Are there missing links in policing when investigating cybercrime?

Daniel Cuthbert, Chief Operating Officer of Sensepost, a Cyber security consultancy, seems to think so.

I met with Daniel this week after I disappointingly missed a presentation he gave at the Home Office a few weeks ago, however this presented me a great opportunity to catch up with him on a one to one level to discuss the ever evolving world of cybercrime.

Daniel sports an impressive list of world law enforcement agencies he has worked with in tackle cybercrime, and is no doubt an expert in his field, seemingly only being one step short of the main role in a Hollywood blockbuster.

However, UK policing seems to have a long, long way to go to even reach the horizon of his personal accolade.

So why is policing so far behind?

There appears to be several reasons, with the most significant appearing to be a failure to leave the starting blocks.

Daniel tells of a life time of hacking, from the dawn of the internet, but it is only now in 2016 that ‘Cybercrime’ appears to have become a buzz word in policing.

Secondly, but not by far, the next biggest issue appears to be that policing is ill equipped to handle the challenges of what is even regarded as ‘low level’ cybercrime.

Daniel relayed a story about a start up company who were recently victims of a £50,000 cyber theft – a value too low for the radar of the NCA, but too great for frontline officers to know how to effectively investigate it. After failing on several attempts to provide the ‘digital’ evidence to the police (as police systems were not sufficiently equipped to receive the files) the evidence was eventually printed and handed over…….in paper copy!

I was also told about the police officer who, when investigating a cyber theft Daniel had brought to the attention of the police, had first attempted to seize CCTV evidence of the crime – despite it being reported as a ‘Cybercrime’ (an offence which occurred on-line).

So other than unpreparedness, where else are the missing links?

It would appear to me from Daniel’s description, that in very simple terms, there are 3 key links in the chain to investigating and detecting cybercrime:

1. Reporting – policing needs to be better equipped to receive reports of cybercrime and understand that the report is indeed an offence of cybercrime and should be investigated as such.

2. ‘Hacking’ (building a way to do something) skills. To catch a criminal, you have to think (or ‘hack’) like one.

3. Old fashioned police work (locate, arrest, interview, further investigate and prosecute offender)

We already know from the beginning of this article that we are missing large parts of link number 1.

However, we are and always will be good at the ‘old fashioned’ police work – the ‘bread and butter’ stuff if you like, so we have the final link covered.

What is desperately missing though, is link number 2 – the ability to ‘hack’. The ability to see through the eyes of the offender to work out how they ‘hacked’ their way to a £50k payout.

But, this is something that can be learned says Daniel. If you have an interest in the field, Daniel truly believes he can teach you to hack and therefore better investigate and most importantly understand what it is you are investigating.

So how does this all relate to disability?

Well, I believe that disabled and neuro-diverse officers and police staff are one of the key components of these links. The malleable substance needed to mould and hold the links together. This is why:

• Daniel states that anyone willing, with a genuine interest can be taught to ‘hack’.
• Policing is in desperate need of frontline officers.
• Policing is also in desperate need of officers and staff to investigate cybercrime, the largest growing crime trend of modern time.
• Disabled officers (due to Limited Duties Regulations and the need to increase force resilience) are desperate for meaningful policing roles, where their skills are put to best use, they can develop new skills, they are valued and they aren’t required to walk around the High Street on a Friday night.

Now, connect the dots using the sentences above. Surely the answer is obvious?

This is a simplistic answer I know, but a perfectly feasible one. Hacking can be taught and so to can investigation skills. After all, all officers have a basic level of investigative skills anyway.

So why don’t we start putting round pegs in round holes?

I also wanted to ask Daniel about his experience working with people with conditions such as Autism and Aspergers and the benefits they can potentially bring to this field. (I distinctly remembered seeing news reports about people with Aspergers hacking the US Government and desperately trying to avoid extradition).

He told me that he had met and worked with many talented people with varying degrees of both conditions over the years and distinctly recalls them being good at data linking, finding patterns in a wealth of data.

Daniel also said that being ‘task focussed’, often a trait of neuro-diverse thinkers, is another distinct benefit that can be brought to a team when chasing cyber criminals.

During our conversation about Autism and Aspergers, he also highlighted further benefits of diverse thinkers, the mindset of ‘not giving up’ until the task is complete. This struck me as a key strength not only of neuro-diverse thinkers, but of disabled people in policing, a subject I have blogged about previously.

It is clear to me that, although the components of the chain aren’t all linked in together yet, we do know what those links should be.

However, my question for policing is: “who will connect the dots?”

Jamie Mills
DPA General Secretary

 

All content within this article is the personal opinion of the author and is not necessarily representative of the views of the Disabled Police Association or a statement of policy intent. This article may be freely redistributed but must not be changed in any way.
The content of this article remains the intellectual property of the Disabled Police Association.

I was overjoyed when I was informed that I had been successful at the paper sift stage of the promotion process. I spent hours and hours on my application and so was glad that my investment had paid off. I attended my interview and gave it my best. The result wasn’t what I had hoped it would be, but as a disabled person I am used to barriers. I am used to giving my heart and soul with little recognition in return. That’s what I have come to know of life in policing.

However, what I was and still am happy about, is that my request for reasonable adjustment was agreed and accommodated. It wasn’t your typical reasonable adjustment either. I was able to evidence (using a rather lengthy report packed full of documentary evidence) that a particular element of the assessment criteria put me at a disadvantage.

I was prepared to have to argue my point….but it just wasn’t necessary. The request was made and the very next day it was accepted, much to my surprise! It couldn’t have been easier.

But I have come to question, even with the adjustment, was I still at a disadvantage?

The answer is, I honestly don’t know. At the time I was just pleased that a disadvantage had been acknowledged. I think ultimately, I was just grateful to have had an opportunity.

But should I be ‘grateful’ though?

What is important to note though is that if you don’t ask – you don’t get. If you don’t try – you will never succeed.

I know that many disabled officers feel that which ever way you cut it, the police promotion process just isn’t fair towards those with a disability.

Some feel disadvantaged when gaining the evidence to apply in the first place. Some feel lacking in opportunity, often over looked by Senior officers in favour of those who are ‘fully able’. Others feel that competency based interviews disadvantage them due to their condition, such as those with Autism, Dyslexia or Dyspraxia.

So are they right? Are police promotion and recruitment processes fair? More importantly, are they fair for disabled people?

I won’t give an opinion as I will likely be accused of being ‘bitter’ or ‘sucking up’ in preparation for the next process, depending on which way my opinion leans.

However, if you were to ask the College of Policing for a view, I’m sure the answer would be “yes” it is a fair process.

But, if you asked disabled people in policing, I bet the overwhelming majority would answer “no”.

I don’t feel I have grounds to complain. I requested reasonable adjustment and was granted it. This is more than I had ever imagined I would get.

But then I wonder, am I content because I was given more than I was expecting I would? I had prepared myself to stand up for my entitlement to adjustment and was frankly relieved when it wasn’t necessary.

But was the adjustment actually enough?

I read a great article this week by @Alice_Kirby where she had the opportunity to interview Jeremy Corbyn about disability in politics.

Miss Kirby writes that only 2 of 650 MPs self declare as having a disability, yet if politics were to be truly representative of the people of the UK – 1 in 5 would have a disability.

By the very same logic surely 20% of policing should therefore be made up of disabled people? The numbers currently stand at no more than around 5%. Wasn’t it once said that “the police are the public and the public are the police…”?

Shouldn’t the police be representative of the communities they serve?

There has been a concerted drive from the top by the Prime Minister, (formerly as Home Secretary) to increase BME representation in policing and at every rank. So why too is this not being driven for disability in policing when disabled people are so clearly underrepresented? Why is this not driven in politics also?

Addressing Under representation

So how can this issue of under representation be addressed (assuming someone has the desire to address it)? Or should it even be addressed at all?

I personally believe it should. Disabled people in policing are being left behind without the opportunity to keep up with everyone else. The only commitment we have seen so far on this issue is actually the complete reverse – the desire to reduce the numbers of disabled officers through measures such as Limited duties and Capability Dismissal.

It may sound a contradiction, but my belief is that most disabled people are generally no less able than non disabled people (except in extreme cases). We are merely less able at what are considered to be ‘conventional’ activities, but in fact we are often more able at ‘non conventional’ activities.

An example to illustrate my point – look at the fantastic GB Paralympic team. Are they less able than their able bodied team mates? Or are they just more able at ‘other things’? Could Andy Murray win a Wimbledon title if he had to move around the court in a wheelchair (a less ‘conventional’ way to play tennis)?

So where does the problem lie in police promotion and recruitment?

Well it seems to be in that point I have illustrated – disabled people are ‘able’ at different things in different ways, meaning that conventional promotion and recruitment criteria and formats can put disabled people at a disadvantage when competing against their non disabled colleagues. This is because policing often tests the things that we (disabled officers) are less able to do (than non disabled officers).

This naturally results in disabled people not qualifying for recruitment or promotion processes.

The problem of ‘qualifying‘ for a promotion or recruitment process is sometimes overcome in other sectors, not so far removed from policing, by the use of ‘Guaranteed interview schemes’ (GIS) as run by many places such as the Home Office and even MI5! If a candidate states they are disabled and wish to be considered as part of the GIS, they will at the very least be guaranteed an interview….if they meet the minimum criteria.

Fair enough. Introduce it to policing and then you have one barrier firmly kicked down.

But, the GIS only gets you as far as the interview or assessment process, where you are then expected to compete against non disabled colleagues on your ability to do ‘conventional’ activities.

The interview or assessment itself is usually competency based, requiring the candidate to provide structured answers set against a list of criteria.

I have recently heard this process described in another way;

“…...(the interview) requires the applicant to answer complex ‘low-baller’ questions and mold one’s evidence to fit on the turn of a dime…..which can present a challenge to those with a number of conditions”, says John Nelson, the Chair of the National Police Autism Association.

So how can we overcome this problem?

Interestingly, Miss Kirby’s article talks about ‘disabled only shortlisting’, an opportunity for disabled people to compete against other disabled people only, something Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn said he was not adverse to in politics and that apparently the Lib Dems have committed to introducing by 2020 (but why wait so long?).

I can visualise this working in policing like so:-

A promotion process is looking for 5 candidates. Therefore, 1 position (20% representation) could be competed for in a ‘disabled only’ promotion process, whilst all non disabled candidates compete for the other 4 positions in a separate process. The ‘disabled only’ process could then be tailored appropriately to fit individual needs of those shortlisted.

Could it work? There is only one way to find out!

I do like this idea but I can’t ever see it getting of the blocks in policing. What better way to guarantee representation from disabled people and in a process which makes the chance of success much more achievable, virtually eliminating the possibility of discrimination.

Personally, I’m torn between whether or not this would be a good thing.

Some may argue that this type of idea is demeaning to disabled people as it indicates they could not possibly be successful against non disabled candidates. I can guarantee others will firmly ask “why disabled people should be given such an advantage”?

The counter question to that however is; “Why are disabled people still put at such a disadvantage?”

Isn’t it about time we stop worrying about offending people and start doing what is right for the good of everyone in society, the public we serve?

Would disabled people, (who account for about 20% of our population don’t forget) rather be represented by disabled or non disabled politicians? People who actually understand them.

Would the welfare reforms have so badly affected disabled people if the decisions were made by disabled politicians? I very much doubt it!

Likewise, would victims of disability hate crime, or any crime for that matter, rather be helped by an officer who can empathise with them because they too are disabled, or an officer who has never known what it is to be disabled?

We can fix representation in policing, but it won’t be achieved through treating people “fairly”, it will be achieved through treating people according to their needs.