The events that occurred on September 11 are the primary reason so many of us – the law enforcement and intelligence communities in particular – work so hard to enhance our security capabilities in preventing another attack.

As CEO of i2, I am always humbled by the commitment and dedication of our police officers, intelligence analysts and the men and women serving in uniform around the world.  Their sacrifices to make the world more secure never go unnoticed. I’m often asked if we’re safer today than we were on September 11. As a nation, we have come a long way in fixing some of the problems the 9/11 Commission highlighted in its report. For example:

• It is estimated that the amount of sensor level data has increased by as much as 1600 percent since 9/11.  At the same time, the capacity to capture and assimilate that data and make connections from non-obvious relationships has gotten much better.
• The notion of information sharing has migrated from an anomalistic approach to where it’s now the table stakes for any successful intelligence gathering endeavor.  Success has happened within agencies and has begun to take place across agencies and is beginning to take shape across borders.  It’s an evolutionary process.  Clearly, the OBL mission success on May 1 would not have been as seamless without information sharing.
• Part of what’s really helped is the umbrella of DHS which has enabled more sharing between ATF, Customs, Border Security and across to DoJ/FBI and the intelligence agencies.  At the state and local level, Joint Terrorism Task Forces and fusion centers, there are federal agents working off of state databases.
• Analysts have never been better trained.  The analysts of today grew up with technology.  As a result, they are able to take advantage of tools that analysts in earlier generations were not able to.  That along with the proliferation of data and data sources, and the need to assimilate all of it in one place to quickly create actionable intelligence has made the responsibility of the intelligence analyst role increase in responsibility and prominence.  Analysis – once perceived as a back room effort – has become central to intelligence operations.

As James Clapper, director of National Intelligence said recently in a Wall Street Journal op/ed, “We now collaborate on intelligence collection and analysis in ways that were unheard of 10 years ago. We’ve made significant progress in reducing the cultural, information technology and policy barriers to sharing information among agencies, and we continue to explore new strategies for integrating our intelligence efforts.”

So when people inevitably continue to ask my colleagues and me, “are we safer today?” I can undoubtedly say, yes. The strides the intelligence community has made – from technology advancements to the capture of key terrorists throughout the world – have been nothing short of remarkable – milestones for which we can be proud.

At the same time, there are still many challenges to face before information sharing becomes de riguer across local, state, national and international boundaries. To better understand and communicate these issues, i2 hosted an information sharing panel at its Americas User Conference earlier this month.

Panelists included Kathleen O’Toole, the Chief Inspector of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate in Ireland, who was previously the Boston, Mass., Police Commissioner. During her time in Boston, she was critical to the founding of the Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC), one of the nation’s first fusion centers. Deputy Chief Troy Smith of the Grand Junction Police Department in Colorado also offered up his expertise gleaned from his department’s organization  in getting Colorado to be one of the states that has successfully established information sharing state-wide. Tim Riley, a current i2 SVP and former CIO for the Los Angeles Police Department, played a large role in establishing information sharing agreements between the LAPD, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and Orange County.  Chriss Knisley, the i2 Assistant Vice President for the COPLINK product line was also in attendance to discuss the technological standpoint of information sharing. i2’s Director of Corporate Communications Mitch Derman moderated the session.

While discussing the solutions to the major pain points in information sharing, the panellists touched on one basic requirement at all levels: the critical need for collaboration. Whether it be between operations and analysts or the federal government and local police departments, it is imperative that the primary goal must be to create a safe environment for citizens and law enforcement officers alike. Deputy Chief Smith and Riley agreed that the inroads that have already been taken toward information sharing are light years ahead of where things used to be earlier in their careers.  However until collaboration and a willingness to share becomes the norm, there are still challenges to tackle.

Perhaps one of the most important aspects of collaboration is the need to build relationships.  Chief Inspector O’Toole heartily stressed the importance of uniting operational sworn police officers with the more traditional back-office analysts. Regardless of the environment in which they interact, it is important to train analysts and sworn officers to work together, ask the right questions, and understand the value of using analysis in investigations. She believes that the best way to solve this problem is to bring the two sides together. O’Toole expressed that,  “At the end of the day, it’s all about relationships and co-locating people to the greatest extent possible in some of these centers to work on different operations together… the more time analysts spend with operations people the stronger the relationship and the more valuable the relationship becomes. The BRIC was my pet project, and I spent a lot of time there, and walking through it, one wouldn’t know who was sworn and who wasn’t sworn because analysts were valued as much as the sworn personnel.”

Deputy Chief Smith also emphasized the importance of communication, particularly within and across communities and organizations, to combat the stigma against sharing private information. The recent tragic shootings in Arizona provided a prime example of small pieces of information located in disparate sources that prevented the experts  from being able to access all the puzzle pieces to see the broader picture.  Deputy Chief Smith recognized this as an ongoing issue and organized a forum in Grand Junction, Colo., with public and private organizations to discuss how they could combat such a complicated scenario.  By instigating a collaboration of various members of the community, it not only brought awareness to both law enforcement officials but others such as schools and health center officials who are normally unable or unwilling to share information. Already Grand Junction has seen  noticeable results from their forum. Deputy Chief Smith remarked that “we’ve had some people at a mental health hospital notice certain behaviors, and they were capable of sharing that information in a way that didn’t violate their agreements. Previously they may not have known to call or that we would have been interested in that information.”

Fear of widespread access to private information is one of the largest inhibitors against the adoption of information sharing. Fortunately, through the creation of extensive audit trails and security protocols, Riley and Knisley believe this can be overcome. Records exist for every attempted access to private information to know who is accessing it and what exactly they are looking at. Knisley added that, “In regards to the effective use of information, people are going to think a little bit more about accessing information system that they know is logged. People are not going to log in and search for someone they might get in trouble for later if they know their name is attached to it.”

Your insights are welcome on this important topic.

As the former CIO of the Los Angeles Police Department, I’ve had the privilege of being part of the security infrastructure for many large gatherings – the Academy Awards and the NBA Finals at Staples Center to name a few. The planning and coordination among many law enforcement agencies is critical to the success of securing any event of this scope.

The Texas fusion centers play a centralization function by coordinating all the intelligence about localized incidents and suspicious activities. Fusion Centers can coordinate all the various organizations that will be providing security and information. It’s critical to not only prepare for any scenario and have all the tools in place should something occur, but also ensure the safety of those in attendance. Sophisticated analytical tools that can make non-obvious relationships among a deluge of data bring tremendous value to the intelligence analysts who are monitoring for any potential threat and can be acted on if necessary.

Lt. Todd Thomasson of the Dallas Police Department puts it best in describing the Fusion Center as a resource that “will give us situational awareness if crowds are getting big, getting out of hand or if there’s a fight and we need to apply additional resources.”(1)

The Fusion Center will be looking at a variety of sources — confidential, public, open source, and more. My bet is that they will monitor and analyze any threats that may be coming in and reviewing security measures in place.

Consistent with the security operations infrastructure now common to all major sporting events, that being put in place leading up to Super Bowl is a massive, collaborative, behind-the-scenes undertaking involving dozens of law enforcement agencies and the most advanced intelligence technology. The planning began more than a year ago. Fusion Center analysts are in close cooperation with their colleagues at the Dallas Police Department, the Arlington Emergency Operations Center, as well as the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. Working together, they will play a pivotal role in sifting through copious amounts of data in monitoring for and taking action to deter potentially disruptive scenarios.

My prediction for the game itself …. one team will win.

(1) “Fusion Center gives Dallas officers bird’s eye views during Super Bowl,” WFAA.com, January 27, 2011.

The Tucson Police Department was our first COPLINK customer and the University of Arizona participated in the research and development of several key initiatives that helped advance COPLINK’s capabilities.  As a result, we have a close relationship with both the citizens and the law enforcement community.

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords represents our district in Tucson and many employees who are former law enforcement professionals themselves, and have worked with Judge John Roll and his staff through the years.  I’ve had the privilege to meet them both.

I am grateful for the collaboration between the Tucson Police Department, the Pima County Sheriff’s Office, the FBI, the ATF, and other local and federal agencies involved in the investigation.  I am confident their work will lead to an eventual prosecution.  We stand with our fellow citizens during this difficult time and are there to assist in any manner.

On behalf of i2, I extend my condolences to the families of those who lost loved ones in this horrific incident.  We wish Congresswoman Giffords and all those injured a full and quick recovery.

The article reads as if law enforcement agencies are now privy to entire new categories of information on citizens.  It seems like there is a deliberate assault on civil liberties.  In actuality, the only thing new is the speed and ease with which disparate pieces of potentially related data can be aggregated and fused.  Technology has enabled this to happen.  Simply put, law enforcement is more efficient.  This is not an issue of information access or gathering, but an issue of technology advancement and speed.

Case in point: the article describes how automatic license plate readers can lead to instant information at the fingertips of a cop on patrol.  But license plates are public information and police have always noted tag numbers.  At the same time, information linking the vehicle registrant to that plate number is available in a database.  And information on the vehicle registrant also resides in a database containing outstanding warrants.  All of this information has always been there.  With technology, police are now able to tie it all together instantly.  That’s effective and efficient law enforcement.  And the patrolman’s behavior is governed by strict requirements designed to protect civil liberties.  Cops, fusion center directors, and the FBI aren’t out to deprive citizens of their constitutional liberties.  They’re out to do their job – protecting citizens – which their bosses, policy makers, and communities all expect them to do well.   

Suspicious Activity Reporting can be considered in the same light.  SAR is another label for “tips” and “leads”.  As a concept there’s nothing really new about it.  Someone sees suspicious behavior and reports it to authorities (this happens all the time).  Sometimes the tip pans out and a crime is prevented.  And often the police have to contend with erroneous tips, false alarms and dead ends.  What has changed is the ease with which analysts and officers can discern fact from fiction.  Again, this is technology-enabled efficiency in law enforcement.  Relevant evidence is connected more easily, accurate leads are generated more quickly, and comprehensive information is funneled faster to the right analysts for further investigation. 

Law enforcement and intelligence personnel take an oath to support and defend the Constitution; this includes the protection of privacy and preservation of civil rights.  At the same time, these men and women are also entrusted with an obligation to protect American citizens – a job that increasingly involves complicated, multijurisdictional investigations and data-heavy analysis.  The ability to process the greatest amount of information and share it with the right people is critical to ensuring the pin-point accuracy that preserves the liberties of the innocent – and the protection of the public.

i2 Booth at IACP 2010

While some policy and process hurdles remain to make information sharing a larger reality nationwide, the technology exists today to make it happen. 

“Using this technology is what our community expects of us,” said Irvine, Calif., Police Chief Dave Maggard.  “If we have the technology available to keep communities safer and catch more criminals, that’s what our mandate should be as law enforcement personnel and it’s something we can all rally around.”

Chief Maggard participated in an i2-sponsored information sharing panel discussion at the recent International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) conference.  Irvine is a key partner in Orange County’s information sharing system, which is managed by the Integrated Law and Justice Agency of Orange County (ILJAOC).  Built with i2’s COPLINK, it connects the County with Oregon, San Diego, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, the Los Angeles Police Department, Mesa, Ariz., Tucson, Ariz., Spokane, Wash., Sacramento, Calif., and Boston.  With almost a quarter billion records, it’s arguably the world’s largest law enforcement information sharing system.

“Information sharing is no longer a technology issue,” said Bob Griffin, i2 CEO.  “Those barriers have come down.  We’re seeing our customers make great strides in making sharing a reality.  It boils down to overcoming the cultural, political, protocol and process issues.”

The panelists stressed different ways to overcome the non-technology hurdles that still exist.  All agreed that technology is no longer the issue.  The keys to success revolve around people, resources and sustainability.  And it begins with engaging key stakeholders. 

“In Alaska, setting this up for success depended on strong advocates at all levels, including those that were persuasive and persistent throughout the process,” said Bob Griffiths, Executive Director of the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police.

As the Director of the US DOJ, National Institute of Justice (NIJ), National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center in Alaska (NLECTC-AK), Griffiths was instrumental in helping implement Alaska’s Law Enforcement Information Sharing System (ALEISS) that includes 80 agencies.  Using COPLINK, it was the first statewide information sharing program.

Aligning the stakeholders can include experts you would not necessarily expect.  Chief Maggard and the ILJAOC involved city mangers, city attorneys, records personnel and even the public defender’s office.  The goal was complete transparency of the process.

“A major key to success is to identify the full scope up front and have a sustainability plan for information sharing projects,” said Tim Riley, former CIO of the Los Angeles Police Department and now a Senior Vice President at i2.

While with the LAPD, Riley played a pivotal role in implementing a sharing initiative within the Department that brought together four disparate records management systems and linking it with the ILJAOC. 

In Alaska, according to Griffiths, they were really smart about getting the technology up and running, but a “key lesson learned was the lack of a true sustainability plan to keep the system going well into the future as it is challenging to go back to the table and get the additional funding.  You want to do that up front.”  That said, Griffiths is confident that he and his peers can leverage the success they’ve had to keep the program intact.

And speaking of success, immediate ROI is achievable once the technology is up and running. Examples include:

• Alaska — One of the smaller agencies had a pawn shop report about two individuals that stole two rifles and disappeared.  There was limited information including a tattoo that said “Alaska.”  That information was entered into the COPLINK system and only two people came up, with one living nearby.  Since that person had an extensive record, officials were able to identify his associates easily.  The search only took four hours. 
• Los Angeles – There was a serial robbery case that became increasingly violent with every incident.  The only data had been a partial license plate that was inadvertently transcribed.  That information was put into COPLINK. Two of the plate letters – even though they had been transcribed incorrectly – led to identifying a suspect who was caught in the act.  Twenty robbery cases were closed that day and would have otherwise remained unsolved without information sharing in place.   
• Irvine – A donation box for a non-profit was stolen from a fast food restaurant.  CCTV footage caught a video of a suspect that had a tattoo.  A flyer was created based on the CCTV image.  A dispatcher taking initiative entered the distinctive tattoo information into COPLINK and found a match. 

“The great thing about sharing is that you can look at relationships between individuals who may have only spent a fraction of time together, but creates additional leads that you would never have had with a single or multiple record management systems,” said Griffiths.

The panel at IACP was moderated by Lauri Stevens, founder of LAwS Communications and the ConnectedCops blog.

For more information about i2, visit http://www.i2group.com/.

Since that day, the world’s military, national security and law enforcement infrastructures have fundamentally changed the way that they operate and interoperate so that the chance of an attack like this ever happening again is reduced or eliminated. Concepts like cross-border information sharing and cross-organizational collaboration are driving innovation and creative thinking. We’ve seen the emergence of breaking down silos within organizations by integrating geospatial data, statistical data, associative, temporal data and human sensor data into a single working environment. We’ve also seen that, no matter how good all of our digital sensor data capture is, the Human Sensor is still an extremely powerful weapon in our arsenal. The integration of human sensor data and digital sensor data gained through collaboration with you and your teams has helped us, collectively, to take consistent steps forward.

This is all still a work in progress and every organization is tackling this at a different pace, but we are tackling it and we are making progress. At i2, we see this progress every day with our customers worldwide and it makes waking up in the morning and going to work not only easy, but extremely energizing and fulfilling.

I want to ask you to take a moment to give your thoughts to the personnel in military, public safety, national security and ordinary citizens across the globe who have risked their lives, given their lives or just worked their asses off to make a difference in this effort to improve global security. If you are one of those people, I want to thank you personally and on behalf of i2’s global team.

Bob Griffin

CEO

i2

Initially, fusion centers were seen as a top-down approach where national-level intelligence was pushed down to the state level.  However, over the last five years, local and national law enforcement agencies have recognized the value that human sensor input can add to the intelligence mix.  For instance, state, local and tribal police collect information in the course of their normal work-day and enter it into the systems they use throughout the day.

Consider a simple hypothetical scenario. A local police officer tickets a man, parked where he shouldn’t be, who is taking photographs of an oil refinery (he says it’s for a school project). A couple of days later, on the other side of the facility in the adjacent jurisdiction, a state police officer encounters a different man in the same vehicle, also photographing the facility, but this time with a flat tire as an excuse for stopping where he shouldn’t.  Individually, these incidents would most likely be considered minor events. But if the two officers’ reports are pooled, with the right analytical tools, a fusion center analyst can be immediately alerted to uncover patterns, trends and connections between them that might otherwise remain hidden until too late.

While the above scenario is possible from a technology perspective, there are several obstacles that keep agencies and police departments from sharing information — whether it’s about protecting information, lacking technical knowhow or lacking the resources to do so.

“The reality is that local jurisdictions cannot wait for the Department of Homeland Security to inform them of suspicious activity in their area or for local police to request specific case assistance,” said Tim Riley, senior vice president of Business Development at i2.

Riley, former CIO of the Los Angeles Police Department led the deployment of one of the world’s largest information sharing initiatives in law enforcement.  Built with i2 products, the system contains more than 250 million records that are accessible within seconds to all officers in Los Angeles and Orange County, Calif.  He worked closely with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) in launching a centralized database that tied their various systems together that led to the development of the Regional Terrorism Information and Integration System (RTIIS).

A case study published on search.org notes that the RTIIS has helped solve cases across jurisdictions and even state lines, ranging from burglary to tracking down a gang member and providing the Las Vegas Police Department with vital information that helped them secure a warrant for a narcotics dealer.  Captain Scott Edson of the LASD credits this success not only to the sharing of data, but also to the sharing of data that is collected from all levels — a multi-directional information flow.

Fusion centers were created following the 9/11 attacks as a joint effort between the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to ensure and facilitate collaboration and information sharing between local agencies, across state lines, and between the state and federal levels, with a particular emphasis on preventing and responding to terrorist and criminal activities.

More than 50 percent of fusion centers across the U.S. rely on i2 to help prevent and disrupt terrorist and criminal activity — all designed with protections for civil liberties.  To download a copy of i2’s “Fusion Centers and the Sharing of Intelligence” white paper, visit the premium content section of i2’s Web site, provide a valid e-mail address and choose a password.

By combining key pieces of the i2 Intelligence-Led Operations Platform with components of the Digital Sandbox platform, fusion centers, police departments and federal agencies will be able to:

• Better identify and asses critical infrastructure for risks.
• Leverage the combination of “human sensor” data from law enforcement data collection with automated open source monitoring and prioritization to identify risks.
• Conduct all-source analysis to mitigate threats.

Information Flow Between the Components

This diagram illustrates the information flow between the components and how each system leverages the information power of the other components. The data stored in a COPLINK node provides valuable information for use in the assessment of risk to critical infrastructure components. Within Digital Sandbox Risk Analysis Center, this information is combined with open source and proprietary information in order to assess critical infrastructure risks. The identified critical infrastructure is then pushed back to the COPLINK Activity Correlation Technology (ACT) module for automating suspicious activity alerting and reporting.

Once critical infrastructure is identified in ACT and monitoring begins, all law enforcement information geolocated to buffer zones around the critical infrastructure is evaluated and can be automatically pushed to the RAC where it is combined with open source monitoring to identify potential threats.

As potential threats are identified, the law enforcement data and open source data are available to analysts using Analyst’s Notebook to analyze the information for further action.

I’m personally very excited about this partnership and look forward to further endeavors with Digital Sandbox.  Check out Digital Sandbox’s blog entry on the combined solution as well.

Analyst’s Notebook and iBase are now pre-loaded with World-Check’s extensive database of Politically Exposed Persons (PEP’s) and heightened risk individuals and organisations.  The combination prvovides analysts with immediate access to the world’s most widely adopted open source research and the powerful tools they need to analyse the research in the context of a particular project or investigation.

Read the full press release.