Body cams, smart guns and tracking darts: policing and the internet of things

Rather than always sending its squad cars in pursuit of suspects who might lead them on a chase through the city at dangerous speeds, the Austin, Texas, police department has instead been trying a novel, less risky alternative.

On almost 40 occasions over the past two years, officers have used a system attached to the front grill of some squad cars to launch a small projectile at a suspect’s vehicle. Tantamount to a lojack spitball, the small module attaches itself to the car in question and, voila, officers have a GPS signal they can use to track their suspect without needing to resort to a hazardous chase.

The Austin department began using the system, called StarChase, in 2013. The system, explains Austin police technology commander Ely Reyes, is one example of how the department is rolling out new connected technology solutions to not only support its work but to do so in a way that leads to safer outcomes.

“It’s sort of like one of those carnival rigs that you shoot to knock over a pin,” Reyes said. “The officer has a remote control, and when they believe they might be involved in a pursuit, they can use it to shoot this (module) that’s gooey and sticks to the back of a suspect’s vehicle.”

The benefit may be clear, but the technology also underscores a profound shift at work in law enforcement today, one with far-reaching implications for the public that aren’t necessarily fully realised yet – and, to privacy advocates, can even be a bit unsettling.

Driving the shift is the way that computing power is expanding, while sensors continue to shrink such that they can find their way into almost any device. As a result, the internet of things (IoT) phenomenon has given law enforcement agencies the tools to deploy a powerful new dragnet that lets them see and do more than ever.

Body cams and smart guns

Body cams are increasingly worn by cops whose departments are skittish about incidents like a repeat of the shooting and killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The just-passed one year anniversary of that shooting also comes amid a palpable sense of urgency and interest among departments such as Austin’s that see wisdom in deploying body cams on a wider scale – not as cure-all deterrents to officer-involved shootings, but more as a third-party set of eyes that could help provide verifications used to sort through a situation after the fact.

Indeed, there’s apparently something about knowing you’re being watched that changes things. The city of Rialto, California, released the findings from a study a few years ago, which found that the introduction of body cams on cops there in February 2012 led to complaints against officers dropping by almost 90% compared to the previous 12 months. Use of force by officers also dropped by 60%.

Along those same lines, a California-based company called Yardarm has developed a chip that, when fixed inside the handle of a gun, could bring a host of benefits to law enforcement agencies such as real-time event awareness. Data streams provided by the sensor include event-based location awareness and history, and dispatchers via the Yardarm tech can also be notified immediately when an officer unholsters and even discharges their weapon.

Unprecedented new abilities to watch and track citizens

The benefits of adopting the internet of things for fighting crime, law enforcement agencies argue, are clear. Less discussed, though, is how the technology comprises the ultimate in double-edged swords; these agencies’ abilities to protect us is growing in tandem with their unprecedented new abilities to watch and track us.

“You have to look at both sides,” says cyber security expert Charles Tendell, founder and chief executive of Azorian Cyber Security. “IoT technology can be used to help law enforcement. It can also be used to recognise the wrong person or implicate someone else in a crime. In fact, all wearable technology when in the hands of a government agency anywhere gives me pause, because we’ve seen how governments are using technology to make everyone a suspect. And with all the hacks in the last month or so – I know how hard hackers are actually working to break into these things, so that worries me.

“It seems like the more connected we’ve become, the less people seem to be thinking about security and the long-term implications of any of this technology.”

Nevertheless, the IoT device class is expanding at a fast clip and is more or less now firmly in the mainstream. Accenture’s 2014 State of the Internet of Things study found that almost 70% of consumers plan to buy an in-home IoT product by 2019.It probably shouldn’t come as a surprise then that law enforcement agencies are among the buyers.

Tendell can rattle off a list of use cases where IoT capabilities can simultaneously seem like both safeguards and intrusions. Where he lives in Denver, sensors are deployed in the city that help pinpoint the location of gunshots by capturing and triangulating the sound – technology that Tendell says is also capable of picking up conversations, which raises privacy considerations.

Tendell also points to increasingly popular internet-connected locks that open via face recognition. Many of them, he says, can still be tricked by merely showing them a photograph.

Technology outpaces our ability to answer the questions it poses

Lance Hayden, managing director of the Berkeley Research Group, thinks IoT from a law enforcement and public safety perspective illustrates a few of the macro trends at play in the industry as a whole. Among them, he says, the technology is quickly outpacing our ability to work out answers to all the questions it poses.

Hayden says IoT “is creating some blurred lines between what we’ve traditionally thought of as safety concerns (people and property), and security concerns (data and information). Recent reports of hackers taking control of automobiles, medical devices, and the like are making people more aware that a security flaw can “reach out” of the internet and affect them physically. That hasn’t happened on such a potentially mass scale before.

“When you factor in things like the police body cams and smart locks ... you start talking about other physical safety infrastructures that now take on a cyber dimension. If we can’t trust our own locks – as in, I can’t open one if I need to, or lock someone out in certain situations – and if first responder video footage can be tampered with or manipulated, there’s a potential to fundamentally alter our understanding of and relationship with physical safety.”

There have always been such concerns around cybersecurity, he notes, but it’s the mass consumer nature of IoT that implies they may now become the reality of people’s everyday lives “instead of plot devices in Hollywood thrillers”.

In the meantime, concerns about what IoT is enabling law enforcement to do remain little understood in some circles, and the subject of growing concern in others.

An online petition directed at the White House in the wake of the Ferguson shooting that sought a requirement for law enforcement personnel to wear body cameras attracted almost 155,000 signatures before an Obama administration official responded to it in September. White House adviser Roy Austin wrote on the White House petition site that body cams bring abundant benefits, including that officers and civilians act “in a more positive manner when they were aware that a camera was present,” as well as new opportunities for training and the certainty that interactions have been captured on video.

But they also raise plenty of questions, he said, such as – at what point should cameras be turned on? How long should video be maintained? What are the privacy implications of officers recording interactions with the public?

“We also know that cameras alone will not solve the problem where there is mistrust between police and communities,” Austin wrote. “As a nation, we must continue to address this lack of trust. Most Americans are law abiding and most law enforcement officers work hard day in and day out to protect and serve their communities. When there is trust between community and law enforcement agency, crimes are more easily solved. And when community members and officers know that they will be treated with fairness and respect, public safety is enhanced.”

Whether that sentiment is felt broadly, of course, arguably depends on how well law enforcement balances their new capabilities fueled by IoT with consideration of their impact on the public. Meanwhile, the scope and capabilities of the technology – whether it’s a sensor that picks up gunshots as well as voices or a module a cop shoots on to a suspect’s car – continues to grow.