I Know What You Are Doing
The Relationship Between Information And Crime Has Changed
The world’s most famous detective shared a fields view; Sherlock Homes had an extensive library full of criminals and their crimes. The readers followed him- a delight that makes crime fiction one of the most fantastic genres with information at its heart. Similarly, in novels, the trend has continued.
The Metropolitan department, which has continued to guard Washington DC’s streets since 1861, retails each crime’s annual detailing. American homicide detectives record details of their cases in murder books, which are then referred for future consultation. Historically, gathering information was a strenuous process, hours of stalking their suspects, requiring countless conversations, many of which are proved irrelevant.
In illiberal countries, where governments/lawmakers do not care about their citizens’ privacy laws, police could easily tap their citizens’ phone calls and open letters/messages. Liberal countries make this difficult; police officers who want to tap people's phones can do so within a limited period, with a specific purpose and with judicial approval (which is hard to get).
Today the relationship linking information and crime has changed. In absolute terms, people now generate more searchable information than they used to. Smartphones passively track and record where users go, who they talk to, and how long; their apps reveal personal information such as their political views, what they like to read and watch, and how they spend money.
To track a suspect, police chiefs no longer need to instruct dozens of their officers for around. They just need to seize the subject's phone and crack its encryption. If he drives, police cars, streetlights, and parking cameras equipped with Automatic Plate Number Readers (APNR) can track all its movements. Similarly, encryption in the past was doggy. But now the modern economy depends on it. WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, or Facebook messenger offers end-to-end encryption, meaning that messages can only be read by sender and receiver; no one can intercept them, not even companies. However, police can! Extracting metadata from a phone is easy. Police can use a fake mobile-phone tower (Stingrays), which tricks mobile phones into connecting them with an actual tower. They can then discover which websites were visited and whom the user texted or called.
In relevant terms, the gap between information technology and policy looks more comprehensive. Most privacy laws were written for postal services and landline telephones. The courts give citizens protection from the governments entering their homes and searching for papers. However, the laws on digital privacy are less clear.
The European Union, in 2006, issued a directive requiring telecoms firm to withhold customers metadata for up to two years for any use in criminal investigations. Yet, in 2014, the European Court of Justice invalidated the law stating it was a breach of privacy and fundamental rights.
Machine learning software builds on the human brain that learns from observational data and today’s face recognition products. These machines can make tomorrow's world much safer and robust as they rely on body mass, language, and gestures. They can also recognise a bag or purse and link them to a human being.
Almost every American adults have their images stored in the FBI’s accessible database. Similarly, other countries are expanding their database. However, it raises the argument of racial abuse. People among minority groups with high arrest rates are likely to appear on the database and targeted by network surveillance.
ANPR’s raises a similar concern regarding the facial recognition database. Police roll around collecting and storing images of number plates registering to people not suspected of any criminal activity. If they become suspicious, police can then trawl through ANPR’s database detailing portraits of their lives.
Such information in databases could be misused or abused constitutionally. A police officer in Washington D.C. was convicted for extortion and blackmailing a car owner near a parking station of a gay bar. ANPR firms emphasize what they do is constitutional — in America, the First Amendment protects public photography.
The argument here is that ANPR’s and CCTV footage, along with facial recognition systems, give the government a time machine. The police argue that if they try to dig into personal history, the new technology makes it easier for them. If police or state has a time machine- the old-fashioned installed in phonebooth- regulators would be all over them. But with virtual time machines, not so much.
