Local Police and Counter-terrorism in the future

Two weeks ago I, along with most commenters remarked on the excellent coordination of the federated law enforcement in Massachusetts.  I noticed raid jackets titled "Boston University Police" as well as "Diplomatic Security Service."  The National Guard was on the at the scene of the bombing within seconds, and provided proper logistic support during the manhunt.  

But that was the response AFTER the bombing.  5 years ago I wrote an article about local law enforcement BEFORE a bomb goes off.  Local Intelligence collection passed up the chain is as crucial as the feds passing information down.

What has changed in the last five years is that it is more possible than ever to do intelligence analysis from open sources, mainly online.  Anyone,... a local police department or a private security firm could collect all types of data and crunch numbers to help predict terrorism.  Tracing individuals, running regressions on arcane pieces of data, as well as the ability to do wiretapping in a hyper-connected world means that local police are able to do a better job in counter terrorism.  

This of course requires a national legal and administrative framework to handle in information from municipal police.

April 19th in Boston

Today was an extraordinary day for American law.  One terrorist was able to paralyze a million people in Boston when, exactly 238 years ago today, 4,000 British troops could not do the same in a much smaller city as the Revolution began. Today's implications for law and policy are profound-

Immigration- The Tsarnaev brothers were naturalized citizens who committed terrorist acts.  How we decide who can stay here, and who gets to be an American is a fuzzy issue.  At the very least, the Natural Law language of "rights" for immigrants will, by changing political winds, be replaced by the notion that every sovereign country gets to set to process for naturalization.

5th Amendment- There is a Public Safety Exception to the Miranda Rule being invoked based on national security threats. On CNN, Jeffrey Toobin made the point that Miranda Rights are about verbal statements being used against the defendant in court.  Here, there may be so much evidence that law enforcement/intelligence may want to start interrogation right away.

4th Amendment/Privacy- From the commercial Closed Circuit TV footage to the use of infrared scanners on a police helicopter for the ultimate arrest, our norms of "privacy" are changing how law enforcement can operate.  Just yesterday, the House voted on a related bill, CISPA, about telecom companies sharing cybersecurity information with law enforcement.

Arms-  Why handguns and not bombs?  Who decides, and is that decision a democratic or judicial one?  These suspects had guns and bombs and what people should be allowed to have is another topic voted on in Congress this week.

Federation- From the variety Federal agents working with the state police, all the way down to various campus police officers, the coordination was truly remarkable. The outpouring of support I see in social media from across the political and cultural spectrum is amazing.  This suggests a general sense of trust in government.

The arms and armor of law enforcement officers is much more menacing than a generation ago.  As stated above, legal adjectives like "reasonable," "expected privacy," and local "control" will adjust.

Lawfulness with Big Data

Do these analytics fairly present relevant facts that trigger a legal rule or response?  From the lawyer at the bar in an evidentiary motion, to an in-house counsel in the C-Suite, that's the question in this age of incomprehensible volumes of information. 

In cases such as white collar fraud, or a mass conspiracy racket, data about relationships and patterns will be presented for admissibility to judges who may not have taken statistics in college.   Lawyers need to know if all available information was calculated, and if the numbers were presented fairly. Once deemed admissible, data analytics needs to be presented to a lay jury for persuasion. Data Analysis for lawyers will no doubt become a cottage industry.

General Privacy (in addition to Fourth Amendment matters) will become an even hotter topic as the vast resources of the government (and corporations) begin to gather a picture of each of us, in a fair light or not.  As individuals we do not have to capacity to gather as much data, analyze it, or present it in a way to correct our reputations.

Lastly, the national security apparatus, including Congressional Committees and FISA courts, needs to take care not to allow parts of the government to overly monitor the daily lives of the people.  Undoubtedly, our frames of ethics and equity will shift with technical capability, but the law needs to be dynamic enough to only allow outcomes that society wants.