Smart Apps for Suspicious Activity Reporting
The documenting of suspicious activities or incidents is something that has been done since the early days of law enforcement. The reports may have been different in format or called by something other than suspicious; however, the incidents were documented in one form or another.
The Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative (NSI) was born out of the findings and recommendations stemming from the investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001. The NSI is a collaborative effort among all levels of government to gather, document, process, analyze, and share SAR information to the broadest extent possible; while protecting the privacy and civil liberties/civil rights of our citizens.
The U.S. has continued to refine the nationwide SAR process since its inception. Multiple systems have been leveraged at both the federal and local levels over the years. One of the more recent endeavors has been adopted by the state and local agencies and leverages the use of smart device apps for reporting. Although this technology has been around for several years at the local level, the federal government is now left to consider whether to adopt this technology more broadly, as part of the overall NSI effort.
U.S. allied countries also have experience in using smart app technology for reporting. We looked at Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, and found these countries to be in similar situations to the U.S. when leveraging reporting apps. This review identified several commonalities among the U.S. and these allied nations.
That said, in comparing the efforts of our allies in leveraging smart phone app technology, there seem to be several commonalities:
1. The current reporting apps were developed by the private sector in partnership with local jurisdictions
2. They are predominantly advertised as all crimes (not just counter-terrorism)
3. They appear to be an effective way of getting citizens engaged and in reducing the need for an officer to respond and take a report (a clear cost cutting benefit)
4. In each of these examples, the federal agencies do not appear to be utilizing apps for federal crime reporting.
Advances in technology have clearly led to what many would consider a logical blending of the new and old reporting mechanisms. There appear to be financial advantages at the local level in the leveraging of smart phone app technology in order to alleviate the need for an officer to respond to a non-active crime scene in order to take a report. In this age of continually shrinking budgets, the value of that cost savings cannot be overstated. Fortunately, the federal governments of our allied countries seem to have paved the way for the U.S. to follow suit and remain without a crime reporting app (which would include SAR) at the federal level. Instead, the U.S. could leverage existing mechanisms such as federal grant guidance, regulations, instructions, etc. in order to compel those app users to address the security and privacy concerns outlined above.
We have come to this recommendation based on the following understood realities:
1. Local crime will always require a local response; not always a federal one.
2. Locals understand the areas of responsibility and context surrounding reporting much better than federal agencies.
3. There is a lot of liability in receiving this type of information without owning the response capability or jurisdictional authority to provide an immediate response. Local reporting equals a local liability.
4. Many fusion centers and local jurisdictions have already developed apps and are building synergy at the local, regional, and state levels (this is a benefit for the state). Likewise, these groups also rely on federal grant funding to carry out their missions.
Follow us @1502thewatch
