- by Atli Thorkelsson
In the wake of 9/11, one of the biggest changes made to nationwide policing systems has been a massive increase in information sharing. As criminals become increasingly global, information must be shared more widely and more rapidly than ever before, or that is the reason given for the increasing centralization of information controlled by policing agencies. Not only is information more readily available to federal agencies, but there is also more of it. Since the WTC attacks, there has been a push to increase the ability of local and state agencies to gather and analyze intelligence about citizens[1].
Both of these trends raise concerns. For one thing, this vastly increases the amount of manpower and funding devoted to gathering and analyzing information about the American public. With the widespread accusations of racism, harassment, and any other number of complaints leveled against organizations like the NYPD and LAPD, there is no lack of distrust there, and so it is certainly a cause for concern that these agencies are being given more power in collecting information about any individuals or groups that they choose are a threat. If racism and profiling is so prevalent on a street level[2], there is little chance of minorities being given a fair shot in surveillance done behind closed doors.
In addition to concern over local law enforcement’s increasing power, another thing to be aware of is the increasing centralization of information. Federal agencies no longer need to do their intelligence gathering on an individual basis – as long as any agency in the country does it, federal agencies can get a hold of the information gleaned and use this to build more complete profiles of people. As has been discussed in this class, this information can be used in a number of ways and is certainly cause for concern.
[1] http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/policing-post-911-era.html
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/stop-and-frisk-nypd-mistrust_n_3955175.html
Interesting post Atli! I agree that through the increase in surveillance and the sharing of surveillance, this also leads to the increase of manpower and funding, as well as to the increase of the centralization of information. Both of these situations pose concerns. Also you mentioned, that surveillance maybe aimed specifically at certain races/minorities due to stereotypes that already brand them negatively. From these aspects, it is clear that surveillance can be abused. Overall this post raises many interesting thoughts, and suggests some disturbing aspects regarding surveillance and its usage. Thank you for sharing.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Atli! Your post reminds me of various topics, both previously discussed and current topics. After I finished reading your post, I recalled the topic of professional policing where it requires a centralized system of governance and surveillance that utilize the technology to better target and fight crimes. Often times, the needs for professional policing are the responses to big events, like the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Another thing that I am reminded from your post is the heightened attention toward racial profiling. Because of the 9/11 incident, certain minority groups are socially stigmatized to be seen as potentially dangerous suspects who are likely to initiate a crime. Thus, in the society, citizens are more prone to subconsciously think that people of color are potential criminals due to the happenings of past/historical events.
ReplyDelete-Jiajun (Michael) Huang.
This post reminds me of the special case that occurred after 9-11 and many police departments like the SFPD and LAPD and Seattle PD were instructed by federal agencies like the FBI to arrest and detain certain Muslim people on a given list of names. With no incentive to disobey the federal agencies requests, many police department and local agencies will comply with such racial profiled demands. Only in the special case of one predominately Muslim town, the police department reasoned that complying would only hurt the relationship with the citizens. So long as a racial minority has no participatory or at least deliboratory democracy, they will be targeted by federal and local agencies in times of crisis and in times of peace.
ReplyDeleteSimon Chen
Atli, You raise an issue that we will only touch on in lecture. One of the bulwarks against the centralization of state policing power has been the atomization of law enforcement agencies, even as this structure influences policing efficacy. Now, we are seeing a form of centralization that is an end run around atomization --- the creation of centralized data bases which are,in turn, put at the fingertips of law enforcement officers on their mobile data terminals in police cars and their mobile devices. We will treat this issue briefly in lecture, but way to go on surfacing it before we give it attention.
ReplyDeleteI found his post extremely relevant given the recent disbanding of the NYPD Demographics Unit, a program started to police Muslim communities for terrorist activity. Though I recognize that national security is a very real concern that needs to be addressed, manifestations of these concerns like the Demographics Unit are improper and insulting. The surveillance of Muslim communities in this manner could be seen as analogous to the racial profiling at African American and Latino/Hispanic communities experience. Both are disturbing expansions of state surveillance that highlight the need for checks and regulations on similar activity. I think you bring up a very salient point in questioning the allocation of resources (funding, manpower) to these surveillance tactics.
ReplyDeleteAnnie Choi
I thought this post was very well written but a lot of the comments were pretty general. It would have been nice if there was some data to back up the claims you make. Although I agree that more information will most likely pose a problem for minorities, the argument itself appeared to be relatively value-neutral. Still don't know what you think this is going to do long-term or if it is simply "cause for concern". I was also reminded of the case Simon spoke of a few comments above mine while reading your blog. - Chelsea Goddard
ReplyDeleteWhen I said comments in the first sentence I was not referring to the comments posted by other students; in fact, I gained a lot of insight by reading them.
DeleteGood job on your blog post. I think Professor Musheno brought this up in class but when 9/11 happened, local law enforcement was given list of people to question. Some agencies listened and cooperated while others did not. Even though agencies may be cooperating, we have to remember that most of the agencies are still atomized. The structure has always been this way to protect against corruption.
ReplyDeleteTina Truong
I find your focus on the centralization of data collection in a post 9/11 American extremely interesting. Certainly, the government does have more access to our personal information than it likely did before. What I would have liked to see in your post, however, was a mention of the positive reasons for this centralization of data. Aren't police now more capable of catching a criminal no matter what race the criminal identifies with or is seen to be? I would also like a further analysis of the racial profiling that would increase with the data collections. Wouldn't a computer analyzed software program be less prone to human judgment racism than a few cops in their department office? I would also be interested to hear your thoughts on whether this increased data collection and centralization was due to the 9/11 attacks or if this would have come about with our increase in technology, even if 9/11 had never happened.
ReplyDelete-Colleen Johnson, Discussion 102
This post connects back to the Surveillance book we read at the beginning of the course. I totally agree with the two viewpoints raised in this post, especially the idea of the centralization of information. The centralization of information may reinforce the stigmatized identities of people of color and other kinds of minority groups that are already stereotypical. They are subject to more surveillance than before after 9/11. Also, I learned from other courses that although law enforcement agencies have put a lot of resources into information gathering, it has little positive impact on eradicating terrorist attacks. But, whether there are any other ways to improve the efficiency of law enforcement agencies remains in question.
ReplyDelete-Yu Fu
I remember hearing your presentation and thinking "why doesn't this guy talk more?" very-thoughtful post, very interesting angle to come at this topic from. And I was very glad someone addressed the issue of profiling from a post 9-11 standpoint.
ReplyDeleteI think the issue of racial profiling is becoming more subversive, and evolving to include a different set of categorical identities, so it was nice to have someone touch on that issue.
It was also interesting how you brought the discussion full circle to include some of the earlier concepts. Thank you, very nice post.
-Mark Sheppard
It is an interesting blog that you combined the problem of surveillance and policing. In policing, racial profiling, fairness and equality have become a big issue. Also, in surveillance, the uncertainty of how we have been surveillanced and how the information is processed has become a big problem. To allow such an increased power to local law enforcement authority is a problem as well. If the law enforcement officer is very legitimate and trusted by the local citizens, giving such a strong power is beneficial to the community. However, if there is no enough trust relationship between the law enforcement and the community, giving the law enforcement such a strong discretionary power is problematic because there is no guarantee that such a strong power can be exercised fairy or not.
ReplyDeleteSansui Iwamoto
Excellent blog post, I like how you touched on the massive increase in information that is being transmitted on the internet, and the increase in the amount of data that has been collected since the tragedy of 911. As you touched on in your last paragraph , it is quite disturbing at the amount of power local law enforcement, there should be more check and balances put into place in order to establish a fine line between lawful policing and going to far.
ReplyDelete-Jarred Boone
I doubt that interagency collaboration will make a huge difference in crime prevention. The problem is that having too much information is the same as having no information. Since the gathering and analyzing of so much information requires so much more manpower and funding, most of the information available to law enforcement will probably go unnoticed. One year ago, the Tsarnaeva brothers detonated a bomb at the Boston Marathon killing three people and injuring 264. It was later reveled that the Russians had warned both the FBI and CIA on three occasions that the Tsarnaevas were a potential threat.* Nevertheless, even with this direct warning, the United States’ top law enforcement agencies failed to prevent one of the most heinous crimes of the decade. The unprecedented amount of information now available to law enforcement agencies will have little effect as long as manpower and funding are limited.
ReplyDelete* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/zubeidat-tsarnaeva-terror-list_n_3164332.html
JESSE RYCKMAN
This class and this article makes me question centralization. I've believed for a long time centralization is a good thing, it makes things orderly and easy to find and makes communication between agencies run smoothly and perhaps save times and money. I believe this even more because at work, when someone retires their work is distributed among the people working there and do no hire new people, which makes me, a lowly student in charge of a system no one one knows how to handle and centralization would take so much responsibility off my hands becaue it's so decentralized right now, basically I don't have a boss to manage my work. But centralization in terms of policing or work is bad because people are constantly monitored and the government or the management have so much power with little to nothing to stop them from abusing their powers.
ReplyDeleteLiliana Guerrero
I think that this blog post touches on an important theme concerning surveillance that we have discussed in class and readings. Oftentimes, marginalized population are exposed to harsher forms of surveillance than the dominant group - there is a power structure involved in such activity. For example, our readings have shown that African-Americans and Latinos are disproportionately stop-and-frisked when compared to Whites.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the fact that information is increasingly being centralized may make sense from the viewpoint of efficiency of the law enforcement agencies, but makes it more vulnerable to leakages and abuse. Thus, I am not sure whether or not this massive information sharing between agencies is a positive trend or not.
- Jessica N. Siah
It is a very hard problem to solve, isn't it? On one hand, as you pointed out, terrorism is a global threat that gives federal authorities a cause to endorse information sharing in an effort to prevent future attacks and "fight crime". Yet, in the wake of this surge for less privacy and more protection, I often wonder what we give up to try and secure our livelihood. Is it better to live a possibly shorter life with more privacy or a longer one with less privacy? I'm not so sure. I just think we expose ourselves to so many risks when we entrust our personal security to bureaus that purposefully exclude us from what their secret intelligence activities. - Chelsea Goddard
ReplyDelete