Twitter recently announced the creation of a geolocation API, making it possible for users to disclose the location they are tweeting from. This new development has many potential uses and The New York Times did a good job of explaining what,exactly, this means: what it would look like, how people would likely use it.
However, despite the advantages to news organizations and your circle of friends, there are also several reasons why a Twitter geolocation API is a bad idea, namely, the fact that criminals will also know where you are tweeting from, if you choose not to turn the location feature off. Says Martin Bryant of The Next Web:
The geocriminals of the future will simply monitor tweeting location patterns. Most of your tweets will be likely to be sent from in, or close to, your home. When you’re tweeting from out of area they’ll swoop in and swipe your stuff.
For these reasons and more it is imperative that law enforcement begin to use these tools, if not for the benefit of the public, then simply because criminals are already using them.
Cyberstalking
Cyberstalking is a subject not many cops are familiar with. For that matter, “regular” stalking is not something many cops are familiar with. A lot of misconceptions and misinformation are attached to stalking cases.
One of the main problems with stalking cases is that a pattern of behavior can be hard for multiple report-takers, in one or more jurisdictions, to spot, making it hard to identify stalkers before their behavior escalates.
Another is that the beginning stages of stalking behavior itself often cannot be considered criminal. Seeing the same person in the same public places you’re in could easily be coincidental.
Add the “cyber” prefix to the word “stalking” and things get even more complicated. Twitter is an open platform; protected profiles (like Facebook accounts) are permission-only, but stalkers often use friends and even private investigators to get close to their victims.
People with loose friending policies open themselves up to anyone. And new Twitter Lists allow users to “follow” each other surreptitiously (without Twitter sending a notification to the person being followed) making it even harder to track stalking behavior and allowed easier access to victims by stalkers.
You may not believe social media has any value for community relations, but it is undeniable that knowing how these systems work and function in society provides great value to criminal investigations.
That’s why administrators need to be open to allowing officers and investigators to familiarize themselves with the tools. Whether via personal or professional accounts, or simply monitoring, knowing the ins-and-outs of social media is essential.
Be Relevant or Lose Your Community
I’d argue that social media should be “played with” much the same way that smart digital forensics examiners play with new tech gadgets. Law enforcement officers don’t have to know how to hack a social network, but they do have to know how to investigate and build a case based on Web-based evidence—and explain it in court.
Of course, I’d further argue that the community-relations stuff is a great way to do two for the price of one, but if your agency isn’t ready to use social media yet, focus your efforts on the investigative benefits of social media—at the very least. People expect police to be able to solve their criminal problems, and if you don’t even know how to access the network where the problem resides, you lose credibility.
As Christina Kerley points out, losing relevance is the biggest risk of all for businesses who want to stay competitive. If a business loses relevance, competitors are waiting to take over. But for a police department that loses relevance, criminals are waiting to take over.
Consider communities in which criminal gangs offer “protection” to businesses. A hundred years ago, business owners in Italian-American communities paid extortion money to the Mafia. These days, the same model can be seen in modern-day Southeast Asian communities and gangs.
In neither case have police been trusted by the community, with one notable difference: a hundred years ago, law enforcement agencies were rife with corruption. Today police corruption exists, but not on the same scale. A variety of factors including internal affairs bureaus, journalism, and civilian review boards have seen to that.
A Direct Line
I’m not suggesting that criminal gangs will take over. Merely that law enforcement agencies cannot believe they alone have a line on crime prevention and law enforcement. Controlling local crime has always depended on one factor: trust—strong relationships between police and community.
Face to face, this relationship is still critical. But there is one other difference between police then and now: the opportunity for agencies to tell their own stories, to connect with their communities directly, rather than leave it to others.
And as average citizens become more and more tech savvy, they will expect that their law enforcement agency to do the same. When a local PD can’t demonstrate that it knows how to use the technology its citizens are already using, it loses relevance in the community. The question is: Whom do you want to control social media interactions in your area?
Given the organization of G20 groups—in another situation where geolocation will be critical—and at a time when budget cutbacks have left police with severely limited resources, it is not a stretch to believe that small groups might use social networking to “take over” areas where they felt their police to be inadequate.
Criminals have always had a technological leg up on cops. Their income stream is not as limited and they can afford all the latest toys and gadgets. Yet when it comes to social media, we’re not talking about better guns or better vehicles or better mobile phones. Social media is free.
When the budget barrier has been erased, the only limitations left are psychological. Yes, many law enforcement agencies are concerned about social media use by their officers due to very public cases of police misconduct on social media sites.
If your department is concerned with this type of misuse (or abuse), write the policies, and develop the mentoring today. Give officers the tools they need to use this technology powerfully and effectively—not so they can replace face-to-face relationships, but so they can enhance them.
The only chance you have to stay ahead of the criminals is to learn how to use technology better and faster than they do. When you risk irrelevance compared to criminals, what other choice do you have?
Christa M. Miller is founder and co-author of Cops 2.0. A freelance trade journalist turned public relations and social media consultant, she has specialized in public safety issues for the past eight years. She resides in Greenville, SC and can be reached at christammiller@gmail.com.
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
The “bad guys” always had better “tools” than us; bigger guns, faster cars, and now, better technology. The main reason is that “bad guys” have no “overhead” in getting their resources – they steal it from us! If they did purchase their tools, the monies were from some other illegal/criminal enterprise they were engaged in (i.e. drug dealing).
In addition, criminals have lotsa time on their hands to practice and experiment with their tools. They don’t work, so time management is not an issue. We, on the other hand, barely have any free time, since we all are trying to jest survive financially through honest and hard work.
And lastly, “you don’t go into a gunfight with a butterknife”.
We not only have to know what and how to use the current technology that the criminals are using, but we need to use it better than them.
These all need to be addressed by the administration of all law enforcement agencies. Which will always come down to funding.
Where will the money come from?
Chris, personally I would love to see more private business step up. I have for a long time thought that the more law enforcement agencies join social media and talk about their jobs and challenges, the more local citizens could see needs and benefits, and might (within reason and legal boundaries) start to make equipment and other donations. (Some, like PetSmart I believe, already do this for K9 programs.)
There may not be any profit in it per se, but there is community benefit as well as reduced cost (through being able to limit criminal activity) so… I would think the more communication barriers come down, the better position companies will be in to help. IMO.