Workshop 4 Report: Everyday Security - New Social Media ...media4sec.eu/downloads/d2-6.pdf · MEDI@4SEC The Emerging Role of New Social Media in Enhancing Public Security Grant Agreement

MEDI@4SECTheEmergingRoleofNewSocialMediainEnhancingPublicSecurityGrantAgreementno700281

Workshop4Report:

EverydaySecurityDeliverable2.6

EuropeanForumforUrbanSecurity(EFUS)

Co-funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union


VersionControlSheet

Title Workshop4Report:EverydaySecurity

PreparedBy PilarDeLaTorre

ApprovedBy RobRowlands

VersionNumber MEDIA4SEC-D2-6-FEB18-E1-Workshop4EvDaySec

Contact [email protected]

RevisionHistory:

Version Date SummaryofChanges Initials ChangesMarked

1.0 20/2/2018 SubmittedVersion RR

Author:PilarDeLaTorre

Withcontributionfrom:MarijnRijken,MyassaDjebara,KlaudiaTani,EvaKyriakou,JonCoaffee,RobRowlands,CarmenCastro,RianneDekker,SebastianDenef,JordieDiego,KatHadjimatheou,ManolisKermitsis,JolandaModic,WilmaRooney,TomSorell,MarcSteen,PetraVermeulen,AnžeŽitnik,RubénFernández.

TheresearchleadingtotheseresultshasreceivedfundingfromtheEuropeanUnion’sHorizon2020ResearchandInnovationProgramme,underGrantAgreementno700281.


ContentsExecutiveSummary..................................................................................................................................................i

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 MEDI@4SEC............................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Work Package 2: Implementation: Improved Dialogue, Collaboration andPractices....................................................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Deliverable#.#.......................................................................................................................................2

2. WorkshopObjectives,SetupandMethod..........................................................................................3

2.1 EverydaySecurityWorkshop.........................................................................................................3

2.2 Workshopthemes................................................................................................................................5

2.3 Method.......................................................................................................................................................6

2.4 Sideevents...............................................................................................................................................9

3. EverydaySecurity........................................................................................................................................11

3.1 Definition...............................................................................................................................................11

3.2 TheuseofsocialmediainEverydaySecurity–Definingsomecommonactivities 11

3.3 Opportunities,challenges,legalandethicalconsiderations.......................................12

4. Stakeholderanalysisfromtheworkshop.......................................................................................14

4.1 IdentifyingStakeholdersinEverydaysecurity..................................................................14

5. SWOTAnalysis..............................................................................................................................................20

5.1 Theme:Communication&EngagementActivities............................................................20

5.2 Theme:MonitoringActivities......................................................................................................24

5.3 Theme:EnforcementActivities..................................................................................................28

6. RelevantMethods,Procedures,practices,andRecommendations...................................33

7. Practicesanalysis.........................................................................................................................................35

8. Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................................37

References.................................................................................................................................................................39

Appendix1 WorkshopAgenda...................................................................................................................40

Appendix2 ParticipantList..........................................................................................................................42

Appendix3 WorkshopEvaluation............................................................................................................44


i

Executive Summary

ThisdocumentprovidesresultsfromtheworkshoponEverydaySecurity:socialmediausestoenhancepublicsecurity,heldonNovember14,2017inBarcelona,SpainasapartoftheEuropeanresearchprojectMEDI@4SEC.Theworkshopbroughttogether62peoplefrom 15 countries across various sectors including local authorities’ representatives,academicresearch,industry,socialmediabusinessandotherauthorities,aswellaslawenforcementagencies,todiscusstheusesofsocialmediaasatoolorinformationresourceduringthedailyactivitiesofallsecurityproviders.

AlthoughthefieldofworkisfairlywidespreadwhentalkingaboutEverydaySecurity,theworkshopfocusedon3maintopics,specifically:

Communication&Engagement:socialmediausetoincreaseengagement,reputation,transparencyandlegitimacyandtocommunicateandinteractdirectlywithcitizens.

Monitoring: social media use in preventing unrest and flagging suspicious situations(intelligence) andas a tool to analyse a largenumber of open data to improve crimepredictionandprevention.

Enforcement: Social media information used by the police to track down criminaloffenders.SocialMediaasapotentiallylargesourceofinformationforLEAs.

Basedon16discussiongroups,theauthorshavederivedaSWOTanalysis,descriptionofstakeholders and their potential roles in public security, as well as a list ofrecommendationsto improve theuseofsocialmediain thedailyactivitiesofsecurityactors.

Morespecifically,thisdocumentcomprisesadetaileddescriptionoftheworkshopanditsmethodology(Section2),anintroductiontothetopicofEverydaySecurity(Section3),andthefollowinganalyses:

i. SWOTanalysisforusingsocialmediabefore,oneverydaysecurityactivities,foreachtheme(Section4);

ii. Analysis of the stakeholders involved in each theme with their roles andresponsibilities(Section5);

iii. Analysisofrelevantmethods,procedures,practices,andrecommendationsthatcanhelpsetoutaroadmaptoimprovetheuseofsocialmediaineverydaysecurity(Section5).

The document ends by presenting the main conclusions taken from analysis of thediscussionsheldduringtheworkshoponthethreethemesdiscussed(Communication-Engagement,MonitoringandEnforcement).Some important transversal topics, stakesandneedswereuncovered.Theneedforcommonknowledgeandsharedguidelinesatthe European level; training for all actors; cooperation and coproduction werehighlighted.Therecognitionofsocialmediacompanies’vitalrolewasalsoafruitfulareafordiscussion.Finally,ethicsand legal issueswerealsoa topicofconcern inorder toimprovetheexistingframework.


1

1. Introduction

1.1 MEDI@4SEC

MEDI@4SECfocusesuponenhancingunderstandingoftheopportunities,challengesandethicalconsiderationofsocialmediauseforpublicsecurity:thegood,thebadandtheugly. The good comprises using social media for problem solving, fighting crime,decreasing fear of crime and increasing the quality of life. The bad is the increase ofdigitisedcriminalityand terrorismwithnewphenomenaemerging throughtheuseofsocialmedia.Theuglycomprisesthegreyareaswheretrolling,cyberbullying,threats,orlive video-sharing of tactical security operations are phenomena to deal with duringincidents.Makinguseofthepossibilitiesthatsocialmediaoffer,includingsmart‘work-arounds’iskey,whilerespectingprivacy,legislation,andethics.Thischangingsituationraisesaseriesofchallengesandpossibilitiesforpublicsecurityplanners.MEDI@4SECwill explore this through a series of communication anddissemination activities thatengageextensivelywitharangeof end-users tobetterunderstandtheusageofsocialmediaforsecurityactivities.MEDI@4SECwillseekabetterunderstandingofhowsocialmedia can, and how social media cannot be used for public security purposes andhighlight ethical, legal and data-protection-related issues and implications. Activitiescentre around six relevant themes: DIY Policing; Everyday security; Riots and massgatherings:Thedarkweb;Trolling;andInnovativemarketsolutions.MEDI@4SECwillfeedinto,supportandinfluencechangesinpolicy-makingandpolicyimplementationinpublic security that can be used by end-users to improve their decision making. Bystructuring our understanding of the impact of social media on public securityapproaches in a user-friendly way MEDI@4SEC will provide an evidence-base androadmapforbetterpolicymakingincluding:bestpracticereports;acatalogueofsocialmedia technologies; recommendations for EU standards; future training options; and,ethicalawarenessraising.

1.2 Work Package 2: Implementation: Improved Dialogue, Collaboration and Practices

Followingtheresultsofthefirstworkpackage,whichfocusedonprovidingastate-of-the-artoverviewandidentifyingbestpractices,thesecondworkpackageintheMEDI@4SECproject aims to identify opportunities and challenges in social media use, analyseavailable technologiesandtheneed forstandards,distributing theabove findingsandengagingindiscussionwiththewiderpublicsecuritycommunity.

The core component of work package 2 is a series of policy and practice dialogueworkshops,oneoneachofthethemes,inordertoaddresskeyissuesrelatedtosocialmediauseforsecuritypurposes.

TheworkshoponEverydaySecuritywiththeuseofsocialmediathatwereportoninthisdocument is the fourth intheseries,markingyetanother importantmilestone for thegrowthof thecommunitycreatedbyMEDI@4SECin thesocialmedia field. Interestedpartiescan followtheproject’sactivitiesandregister forupcomingworkshopson the


2

project’s website at www.media4sec.eu, as well as in our LinkedIn group (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/12000103)

1.3 Deliverable 2.6

ThisdocumentprovidesresultsfromtheworkshoponEverydaySecurity:socialmediausestoenhancepublicsecurity,heldonNovember14,2017inBarcelona,SpainasapartoftheEuropeanresearchprojectMEDI@4SEC.Theworkshopbroughttogether62peoplefrom 15 countries across various sectors including local authorities’ representatives,academicresearch,industry,socialmediabusinessandotherauthorities,aswellaslawenforcementagencies,todiscusstheusesofsocialmediaasatoolorinformationresourceduringthedailyactivitiesofallsecurityproviders


3

2. Workshop Objectives, Setup and Method

2.1 Everyday Security Workshop

TheworkshoptookplaceonNovember14,2017 inBarcelona,Spain.TheprojectwasorganizedbyMEDI@4SEC’spartner,theEuropeanForumforUrbanSecurity(Efus),withthecollaborationoftheprojectconsortium.

Participationwaslimitedandinterestedpartieshadtoapplytotheworkshopbyfillinginand submitting an online application form on the MEDI@4SEC webpage. After thesubmissiondeadline,applicantswereselectedbasedontheirrelevancetothetopicandtheirbackground.Inaddition,genderandcountrycoveragewerealsofactoredintotheselectionprocess.

Intotal,62peopleparticipatedintheworkshop,ofwhich38wereexternal(notpartofthe MEDI@4SEC project consortium). Participants came from 16 countries (Austria,Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands,Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States ofAmerica)frombackgroundssuchaslocalandnationalpolice,socialmediabusinessandindustry,researchers,civilservantsandconsultantsfromboththeprivateandthepublicsector,pleaseseeAppendix2formoredetails.

COUNTRIES Participants COUNTRIES Participants

Austria 1 Italy 4

Belgium 5 Netherlands 8

Denmark 1 Portugal 1

Finland 1 Slovenia 3

France 5 Spain 13

Germany 3 Switzerland 1

Greece 4 UK 8

Ireland 3 USA 1

TOTAL 62

Table 2.1 Participants per country


4


5

2.2 Workshop themes

Theworkshopexaminedtheusesofsocialmediaineverydaysecurityactivities.Althoughthe field of work is fairly widespread when talking about Everyday Security 1 , theworkshopfocusedon3maintopics,specifically:

2.2.1 Communication & Engagement: AsmentionedintheReportontheCurrentStateoftheProject(MEDI@4SEC,2016),socialmedia is mostly used in order to increase engagement, reputation, transparency andlegitimacyandtocommunicateandinteractdirectlywithcitizens.Italsoallowstrustandconfidenceofcitizensinthepolicetoimprove,albeittoamorelimitedextent.Someotherpurposesthatsocialmediaareusedforincludeincreasingeffectivenessandlegitimacy,enhancing transparency (Global Advisory Committee, 2013) collaboration andcommunityparticipation(Meijer&Thaens,2013).

Socialmedia can stimulate community policing, by enabling all employees in apoliceorganizationtohavefastand(almost)autonomouslycontactwithcitizens(Liebermanetal.,2013;Meijer&Thaens,2013),ask for information fromcitizens,send informationinstantaneouslyto,andinteractwith,arangeofcivilsocietygroups,aswellasprovidingamonitoring function.Thanks tosocialmedia.Bettercommunicationcouldalsomean‘active citizenship’, which enhances effective community policing. In this situation,citizens can better assist with reducing crime and general disorder by providinginformation,andimprovesecuritystrategiesbysharingtheirideastosolvecommunityproblems(Liebermanetal.,2013).

DescribedintheintheReportontheCurrentStateoftheProject(MEDI@4SEC,2016),social media has served to increase accessibility of policing services for communitymembers. Two-way engagementwith the public is a tangible benefit of socialmedia,althoughthisisnotalwaysimplementedyet.Bystimulatingengagementbetweenpoliceandthecommunity,socialmediaaddslegitimacytomanypolicetasks.Socialmediaoffersa great opportunity to reach target groups who are traditionally hard to reach, e.g.youngstersandminorities (Meijeretal,2013)who feelmorecomfortableusingsocialmedia,orvulnerablegroupswhopreferanonymityintheirinteractionswithauthorities.

2.2.2 Monitoring: Monitoring entails social media uses in preventing unrest and signalling suspicioussituations(intelligence),andasatooltocollectandanalysealargequantityofopendatatoimprovecrimepredictionandprevention(MEDIA4SEC,2016).

LEAsareusingsocialmediaanalysisinanefforttostopcrimebeforeitstarts.Predictivepolicingisapartofintelligencethatisfocusedonwhatislikelytooccur.Byusingthistactic, police can identify a suspect's social network andmap how information flowsbetweenvariouspeople.Policecanusedatafromawidevarietyofsocialmediatotryto

1 As it was shown in the Report on the Current State of the Project (MEDI@4SEC, 2016). In which all the activities identified during the research on the use of social media and everyday security were examined in detail. For a more in-depth look at the content please visit http://media4sec.eu/downloads/d1-1.pdf. For this report, a summarised version of the three themes selected for the workshop is mentioned


6

predictphenomena,suchaswheregunviolenceislikelytooccur,whereaserialburglarislikelytocommithisnextcrime,andwhichindividualsasuspectislikelytocontactforhelp.

This analysis canbe alsoused for other security actors rather thanpolice forces. Forexample,localauthoritiescanusesocialmediainformationtobetterunderstandcriminalphenomena,crimeperceptionanddevelopstrategies.Socialmediaandappsprovidenewtoolstocollectatremendousamountofdata,whichcanincludethecollectionofrelevantdataonsecurity andperceived security. Smartphone apps areparticularly interestingtools because they can usually attach geo-data to reports of incidents or to mapperceptions.

Indeed,evenifpredictivepolicingisgreatnewsforthefutureofsecurityandfreedom,italsocreatesthreatstoindividualfreedom.Onecanimaginethatdatacollectedforsecuritypurposes could also become a tool for undemocratic or unauthorised surveillance ofcitizens.

2.2.3 Enforcement: This theme focuses also on the potential uses of social media in solving crimes andtracking down criminal offenders, as well as what the implications are in terms ofprofessionalculturesandpracticesandtheethicalandlegalimpacts.

Socialmediainformationisusedbythepolicetotrackdownoffenders.Socialmediaisapotential source of information for police when criminals leave traces while usingit.Thereareplentyofexampleswheresocialmediahasprovedtobehelpfulinsolvingcrimes,andmanypolicedepartmentsusethemforinvestigations.Policefrequentlyvisitwebsitessuchasthoseonthedarkweb,sitesthatalloworpromotehatepropaganda,orforumsthatallowanti-socialbehaviourinordertogatherinformationandevidence.

2.3 Method

With the aim of thinking beyond the current situation and to plan for the future ofpolicing,theworkshop’sdesignwasbasedonthe5-Dmethod2(Define,Discover,Dream,Design and Develop) on the topic of Everyday Security, allowing for an interactiveexchangetobuildasenseofcommunity.Inthisway,participantsineightgroupsofsevenwereable todiscuss thevarious issuesaroundEverydaySecurity (three themeswereselected: 2 groups on Communication & engagement, 3 groups onmonitoring and 3groupsonenforcement).Overall,theworkshopprogrammeincluded:

1. Introductiontotheworkshop.2. IntroductiontotheMEDI@4SECProject3. Introductionofthetopic:Everydaysecurity4. Presentationsrelatedtovariousrealcasestudiesonthreethemesfromkeynote

speakersanddifferentstakeholders’perspectives5. FocusGroupdiscussionsessionsonthethreethemes

2 See http://www.cobacore.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/D6.8v2-Adoption-guideline.pdf for a detailed 5-D workshop manual and evaluation of this method.


7

6. Discussionincludingparticipants’testimonials7. Conclusionsandpresentationsofthematicsummaryresults

Initially, to set the tone and introduce the project and the workshop itself to theparticipants,aplenarysessionwasdesigned.Efus’ExecutiveDirectorpresentedtheroleofEfuswithintheproject,andhighlighteditsroleasanorganizationcomposedoflocalauthoritiesinEurope,andwhyin-depthknowledgeontheuseofsocialmediaasatoolorresourceindailyactivitiestopreservesecurityisalsoimportantatthelocalormunicipallevel.ProfessorJonCoaffeefromUniversityofWarwickthenintroducedtheMEDI@4SECprojectincludingitsaims,ongoingactivitiesandupcomingevents.

Later,inordertoprovideparticipantswithacomprehensiveoverviewoftheworkshop’smaintopics,apresentationontheusesofsocialmediaforsecuritypurposeswasmadebyaconsortium.representative.

Followingthatpresentation, inordertoprovideparticipantswiththinkingmaterialonthe range of the topics at hand, keynote speakers from various standpoints andbackgroundsgavepresentationsonanumberofrelevanttopics.Intotal,9presentationsweregiven:

1. Mossosd'Esquadra(regionalpoliceinCatalonia,Spain)presentedtheirexperienceofsocialmediacommunicationandanalysisduring the terroristattacks inCatalonia,withparticularfocusonthelargequantityoffakenews.


8

2. TheM7CitizenSecuritygrouppresentedanappdesignedtoinvolvemunicipalities,the police, the local private sector and citizens in local responses carried out tomaintainsecurity.

3. TheSoteriaproject consortiumpresented their FP7 researchproject,whosemainobjective is todevelopsoftware solutions to improve the situationalawarenessofLEAs,byusing techniquesappliedtosocialmedia for locatingandcommunicatingwithcitizens.

4. TheIDIAPresearchinstitutefromSwitzerlandshowedhowanalysisofsocialmediacanbeappliedtourbansecurityspecificallybyimprovingthepolicingofnightlife.

5. TheHaguepolicepresenteda real-time connectionplatformcalledBART, throughwhich citizens are encouraged to support police to maintain safety and securitywithintheirneighbourhood.

6. Facebookpresenteditsexperiencesupportinglawenforcementagenciesincasesofharassmentofwomen,pedo-pornography,missingchildrenandterrorism.

7. AProfessorfromtheUniversityofParis-EstMarnelaValléegaveapresentationonsocialmediadataandpredictivepolicing(“Thecaseofpredpol”)withasociologicalapproach.

8. London’s Metropolitan Police gave a presentation on how to create open sourceintelligenceandinvestigationcapabilitythroughsocialmedia.

9. KIVU,anAustriantechcompany,presenteditsanalyticalsoftwaretotackleterroristpropaganda & recruitment on social media, based on a network approach andtargetedanalysis,amoreeffectivewaytocollectsocialmediaintelligence.

The afternoon program was an open, interactive exchange of ideas concerning thequestion “How could LEAs and other security actors use social media to maintaineverydaysecurity?”.Thediscussionwasfocusedaroundthethreethemesselectedtobedevelopedduringtheworkshop(1)Communication&Engagement,(2)Monitoringand(3)Enforcement.Theworkshopsessionswereorganizedasfollows:

• Two sessions of 50 minutes were held on 8 different tables (2 tables forcommunication & engagement, 3 tables for Monitoring and 3 tables forEnforcement).

• Each table hosted 5 participants and 2 hosts/moderators from the projectconsortium.


9

• Eachparticipantwasassignedtoonetheme/tablepersessionbasedontheirareasofinterestdeclaredontheinitialapplication.

• Eachtable/themewentthroughtheDream,DesignandDevelopstepsofthe5-Dmethodthroughasetofquestions first regarding thecurrentrolesofallactorsinvolved,themethods,procedures,practices,regulationsandsocialmediatoolsusedtoday.Subsequently,participantswereaskedto‘dream’whattheidealfuturewould look like, taking into consideration the current situation and existingrestrictions aswell as the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats ofsocialmedia’scharacteristicsanditsuseforeachtheme.

Basedon16discussiongroups,aSWOTanalysis,descriptionofstakeholdersandtheirpotentialrolesinpublicsecuritywerederived,aswellasalistofrecommendations.

Afterthefocusgroupdiscussions,thesessionthatfollowedwasdedicatedtoQ&Aandallowedalltheparticipantstogatherandsharetheirideasandinsights.Akeypointraisedby theparticipantswas thenecessity to frequentlymeet andexchange ideasbetweenprofessionalsfromdifferentsectors.Also,theideaofthecreationofacommonculturecouldonlyexistthroughthatkindofevent.Eventually,aparticipantnotedthatnon-socialmedia-friendlyprofessionalsandmorehigh-levelrepresentativesshouldparticipateinsuchevents.

Theworkshop’slastsessionincludedthreepresentationsofthemostimportantpointsfromthefocusgroupdiscussionsoneachtheme.Thetablesdiscussedeachtopicamongthemselves,selectedthemostimportantpointarisingfromthediscussion,thenoneofthempresentedtotheparticipants.Theworkshop’sconclusionincludedasocialeventwhereparticipantshadtheopportunitytomixandincreasethechancesofnetworkingamongCommunitymembers.

2.4 Side events

Furthermore, the workshop was followed by the Efus international conference. TheMEDI@4SECprojectwasrepresentedduringthiseventthroughanopenworkshopontheuse of technologies for prevention. The three-hour workshop was divided into twosessions.Thefirstsessionfocusedontheuseofnewtechnologiestoimproveefficiencyinurbanmanagementandfostersafercities,andthesecondoneonthevulnerabilitiesandrisks of these new technologies for end users and city security providers. The mainconcernsresultingfromtheexchangebetweenthepanellistsandthepublicwere,lookingat themost important points:what opportunities are offered by new technologies interms of urban security and crime prevention? How do open data and social mediareshapepreventionpolicies?Isthereaneedtoguaranteeethicalusewhileensuringthesecurityofvirtualspaces?

More than 10 speakers from the Netherlands, UK, Spain, France, Germany and Italyrepresentinglocalauthorities,aswellas lawenforcementagencies,privatesectorandresearchparticipatedinthisworkshop.Around140participantsattended.Theworkshopwas co-led by MEDI@4SEC and members of the consortium were involved in thesesessions as helpers or speakers. The exchanges between speakers during these two


10

sessions,aswellasinsightsfromtheconsortium,contributedtothenewEfusmanifesto3,whichhasasectiondedicatedtotechnology.

Inordertowidelydisseminatetheproject,astandfortheprojectwasinstalledduringthethree-day conference to take advantage of the significant number of people whoparticipated. Efus and members of the consortium were at the stand to present theproject,offerinsightontheproject,publications,andanswerquestionsandconcerns.

3 Efus Manifesto political document on urban security which brings together all the values and principles that form the foundations of Efus’ and its members’ actions. It constitutes a continuation of the principles and recommendations of the Naples Manifesto (2000) and the Saragossa Manifesto (2006), Aubervilliers and Saint-Denis (2012), yet it also forms a future action plan for local authorities that can be followed during the years to come. The last version was presented on 17 November 2017 during the closing session of the international conference “Security, Democracy and Cities: coproducing urban security policies ”, organised by Efus

11

3. Everyday Security

The concept of Everyday Security has been described and challenged in [email protected],wepresentevidencecollectedfromthefirststageof the project based on the best practices and current state of the project as anintroductiontothetopicofeverydaysecurity.

3.1 Definition

Theconceptof“everydaysecurity”referstothedailymanagementofpublicsecuritywiththeaimofpreventingandrespondingtooffenceswhicharecommittedinpublicspacesandwhichthreatenthesecurity-actualorperceived-ofthecommunityinitsdailylife.The recentmassive increase in socialmedia use has drastically transformedpeople’scommunication and information habits, providing authorities with new sources forintelligence,investigations,crimepredictionandpreventionandwithnewplatformstocommunicateandinteractwithcitizens.

3.2 The use of social media in Everyday Security – Defining some common activities

Thefollowingpatterns,identifiedduringthefirststageoftheproject5,describetheuseofsocialmediaforEverydaysecurityactivities:

Analysingsocialmedia:socialmediacanhelpsolvecrimes.

Therefore,LEAsmonitorandanalysedataonsocialmediathatisrelevantforcriminalcases.Thispracticeissimilartosocialmediamonitoringandanalytics,butinthiscaseisspecifictoonecriminalinvestigation.

AnsweringCitizens:Citizenshavequestionsforlawenforcementagenciesbuttypicallydonotask,becauseitiscomplicatedtodoso.Therefore,LEAsanswercitizens’questionsin special (mostly chat) sessions and provide answers to frequently asked questionsonlineorthroughanapp.

CrimePrevention:Therefore,LEAsusesocialmediatoshareinformationtoexplaintocitizenshowtheycanimprovetheirownsafety.

EducatingCitizens:Peopledon’tknowtherisksofsocialmediatotheirsafety.Therefore,LEAsofferteaching,particularlytochildrenandparentsonhowtousetheinternetinaresponsibleway.

InformingCitizens:Manypoliceforcesprovideregularinformationtothepublicthroughtheir local and corporate socialmedia channels about crime, policing successes, dailypolicingexperiences,humanexperiencesandlocalevents.

4 For a more in-depth description please consult MEDI@4SEC D1.1 ‘Report on State of the Art Review’ 5 See ‘Worldwide Mapping of Best Practices and Lessons Learnt’ and MEDI@4SEC D1.3 ‘Ethics and Legal Issues Inventory” http://media4sec.eu/downloads/d1-2.pdf

12

Intake:People areused tousingsocialmedia to communicatewith eachother and tocontact and interactwithorganizations.Also, for reporting crime, crime tipsorotherrelevantinformation.

Therefore,LEAsusesocialmediachannelssuchasappsorTwitter(DM's)tohavepeoplesubmitinformationaboutincidentsorcrimes.

Intelligence:Socialmediacontainsalargeamountofdatathatmightberelevanttopublicsecurity.Therefore,LEAsusesocialmediatogatherintelligence.

Highvolumesofunstructureddataandtrafficaregeneratedfromvarioussocialmediasitesbefore,duringandafteraneventoranemergencyincidentperiod.

Therefore,LEAsusesoftwaretoolsfordataanalysisofunstructureddatawithmachinelearningthatletsyousearchandanalysetext,image,audio,andvideofromvirtuallyanysourceuncoveringtrends,patternsandrelationships.

Monitoring:Socialmediaprovidesasenseofwhatisgoingonforpublicsecurityplanners(before,duringorafterincidentsforexample).Therefore,LEAsmonitorsocialmediaonvarioussecuritytopics.

RefutingRumours:Onsocialmedia,especiallyduringcrises,rumoursspreadeasily.

Therefore,LEAsusesocialmediatorefuterumours,astheyhaveastrongvoiceinsocialmediathatcanbetreatedastrustworthy.

3.3 Opportunities, challenges, legal and ethical considerations6

Socialmediarepresentsanopportunitytolawenforcementagenciesandothersecurityproviderstoimprovethemanagementofdailysecurity.Theopportunitiesfortheuseofsocialmediaasa tool includedirectand fastcommunicationwith thepublic.Thiscancontributetobettercooperationbetweenpoliceandcitizens,theimprovementoftheirrelationshipandtomutualunderstanding.

Social media also offer opportunities as a source of information. For example,contributingtocriminalinvestigations,andanticipatingandpreventingcrimesthroughtheanalysisofdatacollectedontheseplatforms.Socialmediaasanintelligencesourcecanimprovethequalityandtimelinessofdecision-making.Opensourceintelligencecancontribute to understanding and learning about potentially violent groups activities,criminalbehaviour,andmore.

OneofthemainchallengesforLEAsandothersecurityprovidersusingsocialmediainpolicing istheadoptionof formalpoliciesandprocesseswithinagencies thatenableaunified,consistentapproachtomoderntechnologyusage.Theadventofsocialmediahascreatednewoffenceswithwhich thepoliceandothersecurityproviderssuchaslocalauthorities andmediators have to contendwith, new spaces for the police to visiblyenforcethelaw,andincreasedthenumberofoffences,creatingissueswithdiscretion,

6 See MEDI@4SEC (2016). Ethics and Legal Issues Inventory: Positive and Negative Societal Impacts of the Adoption of Social Media Across the Public Security Community Deliverable 1.3 http://media4sec.eu/downloads/d1-3.pdf

13

workloadandresources.Police forcesmustdevelopspecificcapacities forproperandeffectiveuseofsocialmediaandproducespecialisedtraining.

Asanewtechnologicaltoolusedindailysecuritymanagement,socialmediafacessomeethical, operational, and technological questions. Law enforcement agencieswill needclearanswerstothesequestionsinordertoensurethatcivilrightsareprotectedaslawenforcementmovesincreasinglyonline(Mateescu,2015),aswellastoensurethesuccessof itsuse.Withparticularregard to intelligence, investigationsandsurveillance,socialmediausemustcomplywithalegalframework.Thisframeworkmustprovideasound,publicly argued legal footing providing clarity and transparency over social mediaintelligenceuse,storage,motivation,regulationandaccountability(Barlett,etal.2013),inordertopreventthreatstousers’privacyandtopreventorultimatelyprotectthemfromunwantedexposure(Trottier,2012).

14

4. Stakeholder analysis from the workshop

Theaimhereistoprovideasummaryoftheworkreportedabove:

4.1 Identifying Stakeholders in Everyday security

Duringtheworkshopdiscussion,participantsidentifiedanumberofactorsinvolvedorthatshouldbeinvolvedineachoftheproposedtopics:

Communicationandengagement:

Role/responsibility

Police forces(National andlocallevel)

The police already use social media as a direct channel tocommunicate with the public. It is currently being used as aconstant and reassuring contact, sharing accurate informationanddispellingrumours.Itcanalsoallowcitizensandthepolicetoworktogethertomakesocietysafer.

In terms of communication and engagement LEAs, play animportantrole.Theyusesocialmediatokeepcitizensinformedinreal-timeaboutthesecuritysituationduringcrises,aswellasatnormaltimes.Theuseoftheseplatformsisnotonlyrestrictedtoinformingandinteractingwithcitizensthroughcreatingdirectchannels of communication (respond to their concerns,complaints, etc). Police forces also use social media to informpeopleabouttheiractivities(whichare theircompetencesandbelongtoanotherkindofpublicservice).

Communicationwith citizens is important in twoways. Policeforcesshouldbeabletorespondtocitizens.Policeshouldensurethat communication is based on mutual respect, trust, opencommunicationchannels,andtheprovisionofinformationthatisaccurateandrelevant.

Citizens Citizenshaveanactiveroleininformationsharing,contributing

totheworkofpoliceforces.Theirresponsibilityistoshareusefulinformationandeducatethemselvesabouttherightandwrongwaytousesocialmedia.

LocalAuthorities Local authorities mainly have the role of carrying out crimepreventionpoliciesusingsocialnetworks toeducateandbringcitizens’attentiontodifferentaspects.Forexample,preventionofdrugandalcoholconsumption,tipstoavoidbecomingavictimofurbancrime,whattodoincaseofacrisisetc.

Education and stimulating debate on issues relating to onlinehateasameansofpromoting thepreventionofemotionaland

15

physical abuse are also important responsibilities of localauthorities.

Social MediaPlatforms

Social media companies are also responsible for educatingcitizens about the correct use of socialmedia, aswell as raiseawarenesstothethreatsthattheseplatformscanembody

Privatesecurity Privatesecurityservicesareincreasinglypresentinplacesthatwere previously exclusively for law enforcement (providingsecurityatlargeevents,includingassecurityguardsinshoppingcentresandotherpublicspaces).Theseactorshaveinformationthatcanbevaluabletothepoliceforces.Consequently,theirroleis to share information in real-time with the correspondingsecurityactorsthroughsocialnetworks.

Schools Schoolsplayanimportantroleintheeducationofyoungpeopleontheresponsibleuseofsocialnetworks,informingthemofthepotentialrisksanddangersfoundinthesenetworks.

Press Journalists and reportershave an important role toplaywhenfindingbreakingstoriesonline,andtheyhavetheresponsibilitytogotothepoliceforverificationthatthetheyareready,oratleasthavetakentherequiredmeasurestoconfirmordenyit.

Table 4.1 Stakeholders Communication and engagement

Monitoring: Role/responsibility

Polices forces(National andlocallevel)

The analysis of information is useful for different LEA activitieswhereanincidenthasnotnecessarilyoccurred,coveredunderthe“Monitoring” title. LEAs try to understand data in order toanticipate,predictandprevent:

- In terms of anticipation, LEAs use real-time social mediainformationtoanticipatepotentialdisturbancesthatmayoccurandprepare andmobilise their response in advance tomaintain thepeace.

LEAscanalsousesocialmediadatatounderstandsomephenomenaandtopredictfuturetrends,forexamplebyusingsocialmediato‘crowd-source’informationisanimportantwayofgainingvaluableintelligence.

-LEAsalsoidentify,collectandanalysedataandinformationfromsocialmediathatconcernsnationalsecurity(butnotonly)byusingsocial media. Through these analyses, LEAs can determinebehavioural patterns that couldmean a security risk. It is also a

16

source of real time information and an important element insecuritymanagement.

LEAs have a responsibility to use of SocialMedia formonitoringactivities mentioned above, bearing in mind confidentiality andconsentissuesandtheidentificationoftheboundarybetweenwhatispublicandwhatisprivate.Analystscollectinginformationmusthave a solid and a legitimate reason for resorting to intrusiveactions that violate some privacy issues and suchmethodsmustmeettheprincipleofproportionalityandnecessity.

Officersandstaffmembersresponsibleforsocialmediacampaignscanusethatknowledgetodevelopmoreeffectivecommunicationstrategies.

LocalAuthorities Local authorities (LA) also have a role to play, especially with

respect to crime prevention. LA use social media information tobettermanagecrimepreventionpolicyandtocommunicateabouttheirofflinesecuritystrategy.Also,socialmediaisanidealspacetodisseminatecounter-narrativesandalternativenarrativescreatedatthelocallevel,meaningtheyareadaptedtospecificsituations.

LA such as municipalities can also play an important role ineducatingcitizensinthecorrectuseofsocialmediaandverifyingtheoriginoftheinformationbeforedisseminatingit.

Inaddition,inthemanagementofsecurityatalocallevel,theroleof local authorities will include the designing of local securitypolicies for social media analysis. This means data mining andpredictive analytics – the statistical analysis or ‘mining’ ofunprecedentedlylarge(‘bigdata’)datasets,includingsocialmediaandother‘big’oropendatasets(suchascensusdata,crime,health,environmental and transport data), to find the dynamics,interactions,feedbackloopsandcausalconnectionsbetweenthem.Also,socialmediabigoropendatacanbeusedtodesignsecuritydiagnosisandaudits.

Privatecompanies(Social MediaPlatforms)

Socialmedia companiesalsoplay a role, especially in identifying,monitoringandcensoringcontentwhichcouldbeconsideredasaprotentionalriskintermsofsecurity(Terrorism,sexualabuse,childpornography…).

Academy(universities,researchinstitutes and

Scientists and researchers are responsible for developingknowledge, methods and tools based on the needs of securityprovidersandstimulatingcapacitybuilding.Aspecialroleisplayedbyexpertsabletotranslatetechnicalinformationintointelligence

17

innovationcentres)

that can be understood by security providers. Another role forexpertsistoassistwithethicalandlegalchallenges.

Industry(Developers)

Thesheeramountofdataproducedthroughsocialmediathatneedstobeanalysed,coupledwiththerapidspeedwithwhichdecisionsneed to bemade, requires computing capacity to select accuratedatasoitcanbequicklyfilteredandanalysed,andthentransformedinto practical intelligence. Industries have the responsibility toprovidesecurityactorswithmodelsandalgorithmstofacilitatedatacollection.

Nationalgovernments

National government have the important role of allocatingresources to technological development, supporting researchinstitutes to develop new technologies and encouraging public-private partnerships to facilitate transfer of knowledge.Governmentsalsohavetheresponsibilitytocomeupwithalegalandethicalframeworkthatcanmanageandclarifyeveryaspectofinformationtakenfromsocialmediaandusedforsecuritypurposes.

OpenSourceSocialMediaIntelligencewillbecomeanincreasinglyimportantsourceofintelligenceforthepolice.However,itrequiresaclearsetofguidelinesandregulationstoensureitisproportionateandbasedonbroadpublicconsent.

Table 4.2 Stakeholders Monitoring

Enforcement: Role/responsibility

Policeforces Law enforcement agencies continue to play a fundamentaloperationalrolewhenusingsocialmediaininvestigations.LEAsusesocialmediatosolvecrimesquicker.Policetakeevidencefromsocialmediaandalsouseittohelpfindmissing,endangeredordistressedpeople, identify criminals, identify criminal networks and identifywitnesses.

LEAs will also use social media to improve communication withcollegesandthecommunity.Itisimportanttoworkonfindingmorewaystoputapplications/platformswithineveryone'sreach.

Tocontinueobtainingvaluableinformationfromsocialmediausedinenforcementactivities,theadoptionofformalpoliciesandprocesseswithinagencieswillleadtoaunified,consistentapproachtomoderntechnologyusage. Personnelwill require the correct experience tomanagesocialmediaandtobecomemorefamiliarandcomfortableusingit.Theywillcontinuetofindrobustandcomprehensivewaystoincorporate emerging social media platforms into their dailyroutines,thusyieldingadditionalsuccesswheninterruptingcriminalactivity,closingcasesandultimatelysolvingcrimes.

18

Citizens Citizensplay an important rolebyproviding information topolice(pictures, videos andalso scenarios, hypotheses, or even completecasedossiers)andgivingconsenttodatacollection.

Citizenshavetheresponsibilitytoreportincidentsandatthesametimemakethemselvesawareoflegal/ethicalissuesandtakeanactiveroleinone'spersonalsecurity.

LocalAuthorities Theroleoflocalauthoritiesistostrengthenanddiversifytheiruseofnewtechnologyandinvestintrainingforlocalpoliceaswellasotherlocal services (mediators, support victims, social services, tourismproviders,etc)tomanagesocialmedia,andwiththeseactorsbeingcloser to citizens they can collect valuable information forinvestigations.

Localauthoritiesshouldincludesocialmediaanalysisaspartoflocalsecuritypoliciesandalsoconsultcitizensoverrulesforgatheringandanalysingsocialmediadata’asitdirectlyinvolvestheirpersonaldataandindividualfreedoms.

Privatecompanies(Social MediaPlatformProviders)

Socialmediaisanincreasinglyimportantpublicspacewherecrimecan be both committed and spotted. The role of social mediacompaniesistoprovideinformationtoLEAsincaseofemergenciesandtopreventillegalactivity.

Social-media companies use standard legalese to spell out theirpoliciesforgrantingaccesstoindividuals'onlineaccounts.

Inthefuturethereneedstobemoreinteractionwithsocialmediacompanies,toensurecommercialcompaniessharerequireddatawithLEAs.AstructuredapproachtoaninterfacebetweencommercialcompaniesandLEAsisrequired.

Judges andprosecutors

Specialized prosecutors should be put in place andwork towardsinternationalcoordinationandcommoninternationallegislation.

Legislationforsocialmediaoffenceswillneedtobereviewedinordertoprovideguidelinesthatwillensuredecisionmakingincaseswhensocialmediahasbeenused,forexample,asapieceofevidence.

Governments atnational andEuropeanlevel

GovernmentshavearoleindevelopingprocessesandprocedurestobeimplementedatEUlevel,whichdefineinternationalcoordinationand a common international legislation, as well as a EuropeanNetwork(LEAscooperate).

Table 4.3 Stakeholders Enforcement

Duringtheworkshop,participantsdiscussedtherolesandresponsibilitiesofthedifferentstakeholdersinvolvedineverydaysecurityactivitiesinthethreeselectedtopics.Policeforces, citizens, local authorities and social media are the most important actors.However,otherstakeholders,dependingontheday-to-daysecurityactivities,needtobeconsidered.

19

In terms of communication and engagement, on the one hand LEAs and other publicauthoritieshave themost importantrole.Theyshouldusesocialmedia to informandinteractwithcitizensinatimelymanner,althoughontheotherhandcitizenscanalsoplay a part by communicating and contributing to policing with reliable information.Workshopdiscussionsalsohighlightedtheroleofotherstakeholderssuchassocialmediacompanies,schoolsandlocalauthoritiesineducatingpeopleontheresponsibleuseoftheseplatforms.

Intheareaofmonitoringactivities-whosepurposeistoanalysesocialmediainformationtotryandunderstandbehaviourandanticipateandpreventcriminalacts-LEAsarethemostimportantstakeholder.Nevertheless,itisnecessarytoinvolveotheractorsforfullyeffectivemonitoringactivities.For instance,providingcompanies in the industrywithadequatetechnologycanfacilitatetheidentificationofdatatobeanalysedbyLEAs.Socialmedia companies also contribute to these activities by sharing information of highimportance.

Whentalkingaboutenforcementactivities,newactorscanintervenesuchasjudgesandprosecutors. The need for specialised and trained legal representatives was raised.Indeed, the actions and knowledge provided by prosecutors and judges is key to thesuccessofsuchprojects.

For all these daily activities to maintain security, the intervention of national andEuropeangovernmentsisnecessarytodefineclearframeworksintheuseofthesetools.Thismeans they can be responsibly integrated into the operationalwork of both thepoliceandotheractorsthatcontributetokeepingthepeace.

The cooperation and collaborationof the actorsmentionedduring thediscussionsontheirspecificroleandresponsibilityisnecessaryfortheeffectiveuseofsocialnetworksineverydaysecurityactivities.

20

5. SWOT Analysis

Part of the discussion session was dedicated to identifying Strengths, Weaknesses,Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) for everyday security activities. The core idea ofSWOTistolookatanissuefromaninternalandanexternalperspective,understandinginternal strength andweaknesses, based on the organisations’ capacity (LEAs in thiscase), as well as external opportunities and strengths posed by the organisation’sbackground or environment. The goal then is then to benefit from strength andopportunitieswhilemitigatingweaknessesandthreats.

Below,wepresenttheSWOTanalysesontheuseofsocialmediaforeachofthethemesthatwereidentifiedduringtheworkshop.Theycameupatseveraloftheroundtables.Someoftheitemsdiscussedwerepartofalltopics,howevertheyhavebeenincludedinjustonetheme.

As different kinds of actors took part in this analysis, this is addressed to securityprovidersingeneralandnotjustLEAs.

5.1 Theme: Communication &Engagement Activities

STRENGTHS

Promoting collaboration between citizensandLEAs

Reaching people that are not normallyeasilyreachable

Informing citizens about the role of localpolice

Fastwaytoreachalotofpeople

Informing citizens with trustworthy realtimeinformation

PromotePrevention

Adapting language when engaging withcitizens

Dispellingrumours

Learnfrompeers

WEAKNESSES

Disruptionstocommunications

Difficulties adapting to rapid technologicalchanges

Lack of willingness to share informationthroughsocialmediaonsensitivetopics

Lack of human capacity to respond in realtime

Differentlevelsofexperienceinsocialmediause

Lackofwillingness

Riskofbadreputation

Socialmediareplacestraditionalpolicing

Lackoftraining

OPPORTUNITIES

Prevent crime by influencing people'sbehaviour

Betterreputationforpoliceamong(young)citizens

Co-producedsafety

THREATS

Negativecontentonsecurityproviders

Decreasingnumberofcitizensengaged

Digitaldivide

Increasingfeelingofinsecurity

21

Encourageinnovation

Gainingthecitizens’trust

Inform/communicate on the local crimepreventionstrategy

Simplificationofcomplexcrimepreventionmatters

5.1.1 Strengths 1. PromotingcollaborationbetweencitizensandLEAs:socialmediafacilitatestwo-way

communication,enablingLEAstoestablishclose,trustingrelationshipswithcitizens,increasingtheircontributiononsecurityissues.

2. Reaching people that are not normally easily reachable: demographic analysis ofsocialnetworkusersthatshowsyoungpeoplearelikelytousethesetoolsactively.

3. Informing citizens about the role of local police: Sometimes problematic relationsbetweenpoliceandcitizensareduetoalackofknowledgeonwhatthepoliceactuallydo.Throughsocialnetworks,citizenscanbeeducated in thisregard.Also,LEAdocommunicateanddisseminatetheiractivitiesintext,imageorvideoforexampleviaTwitter.

4. Fastwaytoreachalotofpeople:socialmediameansalargernumberofpeoplecanbereached, incaseofemergency theseplatformsarehelpfulto informcitizensonwhattodo.

5. Informingcitizenswithtrustworthyrealtimeinformation:socialmediacanbeusedtoinformcitizensrapidlyanddirectly.LEAsandothersecurityproviderscanreportsuccessfully and provide reassurance, to promote community activities anddeliveringstatements.

6. PromotePrevention: throughsocialmedia,LEAsandothersecurityactorssuchaslocal authorities can educate and empower citizens to protect themselves byproviding them with security tips and appeals for collaboration, listening andmonitoring.

7. Adapting language when engaging with citizens: LEAs should communicate usingcitizens’languagewhencommunicatingviasocialmedia.

8. Dispelling rumours:Theviral natureof socialmedia allowsexaggerated, fake andmaliciousinformationtospreadveryrapidly.Inresponse,securityprovidersmustusesocialmediatodispelrumours.

9. Learnfrompeers:Securityprovidersarewillingtosharetheirexperienceusingtheseplatforms. Many LEAs are already sharing their insights, enabling them to bettercoordinatewithotherdepartments.

5.1.2 Weaknesses 1. Disruptions to communications: social media can also disrupt regular forms of

communicationandengagementnormallyusedtoreachsecurityproviders.

22

2. Difficultiesadaptingtorapidtechnologicalchanges:technologicaladvancesinsocialnetworksarefasterthantheabilityofLEASandothersecurityproviderstointegratethese platforms into their daily social activities (e.g. LEAs start using certain SMplatformswhentheyarealready“outoffashion”).

3. Lackofwillingness to share information through socialmediaon sensitive topics:Informationdissemination throughsocialmediacouldbeavery touchysubjectassometopics,suchasradicalisation,areverysensitive.Thisexplainswhysomeseniormanagers or directors of LEAs and other public security organisations are veryreluctanttousethesetools.

4. Lack of human capacity to respond in real time: social media is becoming a realcommunicationchannel,butLEAsarenotcapableofrespondingtoallmessagesandcomplaints.Thiscanmeananadverseresultvis-à-viscitizens’confidence.

5. Different levelsofexperience insocialmediause: LEAs lack theproper toolsandknowledge for online collaboration. Digital devices are not standard equipment,whichhinderscooperationbetweendifferentpoliceforcesindifferentcountriesandeveninthesamecountrythereisdivisionbetweenthedifferentpoliceservices.

6. Lackofwillingness:especiallyatamanagementlevel,thereisalackofwillingnesstointegrate these tools intoeverydaysecurityactivities.The fearof theriskofusingthese technologies in policing is an obstacle to embracing opportunities that SMtechnologyoffers.Thereisscepticismonthepartofseniorofficersaboutthevalueofsocialmedia.

7. Riskofbadreputation:Socialmediahassignificantlyincreasedofficers’communityexposure. Police are often surrounded by cameras and amateur reporters whobroadcasteverythingtheyseeandtheiropinionofittoaworldwideaudience.

8. Socialmediareplacestraditionalpolicing:EventhoughsocialmediaisbecominganimportanttoolforLEAsandpublicsafetyagencies,embracingsocialmediadoesnotdevaluetraditionalpolicework.

9. Lackoftraining:ontheuseofsocialmediaandthebehaviourguidelinesonsocialmedia (theyhaveno instructionsor rules aboutwhat shouldbe sharedandwhatshouldnot).Someindividuals(LEAs)areusingsocialmediaintheirprofessionallivesinthesamewaytheyuseitintheirprivatelives.

5.1.3 Opportunities 1. Prevent crime by influencing people's behaviour: LEAs and local authorities in

particularcanusesocialmediatoeducateandraiseawareness.

2. Betterreputationforpoliceamong(young)citizens:socialmediacanhelppolicewithlegitimacyandreversetheimageof‘thepolicearen’tdoinganything’.

3. Co-producedsafety:socialmediacanfacilitateinclusionofalargenumberofdifferentactorsinpublicsecurity.All-communityinvolvementfromthepolice,socialsupportservices,charities,youthgroups,localchurches,parents’organizations,rehabilitationcentres and schools. There is great potential for the police to create and curatenetworksofcitizenscooperatingtokeeptheirsocietysafe.

23

4. Encourage innovation:The use of social networks is anopportunity forLEAs andothersecurityproviderstoinnovateregardingpolicing,integratingnewtechnologiesandpromotingtheparticipationofactorsotherthanjusticeandsecurity.

5. Gainingthecitizens’trust:localauthoritiesandLEAstobemoreapproachablesotheycangetclosertotheircitizens.Thisclosenessallowsfortheidentificationofprioritiesandanimprovedadaptationofservicestocitizens’needs.

6. Inform/communicateon the localcrimepreventionstrategy:Localauthoritiescanusesocialmediatoinformcitizensabouttheircrimepreventionstrategyonamoreregularbasis(suchasaboutitsimplementation)andofferbetterfollowupconcerninglocalactionsthathavebeenimplemented.

5.1.4 Threats 1. Negative content on security providers: malicious content posted by the general

publicorclumsycontentpostedbyLEAscancreateareputationcrisis.

2. Decreasing number of citizens engaged: citizensmay not use social media in thefuturedue toprivacy reasons. Citizensmighthave the feeling that they areundersurveillanceallthetime.

3. Digitaldivide:Difficultiesreachinggroupsofcitizenswhodon’tusesocialmedia.Forexample,seniorcitizens,whoarenormallyactiveingeneralsociallifecanbesetleftoutwhenusingtheseplatforms.

4. Consentof information:Citizensarenot informedwhenpolice interveneonsocialmedia.

5. Increasing feelingof insecurity: Continuously informing citizens about crimes andsuspectsviasocialmediacantriggerfeelingsofinsecurityinsociety.

6. Improvereportingbyvulnerablegroups:thankstoitsanonymity,socialmediacanfacilitatethereportingofhatecrime.

7. Simplificationof complex crimepreventionsmatters: Crimepreventionandurbansecurity are very complex issues that are transversal and involvemany differentactors. Social media uses simple and fast communication that could lead tomisinterpretation.

LEAs can engage with citizens well through social media. In this regard, it is veryimportant tocarryoutcomplete two-waycommunication,whichmeansansweringallquestions raised by citizens, using the same networks that they use and the kind oflanguagethatpeoplewillunderstand. LEAshavereachedvariouslevelsofmaturityinadoptingsocialmedia. Itwasstressed that there is adifferencebetween countries inwhichSocialMediaisonlyinthehandsoftheCommunicationdepartmentandcountrieswherelawenforcementofficersareinvolvedandhavetheirownaccounts.Thissecondway ofmanaging socialmedia seemsmore likely to achieve greater engagement, butposesachallengetosocialmediapoliciesandtraining.Thereisalsoadifferencebetweenusingsocialmediaforbroadcastingandsocialmediaforengagementpurposes.Several

24

best practices of engagement were discussed, for example social media quizzes andTindermatchingwithsuspects.

Socialmediaisanexcellenttooltobuildgoodrelationshipswithcitizens.Themainaimmustbetoreducecrime.Onthispoint,itisveryimportanttoengage,educate,andinformpeople in order to prevent crime. Also, monitoring social media can strengthen thepolice’sinformationandcanhelpbuildagoodrelationshipwithcitizens.Besides,LEAsmust take care about theway inwhich they communicate because they can provokefeelingsofinsecurity,forinstancebysendingtoomanymessagesrelatedtocrime.

5.2 Theme: Monitoring Activities

STRENGTHS

New source of information/ improveddata

Innovationonthemethodsusedbypolicewhencollectingintelligence

Moretwo-way/targetedinformation

Developmentofnewjobs

Improvelegalstatementsandprocedures

WEAKNESSES

Lack of collaboration with social mediacompanies

Lackofeffectivenessevaluation

Lackoffundsforacquiringtechnology

Lackof knowledge andexperienceusingsocialmedia

Lack of certified and approvedapplicationsforLEAsandcitizens

Barriers between legal frameworks andtechnology

Stigmatisation of urban areas and/orgroupsofpopulation

OPPORTUNITIES

Crowd-sourcedintelligence

Influencethedecision-makingprocess

Increasingknowledge

Anticipation

Costreduction

Possibility to improve privacy on socialmedia

Enrichcriminalbehaviouralresearch

Sharingbestpractices

Improvingcrimepreventionpolicies

Coordinationbetweenpolicedepartments

THREATS

Hackingrisk

Competitionwithotheractors

Lackofstoragepolicy

Violationofprivacy

The lack of legal clarity over the use ofSOCMINT

Lackoforganisationalprocessestomakefullandproperuseofinformation

Stigmatisation of specific individuals orgroups

Presenceofinternationalplatforms

25

EUprojects

Improve information collection methodsinlocalsecurityaudits

Automatic judgingof algorithmsusedbyFacebook or other platforms could beproblematic

Socialmediadataisbecomingabusiness

ThelackofEU-widelegislation

ObstaclesofDataProtectionLegislation

PrivatePower

APIaccessrestrictiontoLEAs

5.2.1 Strengths 1. Newsourceofinformation/improveddata:LEAsandsecurityprovidershavefounda

newsourceofintelligencewithdifferentsocialmediaplatforms.Byusinganalyticstools,theycanhelpthepolicetoidentifyemergingevents,piecetogethernetworksandgroups,discernpublicbehaviourandpromotesocialawareness.

2. Innovation on themethods used by police when collecting intelligence: LEAs canmodernize/improve/diversifytheirmethodstocollect,storeandanalysedata.Socialmedia’spossibleusescancontributetounderstandingandlearningaboutpotentiallyviolentgroupactivities,criminalbehaviour,disorder,communitytensionandmore.

3. Moretwo-way/targetedinformation:directcontactwithcitizensenablesLEAstogetbetterinformationduringincidents.

4. Developmentof new jobs: new specialised teams fordoingmoreopen source andonlineinvestigationarespringingupinvariousLEAs,mostlybeinggoodatmanagingofficers’expectationandatensuringthatonlyinformationthatisnecessaryissought.This isgoodboth forprivacyand forpolicebecause itdoesn’toverload themwithdata.

5. Improve legal statements and procedures: The scheme used by the LondonMetropolitan police could be improved. Their actions must follow P L A N:Proportionate,Legal,Accountable,Necessary.

6. Increasingcyberbullyingandhatespeech:duetotheanonymityandtheprincipleofnon-censorshiponsomesocialnetworks,SMcontributestoincreasingcyberbullyingandhatespeech.

5.2.2 Weaknesses 1. Lack of collaboration with social media companies: social media policies are

sometimesnotintunewiththeneedsofLEAs.ItisdifficulttoimprovecooperationandcollaborationwhenthecompaniesarewaryaboutbeingtooclosetoLEAs.

2. Lackofeffectivenessevaluation:inexistentmethodsandtechniquestoevaluatetheeffectivenessofSMuse incollecting,classifyingandenlistingdatathatareappliedacrosstheforces.

26

3. Lack of funds for acquiring technology: the industry has developed software,applications, algorithms, etc. to facilitate the effective analysis of the masses ofinformationonsocialnetworkstowhichLEAsdonothaveaccesstoduetolackoffunds.

4. Lackofknowledgeandexperienceusingsocialmedia:notallLEAsandothersecurityprovidersareawareofsocialmediatechnology,notallofthemhavethebackground,knowledgeandexperiencetousesocialmedia.Lackoftrainedsecurityprofessionals:insufficientlyequippedtogatherintelligencewithsocialmedia.

5. Lack of certified and approved applications for LEAs and citizens: apps that arecertifiedandapprovedto allow safeandethical sharingof information couldhelpmonitoringactivities.Citizenscould,legitimately,besuspiciousabouthowtheirdatawillbeusedwheninthehandsofprivatecompanies.

6. Barriers between legal frameworks and technology: Law makers are not alwaysawareoftechnologyandthespeedatwhichitchanges.

7. Stigmatisation of urban areas and/or population groups: If the information aboutcrimeisconcentratedonthesamegroupsofpeopleorsameurbanareas,thesecouldbe stigmatised as “dangerous and unsafe “with negative impacts in terms ofreputation“.

5.2.3 Opportunities 1. Crowd-sourcedintelligence:newopportunitiestocrowd-sourceintelligence.Several

sporadicsuccesseshavedemonstratedtheabilityofcrowd-sourcingtooffereffectivecontributionstointelligencewhendirectlysolicited.

2. Influencethedecision-makingprocess:SOCMINTIntelligencecanimprovethequalityandtimelinessofdecision-makingagainstorganisedcrimeandterrorism.

3. Increasing knowledge: socialmedia can contribute to understanding and learningabout potentially violent group activities, criminal behaviour, signs of disorder,communitytensionandmore.

4. Anticipation:There is anopportunity forLEAs andother securityproviders tobemoreproactiveandlessreactive,analysingdataandpredictingcrime.

5. Costreduction:Toolsforautomationwillhelpreducelabourcostsforanalysis,whicharecurrentlytoohigh.

6. Socialmediacompaniesinvestinginsecuringtheirplatformsandtheirusers:socialmediacompaniesareinvestinginimprovedidentification/biometricstechtobetterprotectindividualsfromnefariousphotoshopping.ThiscanbeusefulforhelpingLEAstoidentifycriminals.

7. Possibility to improve privacy on social media: Privacy features incorporated bycompaniesareattheclient’srequest.Becauseofthecost,smallcompaniesarenotable to develop them. Raising awareness in policing procurement or buyingdepartments,andperhapsintroducingsomestandardisation,wouldimproveprivacybydesign(PbD)technologycompliance.

27

8. Enrich criminal behavioural research: social media analysis can enrich criminalsciencewithnewparameters/indicatorstoidentifycriminalbehaviours.

9. Sharing best practices: Platforms can facilitate communication and interactionbetweendifferentstakeholdersfromvarioussectors(police,academics,researchers,practitioners,),enablingthemtoexchangeknowledge,experiencesandbestpracticesusedintheirorganizations.

10. Improving crime prevention policies: Local authorities can use information fromsocialmediatoenhancetheirregularsourceofinformation.ThisdatawillhelpLAtoidentifyprioritiesandimplementmoreaccurateprogrammesbasedonlocalneeds.

11. Coordinationbetweenpolicedepartments:Bettercoordinationbetweenintelligenceandoperationsandexecutivelevels.

12. EU projects: Participation of LEAs in more EU-relevant projects will contributesignificantly to a change in attitude and mentality, bringing new ideas into theirorganizationsandfacilitatingtheresolutionofChangeManagementissues.

13. Improveinformationcollectionmethodsinlocalsecurityaudits:Socialmediaareanopportunityforlocalauthoritiestothecollectextrainformationforthelocalsecurityaudits.

5.2.4 Threats

1. Hacking risk:Risk that criminalsmighthack into these infrastructures andaccesscriminalintelligencewasaconcern.

2. Competitionwithotheractors:LEAscannotcompetewithprivatesecuritycompanieswhenhiringthebestgraduateswithatechbackground.Additionally,outsourcingofintelligence to commercial companies and ‘black-boxed’ tools reduces theaccountabilityofLEAs.

3. Lackof storagepolicy: socialmediaproduces a very large volumeofdata, so it isnecessarytoincludeastoragepolicyforbothintelligenceandevidence.Socialmediainformationthatiscollectedbutnotusedforintelligenceoron-goinginvestigationpurposesshouldbediscardedsafelyandquickly.

4. Violation ofprivacy: collection of socialmedia users’ data can be consideredas aviolationofprivacy.Theincreasinguseofsoftwaretocollectandanalyseinformationcreates additional risk of misuse. Public attitudes towards data ownership andprivacy(evenonopenplatforms)canchangequickly,andthereisareputationalriskiflawenforcementagenciesareseentobewatchingpeopleonline.

5. ThelackoflegalclarityovertheuseofSOCMINT:Governmentscanbeconfrontedbylegal and reputational issues when using social media for intelligence. SomeorganizationsarelaunchingaseriesofFreedomofInformationrequestsaboutLEAs’useofsocialmediaanalysis.

6. Lackoforganisationalprocessestomakefullandproperuseofinformation:peoplewithbadintentionscanalsomonitorothers,sowhomonitorsthemonitors?

7. Stigmatisationofspecificindividualsorgroups:socialmediasurveillanceofspecificgroupscanleadtoover-criminalizationofyouth,particularlyminorities.

28

8. Presence of international platforms: Platforms from China, Russia (WeChat,Telegram,VKontakte)orothercountriesmaybecomebiggerintheEuropeanUnion.Itposesachallengeiftheyexpandinthefuture(issueswhentryingtoaskfordata,dataleaks…)

9. Automatic judging of algorithms used by Facebook or other platforms could beproblematic:humansareleftoutoftheequation.

10. Socialmediadataisbecomingabusiness:socialmediacompaniesasownersofdatamayselltheirdatatothehighestbidder.DataisgivingmoreandmorepowertosocialmediacompaniesandtheLEAs’surveillancepowersarelimitedincomparison.SocialmediacouldsubstituteLEAswheninvestigatingcrime.

11. ThelackofEU-widelegislation:givingLEAsequalaccesstosocialmediadataisanobstaclethatreflectsthefactthatlawscontinuetolagbehindandbeoutofstepwithpractice.Currently,requestsforaccesstoserversandsoforthundergoaslow,lengthyprocessandthisisahindrancetoefficientlawenforcementactiontotacklecrime.

12. ObstaclesofDataProtectionLegislation:Overlyrestrictivedataprotectionlegislationis a real barrier to open source police work in certain countries. It preventsorganisationssharingvitalinformation.

13. Private Power: increasingly centralised information in the hands of privatecompanies.Also,privatecompanieshavemoreadvancedtools,butusingthemposesacontroversialissueregardingtrust.

14. APIaccessrestrictiontoLEAs:APIs(ApplicationProgrammingInterface)fromsocialmediaareinmanycasesrestrictedforLEAs.Theseapplicationshelppoliceofficersidentifyandmonitorprotestersbasedontheirpublicsocialmediaposts.

Thisdiscussion reflects the influenceof asignificantdegreeof uncertainty abouthoweffectivemonitoring activities currently are andwhat theprospects are for its futuredevelopment. The robustness of social media monitoring (and other intelligencegathering)infrastructuresmeansthepossibilitythatcriminalsmighthackintothemandaccess criminal intelligence. LEAs will need to implement very thorough securityprotectionmeasuresandensureinfrastructuresareproperlymaintained(e.g.don’tusesoftwarethatisout-of-dateandnolongersupported).Commentsthatdidseemtoreflecta consensus view included the lack of training, tools and support from more seniormembersoftheorganisation.

5.3 Theme: Enforcement Activities

STRENGTHS

1. Findpartners2. Rapidincidentidentification3. Faster,moreeffectiveandmore

flexibleemergencyresponse4. CitizensaidingLEAs5. Newevidence6. Newpolicefunction7. Sharingpractices

WEAKNESSES

1. LackofEuropeantoolsandproceduresatEUlevel

2. Lackoftechnicalskillsamongpoliceofficers

3. Resourcelimitations4. Newrisks5. Problemofjurisdiction6. Lackoftraining

29

8. NetworkingbetweenEuropeanPoliceForcesandlocalauthorities

9. Locationinreal-time

OPPORTUNITIES

1. WorkingwithSMcompanies2. BetterengagementwithInternet

ServiceProviders(ISPs)3. Collaborationwithjusticeactors4. Collaborationwithotherpublic-

sectororganizations5. Collaborationwiththeprivate

sector6. Collaboratinginternationally7. Policingbyconsent8. GeneralDataProtection

Regulation(GDPR)9. Community-orientedpolicing10. DevelopanSMstrategy11. Citizenengagement12. Collaborationwithjournalists13. DevelopEuropeanlegislation

THREATS

1. LackofclarityaroundLEAspracticesonSM

2. Infringingontherighttoprivacy3. FakeNews4. Legitimatereasonsforonline

anonymity5. Lackofformalexchange

mechanismswithSMcompanies6. Technologyisnotdesignedfor

therequirementsofLEAs

5.3.1 Strengths 1. Findpartners:Withtherightpartnership,officialscangainthesupporttheyneedto

evolvequicklyandusethebenefitsthatareavailabletothem.

2. Rapidincidentidentification:Socialmediatrafficanalysiscouldallowforamorerapididentificationofeventsthantraditionalreportingmechanisms.

3. Faster,moreeffectiveandmoreflexibleemergencyresponse:Withtheapplicationofgeo-location techniques this could lead, for example, to a constantly evolvingmapshowingspikesinpossibleviolence-relatedtweets.

4. Citizens aiding LEAs: Citizens provide LEAs with information about terrorism,organisedcrimeormissingpeople,amongothers.Additionally,citizenscanprovidemunicipality services if they have been victims of an civil issue (noise, garbageproblems,lackofstreetlights,etc.)

5. New evidence: Social media offers a new source of evidence for prosecution andenforcement.Posts,videosandphotosthatareuploadedtoSMbycriminalscanbeusedasvaluableevidenceofcriminalactivity.

6. Newpolicefunction:newunitwhichhasthemainresponsibilityoftrackingcriminalsonFacebook,Myspace,Twitterandothersocialmedia.

7. Sharingpractices:industrycansharebestpracticeswithLEAstoenhanceSMpolicing.

8. Networking between European Police Forces: Create a structure for cooperationbetweenpoliceandoutsideexpertise.

30

9. Locationinreal-time:abilitytoconnectsocialmediaactivitytolocation.Forexample,thereisGeofeedia,acompanythatoffersproductsusingthelocationdataofsocialmediaposts,whenavailable,andthenmapsthem.

5.3.2 Weaknesses 1. LackofEuropeantoolsandproceduresatEUlevel:itisnotclearhowdatashouldbe

sourced, or which authority is responsible. There is a lot of reluctance betweenMemberStatesforEuropeancooperation.

2. Lackoftechnicalskillsamongpoliceofficers:LEAsusuallydonothavethecorrectprofile todealwith thehugeamountof information thatsocialmediacanprovide(lackofbackgroundandtraininginsocialmediaandIT).

3. Resourcelimitations:SMhasincreasedthenumberofoffences,creatingissueswithworkloadandresources.Thepolicemayfindthemselvesunabletoinvestigateallthecasesreportedtothem,mainlyinternettrolling.

4. New risks: The amount of personal information posted on socialmedia increasesindividuals’risksuchaspersonaladdresses.

5. Problemofjurisdiction:whenacriminalusesSMinapolicedepartment’sjurisdiction,thecompanyoperatingtheplatformmaybebasedinanothercityorevenadifferentcountry. This makes it difficult to obtain records and also makes it difficult todetermine whose legal jurisdiction the content falls under. This can be moreproblematicifeverypieceofcontentcouldbesubjecttodifferentcountriesandtheirnationallawsaredifferent.

6. Lackoftraining:InterpretingbehavioronsocialmediaisadifficulttaskforLEAs,withmany inaccurate interpretations of social media data. Lack of training forunderstanding by investigators on what they are seeing online could lead to thecriminalizationofinnocentindividuals–particularlyminors.

5.3.3 Opportunities 1. WorkingwithSMcompanies:usingSMinformationasevidenceforsolvingcasescan

meanbetterengagementforLEAswithInternetServiceProviders.

2. Better engagementwith Internet ServiceProviders (ISPs): ISP companieswant toensure their users assume more responsibility by educating customers, buildinguseful filter systems, and encouraging more community policing of material andreportingofmaterialthatbreachestermsandconditions.ThereisanopportunityforLEAsandcompaniestoworktogethertosharefindings.

3. Collaborationwithjusticeactors:workingcloselywithjusticeactorscanhelpspeedupinvestigationsandconvictions.

4. Collaborationwithotherpublic-sectororganizations:localgovernmentsandpublic-sectororganizationscouldworkcloselywithpoliceservicestodealwithmatterstheyarebestplacedtoaddressthemselves.Thiscanhelppoliceservicesmonitorcriminalactivityanddevelopamoreresponsiveservice.Formalizedcooperationwithschools

31

andsocialservicesbysharinginformationaboutpeoplewhohavecommittedorarelikelytocommitacrime.

5. Collaborationwiththeprivatesector:Collaboratingwiththeprivatesectortoreducecrimeinareassuchascybercrimeandcorporatefraudisintheinterestofboththepoliceandtherelevantorganizationsconcerned.Infraudprevention,privatesectorcompaniesareoftenbetterplacedtoprotectthemselvesandgatherevidenceofcrimewhichcanbepassedontothepolice.

6. Collaborating internationally: Expanding collaboration from a national tointernationallevelcanprovideanewdynamicinfightingtoday’sborderlesscrime.

7. Policingby consent: consent is very important inorder tominimizeharm, and toensure that research subjects can make an informed and free decision on theirinvolvementinaninvestigation.

8. GeneralDataProtectionRegulation(GDPR):containedaDirectiveontheprocessingofpersonaldata forauthoritiesresponsible forpreventing, investigating,detectingandprosecuting crimes. It ensures thatpolice forces cando theirwork efficiently,usingtechnologicalmeanswhilepreservingthefundamentalrightsofcitizens7.

9. Community-orientedpolicingtoanewlevelbyprovidingquick,cheapandeasywaystogetimportantinformationouttofollowersandconcernedcitizens.

10. Developasocialmediastrategy:forLEAsandothersecurityactors,usingSMmeansthey have the opportunity to develop effective social media policies that balanceorganizationalneedsandfreespeech.

11. Citizen engagement: Improving communication between police and citizens(discussions among citizens and police about security issues, digital communitypolicing/onlinepatrol).

12. Collaboration with journalists: Journalistswho use the web for their first line ofresearch exchanging information with LEAs could be an interesting source ofinformation.

13. Develop European legislation: The law must take into account the current andupcoming changes to offer some tools and possibilities for public actors to leadeffectiveactivities.

14. Balance human/machine activity: Understanding what is the right balanceoperationallyandethicallybetweenhumanandalgorithm-drivendecision-making.

5.3.4 Threats: 1. Lack of clarity aroundLEAspractices on SM: creating fake profiles to further an

investigationcanbeconsideredasaviolationofpeople’sright.

2. Infringing on the right to privacy: serious concerns regarding the protection ofpersonaldata,righttoprivacyandfreedomofexpression.

3. FakeNews:publiclyprovidingfakeinformationthroughsocialmediacandisturbaninvestigationandcancausesocialpanic.

7 https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/subjects/police-directive_en

32

4. Legitimatereasonsforonlineanonymity:thepublicincreasinglyusestheinternetinanencryptedwayandmakesuseofthedarkweb,makingitdifficulttomonitorandenforceforpoliceforces.

5. Lack of formal exchangemechanismswith SM companies: there is no structuredinterfacewithbetweenthesocialmediaindustryandLEAs.

6. TechnologyisnotdesignedfortherequirementsofLEAs:toolsaretailoredbyprivatecompaniesandthereistoomuchdatainhandsoftheprivatesector.

Duringthediscussioningeneral,theparticipantsfeeltheyunderstoodwhattheycanandcannotdo regarding collecting information. However, it is not always clear how datashouldbesourcedandwhichauthorityisresponsible.Jurisdictionsarealsoabigissue,because there is a lot of reluctance between Member States regarding Europeancooperation.

As seen in the SWOT analysis, socialmedia pose new challenges to law enforcementagenciesaswellastootheractorsinvolvedintheco-productionofsecurity.Nevertheless,atthesametime,itoffersnumerousopportunitieswhichcanbeutilizedbyharnessingitforfurthercapacityimprovements.

33

6. Relevant Methods, Procedures, practices, and Recommendations

In this section we present the analysis of the various tools, methods, practices andorganisationalissuesthatlimitsecurityproviders’engagementwithsocialmediathatcancontributetothesettingoutofaroadmapforfutureimprovement.

Currentissues/limitations Futurerecommendations

Lackofexpertise Training for security providers on how tocommunicate using social platforms (what to andwhat not to communicate, not including personalinformation, using appropriate vocabulary andothercodesofconductforpersonaluse)

During operational task, produce specialisedtraining for intelligence analysts as well as forcriminalinvestigators.

Training might be necessary for judges,prosecutors,anddefenseattorneysforresponsibleuseofsocialmediadataincases.

Itisalsonecessarytotrainandraiseawarenesstoother public actors, such as mediators, socialservices,hospitals,prisonortrafficdataontheuseof this tool for security purposes, as they areimportantalliesforpoliceforces.

Weak security, dataprotectionandinfrastructure

LEAs need to implement security protectionmeasuresandensure infrastructuresareproperlymaintained.

Lack of formal legislation onthe use of social media forsecuritypurposes

Theexistinglegislationforsocialmedianeedstobereviewed inorder toprovide a clear ethical, legalandregulatoryframeworkthatallowsthepolicetousesocialmediainpolicing,ensuringthatthelawisnot being infringed upon or any rights are beingviolated.

The Right not to have your data analysed, or theright for it not to be collected could becomemanifest, blocking socialmedia companies or lawenforcementfromdoingthis(ascompaniesprotecttheir customers). It could be a fundamental rightnot to be able to monitor social media. “Serve &protect”couldhaveconsequences,suchastoblockaplatforminsomecountriesorletthemsimplypayfinesiftheydonotabidebythelaw.

34

Lackoftechnology Policeforcesandlocalauthoritiesshouldintegratetechnologies that enable police officers and otherrelevantsecurityactorstorespondmorequicklytocitizens, improving investigations and preventingcrime and other kind of problems that affect thefeelingofsecurity.

Lackofsocialmediaculture Thecreationofnewdepartmentswithspecializedskills and knowledge on priority tasks couldsupportspecialinvestigationandintelligenceunits.

Weak level of coordinationand collaboration with otheractors

Police forces need to reinforce cooperation,nationally and internationally, with other policeforces, justiceorganizations,publicsector,privatesector organizations, civil society organizations,and citizens in order to be more efficient atpreventingandfightingcrime.

Lackofa formalsocialmediapolicy

Thisisnecessarytoprovideinternalguidelinesthatwill ensure decisions are made with interimguidancehavingalreadybeensetout.

Very different levels ofmaturityinusingsocialmedia

Movingtoawiderrangeoftools,morebottomupuse by individual police officers, and frombroadcastingtomorereciprocalcommunication.

SMarebeingusedinpolicing,but there is no evaluation oftheireffectiveness

Evaluationoftheeffectivenessoftheusesofsocialmediaanalyticsforpolicing.

35

7. Practices analysis

Duringtheworkshopseveralexistingpracticeswerediscussed,[email protected](Stateof theArtReview)andclassified inD1.2(BestPractice)intopatterns,seeSection3.2.

Inthetablebelow,wepresenttheanalysisofthecurrentpracticesdiscussedoneverydaysocialmediasecurity,alongwiththeirlimitationsandproposesomerecommendationsthatcancontributetothecreationofaroadmapforfutureimprovement.

Currentissues/limitations Futurerecommendations

Current apps or socialnetworks that enablecooperation betweencitizensandLEAsaremainlyabout “cadre de vie” andkeeping the peace. Lack ofcooperation/collectiveintelligenceandtools in thefieldofinvestigation.

A social network where citizens would help LEAsidentifyandtrackdownwantedcriminalsormissingpersonsbysendinglocationswheretheywereseen.

Datacollectionisfocusedoncreating individual dataprofiles

Create patterns for generalization of profiles andbehaviour from individuals’ data that has beencollectedandprocessedinsteadofcreatingindividualdata profiles, which have social and legalimplications.

Lack of social media dataanalytics to make primaryand secondary preventionmoreaccurate

Developasystemthatcollectssocialmediadataandconnectswith victimsor first offenders, analyses itandprovideswarningsandadvicetoinvolvecitizensandpreventcrime.

Law enforcement platformforOpenSourceIntelligence(OSINT), is starting toworkwell

Inorder to improve theirperformance, itwouldbeusefultohaveatoolthatcollectsallOSINTdataintheworld (in all languages), filters and analyses it tomakeitrelevant,andprovidesthemwithautomatedevidencecollection.Onthismatter,itwouldbeusefultoworktowardsaninternationaldatabasestandardto share law enforcement’s social media data (forintelligence/investigations)withinEuropol/Interpol.

LEAsdonothavetheproperknowledge to deal with thehugeamountofinformation

To connect different platforms which can providethemwithdifferentkindsofknowledgeandthereforeimprovethequalityoftheinformation.Inthisregard,

36

that social media canprovide

the provided information should be treated and“cleaned”.

Different toolsdevelopedineverycountry

ImplementationofguidelinesatEuropeanlevelthatallowtheuseandanalysisoftheinformationofthedifferenttoolsdevelopedtobeintegrated.

LEAsdon’thavetherequiredknowledge to create theirowntool

Develop toolsaccording toLEAsneedswithproperandrelevanttraining.

Need of closer cooperationbetweenLEAs.

Set up tools at a European level to ensure betterintelligencegatheringandinteroperability.

Need to better coordinatewithotheractors

Adapting analytics for wider intelligence, orbroadening the scope of analytics — to includehospital, prison or traffic data — can offer richerintelligence. Sophisticated analytics techniques canquicklyprocessawide

variety and volume of data sources— from videocameras, sensors, and biometrics — and thusdramaticallytransformpolicing.

Lack of knowledge andawareness ofmunicipalitiesandlocalactors

Create a guidebook that highlights the threats andopportunitiesofsocialmediauseanddataanalyticswithbasicguidelines.

Need to better understandthe needs and feedback ofcitizens regarding socialmedia and apps created inordertoensuresafety

Develop local diagnoses on (1) citizens’ needs, (2)citizens uses and knowledge of technologies – e.g.senior (3) citizens’ trust in these apps (4) citizens’willtocooperatewithLEAsingeneral,andthroughtechappsinparticular

37

8. Conclusions

Actorsclearlyusesocialmedia forLEAs’communicationactivitiesthroughoutEurope.Nevertheless,forotheractivitiessuchasmonitoringorintelligence,whichmeansmoreoperational activities, there is no a standard or generalized knowledge on socialmediause.Moreover,inEuropetherearemanydifferencesbetweencountries,citiesorLEAunitsregardingtheiruseandknowledgeofsocialmedia.

Seniormanagersordirectorsof public orprivateorganizations– especially LEAsandgovernments - are not fully aware or at ease with social media stakes, threats oropportunities. It highlights theneed for trainingof allkindsof actors involved inpublicsecurity.However,therequirementsforeachtypearedifferent:seniormanagersshouldbeawareontheneedofnewdepartmentswithspecializedskillsandknowledgethatcouldsupportspecialinvestigationandintelligenceunits,agentsandpractitionersshouldbetrainedonmoreoperationalortechnicalinsights

Socialmediaplatformsembodynewthreatsorreinforceexistingweaknessesasanewpublicspace(hatespeech,extremistpropaganda…)theycanharmindividualsandsocietyasawholeverybadly.Totackletheseemergingthreatsandweakness,notjustLEAsaloneshouldworktomitigatetheserisks.Cooperationiskey:

Newsecurityactorsorprovidersappearedorwererevealedthroughmassivesocialmedia use. Indeed, socialmedia companies, industrial companies, local authorities orcitizenshaveanimportantroletoplayinsecurity-byholdingdata,poweringendusers’solutions,preventingsecurity threatsorvoicing theirconcerns. Sinceall theseactorshavedifferentrolesandknowledge,theirpartnershipiskeytoenhancepublicsecurityonaday-to-daybasis.Thispartnershipshouldbeorientatedtowardscoordinationofpublicsecuritytomakethemostofeachother’srolesandresponsibilitiesinsociety.

Social media companies are key actors in this procedure. It continually came upthroughouttheworkshopthattheircollaborationshouldcontributetoensuringsafetyforall. Indeed,socialmediacompaniescouldpursueand, inmanycountries, reinforcecollaboration with LEAs by sharing useful information in specific cases such as childsexual abuse, terrorism, suicide and organised crime among others. Social mediacooperation can be also extended to improving knowledge by sharing anonymisedinformation and trends with researchers. In general, it appears that social mediacompanies-eveniftheyarekeyactors-arenotverywellknownbythemoretraditionalsecurityactors.Also,buildingandreinforcingknowledge-sharingwiththisspecificactorisnecessaryconsideringthetremendousincreaseinthenumberandsizeofsocialmediacompaniesoverthepastfewyears.

Localandpublicauthoritiesintheirroleofpreventionorsocialmediacompaniesasdataholderscanplayapartineducatingpeopleonhowtousesocialmediaandinleadingpreventionactions.

Participantsalsohighlightedthecentralroleofdataitself.Forallsecurityproviders,datarepresentsanewtypeofevidence,newsourcesforsecuritydiagnosisandauditsand

38

effectiveandcrucialdataforresearcherstounderstandcriminality.Dataaccess,propertyandanalyticsisasubjectofconcernforeverysecurityprovider.

LEAsandothersecurityproviders’activitiesonsocialmediaraiseissuesonlegalandethicalframeworks.Therespectofindividualfreedoms,theneedforanonymityintheir use, mass data analysis, or the gap between an online activity and its area ofjurisdiction pose limitations. In addition, data protection and privacy should bereinforced as fundamental rights and procedures should be reviewed to effectivelyprotect citizens. There is also a need to formalize and homogenize legal frameworksthroughoutEuropetofacilitatecoordination.

39

References

BartlettJ.&Reynolds,L.(2015).Thestateoftheart2015aliteraturereviewofsocialmedia intelligencecapabilitiesforcounter-terrorism.London:Demos.

BartlettJ.,MillerC.(2013),@metpoliceukHowTwitterischangingmodernpolicingthecaseoftheWoolwichAftermath.London:Demos.

Denef, S.,Kaptein,N.,Bayerl, P. S.,&Ramirez, L. (2012).Bestpractice inpolice socialmedia adaptation. EU Project COMPOSITE. Retrieved at 09-14-2016 viahttp://bit.ly/2cXtYRh.

Lieberman,J.D.,Koetzle,D.,&Sakiyama,M.(2013).Policedepartments’useofFacebook:Patternsandpolicyissues.Policequarterly,1098611113495049.

Meijer,A.J.&Thaens,M.(2013).Socialmediastrategies:UnderstandingthedifferencesbetweenNorthAmericanpolicedepartments.GovernmentInformationQuarterly,30(4),343-350.

Mateescu,A.,Brunton,D.,Rosenblat,A.,Patton,D.,Gold,Z.&Boyd,D.(2015).SocialMediaSurveillanceandLawEnforcement.Data&CivilRights:Aneweraofpolicingandjustice.Retrievedat09-13-2016viahttp://bit.ly/2cBAPSN.

MEDI@4SEC(2016).ReportonStateoftheArtReviewDeliverableD1.1

MEDI@4SEC (2016). Worldwide Mapping of Best Practices and Lessons LearntDeliverableD1.2

MEDI@4SEC(2016).EthicsandLegal Issues Inventory:PositiveandNegativeSocietalImpacts of the Adoption of Social Media Across the Public Security CommunityDeliverable1.3

Trottier,D.(2014).Policeanduser-ledinvestigationsonsocialmedia.JLInf.&Sci.,23,75.

Trottier,D.(2015).Opensourceintelligence,socialmediaandlawenforcement:Visions,constraintsandcritiques.EuropeanJournalofCulturalStudies,18(4-5),530-547.

40

Appendix 1 Workshop Agenda

09.00-09.30Registration

09.30-10.00Welcome(PlenaryRoom)

Introductiontotheworkshop(ElizabethJohnston,ExecutiveDirector,Efus–FR)

MEDI@4SECproject(JonCoaffee,UniversityofWarwick–UK)

Everydaysecurityoverview(SebastianDenef,Fraunhofer–DE)

PracticalInformation(MyassaDjebara,Efus–FR)

10:00-10:40:Socialmediauseinsecurityactorscommunicationtasks(PlenaryRoom)

Mossos d'Esquadra: communication of the terrorist attacks in Catalonia (Jordi Peña,SocialmediaOfficer,Mossosd’Esquadra–ES)

M7CitizenSecurity:Localresponsetothecitizen'sglobalsecurityneeds(GemmaNavarroVallès&JoséAntonioGallegoDirectorEinsmerBusinessDesigner–ES)

SOTERIA:Ajourneyintotheuseofsocialmediaforurbansecuritypurposes(AlessandroZanasi,PresidentSecurityResearchandAdvisory–IT)

Citiesthroughthelensofsocialmedia:basicinsights(PhanThànhTrung,Researcher,IdiapResearchInstitute–CH)

10:40-10:50:Q&A

10:50-11:10Shortbreak(PlenaryRoom)

11:10–12:00Socialmediauseinpolicingtasks(PlenaryRoom)

WeareBART!(RichardVriesde,PolicetheHague–NL)

FacebookcollaborationwithcivilsocietytopreventIRLharm(SarahYanicostas,PublicPolicyFacebook–FR)

Predictive policing is a moral technology. The case of predpol (Bilel Benbouzouid,Sociologist,ProfessoratUniversityofParis-EstMarnelaVallée–FR)

Creating an Open Source Intelligence and Investigation Capability (Jonathan Oram,MetropolitanPoliceofLondon–UK)

Howtotackleterroristpropaganda&recruitingonsocialmedia-Anetworkapproach(DanielaKlimpfinger,Kivutechnologies–AT)

12:00–12:10:Q&A

12:10 – 13:10: Focus Group Discussions on themes: Communication & Engagement,Monitoring (Intelligence, prediction and prevention) and Enforcement Session 1(differentrooms)

13:10-14:30:LunchBreak(PlenaryRoom)

41

14:30 - 15:30: Focus Group Discussions on themes: Communication & Engagement,Monitoring (Intelligence, prediction and prevention) and Enforcement Session 2(differentrooms)

15:30-16:15:Generaltable/Hostsmeeting

16:15–17:00:ConclusionsofThemeSessions

17:00-17:40:Drinks-EndoftheWorkshop

42

Appendix 2 Participant List

Category Country Organization MEDI@4SECConsortium orexternaldelegate

1 Police/ENLETS Denmark PoliceofDenmark ExternalDelegate2 Police/ENLETS Greece HellenicPolice ExternalDelegate3 Police/ENLETS Finland PoliceofFinland ExternalDelegate4 Police/ENLETS Netherlands MinisterievanDefensi ExternalDelegate5 Police/ENLETS Netherlands DutchPolice ExternalDelegate6 Police/ENLETS Netherlands DutchPolice ExternalDelegate7 Police/ENLETS UK Metropolitan Police of

LondonExternalDelegate

8 Police/ENLETS Netherlands DutchPolice ExternalDelegate9 Police/ENLETS Italy GuardiadiFinanza ExternalDelegate10 Police/ENLETS Denmark PoliceofDenmark ExternalDelegate11 Police/ENLETS Greece HellenicPolice ExternalDelegate12 LocalPolice Spain PoliceZaragoza ExternalDelegate13 Municipality Portugal Setúbal Municipality

(Câmara Municipal deSetúbal)

ExternalDelegate

14 PrivateCompany Spain Einsner ExternalDelegate15 LocalPolice Italy Police Regione Emilia-

RomagnaExternalDelegate

16 University France Researcher UniversitéMarneLaVallée

ExternalDelegate

17 LocalPolice Greece HellenicPolice ExternalDelegate18 LocalPolice Germany Bayerisches

LandeskriminalamtExternalDelegate

19 LocalPolice Spain Municipal police ofTerrassa

ExternalDelegate

20 LocalGovernment Spain Ajuntament deL'Hospitalet

ExternalDelegate

21 Government Netherlands MinistryofSecurityandJustice

ExternalDelegate

22 RegionalGovernment Spain Generalitat deCatalunya - Gabinet deSeguretat

ExternalDelegate

23 RegionalGovernment Belgium Brussels Preventionand Securitydepartment

ExternalDelegate

24 Police UK CollegeofPolicing ExternalDelegate25 LocalPolice Germany PoliceofLowerSaxony ExternalDelegate26 LocalGovernment Netherlands CityofRotterdam ExternalDelegate27 Private International Atos ExternalDelegate28 RegionalPolice Spain PoliciadelaGeneralitat

-Mossosd'EsquadraExternalDelegate

29 RegionalPolice Spain General PoliceDirectorateSlovenia

ExternalDelegate

30 Government Netherlands MinistryofInterior ExternalDelegate31 LocalPolice Italy Local Police Dept. in

ParmaExternalDelegate

32 Private USA iThreat®CyberGroup ExternalDelegate33 Researchcenter Switzerland IDIAP ExternalDelegate34 LocalPolice Netherlands PolicetheHague ExternalDelegate

43

35 SocialMediaCompany International FACEBOOK ExternalDelegate36 Private Italy Zanasi&Partners ExternalDelegate37 Police Slovenia General Police

DirectorateSloveniaExternalDelegate

38 Private Spain Eisner ExternalDelegate39 other Spain ExternalDelegate40 Civil Society

OrganisationFrance Efus Consortium

41 Civil SocietyOrganisation

France Efus Consortium

42 Research Netherlands TNO Consortium43 Research Netherlands TNO Consortium44 Industry Belgium EOS Consortium45 University Netherlands UU Consortium46 LocalPolice Spain PolicedeValencia Consortium47 LocalPolice Spain PolicedeValencia Consortium48 LocalPolice Spain PolicedeValencia Consortium49 Industry Belgium EOS Consortium50 Research Germany FraunhoferIAO Consortium51 Research Greece KEMEA Consortium52 Research Greece KEMEA Consortium53 LocalPolice UK Police Services of

NorthernIrelandConsortium

54 LocalPolice UK Police Services ofNorthernIreland

Consortium

55 LocalPolice UK Police Services ofNorthernIreland

Consortium

56 Research Slovenia XLAB Consortium57 Research Slovenia XLAB Consortium58 University UK Warwick Consortium59 University UK Warwick Consortium60 University UK Warwick Consortium61 Civil Society

organisationFrance Efus Consortium

44

Appendix 3 Workshop Evaluation

All participantswereasked to complete an evaluationquestionnaireat the endof theevent.Anoverviewwiththeaveragescores(n=28)isprovidedbelow.

Theoverallratingoftheworkshop,onascaleof1(verypoor)to10(excellent)was8.5.In addition, the level of agreement was quite high for almost all critical parts of theworkshopassessment(5-Stronglyagree,1-Stronglydisagree)

Furthermore, participants expressed their great enthusiasm about the workshopprogramandorganization.Amongotherthings,delegatesappreciatedthequalityofthepresentations, the interactivity of the group discussions, and the diversity ofbackgrounds.Afewpracticalsuggestionsforimprovementwerealsogiven.Inaddition,theconsortiumhasbegunadebrieffollowingtheevent.Theinformationcollatedthroughthisexercisehasbeenusedintheplanningofthenextworkshop.

Documents

Workshop 4 Report: Everyday Security - New Social Media ...media4sec.eu/downloads/d2-6.pdf · MEDI@4SEC The Emerging Role of New Social Media in Enhancing Public Security Grant Agreement