Building trust between citizens and their governments

J. Rajamäki, J. Knuuttila, Harri Ruoslahti, Pasi Patama, J. Viitanen
{"title":"Building trust between citizens and their governments","authors":"J. Rajamäki, J. Knuuttila, Harri Ruoslahti, Pasi Patama, J. Viitanen","doi":"10.1109/CSCESM.2015.7331880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Law enforcement agencies (LEAs) constantly seek new technological recording, retrieving and monitoring solutions that would facilitate their combat against organized crime. For example, GPS sensors and systems benefit LEAs when tracking non-cooperative targets. However, the management of numerous electronic tracking devices within many simultaneous crime investigations has proven to be a demanding task for LEAs. Complications have spawned many lawsuits and negative publicity. These episodes have diminished citizens' trust in a constitutional state. It has been verified by means of participative observations that LEAs have a tendency to create two-level systems: some that work on the streets and others that are valid in the courts of justice, which create tensions between authorities. The importance of transparency is emphasized at all EU administrative levels. However, LEAs concentrate only on data acquisition rather than on making their operations transparent throughout. To protect the privacy of suspects, investigations and data acquisition cannot be made public. However, these operations could be so transparent that they enable criticism and control by citizens. To improve the processes of LEAs, the three main functions (crime investigation, chain-of-custody and monitoring-of-legality) should be considered together. Combining their now separate information systems will avoid the triple workload. It will also lead to additional benefits, such as transparency of surveillance and a new tool for achieving a balance between surveillance and privacy. The guidelines for this combining cannot be drawn from criminal justice and organizational imperatives alone, but from ever advancing technical imperative, too.","PeriodicalId":232149,"journal":{"name":"2015 Second International Conference on Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Social Media (CSCESM)","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2015 Second International Conference on Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Social Media (CSCESM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCESM.2015.7331880","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Law enforcement agencies (LEAs) constantly seek new technological recording, retrieving and monitoring solutions that would facilitate their combat against organized crime. For example, GPS sensors and systems benefit LEAs when tracking non-cooperative targets. However, the management of numerous electronic tracking devices within many simultaneous crime investigations has proven to be a demanding task for LEAs. Complications have spawned many lawsuits and negative publicity. These episodes have diminished citizens' trust in a constitutional state. It has been verified by means of participative observations that LEAs have a tendency to create two-level systems: some that work on the streets and others that are valid in the courts of justice, which create tensions between authorities. The importance of transparency is emphasized at all EU administrative levels. However, LEAs concentrate only on data acquisition rather than on making their operations transparent throughout. To protect the privacy of suspects, investigations and data acquisition cannot be made public. However, these operations could be so transparent that they enable criticism and control by citizens. To improve the processes of LEAs, the three main functions (crime investigation, chain-of-custody and monitoring-of-legality) should be considered together. Combining their now separate information systems will avoid the triple workload. It will also lead to additional benefits, such as transparency of surveillance and a new tool for achieving a balance between surveillance and privacy. The guidelines for this combining cannot be drawn from criminal justice and organizational imperatives alone, but from ever advancing technical imperative, too.
在公民和政府之间建立信任
执法机构不断寻求新的技术记录、检索和监测解决办法,以便利其打击有组织犯罪。例如,GPS传感器和系统在跟踪非合作目标时受益于LEAs。然而,在许多同时进行的犯罪调查中管理大量电子跟踪设备已被证明是LEAs的一项艰巨任务。复杂的情况引发了许多诉讼和负面宣传。这些事件削弱了公民对一个宪政国家的信任。参与性观察证实,地方自治当局倾向于建立两级制度:一些在街头发挥作用,另一些在法院有效,造成当局之间的紧张关系。透明度的重要性在欧盟所有行政层面都得到强调。然而,LEAs只注重数据获取,而不是使其操作始终透明。为了保护犯罪嫌疑人的隐私,调查和数据收集不能公开。然而,这些行动可能非常透明,使公民能够进行批评和控制。为了改进法律监督机构的程序,应同时考虑三个主要职能(犯罪调查、监管链和合法性监督)。将他们现在独立的信息系统结合起来将避免三倍的工作量。它还会带来额外的好处,比如监控的透明度,以及实现监控与隐私之间平衡的新工具。这种结合的指导方针不能仅仅从刑事司法和组织的必要性中得出,而且也要从不断进步的技术必要性中得出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信