Reengineering
Crime Recording
There are
many deep questions people ask. What is crime? How is it recorded? What are the
rules for recording? Is it a complete representation of all criminality?
Recent
attention has focused on a change that will dramatically alter the amount of
crime recorded and change the relationship between “normal” crime and its
digital cousin. The Crime Recording system will also alter people’s perception
of what crime is, how it’s recorded and how it’s investigated. These recent
changes have created a debate that no doubt will have at least two sides and probably
no ends.
The vision of Crime Recording in England and Wales is that it is renowned
for being the best crime
recording system in the world: one that is consistently applied; delivers
accurate statistics that are trusted by the public and puts the needs of
victims at its core. A brave statement. The new change should be focused on
those aims.
The rules
for Crime Recording are regularly reviewed and each force is inspected as to
how it then executes and enforces the rules. Individual Force Crime Registrars
are held accountable for crime recording performance. Police and Crime Commissioners
continue to hold Chief Constables accountable for their ability to record crime
accurately, effectively and in compliance of the rules.
All the data
from Crime Recording systems across England and Wales is collated and published
by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) having been removed from the Home
Office to make them appear more independent and therefore reliable.
Over the past
weekend the media announced that the crime statistics from ActionFraud (the UK
response to fraud and computer crime), would be added to National Police Crime figures
published by the ONS. The net result will be a 40% increase in crime overnight.
The announcement, made by the Commissioner of the City of London Police, may not
be great news for those who have heralded a reduction in recorded crime around
the UK.
However
there is little doubt that this will lead to a much more accurate assessment of
criminality in England and Wales. Yet even with the addition of ActionFraud data,
it is unfortunately not the full picture of criminality.
Police Crime Recording still
excludes a small range of data recorded elsewhere, for example:
·
Where the
Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has been solely responsible for an investigation and
arrest of a suspect, although the police charge the suspect and submit papers
to the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of the agency. The SFO has primacy
of investigation.
·
Where the
police provide information, but no other assistance, to a Department of
Business Innovation and Skills fraud investigation.
·
Where the
police offer custody facilities to customs officials who have apprehended
smugglers and Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has primacy of
investigation.
·
Where the
police accompany customs officials in raiding a ship suspected of smuggling and
HMRC has primacy of investigation.
·
The
Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) provides the police with the names of
benefit fraud offenders for intelligence purposes. The DWP has primacy of
investigation.
·
The
police assist DWP officials in surveillance work that leads to the apprehension
of benefit fraudsters. DWP has primacy of investigation
These
examples are cited in the Crime Recording Rules. They all involve operational activity
by Police for which there is no Police Crime Record for national statistics
purposes. Each of the agencies keep separate accounts which need to be
considered alongside “Police Recorded Crime” to get a full picture of
criminality in England and Wales. Until now crime reported to ActionFraud was
also excluded
Some
other crime incidents do not have to be recorded by the Police. For example, if
the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) has recorded an incident, and has
not allocated it for investigation, and determined there are insufficient lines
of enquiry to warrant further investigation. This assessment will be managed by
the NFIB (which currently sits under the remit of the City of London Police).
This data is however used for NFIB briefings with other Departments and Central
agencies as well as industry but is not part of Police Crime Recording.
Most people would
probably accept that incidents of online or cyber-crime (where the offence is
committed within a digital environment rather than merely to perpetrate a
“normal” crime) should be recorded and investigated. That simplistic approach
is slightly frustrated for many reasons which can discourage victims from
reporting incidents to the police such as:
·
Where
there are multiple victims across the globe or in the UK making the
investigation too costly or unmanageable
·
Where
the likelihood that offenders live or operate in countries without mutual
assistance for investigations, or extradition treaties.
·
Where
the embarrassment caused to companies of having been attacked and the
consequential loss of confidence amongst its customers.
·
Where
the victim considers the cost of reporting (staff downtime, disruption etc.) to
exceed the potential loss.
The reality
is that such incidents do not become part of the rich picture of recorded
crime. However, these incidents are sometimes within the knowledge of major
cyber-security companies and of course the victims. There is an argument that
they should all be included in the National Police Crime statistics.
Bringing all
this information together to create a full and accurate picture of cybercrime
and fraud sounds simple. However, unless this data can be collated, analysed
and disseminated within a usable timeframe, it will be of little value. There
has to be a balance between collating all relevant and accurate data about online
criminality, and providing something useful and timely for investigation and
prevention.
The
ActionFraud data will help to provide greater granularity to f criminality in
England and Wales but at the expense of a substantial shift upwards in crime
numbers overall. Such granularity, however, can help to tackle broad national
issues, but unless the data is relevant to locally instigated criminality, and
is available to local officers, it will only be relevant to national agencies. It
is believed the move by ActionFraud will not deliver localised data for all
reports.
Even with
ActionFraud data, the picture of cybercrime and fraud will still be incomplete.
Data on cybercrimes and attacks including hacking and other digital related criminality
is sometimes held by other centrally based Agencies or businesses.
For example,
the UK Computer Emergency Response Team has led a number of Regional Cyber
Information Sharing Partnerships (CISP) to allow industry and business to share
incidents of cybercrime. These incidents, unless they lead to a prosecution or
investigation, will probably not make it to the Police Crime statistics.
Looking at
some recent incidents there are many different cyber focused crimes
Any sporting
or social event can create the opportunity for scams and fraud. The current
Rugby World Cup is no exception. To be able to respond with an effective
investigation or to warn and prevent further offences requires swift and
effective dissemination of intelligence and data through ActionFraud which is what
ActionFraud and National Fraud Intelligence Bureau were established to deliver.
Such advice is regularly provided to Forces and other organisations.
A crime involving
“parcel mules” who steal from major distributors such as Amazon is not strictly
a Cybercrime but is a fraud and/or theft dependent upon how it is executed.
Unlikely to be identified at an early stage and possibly creating a lower level
response from the Police if at all, the most that can be achieved is broad
prevention strategy. Yet, with effective analysis by ActionFraud and the NFIB, offenders
could be brought to justice. Bringing the ActionFraud data into line with
Police Crime Data will make such an outcome much more likely
The need for
prevention advice and swift investigative ability is highlighted by a recent
case
In this
instance using social engineering and digital skills a company was duped into
giving away its data and allowing criminals to escape with £1M. Clearly this is
a serious crime owing to both the substantial financial loss and gain. However,
many much smaller, similar offences could be perpetrated without victims
knowing for some time, or even ever at all. Yet these lesser offences are
possibly held within NFIB or ActionFraud and so bringing them into the main
Crime Recording system is a positive move
In this
digital age you don’t need a sawn off shotgun and a mask to rob people, far
easier to do it from the garden in your far away timeshare with your iPad. Understanding
the difference between the two crime styles and the overlaps is an important
aspect of crime recording and more importantly crime investigation.
Responding
to the many types of online/digital crime and incidents requires the
collection, analysis and dissemination of effective crime data enabling
investigations, both proactive and reactive, as well as prevention campaigns.
England and Wales have the institutions to deliver that including ActionFraud,
CERTs and CISPs in addition to existing Crime Recording systems in police
forces and the National Crime Agency. Bringing the data together, however
unpalatable it will be in the short term, will improve our understanding of online
criminality and help us to prioritise police resources accordingly
No
discussion of crime policy should ignore the current financial restrictions
facing Police Forces. There is no intention to create an additional workload
when there may not be sufficient staff to manage even the current demand. By
bringing the ActionFraud data into mainstream crime recording it will lead to a
massive increase in the total crime recorded, it is suggested that it will be
40%. However, that crime already exists and this is a more open and honest way
or reproducing it. The public will want to have some confidence that these
crimes are being investigated properly or are at least used to prevent further
offending.
If
ActionFraud is operating as it was designed, and the NFIB is disseminating
appropriate crimes for local investigation then crime has not “Increased” by
bringing the data into Police Recorded Crime. It is just that people will have
a better and fuller understanding of online criminality. Additionally it will
allow far greater effort in tackling those crimes that affect people on a daily
basis such as spamming, hacking and identity theft. Having a more open and
transparent approach to crime recording allows policy makers and the electorate
to make much more informed decisions about how public spending should be used.
Further
changes that could make the investigation of cybercrime and fraud much more
effective might include the following
- A much greater emphasis on training
in cybercrime and digital forensics for all police officers and staff ( College
of Policing is starting to deliver this)
- Greater collaboration between Police
and Industry. (The CISPs and other projects as well as Police and Industry led
fora are making this relationship closer)
- Tighter legislation to protect
against Identity Theft
- Moving ActionFraud within the direct
responsibility of the National Crime Agency or more closely to CERTs
- Investing more in Preventative
campaigns including those targeting Small and Medium Enterprises and building
on the Regional initiatives
- Expanding CISPs to cover all regions
and sectors
- Investment in research to consider
the impact of preventative campaigns and reduction strategies
- Greater public awareness of specific
focus days such as Safer Internet Day
- Greater collaboration internationally
between Police and Industry
- A clear joined up strategy between
police forces including regional units and national agencies to analyse,
investigate and prevent cybercrime.
