsandlaws. RegulateEnd-UserLicenseAgreementsandprovideevidenceandresearch-basedreasoningbehindregulations.

Definepoliciesinsidersmallborders. Defineaglobaldigitalpolicy.

Table 4.3: Stakeholder Roles for other Stakeholders Other stakeholders listed in Table 4.3 can support DIY Policing through technologiesthat support responsible DIY Policing, education on how to properly conduct DIYPolicingandthelegalframeworkprovidedbygovernmentinstitutions.


12

5. SWOTAnalysis:DIYPolicingforLawEnforcementAgencies

Inthefollowing,wedescribetheinternalStrengthsandWeaknesses,aswellasexternalOpportunities and Threads (SWOT) for DIY Policing and law enforcement agencies(LEAs). The SWOT analysis is an instrument developed for structured situationalassessmentandplanningandisatoolthatiscommonlyusedinvariousorganizationalsettings.ThecoreideaofSWOTisto lookatanissuefromaninternalandanexternalperspective, understanding internal strength and weaknesses, based on theorganisations’ capacity, aswell as external opportunities and strengths, posed by thecontext or environment of the organisation. The goal then is to benefit from strengthandopportunitieswhilemitigatingweaknessesandthreats.

AsthisanalysisiscreatedformultipleLEAsthathaveagreatindividualvarianceintheirhandlingofDIYPolicingandsocialmedia technologyadaptation,we find caseswherecertain aspects are seemingly contracting and are listed both as a strength andweakness, dependingon the state of implementation.Therefore,we alsodonot claimthat all our findings apply to all LEAs. The points thatwemake, nevertheless, shouldhelpLEAstoassesstheirsituation.

The tablebelowsummarises theSWOTanalysis(Table5.1),allaspectsaredetailed inthefollowing.

SWOTANALYSIS:DIYPOLICINGFORLAWENFORCEMENTAGENCIES

STRENGTHSS1TRUSTED,EXPERIENCEDSECURITYPROVIDERSS2LEGALFRAMEWORKEXPERTISES3EDUCATIONANDPREVENTIONSKILLSS4WILLTOINNOVATES5SOCIALMEDIATECHNOLOGYANDEXPERIENCES6INCREASEDTRANSPARENCY,IMPROVEDDATA

WEAKNESSESW1LACKOFSOCIALMEDIAKNOWLEDGEANDEXPERIENCEW2LACKOFHARMONISATIONW3UNWILLINGNESSTOCHANGE,RISK-AVERSECULTUREW4UNFITLEGALFRAMEWORKANDGEODIVISIONW5SILOCULTUREW6TECHNOLOGICALGAPW7INCOMPATIBLEJUDICIALPROCEDURES

OPPORTUNITIESO1IMPROVINGSECURITYO2DIGITALAFINECITIZENSO3MOTIVATEDCITIZENSO4SELF-ORGANIZEDCITIZENSO5ANONYMITYOFTECHNOLOGYO6KNOWLEDGEOFTHECROWDO7FREERESOURCESFOREFFICIENTPOLICINGO8MISSINGJOBSO9PREVENTIONTHROUGHVISIBILITYO10HARMONISATIONOFLAWS&REGULATIONSO11CITIZENSKILLSO12GETTINGAHEADO13TRUSTEDCITIZENCONNECTIONO14TRUSTEDSOLUTIONS

THREATST1LACKOFCITIZENKNOWLEDGET2LACKOFJUDICIALKNOWLEDGET3NEGATIVEINTERFERENCET4CITIZENEXCLUSIONT5INVALID,BIASEDINFORMATIONT6POWEROFSOCIALNETWORKST7DECREASINGTRUSTT8INFORMATIONOVERLOADT9DECREASINGPRIVACYT10SELFJUSTICE

Table 5.1: SWOT Analysis DIY Policing for Law Enforcement Agencies


13

5.1.1 Strengths• S1:TRUSTED,EXPERIENCEDSECURITYPROVIDERS: LEAshaveextensiveexperience

in policing. LEAs have established close, trusted relationships with otheragencies, city governments and citizens. Through increased social participationand ‘eyes on the street’, LEAs thoroughly understand public security. Thisexistingtrust,experienceandauthorityarekeyassetsforDIYPolicing.

• S2:LEGALFRAMEWORKEXPERTISE: Public security organisations have solid legalframeworksinplacethatprovideguidelinesofwhattodoandwhatnot.AsDIYPolicingbringaboutmanylegalchallenges,thisknowledgeisofkeyimportancetobringaboutclarity.

• S3:EDUCATIONANDPREVENTIONSKILLS: LEAs have experience to raise overallawareness on relevant issues such as safety and privacy among citizens. Asprevention is a core component of LEAs’ daily work, LEAs can transfer thatunderstandingtoDIYPolicing.Policecaneducate,skill,andempowercitizenstoprotect themselves and take an active part in their own cases by gatheringevidence.

• S4:WILLTOINNOVATE:LEAsseethemselvesconfrontedwiththewilltoinnovatein relation to digital media. Most forces understand the need to innovate andhavegainedfirstexperienceinsocialmediaprojects.ThereisawilltocollaboratewithcitizensandmakemoreuseofDIYPolicinginitiatives.

• S5: SOCIALMEDIA TECHNOLOGY AND EXPERIENCE: For those LEAs that alreadyhave introduced social media into their work, social media have improvedsituationalawarenessofLEAsinthephysicalanddigitalspace.LEAsthatprovidesocialplatformsandend-usersapplications,improvetheincomingandoutgoingflow of information in order to reach the right recipients such as LEAs otherdivisionsordepartments,officersorcitizens.Youngpoliceofficerseducateolderofficers and help to increase their appreciation of the value of citizen-driventechnologicalsolutions.

• S6:INCREASEDTRANSPARENCY,IMPROVEDDATA:LEAshaveprovidedpeople,alsovia social media, with better, geo-referenced data on crime and risks. In data-driven initiativessuchaspredictivepolicing,LEAshave improved transparencyandtheaccuracyofperceptionsofthreat.

5.1.2 Weaknesses• W1:LACKOFSOCIALMEDIAKNOWLEDGEANDEXPERIENCE:NotallLEAsareaware

ofsocialmediatechnologies,notallofthemhavethebackground,knowledgeandexperience to use social media in DIY Policing, especially in criminalinvestigation. Evennew recruits are not trained to use socialmedia and fail totakeadvantageofopportunities.Localgovernmentsarealsonotyetusingsocialmediamuchtopromotetheirurbansecuritystrategies.

• W2:LACKOFHARMONISATION: While from the LEAs perspectives, it would bebeneficiary to use unified end-user and server based applications and tools,organizationalneeds,proceduresandregulationsvaryfromLEAtoLEAandfromcountry to country, also due to varying legal frameworks. Local governments’


14

competenciesalsodifferbetweenandwithincountries. Insomecountriescitieshave an important role on the local security strategy, in others their fieldactivities are limited to crimeprevention.Citizens, therefore, have to learn andusemanydifferentapplications.Thereisnouniformwayofcommunicationandinteractivity.

• W3: UNWILLINGNESS TO CHANGE AND RISK-AVERSE CULTURE: Backward-lookingdecision makers, combined with hierarchical organisational structures createsystematicfailuretovaluetechnologicallydrivenchangesandtakeadvantageofthem.A risk-averse policing culture can stifle police readiness to embrace newtechnologies,DIYapproaches,andformsofcommunicationthatcouldotherwiseimprove policing outcomes as well as relationships with the public. In manycases, DIY policing will be difficult to implement without significant culturalchange.

• W4:UNFITLEGALFRAMEWORKANDGEOGRAPHICALDIVISION: DIY Policing facesmany legal andbureaucratic barriers. The geographical division in thephysicalworld incombinationwith jurisdictional limitsposessovereignty issues forDIYPolicing where crime easily can take place passing geographical and judicialborders.

• W5: SILO CULTURE: There is a lack of coordination between police forces onnational and regional levels with local governments. This also leaves openresponsibilitiesofwhowillpromoteandoverseenewplatformsandhowwillandcaninformationbeanalysedandshared.

• W6: TECHNOLOGICAL GAP: LEAs lack proper tools and knowledge for onlinecollaboration. Digital devices are not standard equipment for LEA officers.Additionally, there is no common platform for sharing information acrossagenciesandcrossborder.MostofthecurrentDIYPolicingapplicationsandtoolsused onmobile devices are either connected or dedicated to be used betweencitizensandonlyareusedbycertainLEAsinveryfewcountriesandregions.

• W7:INCOMPATIBLEJUDICIALPROCEDURES:Thecurrentcustodychain,suchastheprocedureforsubmittingevidence, is toorestrictiveandbureaucraticandleadsto strong evidence being deemed inadmissible if, for example, a citizen hascollectedit.ThisblocksopportunitiesforvaluableDIYpolicing.

5.1.3 Opportunities• O1:IMPROVINGSECURITY:DIYPolicingallowsobtainingnewinformationandan

increased information sharing. Citizens’ participating in policing can lead tocitizen empowerment and eventually to an improved felt security. It can alsosupportthespontaneousinvolvementofcitizensintheresponsetoandrecoveryfrom an incident. Thereby DIY Policing would improve the quality of policingcreatesamorelegitimatepoliceforce.

• O2:DIGITALAFINECITIZENS: The majority of citizens, especially the young, arevery familiar with the web and social media technology and make full use ofvariousdevices, applications andplatforms.Thus, they are ready to adopt veryeasilytheuseofanynewtoolsandapps.


15

• O3:MOTIVATEDCITIZENS: Citizens, either as individuals or as groups, that havepreviously been victims of criminal cases are determined toworkwith zeal ininvestigation cases in order to take revenge, find the guilty and prevent othercitizensnottofallinsimilarsituations.Localcitizenshaveanintrinsicdrivetoactand have detailed information of the local situation, and sometimes alsoequipmentvaluableinaresponse.

• O4:SELF-ORGANIZEDCITIZENS:ThroughDIYpolicing,citizenseducateandinformoneanotheraboutcrimeprevention.Exampleslikeneighbourhoodwatchenablecrimepreventionwithout activeparticipationof LEAs.Citizensmay trust othercitizensmorethanthepoliceorotherauthorities.TalentedindividualscanhelprelievesometheworkburdenofLEAs.

• O5:ANONYMITYOFTECHNOLOGY:Technologiespermittinganonymousuploadingof digital evidence and intelligence can increase citizens’ motivation to reportcrimewithoutimplicationthemselves.

• O6: KNOWLEDGE OF THE CROWD: The wisdom of the larger community is animportantandpowerfulassetforthepoliceandcanbeleveragedthroughcrowdsourcing. The crowd can provide real time information for prevention andintelligencegathering.

• O7:FREERESOURCESFOREFFICIENTPOLICING: DIY Policing can help LEAs to domore with fewer resources, especially in situations of fiscal retrenchment.Additionally,citizeninvolvementinpolicingactivitiesthroughsocialmediamayrender services and their use more effective and avoid misallocations, thuspermittinglocalgovernmentstosaveonstafftimeand,eventually,cutdownoncosts.Localgovernmentcouldoverseenon-crimetasksthatcitizensusuallyturnto the police for problems such as noise, insufficient lighting on the street andotherproblemsthatrathertouchlocalgovernments’competenciesthanpolice.Inconsequence, LEAs can focus on policing tasks. In general, citizen involvementcan lead to volunteer support for the provision of common goods and thus toadditionalsupportforgovernmentagencies.

• O8:MISSINGJOBS: Investigation-related services, in a form of paid outsourcing,provide the chance of creating new job opportunities. Formal outsourcing ofinvestigationrelatedservicescouldtakeplacenotonlytoindividualcitizensbutalso to more organized inspector teams, both with either profit or non-profitprofessional legal entities. Outsourcing is an opportunity to support these DIYPolicing entities in evolving their current volunteer level of action to a moreprofessionallevel.

• O9:PREVENTIONTHROUGHVISIBILITY: Increased visibility of LEAs in the digitalspace subconsciously enforces lawful behaviour. Rogue police presences onsocial media can, despite their use of pseudonyms and critical views, actuallyincreasetrustinpolicingbyprovidinganauthenticvoice.DIYPolicingcanevokeanddevelopasenseofresponsibilityamongcitizenstoabidethelaw.

• O10: HARMONISATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS: As DIY Policing calls forunifiedstandards, internationaldigitalpolicieswouldprovideclearrules forall


16

and could help legislators to create more resilient and durable laws andregulationsthatarecompatiblewiththedigitalspace.

• O11:CITIZENSKILLS:Diversecitizensskills,suchaswithlanguageandtechnologycanbecomearesourceforLEAsbyengagingvolunteers,forinstancetotranslatematerialonsocialmedia.

• O12:GETTINGAHEAD:Technologyusecasesandfeaturesareoftenuniformacrosscultures and organisational boundaries. There is the opportunity to learn frombest practice and stimulate innovation. Recognising and using this opportunitycanmakeLEAsmoreconfidentaboutkeepingupwiththepaceofchange.

• O13:TRUSTEDCITIZENCONNECTION: DIY Policing allows local governments andLEAs tobemoreapproachable forand inclosercontactwith theircitizens.Theclose connection allows the identification of priorities and an improvedadaptation of services to citizens’ needs and priorities. It also improves thetransparency of government and police services and builds trust and enhancesengagement.DIYPolicingcaninspireasenseofvalueandconnectednessamongindividualswithinasocietyandallowsestablishingcontactswithgroupsthataredifficulttoreach.

• O14: TRUSTED SOLUTIONS: Using specific applications and platforms that areofficiallyrecommendedandcertifiedbyLEAsandnotgettingoutoftheboxanycommercialtoolsintheindustrycurrentlyavailable,addscredibilitytotheuseofsocial media by the citizens for investigation purposes. Crowdsourcing withauthoritative trust andno fear is essential for thedevelopmentof citizens’ safefeelinginDIYpolicing

5.1.4 Threats• T1:LACKOFCITIZENKNOWLEDGE: Citizens are not well educated about what is

rightorwrong.Citizens’lackknowledgeaboutresponsibilitiesandcompetencies:‘Who does what in a city?’ ‘When is the police, when a different governmentagencymypointofcontact?’Ascitizensarenotprofessionallytrained,theymaywiththeirinterventiondoharmtothecaseofthepoliceand,forinstance,destroyproof,harmthemselvesorincreasetheriskofbecomingavictimthemselves,forinstancewhensuspectstakerevenge.

• T2:LACKOFJUDICIALKNOWLEDGE: Poor understanding of technologies amongstjudges and prosecutors canmean that the police are prevented from accessingvaluabledigitalevidence.

• T3:NEGATIVEINTERFERENCE:InDIYPolicing,thereisafinelinebetweenassistingandhindering.DIYPolicingcaninterferenegativelywithpolicework,especiallywhen there is a lack of communication between citizens and local authoritiesthrough social media. Improper DIY policing might therefore lead to negativeinvestigationresultsandimageforpoliceauthorities.

• T4: CITIZEN EXCLUSION: DIY Policing can leave out certain groups in society.Questions about the inclusiveness of DIY Policing and DIY Policing in weakcommunitiesmaycreateamisbalancebetweencitizensthatdoDIYPolicingandthose that do not. DIY Policing can lead to discrimination-driven prosecutions


17

and target selection based on social prejudice and thus negatively impactminoritygroups.

• T5:INVALID,BIASEDINFORMATION:DIYPolicingposesmanyquestionsabout thereliabilityofinformation,leavingopenhowinformationprovidedbycitizenscanbevalidated.Citizensmaynotbeunbiasedandanonymity,fakeidentitiesandthesheers amounts of information may mislead the process of an investigation.Misinformationandrumourscannotbemistakenasreliableproofandevidence.Citizens can also get involved in investigations for cases that they might beaccusedof.

• T6:POWEROFSOCIALNETWORKS: In many cases, LEAs and citizens use socialmedia platforms provided by international commercial entities. Theseorganisations often do not follow local legal frameworks. They can directlyinfluenceDIYPolicingwithlittlepoweronLEAsside.

• T7:DECREASINGTRUST: IncreasedbutunbalancedvisibilityofLEAsinthevirtualworldmaymakecitizensfeelmanipulatedorcontrolled.Theincapacityofpoliceor local governments to respond to the citizens’ requirements or expectationsmighthaveaninverseeffect.Coordinationproblemsbetweenlocalgovernmentsandpolicemightconfusecivilians.Alackoftrustinpolicecanfuelvigilante-styleDIYpolicinganddiscouragethepublictoengagewithnewplatformsadoptedbypolice. DIY Policing may also increase suspicion, harm trust relations andincreaseinlitigiousnessamongcitizens.

• T8:INFORMATIONOVERLOAD: The new data provided by DIY Policing activitiescan become an overload for LEAs. On the other side, too much informationprovidedbyLEAsonlinecanmakedatairrelevant.

• T9: DECREASING PRIVACY: DIY Policing raises serious concerns regarding theprotection of personal data and right for informational self-determination. DIYPolicingalsoproducesissueswithcitizendrivensurveillance.

• T10:ABUSEOFONLINETOOLS:When introducingnewplatformsor tools forDIYPolicing,thereistheriskofabusebycitizensthatcanengageintrolling.

• T11:SELF-JUSTICE:DIYPolicingmayencouragevigilantismandmakecitizenstakethe law in their own hand and hunt suspects who may or may not be actualperpetrators.DIYPolicingalsomightsupportLEAcriticismthepolicedonotdoenoughtofightcrime.


18

6. RelevantTools,BestPractices,Recommendations

6.1 Relevanttoolsandbestpractices

Duringtheworkshop,severalexistingpracticeshavebeendescribedanddiscussed.WehavedescribedthesepracticesaspartofMEDI@4SECdeliverablesD1.1(StateoftheArtReview)andclassifiedtheminD1.2(BestPractice)intothepatterns,seeSection3.3.

During the workshop, many examples and cases were discussed that fall within thecategories above or were previously discussed in our state-of-the-art review. As wedescribeinourstateoftheartreview,DutchLEAshavealreadytakenaverypro-activeapproachtoDIYPolicing,whilemostotheragenciesonlyrecentlystartedtousesocialmedia and use it in more traditional ways of communication, if at all. The Dutchinitiatives of including citizens in public security are different from traditional LEApracticeinmanyothercountries.

DespitethedifferenceinLEAsocialmediaadoption,wefoundnoapparentcontrast incitizen social media adoption and citizen behaviour across in countries. While DIYPolicingcancomeinmanyformsandwithdifferentlevelsofprofessionalism,theoveralltrend andunderstanding is that citizens throughdigital tools increasingly can anddobecomeactiveparticipantsinpublicsecurity.

6.2 Recommendations

Inthefollowing,wehavedevelopedalistofrecommendationsforLEAs(Table6.1),aswell as citizens and other stakeholders in public security (Table 6.2). We developedtheserecommendationsbasedontheworkshopdiscussions.TheyincludelearningfromLEAspractice in a number of countries and generalize experienceLEAsmade inpilotprojectsor full implementationsofnewdigital tools. Inconsequenceof thisapproach,notall recommendationsarerelevant forallLEAs,as indeed, someLEAsalreadyhaveimplementedandbenefitfromtheserecommendations.

Anapparentlimitationofourrecommendationsisthattheyprovidenodetailedplan,astheyarenotspecifictoaparticularorganization.They,nevertheless,showaclearpathforLEAsfordigitallymediatedcitizeninteractionand,incombinationwiththepreviousMEDI@4SECdeliverables, provide a startingpoint for LEAs aiming to embracedigitalmedia.


19

Stakeholder Actions,ToolsandRecommendations

LEAs Shouldincreasetheirvisibilityinthedigitalspacetoincreasetrustandenforcelawfulbehaviourandintegratecyberissuesacrosspolicerolesandnotlimitthemtocybercrimeunits.Shoulddevelopmoreintimaterelationswiththeonlinecommunitytobeabletocooperate.Shouldhavesocialmediastrategies.Shoulddrawup‘rules’forwhentheyengagecitizensandthelimitsofsuchengagement.

Shouldhavethestructure,resources,toolsandmethodstorespondandinteractwithcitizensviasocialmediawithanonline24/7/365availability.

Shouldeducateofficersonhowtoapproachcitizensthroughsocialmedia,onsocialmediainvestigativemethods,undertaketrainingprogramsinsocialmediaappsandtechnologiesandespeciallyintheplatformsandappstheyuseintheirorganizations.Shouldenableknowledgeableyoungrecruitstoeducatetheoldandembedsocialmediatrainingintorecruitprograms.Trainingforpoliceofficersandgovernment

Shouldequipofficerswithup-to-datedevices.

Shouldmakemoredatapublictoselectedaudiencesviaspecialcitizenonline-portalstoimprovegeneralaccountabilityandsecurityawareness.

ShoulddevelopavisiononDIYPolicingandchangetheirattitudetowardscitizensaccordingly.

Shoulddevelopandimplementaplatformtointeractwithcitizens.Shoulddevelopdifferentchannelthroughsocialmediaforcitizenstocontributetotheplatform.Shouldcreateacommitteetocontrolandmanagetheplatform,withspecificprotocolsofintervention,sharingofinformation,anddistributionofcompetenciesandresponsibilities.Representativeofthepolicedepartmentandthecitygovernmentshouldconfirmthiscommittee.

ShoulddevelopLEAsnetworkingcommunitiesforcommunication,collaborationandinformationsharingbetweendifferentLEAsorsameLEAswithvariousofficesanddepartments/divisionsindifferentlocations.

Shouldissueguidelines,termsandconditionsfortheuseoftheplatformandtheend-userapplicationsbybothLEAsandcitizens.

Shouldprioritizeandevaluatetheincominginformationinordertoprioritizethecorrespondingrightactionsandresponsesneedtobetakenemployingquickandefficientdataanalyticsmethodsandtoolsforcheckingandensuringinformationaccuracyandcredibility.

Shouldfocusoneducatingcitizensandteachvictimshowtocollectevidence.SupportcitizenDIYeffortstohelpsteertheminacorrect,lawful,safedirection.

Shouldprovidefeedbacktocitizenontheircontributions.

Shouldcreatechannelsofcommunicationbetweenpoliceandcitygovernmenttocoordinateandbetterprovideresponsestocitizens

Table 6.1: Recommendations for LEAs

AsdetailedinTable6.1,recommendationsforDIYPolicingdemandLEAstochangeprocessesandtechnologytobeabletointeractcloselywithcitizens.Therecommendationscovervariousareas,acorecomponentofmanagingDIYPolicing,though,areplatformsrunbyLEAsthatsupportcitizeninteraction.


20

Stakeholder Actions/ToolsandRecommendations

Citizens Shouldassumetheiractivecitizenshiprole.

Shouldgeteducatedonlegal,ethical,securityanddataprivacyissuestobetterupholdtheirsecurityandprivacyrightsasactivecitizens.ShouldeducatethemselvesabouttherightuseofsocialmediaanditsdangerstobeinthelinewiththelawandthusreducetheriskofillegalDIYpolicing.

Shouldunderstandwhentheymustaddressthemselvestopoliceforcesandwhentothecitygovernment.

Shouldbemoreproactiveininterveningorreportingcrime.

DevelopcitizensnetworkwithinLEAsplatformactingasmemberofthecommunity

Shouldlearnhowtocollectandsecureinformationinalegalmanner.

Shouldusesmartphonesappstohelpeachotherwhenpoliceservicesdon’tworkwell.

Assesstheirinformationriskhazardpotentialtoimproveoverallprivacyawareness.

Industry:SocialMediaPlatformProviders

Shouldsupportthecreationofnew‘DIYPoliceInvestigation’socialmediaplatformsbyhelpingtodefineLEAsandcitizensrequirementsforthefeatures,functionalities,typesofuseandinfrastructure.

Shouldusebotstomonitorandidentifyinappropriatebehaviour.

Shouldfollowsafetystandardsandprovideinformationsecurityratingsontheirproductsandservicestoimprovetransparency,accountabilityandsecurity.

Schools Shouldprovideeducationabouttherightuseofsocialmediaanditsdangerstoprotectfutureusersofsocialmedia.

Shouldguidecitizensandpolicetowardslegallyandsociallyappropriatebehaviours.

National/LocalGovernment

Supportthefoundationofacentralbodyfortheeducationandsupportofcitizenswithregardtocyber-crimetoimproveoverallcyber-crimesecurity.

Shouldcreateanequallawframeacrossborderstoprovidewithaclearandglobalsetofrules.

Table 6.2: Recommendations for Citizens and other Stakeholders

Table 6.2 shows recommendations for citizens and other stakeholders. For citizens,educationon legal andethical issuesofDIYPolicing iskey.For the industry,platformprovisionandruleenforcementaretherecommendeditems.Educationbodiesneedtosupport the introduction of DIY Policing, as do government bodies to provide thenecessaryframework.


21

7. ConclusionandOutlook

In this document we described results from a workshop on DIY Policing, where 58experts from the law enforcement, local governments, research organisations andcitizen-driveninitiativesdiscussedthefutureofpolicing.

While DIY Policing for many is still a new phenomenon, the growing relevance andimpact of digital tools in daily life, increasingly impact the role citizens play in publicsecurity.

ThechallengeforLEAsandcitygovernmentsandotherstakeholdersistoadoptdigitaltechnology and understand the change it produces in the overall public securityarchitecture.

Our SWOT analysis shows the great opportunities of DIY Policing but also the starkthreatsthatendangerpublicsecurity.ThestakeholderanalysisrevealsbigandmanifoldchangesforlawenforcementwhenembracingDIYPolicing.

The recommendations we developed based on the workshop discussions take theexperience and best practice of selected forces and citizen initiatives and make thispracticeactionableforotherlawenforcementagenciesandcitygovernments.

Overall, ourwork onDIYPolicing contributes to larger conversation about thedigitalrevolution inpublic security.DIYPolicingcanbringabout significant change topublicsecurityandmayverywellredefineourcurrentunderstandingofpolicing.Whilewearewellawareofthethreatsandobstaclesthatstandinthewayofthisnewtypeofpolicingthat we only begin to outline in this document, we strongly encourage decision andpolicy makers to consider and discuss our findings when creating strategies forintegratingdigitalmediaintodailywork.


22

Appendix1 ParticipantList

Category Country Organisation MEDI@4SECConsortiumorExternal

NGO Germany Bellingcat ExternalNGO Germany Bellingcat ExternalResearch USA Benetech ExternalCityGovernment Portugal CityofLisbon ExternalResearch France CNRS ExternalLegalAdvisor Netherlands Dallinga ExternalPolice Denmark DanishPolice ExternalResearch Netherlands DataSchool ExternalResearch Netherlands DataSchool ExternalCityGovernment Netherlands DutchMayorNetwork ExternalResearch Italy EticasResearch&Consulting ExternalPolice Greece HellenicPolice ExternalPolice Greece HellenicPolice ExternalPolice Greece HellenicPolice ExternalCityGovernment Netherlands Inpecties ExternalPolice Germany LKABavaria ExternalPolice Germany LKABavaria ExternalPolice Spain Mossosd'esquadra ExternalNGO Germany NetzwerkB ExternalNGO UnitedKingdom OPIT ExternalPolice Spain Police ExternalPolice UnitedKingdom PoliceCollegeUK ExternalPolice UnitedKingdom PoliceFoundation ExternalPolice Italy PoliceItalia ExternalPolice Netherlands Politie ExternalPolice Netherlands Politie ExternalPolice Netherlands Politie ExternalPolice Netherlands Politie ExternalPolice Netherlands Politie ExternalPolice Netherlands Politie ExternalPolice Germany PolizeiNiedersachsen ExternalPolice Germany PolizeiNiedersachsen ExternalResearch Germany PolizeiFachhochschule

BrandenburgExternal

Police UnitedKingdom UniversityofEssex ExternalResearch UnitedKingdom UniversityofSussex ExternalPolice Switzerland ZurichPolice ExternalResearch France EFUS MEDI@4SECResearch France EFUS MEDI@4SECResearch Netherlands EOS MEDI@4SECResearch Germany FraunhoferIAO MEDI@4SECResearch Greece KEMEA MEDI@4SECResearch Greece KEMEA MEDI@4SECResearch Greece KEMEA MEDI@4SECPolice UnitedKingdom PoliceServiceNorthernIreland MEDI@4SECPolice UnitedKingdom PoliceServiceNorthernIreland MEDI@4SECResearch Netherlands TNO MEDI@4SECResearch Netherlands TNO MEDI@4SECResearch Netherlands TNO MEDI@4SECResearch Netherlands TNO MEDI@4SECResearch UnitedKingdom UniversityofWarwick MEDI@4SECResearch UnitedKingdom UniversityofWarwick MEDI@4SECResearch UnitedKingdom UniversityofWarwick MEDI@4SECResearch UnitedKingdom UniversityofWarwick MEDI@4SECResearch Netherlands UniversityUtrecht MEDI@4SECPolice Spain ValenciaPolice MEDI@4SECPolice Spain ValenciaPolice MEDI@4SECResearch Slovenia XLAB MEDI@4SECResearch Slovenia XLAB MEDI@4SEC


23

Appendix2 WorkshopAgenda

DIY Policing Workshop January 10, 2017 11:00-17:00

Michelberger Hotel Warschauer Str. 39-40, 10243 Berlin http://michelbergerhotel.com/

Train station: Warschauer Strasse https://goo.gl/maps/uVidA5wrF8K2

Hashtag: #DIYPolicing.Join the MEDIA4SEC LinkedIn Group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/12000103

10:30 Registration

11:00 Introduction (Plenum)

• Introduction to MEDI@4SEC (Jon Coaffee) • Project Results on DIY Policing Research (Arnout de Vries, Hans van Vliet) • Participant Presentations: Bellingcat (Hadi al-Khatib, Timmi Allen), Dutch

Police (Rick de Haan), OPIT (Brendan Collins)

12:30 Session 1: The Potential of DIY Policing

• In this session, we will use the World Café method to think positively about the future of DIY Policing, without worrying about all the problems that stand in its way (we address the problems in session 2).

• You will work in teams of 5 people that we randomly assign. One person will be a person from our project team, who will support you and document the results.

• You will find the groups you have been selected to on your name tag. • You will work in 3 different teams, 25 minutes each. • Each team is assigned one of the following question:

1. How can investigations benefit from DIY policing? 2. How can crime prevention benefit from DIY policing? 3. How can crime fighting benefit from DIY policing? 4. How can city governments benefit from DIY policing? 5. How can police help and educate citizens in doing DIY policing? 6. In which areas can DIY policing be a meaningful addition to traditional

police work? 7. How can police improve collaboration with citizens within current legal

frameworks? 8. How can DIY policing work on national and European levels? 9. How can public security providers engage with DIY policing initiatives in

order to monitor and steer the initiatives towards most beneficial?


24

10. How can cybercrime fighting benefit from DIY policing support?

14:15 Lunch Break (Restaurant of the Michelberger Hotel)

15:15 Session 2: DIY Policing Roadmap

• In this session, we will develop a roadmap at realising the visions developed in session 1.

• You can choose one of the topics in a self-formed group of 4 people. • You will work on one roadmap with one group during the entire time. • One person of the project will be with your group. • Please use the following table to describe your roadmap:

Step 1.Conditions for future dream

Step 2.Current situation and restrictions

Step 3.Change proposal

1. Who does what and what competences are needed?

1. Identify the current actors, incl. “new” actors like spontaneous volunteers, (social media) companies, etc. and describe their formal and informal relations and mindsets of people. How does and will DIY policing impact the relative roles of citizens and LEA’s? Can public security providers become part of DIY policing initiatives and what does this mean for their competences and qualification of their activities from a legal perspective? To what extent are anonymous DIY policing initiatives compatible with democratic norms?

1. e.g. awareness raising campaign, training of staff or citizens, code of conduct for citizens, etc.

2. What information do actors need from each other?

2. What are the current networks and information flows? Which standing regulations or procedures are limiting us? E.g. from privacy, data protection, or and security perspective?

2. e.g. Extend information flows between police, municipality and communities.

3. How is the interaction organised?

3. Describe the current interaction between citizens and public security providers?. How should public security providers approach a relation with these groups?

3. e.g. create new networks and organisational structures, such as community liaisons? Draft and promote mutual guidance or shared agreements on modus operandi?

4 What processes and procedures do we need?

4. What are current possibilities based on regulations and procedures? Which standing regulations or procedures are limiting us? E.g.from privacy, data protection, or security perspectives?

4. Change frameworks or regulations, change insurances, etc.

5. What capacities, resources and tools do we need?

5. What are the current resources and tools and are they adequate? How can public security providers

5. e.g. development of new innovative tools for investigation, information


25

check that information from DIY groups is accurate and not lead to discriminatory or disproportionate measures, or measures that impede or undermine police investigations? How can DIY groups be held accountable?

sharing and citizens

6. What is the added value of your DIY policing solution? ? What are the means to contain DIY policing and prevent the negative effects and risks of DIY policing?

6. Could differences in (organisational) culture or lack of mutual trust be risks? Are there any social or ethical implications?

6. e.g. team building, co-creation sessions, joint trainings?

7. [to be added in local implementations]...

7. [to be added in local implementations]... ...

7. [to be added in local implementations]......

16:30 Summary (Sebastian Denef)

• What did we learn • Next Steps

17:00 End

19:00 Optional Dinner (please take into account 30 min for travel)

• We have reserved a restaurant for people for all who previously indicated that they will join us for dinner. (your name tag has a “D” on it)

• Restaurant: DICKE WIRTIN http://www.dicke-wirtin.net/ Carmerstraße 9, 10623 Berlin https://goo.gl/maps/uBNRjcioik62

• Be aware: It’s a 24 min train ride (Ticket: AB) • Train Station: Savignyplatz (take a non-stop ride from Warschauerstr. on the

S Train. Any S train that passes Hauptbahnhof / Central Station will take you there)

• We have booked a traditional German buffet, with all kinds of choices. Price is € 20,50 per person (not covered by us).


26

MAP OF THE WORKSHOP LOCATION

MAP OF THE DINNER LOCATION


27

QUESTIONS?

Sebastian Denef

Mobile/Whatsapp: +49 160 948 36109

Twitter: @denefs

Telegram: @denef

Email/iMessage: [email protected]


28

Appendix3 WorkshopEvaluation

Allparticipantswere asked to complete an evaluationquestionnaire at the endof theevent.AnoverviewofthescoresisprovidedinFigureA3.1(below).

Figure A3.1: Summary of Evaluation Scores.

Overall, this workshop received very positive feedback. The overall rating of theworkshop,onascaleof1(verypoor)to10(excellent)was8.7.

Furthermore, various constructive comments were received from delegates includingsuggestionsforimprovement.

Inadditiontheconsortiumhaveundertakenadebriefimmediatelyfollowingtheevent.The informationcollated through theseexerciseshasbeenused in theplanningof thenextworkshop.

medi@4sec | new social media & public security ...media4sec.eu/downloads/d2-3.pdfmedi@4sec the...

Documents