The riots that erupted in London a year ago caught the police off guard.
However, as The Herald reports today, officers are less likely to be taken by surprise again, thanks to the implementation of sophisticated software for the monitoring and analysis of social media sites. As well as identifying and tracking potential troublemakers, the new technology has the capacity to gauge public mood by analysing patterns and trends in millions of tweets and Facebook postings.
Should we welcome this as a logical advance in police intelligence gathering or worry about threats to our digital freedom? Both, perhaps.
It may seem self-evident that the internet and social media have dramatically extended freedom of speech. Billions can now receive, comment, share and send information in a way that was unimaginable until recently. Twitter and email have nourished the pro-democracy movement.
Yet the very scale of social media communication contains threats as well as opportunities. One of the biggest threats comes from the ability to collect colossal amounts of personal information through Twitter and Facebook accounts. Yet, while there is a debate about how companies such as Google and Facebook stockpile and use personal information and concern about the way it enables authoritarian regimes, such as China and Iran, to spy on their own citizens, there is less questioning about how our own Government and police use such technology to snoop on us. In the UK, this process will be facilitated by the Communications Data Bill currently going through Parliament.
As Theresa May told the Commons recently, if police ignore changes in technology, they will be "fighting crime with one hand tied behind their backs". Social media may spread liberty, democracy, friendship and handy information but they are used by others for nefarious purposes. Once foot patrols were used to gauge the mood of unrest on the streets. Now that so much communication is online, it makes sense for police officers to patrol the information superhighway, as well as city streets.
It is easy to see how such technology could help assess the likelihood of street riots but anticipating when a situation is about to turn ugly always will be an inexact science. In the case of last summer's riots, there were certainly underlying tensions between the public and the police in Tottenham but nobody could have anticipated the way the mishandling of the shooting by police of Mark Duggan would be the spark that lit an inferno.
Also, the power created by such a new tool must be handled responsibly. This is not so much about how the police gather information as what they do with it. Any reference to "anticipating" crime should ring alarm bells. This is the stuff of dystopian Orwellian nightmares about "thought crime".
How and at what point should police act when no actual crime has been committed? Is it appropriate for police to trawl social networking sites to pre-empt school leavers from organising post-exam parties? And are so-called internet trolls who make obnoxious or racist remarks from behind a cloak of anonymity much different from drunks raving on street corners? There is a serious human rights issue here. Harvesting information from Twitter and Facebook is a potentially useful tool in keeping us safe but we ignore the darker side of such power at our peril.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article