MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2946783766

An evaluation of the ‘open source internet research tool’: a user-centred and participatory design approach with UK law enforcement

2018· dissertation· en· W2946783766 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. J. Williams

Notice bibliographique

RevueCreate (Canterbury Christ Church University) · 2018
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLaw enforcementLegislationPolitical scienceSocial mediaLawEnforcement
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

As part of their routine investigations, law enforcement conducts open source research; that is, investigating and researching using publicly available information online. Historically, the notion of collecting open sources of information is as ingrained as the concept of intelligence itself. However, utilising open source research in UK law enforcement is a relatively new concept not generally, or practically, considered until after the civil unrest seen in the UK’s major cities in the summer of 2011. \n \nWhile open source research focuses on the understanding of bein‘publicly available’, there are legal, ethical and procedural issues that law enforcement must consider. This asks the following mainresearch question: What constraints do law enforcement face when conducting open source research? From a legal perspective, law enforcement officials must ensure their actions are necessary and proportionate, more so where an individual’s privacy is concerned under human rights legislation and data protection laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation. Privacy issues appear, though, when considering the boom and usage of social media, where lines can be easily blurred as to what is public and private. \n \nGuidance from Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and, now, the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) tends to be non-committal in tone, but nods towards obtaining legal authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 when conducting what may be ‘directed surveillance’. RIPA, however, pre-dates the modern era of social media by several years, so its applicability as the de-facto piece of legislation for conducting higher levels of open source research is called into question. 22 semi-structured interviews with law enforcement officials were conducted and discovered a grey area surrounding legal authorities when conducting open source research. \n \nFrom a technical and procedural aspect of conducting open source research, officers used a variety of software tools that would vary both in price and quality, with no standard toolset. This was evidenced from 20 questionnaire responses from 12 police forces within the UK. In an attempt to bring about standardisation, the College of Policing’s Research, Identifying and Tracing the Electronic Suspect (RITES) course recommended several capturing and productivity tools. Trainers on the RITES course, however, soon discovered the cognitive overload this had on the cohort, who would often spend more time learning to use the tools than learn about open source research techniques. \n \nThe problem highlighted above prompted the creation of Open Source Internet Research Tool (OSIRT); an all-in-one browser for conducting open source research. OSIRT’s creation followed the user-centred design (UCD) method, with two phases of development using the software engineering methodologies ‘throwaway prototyping’, for the prototype version, and ‘incremental and iterative development’ for the release version. \n \n \n \nOSIRT has since been integrated into the RITES course, which trains over 100 officers a year, and provides a feedback outlet for OSIRT. System Usability Scale questionnaires administered on RITES courses have shown OSIRT to be usable, with feedback being positive. Beyond the RITES course, surveys, interviews and observations also show OSIRT makes an impact on everyday policing and has reduced the burden officers faced when conducting opens source research. \n \nOSIRT’s impact now reaches beyond the UK and sees usage across the globe. OSIRT contributes to law enforcement output in countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia and even Israel, demonstrating OSIRT’s usefulness and necessity are not only applicable to UK law enforcement. \n \nThis thesis makes several contributions both academically and from a practical perspective to law enforcement. The main contributions are: \n• Discussion and analysis of the constraints law enforcement within the UK face when conducting open source research from a legal, ethical and procedural perspective. \n• Discussion, analysis and reflective discourse surrounding the development of a software tool for law enforcement and the challenges faced in what is a unique development. \n• An approach to collaborating with those who are in ‘closed’ environments, such as law enforcement, to create bespoke software. Additionally, this approach offers a method of measuring the value and usefulness of OSIRT with UK law enforcement. \n• The creation and integration of OSIRT in to law enforcement and law enforcement training packages.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,258
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,244
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Science ouverte
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,994
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,915

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,2580,244
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0130,017
Communication savante0,0200,014
Science ouverte0,0060,019
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,136
Tête enseignante GPT0,325
Écart entre enseignants0,189 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCreate (Canterbury Christ Church University)Même sujetCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesTravaux en français237 207