Private Security and Neopolice
Changing a public security paradigm with hardware
A Great Problem
There is a well-known fact that the police lag is one of the crucial problems in crimes preventing. This is due to the fact that police have not efficient and quick call services, location-based mapping, decentralized information on crimes in a variety of city districts. Even in the United States, different situations take place, e.g. “leaving officers feeling as though they are “running from call to call” (1).
They say that in Great Britain frustrated members of the public spend up to three and three-quarter hours waiting for 101 police calls to be answered. Callers waited an average 12 minutes and 7 seconds before giving up, but the most determined caller held on for just over three and three quarter hours. “The phone rang and rang, and after 10 minutes and hung up. I tried again twice on and then again a few days later” (2). That is not safe.
In another situation, just for example (3), the nearest available units were not deployed, nor did anyone other than the duty inspector and the PSO volunteer. The response times and travelling distance in this case exposed everyone involved to high risk (danger of travelling long distance at speed, the family at the house had a long time for help to arrive, delay in medical treatment). In the US, the average police response time for verified (audio or video) alarm police dispatches must be around seven minutes (4).
Between 2008 and 2013, Denver police response time has increased from 11.4 minutes to 14.3 minutes (2.9 minutes) for Priority 0–2 calls and from 20.5 to 23.3 minutes (2.8 minutes) for Priority 3–6 calls (5). In some departments traveling time is not a target metric (6).
Due to the data lack, criminology reports are always providing results that do not refer to the current year or the previous one but will shed light on the situation 3–4 years back in time. So far, ways to introduce significant improvements to this dilemma have not been found. For many, a delay of 3–4 years would seem to be too long for an up-to-date assessment (7).
The Criminology
A median value of police concentration is approximately 303.3 officers per 100 000 citizens (8). Considering the authorized strength of officers, labor market data (9), police concentration in the US, approximately $100–106 are spent to ensure a citizen’s public security. In 2013 (10), DPD’s approved budget was approximately $195 million with an authorized strength of 1426 officers ($127K per an officer). Police staff has decreased down to 6% (11).
The overall crime rate in 2016 is projected to remain the same as in 2015, rising by 1.3 percent. Twelve cities are expected to see drops in crime. These decreases are offset by Chicago (rising 9.1 percent) and Charlotte (17.5 percent). Nationally, crime remains at an all-time low. Nationally, the murder rate is projected to increase 31.5 percent from 2014 to 2016 — with half of additional murders attributable to Baltimore, Chicago, and Houston (12).
Since homicide rates remain low nationwide, percentage increases may overstate relatively small increases. In San Jose, for example, just 21 new murders translated to a 66.7 percent increase in the city’s murder rate. Based on this data, the authors conclude there is no evidence of a national murder wave, yet increases in these select cities are indeed a serious problem (13). It has been shown that more police officers can measurably reduce crime (14).
Is There a Shift?
Significantly, of the 20 concepts tested, wearable devices related to personal safety and security were rated highly by smartphone users, with 50 percent on average very interested in ideas like panic buttons and wearable location trackers. It reveals that the feeling of safety drops by 20 percent among consumers from day to night. Women feel vulnerable waiting for public transport (15).
And whilst smartphones do lend a sense of safety, with 17 percent of users already using security-related apps, consumers desire a discreet way to send an alert for help. This high interest can be explained by the fact that, 28% of smartphone users surveyed across the 5 markets said (16) they have been the victim of a crime in the past 12 months. In Brazil, 43 percent reported being a victim of crimes like smartphone theft, burglary or molestation and a huge 78 percent of smartphone users are interested in wearable SOS/panic buttons.
Using SOS buttons is all about simplifying police arrival (a), decentralized data generation (b), machine learning and smart focusing on the less dangerous districts and the more dangerous ones (c). There is no need to increase an authorized strength and multiply inefficient call center schemes. With a number increase of $100-priced security wearables, data on specific crimes are formed instantly. It allows effective redistributing a workload from an operational work to quick and smart city patrolling. We could decrease insurance risks (17) and make the world a safer place to live (18).
