<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ePolicing - Tomorrow the world?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/10/02/epolicing-tomorrow-the-world/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/10/02/epolicing-tomorrow-the-world/</link>
	<description>Security Research, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Clive Robinson</title>
		<link>http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/10/02/epolicing-tomorrow-the-world/#comment-29861</link>
		<dc:creator>Clive Robinson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/?p=401#comment-29861</guid>
		<description>@ Richard,

"it should plug (to the limited extent that £2 million a year can plug) the “level 2″ eCrime gap"

My back of a napkin calculation suggests that this will get you around 15 frontline officers and the associated support structure.

Which further suggests some 12 to 18 thousand hours of actual investigation time.

Which begs a question "automation".

As eCrime is electronic in nature how much of the investigation can be done electronicaly and effectivly automated. 

Then when you get down to the "traditional" legwork area of finding the bodies this can be passed onto the "locals" in the geographical areas concerned.

This could effectivly work as a force multiplier making each frontline PCeU officer more of a case/reviewing officer than an investigator which could mean an increase in load capability of 5-7 times.

Much as I don't like the idea electronic policing by software etc is going to be a key element in the future direction of the police in much the same way as the car and two way radio have been in past times.

PCeU might be a good oportunity to get it started (provided the "Canteen mentality" and "my patch" problems can be resolved).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Richard,</p>
<p>&#8220;it should plug (to the limited extent that £2 million a year can plug) the “level 2″ eCrime gap&#8221;</p>
<p>My back of a napkin calculation suggests that this will get you around 15 frontline officers and the associated support structure.</p>
<p>Which further suggests some 12 to 18 thousand hours of actual investigation time.</p>
<p>Which begs a question &#8220;automation&#8221;.</p>
<p>As eCrime is electronic in nature how much of the investigation can be done electronicaly and effectivly automated. </p>
<p>Then when you get down to the &#8220;traditional&#8221; legwork area of finding the bodies this can be passed onto the &#8220;locals&#8221; in the geographical areas concerned.</p>
<p>This could effectivly work as a force multiplier making each frontline PCeU officer more of a case/reviewing officer than an investigator which could mean an increase in load capability of 5-7 times.</p>
<p>Much as I don&#8217;t like the idea electronic policing by software etc is going to be a key element in the future direction of the police in much the same way as the car and two way radio have been in past times.</p>
<p>PCeU might be a good oportunity to get it started (provided the &#8220;Canteen mentality&#8221; and &#8220;my patch&#8221; problems can be resolved).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
