Fusion center is an integrated system where information is shared with the US Department of homeland security and department of Justice. It's mandated in between 2003 and 2007. Their main aim is to facilitate sharing of information at the federal level along agencies that include Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), US Military, State and local government and department of justice. According to the 2009 records, there were seventy-two fusion centers functioning. Emergency operation centers are known to work for hand in hand with fusion centers in a case of disaster response. Fusion centers mainly involve the managing of information and intelligence flow in the different sectors and levels of government for analysis purposes. The purpose of the process is to detect threats of attack to the nation and improve the security status of the nation (Rollins, 2008).
After the occurrence of terrorist attacks in 2001 on the United States, congress expressed the importance of information sharing among states, tribal, local and federal authorities. It caused the questioning of the effectiveness and importance of fusion centers by government officials and scholars. According to them, there has been lots of spending towards gathering and analysis of intelligence yet productivity is not reflected. Despite the questionings by the government officials and the scholars, the fusion centers have been seen to prevent terror attacks and in hand saved lives of countless Americans. There also have been lack of large-scale attacks since 9/11 in the American soil due to the intelligence gathered in the fusion centers (Masse & Rollins, 2007).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
After the September 2001 terror attacks, the federal government then came up with many agencies that have helped in gathering and analyzing intelligence. During the planning of the attack by terrorists, they did not disguise any of their intentions and in fact used their real names in booking airline tickets. It was the responsibility of the Fusion center to gather intelligence to prevent the attacks.
Some pros and cons are identified with the Fusion centers. The advantages seen are reflected by the level of performance and effectiveness of the Fusion centers. Firstly, the fusion centers tend to facilitate the gathering of detailed information. Because the fusion centers are made up of various Federal agencies, information gathered is quite detailed. It has facilitated the ability to identify suspicious activities and personalities. Such detection will help prevent terror attacks for they are identified early in their planning process. Secondly, the ability to avoid terror attack using the fusion centers. In most cases when personalities are performing suspicious activities it is possible for the names to appear in the fusion centers. One of the federal agencies will spot them and immediately share the information with the other organizations facilitating alerts and prevention of an attack (Rollins, 2008).
Some cons are identified with the fusion centers. Firstly is the accumulation of information in bulk. There is a twenty-four-hour communication among people in the nation, and therefore there is a lot to be analyzed. Due to this fact it may be to pinpoint suspicious activities or personality. Secondly is lack of proper definition of suspicious activity or character. There is always the possibility of identifying some people as suspicious while in the real sense they may not be. The system may also overlook some aspects due to the terrorists finding ways of blending with the society. An example is those who participated in 9/11 attacks where they even used their real names in the booking of tickets. It made it hard for the fusion centers to detect suspicious activities (Masse & Rollins, 2007).
To improve the cons, there are some recommendations suggested. Firstly is a solution for the bulky information to be analyzed. It is advisable that a center has a way to filter information narrowing the number of data to be analyzed. Secondly is a solution for lack of proper definition of suspicious. The federal agencies tend to deal with federal laws of the nation. Therefore, it is advisable that suspicion is based on the federal laws (Masse & Rollins, 2007).
There are certain challenges faced by law enforcement related to intelligence gathering and use. Firstly is the resistance to the increasing of law enforcement powers and Secondly is information sharing. The law enforcement agencies have recently tried to expand the connections to the system by overcoming varied budgets. They tend to expand police power to facilitate prevention of crimes. Resistance has been experienced for expansion for they are people who fear the abuse that may accommodate such expansions. Accessibility of intelligence is critical in assisting the use of law enforcement. Digital database is one of the methods used to facilitate accessibility. Law Enforcement Enterprise Portal (LEEP) is one of the prominent systems. The system avails its users with access ability to the various database with one log-in (Skolnick, 2011).
Services hosted by the platform include systems such as special interest groups for sharing information from various agencies specific subjects or interest areas and national gang intelligence centers. Such systems have assisted in simplifying the search of information by law enforcement agencies. Despite the availability of such system being helpful, law enforcement tends to be victims of cyber intrusion or threats. The fact that database is a single sign-on, it gives officers the ability to access information and coordinate along the jurisdictions. Despite this, they also become prone to hackers who take advantage of the ease to access. It has led to the questioning of law enforcers on whether the interconnectivity is worth the risk to exposure of the investigations and safety systems (Bent, 1974).
Resistance faced by law enforcement intelligence mainly comes from the Americans public. They use platforms such as American Civil Liberties Union that counter every policy or law that is placed by the government to help improve intelligence collection. They argue that the new laws are breaching people’s right to privacy. The irony is that many will claim the failure of intelligence once crime occurs but will resist intelligence collection laws by enforcement. Currently, law enforcement can only investigate people who the agency has proof of threat or have committed a crime. It, therefore, means the law enforcement can only respond to crime and not prevent all crimes (Skolnick, 2011).
There are emerging intelligence methods in the current modern era. Information is power, and it is a key tool in any intelligence system. Instead of analysts searching for information, they have to go through volumes of the collected, data to identify relevance. To ensure accuracy, the intelligence community is urged to use software that is capable of going through the volumes of data and interconnects. Analysts are now using data mining to search the various database to identify anomalies and patterns in the information. In the event of a historical pattern, analysts can now carry out predictive analysis. Such patterns are critical in predicting and preventing crimes. It is applied to certain crimes such as serial murders. Data mining is also applied in determining relationships through, identifying patterns of convergences of targets and similarities. Through this analysts and officers then build the hierarchy models of criminal networks (Bent, 1974).
Criminal Intelligence analysis made up of two aspects that include operational and strategic analysis. The two require the same basic skills but differ regarding level of detail and the client to whom the products are designed. Operational analysis targets to attain certain outcomes of law enforcement. It includes forfeit of assets, arrest, freezing of money gained from criminal activities, seizure or criminal group disruption. Operational, analytical support is made up of various activities. They include identifying a connection between crime involvement, suspects, and criminal activity. There is also identification of information and investigative gaps. Preparation of profiles of a criminal suspect is also under operational analysis. Strategic analysis, on the other hand, intends to update those in a higher level as the decision maker, and their importance is identified over a long period (Innes, Fielding & Cope, 2005).
It aims to detect warning of threats quite early and assist senior decision maker to set priorities and preparation in dealing with criminal issues that emerge. It includes resource allocation to the various source of crime or increase of training to a specific technique of fighting crime. Strategic analysis involves identification of emerging threats, modus operandi, and impact of external factors such as economics, technology or demographics on criminal activities (Peterson, 1994).
The geospatial predictive analysis is critical to law enforcement and can be used to their advantage. It helps law enforcement establish areas that incidents which call for concern may occur and therefore increase response. The analysis is known to provide filters which are based on various characteristics found in data sets which in turn meet the filters. It also reduces the possibility of personal business which may affect the determination of where criminals will strike. In a situation where data mining establishes a pattern from information sets of crime the patterns are then made filters in the geospatial model system. The filters then present results that match the filters. An example of North Virginia shooting is presented where it was identified that the coast guard headquarters was among the returns. The shooter had been identified to strike three of Marine Corps and the pentagon in his initial attacks. Analysts could assume then next target as Marine Corps or a facility like Pentagon. However, the analysis settled on cost guard station because the geophysical characteristics matched him to his initial targets. Indeed the shooter ended up attacking the coast guard facility (Pearsall, 2010).
The geospatial predictive analysis mainly established certain characteristics found in the environment that would be preferred by the perpetrator even without their knowledge. Characteristics tend to be in large volumes in a way that analysts may not be able to identify without the help of geospatial model and data mining. In fact, just like data mining, it depends on the analyst use of representative data sets where they choose modeling algorithms that relate. The local law enforcement applies the use of geospatial analysis to map out the potential perpetrator of gangs and how they carry out their recruitment activities. Federal agencies like DEA use the geospatial analysis to map out the Mexican cartels as they carry out their activities such as crossing the border to carry out illegal trade of narcotics. The geospatial predictive analysis is seen to help reduce the number of officers in jurisdictions carrying out a patrol. It has assisted in identifying where crime is taking place, the perpetrators of the crime and probable time. Once they can predict, law enforcement will then place response teams who will intersect the illegal activities taking place. Currently the population is growing at a fast rate, and therefore emergency calls keep increasing. It has forced law enforcement to use current models such as data mining to identify those suspicious activities. Due to large volumes of data, the geospatial predictive analysis has assisted in filtering specific information (Pearsall, 2010).
It is critical for law enforcement agencies to report crime data. There are two methods use while carrying out reporting activities. They include; National Incident-Based Reporting System and Uniform Crime Reports. Uniform Crime Reports was mainly established by the International Association of Chiefs of Police where the program is used by law enforcement agencies. They voluntarily report information concerning crimes that take place in their jurisdiction to FBI. It aims to come up with reliable information that is comparable across law enforcement operations and management. On a monthly basis, agencies report the volume of crimes committed, crimes cleared and crimes reported to the FBI in their jurisdiction. There are two categories of crime which include crime against persons and crimes against property. Publication of the reports is done on the FBI website on a yearly basis. Part I and Part II are the types of crimes reported. Part I crimes are also denoted to as index crimes which are divided into two. They include; property and violent crimes. Violent crimes entail offenses such as; possible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes entail offenses such as; motor vehicle theft, burglary, and arson. Part II, on the other hand, include forgery, lottery and curfew offenses (Chilton & Jarvis, 1999).
The National incident-based reporting system is a report that is incident based used by law enforcement agencies. They use it in collecting and reporting data on crimes in the FBI jurisdiction. It is more detailed as compared to Uniform Crime Report. It is to help law enforcement agencies in the twenty-first century. Collected data is mainly composed of incidences and arrests that are found in the group A offenses category. Arrest information from the group B category is also included. Group A category is mainly made up of arson, bribery, assault, and burglary. Group B is made up of felonies such as disorderly conduct, run away and driving under the influence. Police departments that report to the FBI mainly use National Incident-Based Reporting System and uniform crime reports although sometimes it restricts comparing of nationwide statistics (Chilton & Jarvis, 1999).
The programs have been helpful to the law enforcement agencies. It has helped avail information on crime and how they were tackled. Once the information is available, the other agencies of law enforcement can use them as a reference point. It has also helped law enforcement come up with data concerning the number of certain crimes committed in a specific jurisdiction. Such data will assist with prediction therefore, law enforcement agencies can come up with strategies to identify perpetrators and reduce crime. Another advantage of the system is that there is specificity in reporting where law enforcement can gain well-detailed information about a certain crime in a specific jurisdiction (Perry, 2013).
As discussed, the system tends to divide the crimes into various categories. The categories simplify efforts made to identify them according to the jurisdictions. The systems have also assisted law enforcement agencies to work together in dealing with serious crimes such as drug trafficking and terrorism. It has helped identify certain perpetrators in creating awareness in their illegal activities while showing their territories. Due to the frequent update of reports, it assists law enforcement agencies in the various jurisdiction has access to the current data. Computer crime problem has also been identified by the system. National Incidence Reporting system has been made in a way that law enforcement agencies can find out whether a certain computer was used to commit a crime. It detects and identifies IP address used to commit offenses (Pearsall, 2010).
There are also dangers identified in the storing and obtaining of information in the system. As discussed earlier, volumes of information pertaining crimes are stored in the system. Therefore, any law enforcement agency can access. It possesses some point of vulnerability to hacking. Criminals can hack the systems, and they will be able to use the information to facilitate their criminal activities. Another aspect is the volumes of information that are found in the system. It makes it difficult to filter certain information by an analyst of law enforcement. Some of the reports found in the systems may not be accurate sometimes and therefore may be misleading to analysts. Because the systems are accessible by various law enforcement agencies, data may differ. Therefore, one may interpret the data differently and come up with the wrong conclusion. Such systems are seen to be helpful, but the availability and accessibility pose a great threat to the authenticity and security of information (McCollister, French, & Fang, 2010).
Despite the fact that the information is found easily, it means hackers or anyone with the approved log in may be able to access the information and use them for malicious intent. In the recent years, criminals have also evolved and have become smart in a way that they can blend even among law enforcement community. Such criminals then get access to such information and act as informants of fellow criminals on data collected about their activities. There are gangs such as the cartels who have evolved to the point that they can recruit people from the law enforcement agencies community. They, in turn, use them as informants who will give them information on agencies progress and also misinform the agencies to avoid destruction of their illegal activities. Such loopholes endanger the efficiency of the systems and expose it to those that it is supposed to entrap to reduce crime in the society (McCollister, French, & Fang, 2010).
In conclusion, safety is a critical aspect of any society, and it is through efficiency that such systems as Uniform Criminal Report and National Incidence Based Reporting System. It is advisable that law enforcement agencies reduce accessibility to the systems while also avoiding to affect the use by the various law enforcement agencies. Such can be achieved through strict analysis of every individual joining law enforcement agencies and constant monitoring of those in the agencies in case one is recruited to the criminal gangs. Monitoring will help close the loophole of gang members existing in the agencies, and therefore data collected on their activities will not be displayed or made available to their convenience. The technology used should also be of high-security clearance capacity where in a situation certain information is placed in the system, only those with clearance after serious vetting may understand its content. It will help prevent the hackers from accessing the information and in a situation where they do, it will be difficult to decode the information. Such measures should be taken to critical information such as those of plans of terror attack (Pearsall, 2010).
References
Bent, A. E. (1974). The politics of law enforcement: Conflict and power in urban communities . Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH).
Chilton, R., & Jarvis, J. (1999). Victims and offenders in two crime statistics programs: A comparison of the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 15 (2), 193-205.
Innes, M., Fielding, N., & Cope, N. (2005). ‘The Appliance of Science?’ The Theory and Practice of Crime Intelligence Analysis. British Journal of Criminology , 45 (1), 39-57.
Masse, T., & Rollins, J. (2007). A summary of fusion centers: Core issues and options for congress. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Perry, W. L. (2013). Predictive policing: The role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations . Rand Corporation.
McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., & Fang, H. (2010). The cost of crime to society: New crime-specific estimates for policy and program evaluation. Drug and alcohol dependence , 108 (1), 98-109.
Pearsall, B. (2010). Predictive policing: The future of law enforcement. National Institute of Justice Journal , 266 (1), 16-19.
Peterson, M. B. (1994). Applications in criminal analysis: A sourcebook (pp. 90-91). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Rollins, J. (2008, January). Fusion centers: Issues and options for Congress. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE.
Skolnick, J. H. (2011). Justice without trial: Law enforcement in democratic society . Quid pro books.
