A Few Problems Exist with COB Use of Intrado Aware Software The memo from the Chief of Police to explain the Aware software leaves some unanswered questions. The memo seems to suggest that this is a tool for 911 Dispatch, when a call is made. However, later on, it appears that police officers have the ability to pull up this information independent of a 911 call. This software brings up information on the suspect, as well as third parties associates. That appears to be a rather broad net. We need a better definition and understanding of who this includes and why. How are the rights of associates protected? If third party information is associated with a police case, then this third party information becomes subject to public disclosure. The software targets arrest/conviction information on crimes of violence and social media involving threats of violence made on publicly accessible platforms. There is a pretty big leap from arrest/conviction for crimes of violence to social media involving threats of violence. What constitutes a social media threat of violence? The term is not defined. Often times, statements on line are said in jest, or in frustration, with no real intention of harm,(i.e.,... that guy is a jerk. Someone should kick his ass.) I would not take that as a threat of violence, but would Intrado Aware? Does the software consider arrest records in assessing internet statements? Does it consider religious affiliation or political affiliation? We are told that the Bellingham Police staff will tailor the algorithm for threat scoring based on best practices, organizational policies and organizational procedures. What does this vague language mean? As worded, it gives the police complete discretion without accountability. We are told that Intrado Beware does not exclusively constitute probable cause for arrest and does not exclusively constitute probable cause for any warrants related to search/seizure of people and/or things. Exactly how much does this constitute probable cause? 10%? 50% 90%? Will this result in dangerous new precedents? In recent years, government actions have resulted in greater and greater restrictions on citizen rights and freedom, and this software may create novel issues of law that will not be resolved in favor of citizens. Perhaps the greatest concern of all is the use of proprietary and patent pending algorithm searches created by private corporations. I do not believe it is ever appropriate for government to make potentially life and death decisions based on software that it did not develop and does not control. This also prohibits an open review of the threat determination process to protect against unfair bias. Because the government did not calculate the threat risk, and it is done pursuant to propriety software developed by private corporations, it may not be subject to the same level of public transparency. Then there is the matter of money. It was not disclosed that the city still needs to pay $20,000 a year for a $36,000 a year program. Does this include all training and administrative overhead, or is that additional? Why is the city receiving this discount? We are told it is because we are one of the premier agencies in Washington state to use this service. What does these mean, and is this the result of the DOJ grant applied for, or is it a reduced fee by Intrado? There are too many unanswered questions and concerns for my comfort, and I am troubled that the information we are provided now is so different from what we were advised two weeks ago regarding a DOJ grant.
Posted on: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 01:46:02 +0000