When It’s Dangerous Not To “Get” GPS, RFID, and Why You Have an IT Department
‘Let’s track paedos with chip implants’ - top cop fails tech test
Shall we just believe in witchcraft while we’re about it?
By John Lettice
Published Sunday 16th July 2006 12:44 GMT
Britain’s most senior policeman has, according to a Sunday Times report, suggested that surgically implanted chips could be used in order to track the movements of paedophiles and dangerous sex offenders. “If we are prepared to track cars, why don’t we track people? You could put surgical chips into those of the most dangerous sex offenders who are willing to be controlled,” said Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Well Ken, where shall we begin? Should we explain that the chip you’re talking about would have around about the same capabilities as the RFID chip that’s going into ICAO standard passports? That this is the kind of technology you’re probably going to insist can only be read in close proximity to a reading device? That if you tried really hard (and we’re sure people will), you could read it at maybe 10, maybe 30 metres? That satellites are actually quite far away? Or that what GPS does is it tell a reading device on the ground where it is, which would only help paedophiles if they were lost - if it’s going to help you then you need to insert another bit of technology (A mobile phone maybe? Where would you stick that?) that would pass the location over to you…
In some ways I don’t even want to write this post. Yet another diatribe about folks who don’t get GPS. In itself, what’s the real problem if people don’t “get” GPS … it’s a geeky thing at best and everyone doesn’t “get” everything … witness me and Australian Rules football.
But here’s the point … what I don’t “get” can’t matter to the world much more than my little government pension and small business income ,,, I don’t even have kids to raise (and possibly screw up) any more. I can get just about everything wrong and the worst that could happen is maybe personal bankruptcy. But the chief of a huge and important police force … regarding important technology investments for his force? I think he is paid to and has a moral duty to “get” it a lot more than Chief Ken Jones does. (And let’s face it, anti-Imperial thoughts or not, dozens of other national police departments still look to the UK for guidance, this guy has a lot of influence.)
First of all I think I’ll do a brief editorial on focus. There will never be enough funding or enough policemen in any country to eliminate crime. We’d like to have the goal of making crime extinct, but it’s not going to happen. Therefore, one of the prime functions of any police leader is to set priorities. Focus on the crimes that are most critical to the country’s public safety. The “paedos” referred to are the UK version of pedophile.
Def: An adult whose primary sexual interest is in children; some professionals make a differentiation between a pedophile, whose sexual partner of choice is a prepubertal child, and a hebephile, who is aroused by adolescents.
Pedophilia or the much more common hebephilia are not crimes and have no bearing on a nation’s security. They are sexual preferences the same as homo and hetero sexuality.
Now adults acting upon hebe or pedophiliac urges become child molesters and thus proper subjects for police attention. There are also many child abusers who were not sexually involved with their victims.
Now do you think I am being too pedantic here? Well, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but tell me that you haven’t frequently wanted to exceed the speed limit while driving and I’ll tell you you’re a liar. The desire to do something illegal (and even very dangerous, like speeding) is an inherent right of humans, not a crime. Only the manifestation of such a desire is illegal. The role of police is to apprehend those who break the law, not mind control. You’ll not find enough money to control minds, chief; no matter how much parliament grants you.
Now is child molestation a serious crime? You better believe it is. Is it a worthy goal for police to detect and do their utmost to curtail child abuse and molestation? Indeed. I support that whole heartedly. Whether child molestation is the number one problem facing Britain, I don’t know. I’d frankly rather see more interest in capturing terrorist suicide bombers myself, but all heinous crimes need to be dealt with.
Tracking know child molesters is a worthy und useful police activity. It’s particularly useful in this dimension of crime because child molesters have a very high rate of recidivism, and it’s a well proven fact that close monitoring can possibly prevent future crimes. I think this is what the chief meant to say, but it would build a lot more confidence in me if he spoke correctly. You can “track” child molesters by forcing them to register their addresses in a database and to regularly check in with probation officers. That’s the way most political entitles track them today, and it has to be the basis for control and prevention. As an adjunct to this form of tracking, many US states and other nation’s police forces have been experimenting with GPS tracking of child molesters. Usually this takes the physical form of attaching a bracelet to the monitoree which contains a GPS receiver that calculates his or her position on the earth and then a cellular data modem that transmits that information to a monitoring center. Depending upon many factors of implementation, budget and enthusiasm for the system the results can be very gratifying. Use of such a system is a ‘force multiplier” for police and probationary personnel, because a single officer can monitor a large number of offenders/potential offenders.
RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) however is a horse of a very different color. In fact, it’s many, many different horses. In common with the entire breed, however, is the basic technique that involves placing or implanting some sort of tag on the items to be tracked, and recording each time this tag comes within range of a monitoring point.
This is a great technique to track cows from the farm where they were born through their production cycle and into the abattoir where they are turned into edible beef … or to track merchandise out the door of the manufacturer’s plant, into the Wal*Mart warehouse, and through the check stand when a consumer buys the product … if … and here’s the point, chief, there is a sensor at every point you want to track the item past, and if all of these sensors are connected to a monitoring point that “cares” that a given tag has passed. To envision this technology as a means to track the whereabouts of child molesters is indeed evidence of a complete misunderstanding of the technology and the task one is proposing the technology for.
As the Register write points out, the British police have a significant investment in IT and a dedicated IT department, whose job it is to envision, implement and operate IT systems. I’d strongly advise Chief Jones to get in touch with his own forces … on his present “shoot from the hip” strategy he’s just heading for more government waste and inefficiency and more importantly, doing nothing to curtail child abusers and molesters in the UK.