While traditional crime – gang and street crime, drug smuggling, rape, crimes against children and murder – still has a terrible impact on individuals and communities, policing faces serious challenges from the impact of technology and the globalisation that it has enabled. To cope with a fast evolving future, the police also will need to evolve rapidly. This will bring risks as well as opportunities. This conference offered a rare opportunity to look up from everyday preoccupations in order to try to identify some strategic markers to the future of policing in liberal democracies.
Policing faces serious challenges as well as opportunities from the impact of technology and the globalisation that it has enabled. Cybercrime, for example, now causes the UK more economic damage arguably than all other forms of crime combined. Cross-border crime is also on the rise and even for domestic crimes there is often a demand for data and potential evidence held in other jurisdictions, sometimes by states but often by international technology service providers. Bad actors are early adopters and can take an experimental approach to new technologies to see if they bring advantages. Terrorists are able to use Internet technologies for reconnaissance, communications and proselytising. Looking further into the future, technology may yet have even more disruptive effects on the nature of crime and the tools for combatting it. For example, machine learning over large scale data sets may make it easier for police forces to identify criminals and potential criminals.
At the same time, traditional crime has not gone away. Gang crime continues to blight deprived areas. Traditional drug smuggling and sales remain profitable. Violent street crime, rape, crimes against children and murder still have a terrible impact on both individuals and communities, resonating in the media. The public expects the police to respect privacy and to be sensitive to the customs and concerns of different communities. High standards of professionalism are more essential than ever. To cope with a fast evolving future, the police also will need to evolve rapidly. This will bring risks as well as opportunities. This conference offered a rare opportunity to look up from everyday pressures in order to try to identify some strategic landmarks on the journey to the future of policing in liberal democracies.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick chaired an extraordinary group that included First Deputy Police Commissioner New York, Ben Tucker, and other senior law enforcement officers from both sides of the Atlantic, Singapore and Pakistan; the chair of the Intelligence and Security committee; the Director of Liberty; the Deputy Mayor of London for Policing and Crime; a district attorney; technology entrepreneurs; influential journalists; HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary; academic experts; and talented young researchers.
In some ways, the challenges and principles of policing are unchanged; in others, policing is changing very quickly. One the one hand, Sir Robert Peel’s 1829 principles of law enforcement remain a remarkably relevant and insightful guide to police policy and practice for the 21st century. The police’s role must remain to prevent crime and disorder by winning the approval and trust of the public, as opposed to its suppression by military force and severity of legal punishment. The principle that “the police are the people and the people are the police” must stand. The police’s primary tools should be persuasion, advice and warning and force should be used to the minimum extent necessary. The cooperation of the public is diminished by the use of force and compulsion. The police should preserve public trust by impartiality but also by “ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.”
On the other hand, the police must rapidly become a more technologically adept and driven service, if is to cope with a fast evolution of crime that includes the experimental and early adoption of technology by criminals; its increasingly international nature; the explosion in the quantity of available evidence; the difficulty, notwithstanding, of obtaining key parts of the data picture from technology service providers; and the increasingly full spectrum of both terrorism and cyber threats from amateur adolescents to major state sponsorship.
The challenge for the police is to manage this technological transformation without losing its intimate connection to the people. The use of technology must further bolster trust in the police, and the police’s empathy with the public, not erode it.
Challenges and trends
The encryption of information on devices is a growing and urgent problem for the police and this is of especial concern in the US. Particular technology companies were seen by most US law enforcement officials as pursuing commercial interests under the guise of the protection of privacy and cyber security. The police wanted not a back door into encrypted systems but a front door, opened by judge-approved warrant, as is normal in other areas of those societies governed by the rule of law. It was seen as unacceptable that investigations of serious domestic crimes such as murder, as well as terrorism investigations, could be blocked by lack of access to information on encrypted devices. The police would explore all legal means to increase political and moral pressure on the technology companies to change their approach. There was a marked breakdown of trust in the motives of the leadership of the companies. The companies’ perceived “loss of mythic power and gloss” was welcomed and seen as a positive step towards legislation. It was unrealistic of the companies to think that there could be a model that could work in both rule of law societies and authoritarian societies such as China. There was a general expectation in the group that legislation would have to force the companies to change their approach and that this would soon be politically achievable.
Whilst the difficulty of getting access to evidence at the heart of crimes was real, there was also the problem of a vast abundance of data – social media, video and other sources – that might contain vital evidence if only it could be discovered. Progress had been made on processing video footage in particular – the FBI now worked through several times as much footage in a week as it had for the entire Boston marathon bombing investigation, at the time an unprecedented exercise. But it was getting harder and harder to be sure that all material relevant to an investigation had been reviewed and disclosed. The police had big data but not yet the analytics and skills to make the most of it. The legal framework might need amending to take account of the increasingly probabilistic nature of investigation and disclosure exercises.
Peel’s insistence that the police are the people is increasingly challenged by the “re-tribalisation” of society by technology as foreseen by Marshall McLuhan. As well as coping with ethnic, religious and cultural diversity, the police increasingly have to cope with self-made communities reinforced by living in a social media echo chamber. These communities are evolving specific forms of crime, sometimes hidden within the closed community. Disputes played out on social media often transfer into the physical world, through inter-gang violence for example. Terrorism (see below) is also evolving in this direction with online radicalisation leading directly to real world acts of violence. Meanwhile, victims of crime in the physical world can also be pursued and harassed online, leaving nowhere to hide.
This re-tribalisation reinforces another somewhat surprising trend of the 21st century, a strong localisation of crime. Most stabbings in London take place in a few areas. 90 percent of the city has not seen a murder in 15 years. Geographically concentrated the violence may be, but it is also on the rise. The police must strike a difficult balance, focusing resources to prevent crime without alienating communities where postcodes are often a proxy for race and religion. Neighbourhood policing is more important than ever.
Contrasting and combining with the local nature of much crime is an increasingly strong international element. Whereas once immigrant communities would have been cut off from their home countries, now technology enables minute-by-minute vibrant communication and business links. Data and thus evidence is stored in servers based abroad. Smart cyber criminals and fraudsters base their activities in jurisdictions with other priorities and/or limited resources, where police enquiries from abroad are unlikely to be met with action unless mediated through personal relationships. Police forces need increasingly strong links abroad to tackle even the most local of crimes.
As other government departments cut back on staff, consolidate offices, consolidate hospitals and move business online, police officers are often the only visible representatives of government in daily life. The police spend a large part of their time dealing with social welfare and mental health issues. With the closure of many secure mental health facilities in particular, the prison service has become the biggest provider of mental health services in both the UK and the US.
Cyber crime is a threat that will grow and grow. The addition of a whole new dimension to all aspects of life and the move of money online means that crime must follow, with increasing sophistication from the criminals to be expected compared to today’s largely simple phishing and ransomware attacks. The use of AI to tailor attacks at scale is a particular concern. Defences will increase in sophistication too, also relying on IT to spot attacks and to adapt defence in real time. This technological stand-off is likely to lead to the merging of physical coercion and cyber crime, as seen in the recent case where victims were physically coerced into transferring bitcoin into an attacker’s account. Cyber crime demands a whole-society response ranging from education of the individual, through to greater responsibility and sharing of information by companies. The police cannot do it all and there may need to be new functions and departments of government, or perhaps third sector organisations. The police and companies will also need to be more open about the limits of what services can and cannot be secured and what crimes can and cannot be solved.
Frictionless digital services from companies are developing public expectations of government and the police that cannot be met, at least not unless the public is ready to sign away the remnants of its privacy. The police are rightly held to a higher standard on privacy because of their greater powers than any company. This limits what data and services the police can and should combine, even if it is able to master the technology.
The nature of the terrorist threat continues to evolve from a network into a radicalising movement. This poses particular challenges for the police, with individuals moving directly from online radicalisation to action. There is a large pool of extremists and near extremists, far too many to monitor in an open society. Which of these will reach the tipping point of action, and when, has a degree of quantum uncertainty about it which makes it hard to predict, no matter how full the data and how sophisticated the analytics. Like cyber, counter terrorism (CT) is a team sport that demands the involvement of the whole of society, from communities through faith leaders to the media, as well as government. As well as prevention and pursuit, developing the resilience of societies to the tactics of fear is important. Community policing is central to CT.
The terrorist threat and counter terrorism funding is enabling police forces to aggregate dataand increasingly to develop analytical capabilities. This promises a more predictive and targeted approach both to counter terrorism and to policing more generally. But respect for privacy needs to be designed into the system if it is not to lose public confidence. The use of machine learning off the back of this aggregated data offers the best chance for the police to make the most of thin resources against a wide range of demands. But there must be graded intrusion into privacy depending on the seriousness of the crime. For the police there is a tension between public trust and predictability of this intrusion – the public needs to know broadly what the police can and will not do and to accept that this is proportionate. There is a real risk of algorithmic bias from skewed data sets that will need oversight to maintain public confidence. The public, politicians and the police need a better understanding of how AI is improved through use, rather than being a capability that operates effectively from the outset. Methods of procurement and the implementation of technology will likely need to change.
Whether expressed through the trend for body-borne cameras, public engagement in governance or oversight bodies and enquiries, there is less and less tolerance from society of secrecy by the arms of government. The police must expect to have to work more and more in the open and be subject to challenge. The police should take heart that, although subject to criticism, they are one of the best respected parts of society and government, for example with approval rates of 52 percent in the US compared to 9 percent for Congress.
In the UK community, tensions tend to be conveyed through discussion of crime trends in particular parts of the city or country. But in the US, race and the loss of confidence in the police remains an explicit concern rooted in the country’s history. This is being tackled by greater openness, for example including the adoption of body-borne video in New York and by a return to neighbourhood policing, allowing the development of personal relationships in the community.
Ideas for action and reflection
Although the list of challenges and trends above is daunting, we were able to identify a range of opportunities and recommendations.
“The police is the public”
Peel’s principles for law enforcement are powerful and deserve to be more widely known amongst the public. They could be re-articulated as a plan for 21st-century policing. The time is right for a conversation with the public about the possibilities for policing and what its future priorities should be. This would demand greater openness and candour from the police on which public expectations can be met and which cannot.
The police will not be able to make the most of the opportunities for the aggregation of data and the development of machine learning efficiencies and predictive algorithms without this conversation with the public and politicians. This should include a discussion of a graded approach allowing greater aggregation of data and intrusion into privacy, according to the seriousness of the crime. The line on what is legitimate and what is unacceptable and “creepy” needs to be drawn with the public.
This discussion will need to include what the public has a right to expect on privacy from electronic devices and encryption. Deeper contacts are urgently needed between the police and major technology companies to address the loss of confidence in good faith and to work on a shared rather than adversarial approach to legislation.
General digital literacy in the police will need to increase. The police will also need to encompass a wider variety of specialist skills and to create a culture where those skills can be valued and used effectively. This will demand more diversity whilst maintaining a core purpose and identity.
The police will need to be more open in sharing data in order to enable research. More academic study is needed on what works in counter terrorism, and innovation will be a constant challenge on cyber.
Procurement and technology implementation will need to be more open to private sector innovation and the police will need to find ways to work with smaller companies driving innovation. There will need to be more room and tolerance for experimentation, including on the financing of such experiments.
There will need to be, within agreed frameworks and with appropriate oversight, more sharing of data within government and between governments. The police will need strong international networks to enable this.
There will need to be more cooperation with the major technology companies, including secondments. There will need to be cooperation in parallel with civil society groups to understand the privacy implications and risks of algorithmic bias.
Digital neighbourhood and community policing
The connection of the police to the community through neighbourhood police officers will need to be strengthened to offset the potentially alienating adoption of powerful technologies whether AI or drones. Neighbourhood policing will need to be combined with online and social media presence and accessibility by the police. Done well, this could increase the sense of connection between the police and the public – once again Peel’s principles are a good guide to conduct online as well as on the street.
The police’s social and mental health role is important and here to stay. Police resources can be best focused through careful coordination with social services teams and healthcare professionals. Training for police on how to deal with the mentally ill could reduce the risk of escalation and violence in encounters. Georgia in the US had seen a marked reduction in police shootings through such training.
The challenge of cyber is to society as a whole. There is room for a third sector “cyber warden” volunteer force, along the lines of wartime air-raid wardens or similar. Another variation on the idea was cyber cadets, cyber savvy young people, helping the elderly and potentially more vulnerable, to understand the risks and to update cyber security on their computers. More needs to be done to advertise the useful information that is already available from the NCSC and sources like nomoreransom.org.
There is a risk that too much emphasis is put on data and technology. Community policing and developing trust in the police through human relationships is equally crucial to stopping terrorists and in dealing with the aftermath.
There is a need for a serious open discussion between politicians, the police, the public and the media on how we react to and report terrorist incidents. There is a risk that we do the terrorists’ work for them by magnifying the impact of attacks and amplifying fear. With the threat morphing into a radicalising movement, we will need to develop long term national resilience in the expectation that some attackers will get through despite best efforts.
This Note reflects the Director’s personal impressions of the conference. No participant is in any way committed to its content or expression.
CHAIR: Commissioner Cressida Dick CBE QPM
Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner (2017-); 34 years of public service spanning the Metropolitan Police, Thames Valley Police, the National Police College and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Formerly: Director General, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; President, British Association of Women Police; Chair, National Negotiator Group; Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations leading Counter Terrorism Policing and Operational Commander, Thames Valley Police.
Professor Heather Strang
Director, Cambridge Police Executive Programme; Director of Research, Jerry Lee Centre of Experimental Criminology, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge. Formerly: Fellow, Law Program and Director, Centre for Restorative Justice, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University; Executive Research Officer, Australian Institute of Criminology; Consultant to the Home Office.
Dr Stephen Maguire
Executive Director, Centre on Values and Ethics, Carleton University; lead researcher, national study of Professionalism in Policing; member, Standing Committee on Ethics, INTERPOL; member, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Ethics Committee; member, National Advisory Board on Ethics, Correctional Service of Canada.
Mr Samuel Mosonyi
Final-year Juris Doctor Candidate, University of Toronto; judicial clerk at Ontario's Superior Court (2018). Formerly: graduate, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, on a Gates Scholarship (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation); litigation department, Bennett Jones LLP.
Mr Luc Portelance
President and CEO, CrossPoint Integrated Strategies, Inc., Ottawa (2015-). Formerly: President, Canada Border Services Agency (2010-15; Executive Vice President 2008-10); Deputy Director Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (2005-08).
Mr Thomas Vogl
DPhil Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. Formerly: Senior Policy Advisor, Ontario Public Service (2011-16); Consultant, United Way Toronto (2012-16); Project Manager and Consultant, Public Good Initiative (2011-12).
Mr James Dickson
Pershing Square Scholar, University of Oxford (2016-18). Formerly: Programme Officer, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Vienna (2016); international consultant, Strategy and Partnerships, Department of Technical Cooperation, IAEA, Vienna (2014-16); international consultant, Strategic Planning and Interagency Affairs Unit, UNODC (2010-14).
Mr Humayun Tarar
Deputy Inspector General, Police Service of Pakistan (2017-); Chevening Scholar 2017-18; MPP Class of 2017, Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford. Formerly: City Police Officer (Police Chief), Rawalpindi, Pakistan; Fellow, National Defense University, Washington, DC (2012); Hubert H. Humphrey Fellow, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs (2011-12); Senior Superintendent of Police (served in the Counter Terrorism department), Punjab Police (2012-13, 2010-11); Superintendent of Police, Government of Pakistan (2005-10).
Mr Lau Peet Meng
Deputy Commissioner (Operations), Singapore Police Force; Board member, International Enterprise, Singapore; Deputy Chairman, Advisory Council, World Vision Singapore. Formerly: President, International Association of Gambling Regulators (2013-14).
Mr Luis de Eusebio Ramos
Deputy Executive Director, Capabilities, Europol (2015-). Formerly: Executive Adviser to the Director General, National Police, Spain (2012-15); Deputy Director and Chief Information Officer, Road Traffic Authority, Ministry of the Interior (2006-12); Deputy Director, ICT Resources Coordination, Central State Administration, Ministry of Public Administration, Spain (2002-06); Technical Analyst, Telecommunications Marketing Commission, Spain (1999-2002).
Mr Alexander Babuta
Research Analyst in Policing and Organised Crime, National Security and Resilience Studies Group, Royal United Services Institute.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu QPM
Metropolitan Police Service (1992-).
Dr Nina Cope
Deputy Director General Capabilities, National Crime Agency (2017-); non-executive member, Audit Committee, Citizens Advice. Formerly: Director responsible for organisation development and effectiveness, High Speed Two (Hs2) (2015-17); Metropolitan Police Service (2002-17): Director responsible for strategy, performance, planning and change; Deputy Director of Intelligence; and Chief of Staff to the Commissioner.
The Rt Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP
Member of Parliament (Conservative) for Beaconsfield (1997-); Chairman, Intelligence and Security Committee (2015-); member, Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. Formerly: Attorney General (2010-14); Shadow Secretary of State (Justice) (2009-10); Shadow Secretary of State (Home Office) (2008-09); Shadow Attorney General (2003-08); Shadow Minister (Home Affairs) (2001-03); Shadow Minister (Scotland) (1999-2001). A Member of The Ditchley Foundation Council of Management and a Governor.
Mr Mark Hallas OBE
Chief Executive, Crimestoppers Trust (2013-). Formerly: British Army: Member, Royal College of Defence Studies (2012-13); Director Intelligence Corps (2009-12); International Coalition's Military Head of Intelligence and Security, Afghanistan (2008-09); Chief of Staff to the Chief of Defence Intelligence (2005-08).
Mr Ashley Hook
Assistant Media Planner, Channel 5 (2016-). Formerly: Social Media Consultant, NATO (2015-16); Politics and Government Operations Specialist, Facebook (2014-15).
Mr Stuart Hyde QPM
Vice President Development, Society for the Policing of Cyberspace; Vice President, High Tech Crime Consortium; Ambassador for Cybersecurity Information Sharing Partnership for Yorkshire and Humberside, aql telecommunications (2016-); Director, Stuart Hyde Associates; Vice President, HTCC (1999-). Formerly: Member, EC3 Advisory Board on Internet Security, Europol (2014-17); Director, Solutions Law Enforcement, CCL Solutions Group Ltd (2014-16); Deputy Chief Constable, then Chief Constable, Cumbria Police (2009-13); ACC, West Midlands Police (2003-09); West Yorkshire Police (1997-2003).
Professor Martin Innes
Cardiff University: Director, Crime and Security Research Institute; Director, Police Science Institute and Professor, School of Social Sciences.
Sir Simon Jenkins
Columnist: The Guardian (2005-), Evening Standard (2009-). Formerly: Chairman, The National Trust (2008-14); Columnist, The Sunday Times (2005-08) (1986-90); Columnist, The Times (1992-2005); Editor, The Times (1990-92); Political Editor, The Economist (1979-86); Editor, The Evening Standard (1976-78). Author.
Dr Ian Kearns
Co-Founder, Board Member and former Director, European Leadership Network. Formerly: Acting Director and Deputy Director, Institute for Public Policy Research; Deputy Chair, IPPR independent All-Party Commission on National Security in the 21st Century; Senior Fellow, Royal United Services Institute, London; Special Adviser, Joint UK House of Commons/House of Lords Committee on National Security; Director, Graduate Programme in International Studies, University of Sheffield; Director, Global Government Industry Practice, Electronic Data Systems. A Member of the Programme Committee, The Ditchley Foundation.
Ms Sophie Linden
Deputy Mayor of London for Policing and Crime. Formerly: Councillor, Hackney Council; Deputy Mayor, Hackney Council; Special Advisor, policy development and strategy, Home Office (2001-04); Special Advisor to the Secretary of State, Department of Education and Employment (1997-2001); member, Safer Communities Board, Local Government Association; member, advisory board on PEEL inspections, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.
Mr Angus McCallum
Chief Information Officer, Metropolitan Police Service, London (2016-). Formerly: Global CIO, BG Group (2009-15).
Dr Rick Muir
Director, The Police Foundation; member, Cumberland Lodge Police Steering Committee; Fellow of the Royal Society of the Arts. Formerly: Associate Director for Public Service Reform, Institute for Public Policy Research; member, Independent Police Commission (2011-13), Councillor, London Borough of Hackney (2010-16) and Oxford City Council (2002-06); Departmental Lecturer, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford.
Mr Trevor Phillips OBE
Journalist and Broadcaster. President, John Lewis Partnership Council; Chairman, Center for Talent Innovation, New York; Fellow, Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC and Member, Transatlantic Council on Migration; Chairman, Workers' Educational Association. Formerly: Chair, Equality and Human Rights Commission (2006-12); Chair, Commission for Racial Equality (2003-06); Chair, Greater London Authority (2000-03).
Dr Tristram Riley-Smith
Director of Security and Resilience, Anglo Scientific; founder and Executive Chairman, SeeQuestor Ltd; Director of Research, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge; Champion, Research Council UK Partnership for Conflict, Crime & Security Research.
Mr Danny Shaw
Home Affairs Correspondent, BBC News (2001-); Committee member, Crime Reporters' Association (2016-). Formerly: Visiting lecturer, home affairs journalism, City University (2001-13).
Mr James Slessor
Accenture (1999-): Managing Director, Global Public Safety Practice (2014-).
Ms Martha Spurrier
Human rights barrister; Director, Liberty, London (2016-). Formerly: member, panel of specialist counsel, Equality and Human Rights Commission; lawyer: Mind and the Public Law Project.
Chief Constable Sara Thornton CBE QPM
Chair, The National Police Chiefs' Council (2015-). Formerly: Chief Constable, Thames Valley Police (2007-15); Vice President, Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (2011-15); Vice Chair, ACPO Terrorism and Allied Matters for the South East of England and Director, Police National Assessment Centre (2010-15). Formerly: Chair, Intelligence Portfolio, ACPO (2003-07); Assistant Chief Constable Specialist Operations, then Deputy Chief Constable and Acting Chief Constable, Thames Valley Police (2000-07); Metropolitan Police Service (1986-2000); Security Service (1984-86).
Miss Handan Wieshmann
Advisor, The Behavioural Insights Team, London. Formerly: Advisor, Economic and Domestic Secretariat, UK Cabinet Office; Home Office (focusing on crime and policing).
Sir Thomas Winsor WS
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for England and Wales (2012-); Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire & Rescue Services (2017-). Formerly: Partner, White & Case (2004-12); Rail Regulator & International Rail Regulator (1999-2004); Partner, Denton Hall (1991-99); Chief Legal Advisor & General Counsel, Office of Rail Regulator (1993-95).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Chief Louis M. Dekmar
President, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, Virginia; member, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives; board member, Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange. Formerly: President and Chair, Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies; Federal Monitor, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice; 37-year law enforcement career, including as a police officer, detective, division commander and police chief.
The Honorable Charles B. DeWitt
Policy Director, Association of Police Departments of the 70 largest U.S. cities (1998-); CEO, Lafayette Group Inc, Washington, DC (1993-). Formerly: Director, National Institute of Justice (1990-93); Director of Border Security, The White House, Washington, DC (1989-90); Fellow (responsible for corrections and law enforcement programs), U.S. Department of Justice (1984-89); Director, Justice Division, San Jose, California (1978-84); Deputy Sheriff, San Jose. A Member of the Advisory Council, The American Ditchley Foundation.
Mr G. Clayton Grigg
Assistant Director, FBI Laboratory Division (2018-). Formerly: Deputy Assistant Director (DAD), Operational Technology Division (2017-18); DAD FBI Presidential Transition Lead (2016-17); DAD and Deputy Director of Operations, Terrorist Screening Center (2013-16); Chief Knowledge Officer (2007-13); Director (& Acting), Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (2005-08); Chief (& Acting), Proactive Data Exploitation Unit, Counterterrorism Division (CTD) (2004-05); Supervisory Special Agent, Terrorist Financing Operations Section (TFOS), CTD (2003-04); Special Agent, TFOS/CTD (2002-03); Special Agent (1997-2002).
Ms Cara Jones
Co-Founder (2014) and Chief Operating Officer, Marinus Analytics LLC, UK/USA; Research Analyst, Auton Lab, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (2013-).
Mr Joe Lonsdale
General Partner, 8VC, San Francisco. Formerly: co-Founder: Palantir, Addepar, OpenGov, Affinity, Anduin. Founding Partner, Formation 8.
Dr Cynthia Lum
Professor of Criminology, Law and Society and Director of the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George Mason University; member, Committee on Proactive Policing, National Academy of Sciences; member, Research Advisory Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police; Editor, Translational Criminology; Fulbright Specialist. Formerly: Police officer and detective, Baltimore City Police Department.
Deputy Commissioner John Miller
Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence & Counterterrorism (overseeing operations in both the Intelligence and Counterterrorism Bureaus, including the partnership in the FBI/NYPD Joint Terrorism Task Force), New York Police Department. Formerly: Deputy Director, Intelligence Analysis Division, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI); Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); Commanding Officer, Counter Terrorism & Criminal Intelligence Bureau, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD); journalist and author.
Ms Arlesha Moore
Fulbright scholar; MSc Candidate in Criminology, University of Leicester.
Professor Lawrence W. Sherman
Director, Jerry Lee Centre of Experimental Criminology; Chair, Cambridge Police Executive Programme, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge; Distinguished University Professor, University of Maryland. Formerly: Director, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge (2012-17); Wolfson Professor of Criminology, University of Cambridge; President, American Society of Criminology.
Commissioner Benjamin B. Tucker
First Deputy Commissioner, New York City Police Department (2014-). Formerly: Deputy Commissioner of Training (2014); Deputy Director State, Local and Tribal Affairs, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (2010-14); Professor, Pace University (2004-09); Deputy Director for Operations, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, United States Department of Justice (1995-99); Senior Research Associate and Substance Abuse Strategy Initiative, New York University, and Director of Operations, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Colombia University (1992-95); Executive Director, New York City Commission on Human Rights (1988-89).
Mr Cyrus Vance Jr
District Attorney, New York County District Attorney's Office (2010-); co-Founder, Prosecutors Against Gun Violence; co-Chair, New York State Sentencing Commission. Formerly: Principal, Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer PC, New York; co-Founder, McNaul, Ebel, Nawrot, Helgren & Vance, Seattle.