You are in:
Public Safety or Public Outcry
Faced with new demands in homeland security and public safety, government services are endeavouring to resolve the future needs of their information infrastructures. David Barrow, Head of Business Development, Government and Civil Solutions, EADS Defence and Security Systems Ltd, outlines the legislative and real world need for broader scale emergency management; considering the demands for new standards, a credible, dedicated approach from technology integrators and the need for new partnerships both with government and a public concerned with the environment, public health, their safety and civil liberties...
New Dimension of Risk is a term that is driving the future of blue light and security services as they work together in the UK to increase public safety. Recent primary legislation such as the Civil Contingencies Act and the Fire and Rescue Services Act is characterised by new responsibilities, new measurements and new tasks. Underwriting the government’s commitment to deliver better public safety in the UK, this new legislation is encouraging the need for improved technology that can have a major influence upon the environment, civil liberties and critically the public’s safety.
Broadening Horizons
The market for complete security management is now characterised by a broadening of service offerings to encompass crisis management and public safety at all levels. Delivering systems for airports, seaports, land borders, e-borders, national identification programmes, and emergency service response systems, is a much wider remit than ever before. Just as industry already competes on a global scale, so now the public sector is moving toward a need to respond to events that are not restricted by the traditional boundaries, pushing services to respond in a broader, even international manner.
We only have to look at the benefits that globalisation has brought to the business economy - providing rapid access to a greater range and volume of equipment, manpower and knowledge – to see that there can be value in extending such an approach into the public sector. Applying a global model to the principles of emergency planning and management is at the very core of programmes developed to meet the basic functions and phases of Disaster and Emergency Management (DEM – see figure 1). A global approach will meet many of the needs of DEM, especially in the initial stages of prevention and preparation. While no two disasters are ever the same, a broad integrated strategy will be better able to cope with large scale events and subsequent implementation of recovery on a possible international scale.
Are Suppliers Credible?
The technological requirements for joint agency operations to deliver integrated crisis management require secure interoperable sharing of information across scaleable communications infrastructures. Technology is therefore enabling government to realise the improvement of public services and safety, but to do this successfully governments require technology partners that understand and are willing to undertake long term commitment, and can bear the associated risks. The credibility to do this becomes all the more important when answering the need for public awareness of new programmes, such as those driven by or deploying digital technologies such as TETRAPOL, TETRA and the succeeding generation of communications infrastructures.
This credibility is derived from the successful implementation of secure infrastructures around the world that meet internationally agreed certification and compliance. The ten commitments outlined by mobile operators for transparency in planning and building mobile phone networks in the UK was a good example of how suppliers, operators and integrators should be working with the public, and now we have the European Union’s Project OASIS (Open Advanced System for Disaster and Emergency Management). Established for the cross border management of crises, and supported by the UK Government. OASIS’ objective is to define and develop an information technology framework based on an open and flexible architecture that acknowledges existing and proposed international standards.
Adherence to international standards and acquisition of technologies demonstrating the necessary long term commitment and investment in public safety already characterise large scale networks operating around the globe. The Spanish SIRDEE network, encompassing the Canaries and operating across a distance of over 2000 km with an optimised number of base stations, demonstrates just such a capability. Such networks can form a key element in cross border, interoperable systems for emergency response that meet the demands of modern public safety without the controversy of breaching planning considerations or generating health concerns.
Failure by suppliers in the past to even meet their own self-penned standards has had hugely damaging consequences when introducing new technology to the public. It is this lack of credibility that has historically created public distrust and subsequent outcry - and rightly so. In the UK, supplier commitment to public safety currently comes from the support of HMG including the ODPM in its mission to modernise the Fire and Rescue Service through the instigation of the New Dimension, Firelink and FireControl programmes. This is why building up credibility both in the eyes of governments and the public is so critically important.
That credibility comes from a pedigree derived from adhering to the broader international standards championed by projects such as OASIS. Adhering to the demands of such a project would be a shining example of how an integrator can underpin a European Disaster and Emergency Management system. By facilitating the cooperation between the information systems in a local, regional, national or international environment in the case of large scale, as well as smaller local, emergencies, companies can demonstrate a pedigree that the public can trust.
New Demands, New Concerns
Unifying emergency services responses with central crisis management requires large scale integrators to be working not just at the technical and operational level, but also at the political level. Integrators need to understand the bigger picture, for example, to support government with new ways of financing elements of the Critical National Infrastructure (CNI). There are concerns both here and in the USA that more than 85% of CNI is in private hands with little or no recourse to the public. It is much better for the government to own the infrastructure, managed by a third party if required, rather than be completely outsourced. Foreign corporate interests could well purchase an outsourced company, theoretically exerting outside influence on our own CNI, particularly of concern with regards to our homeland security systems.
While outsourcing generates concerns, the wholesale transition of parts of radio spectrum to industry for commercial exploitation is even more worrying to many. This is particularly relevant should there be a catastrophic event and spectrum was privately held and unavailable. At the heart of the public safety debate should be the question of the value of selling spectrum versus future public safety. A case in point was the 2004 terrorist bombings in Madrid where the public networks, saturated with calls, collapsed within an hour of the detonation of the bombs. It was only because the government had its own dedicated communications system that it was able to respond in the effective way that it did.
The secure solution that was deployed in Madrid was ultimately the winner, securing a credibility building reputation in the public’s consciousness. This pedigree sits at the heart of making a success of projects such as OASIS which will integrate cross border crises management with secure TETRAPOL infrastructures across Spain, France and Switzerland. By demonstrating legitimacy in the marketplace through a broad range of projects that require large scale integration, companies can illustrate in an open public manner the commitment to work with governments to deliver better safety across the globe.
Competing For Safer Technology
The Government’s demand for greater homeland security and an integrated emergency response is driving business competition that will sustain the country’s industrial base, create new jobs and drive market forces. The increased resilience derived from offering multiple interoperable infrastructures will provide the robust networks that are needed to respond to new disruptive challenges, whether another terrorist assault or natural disaster. A non competitive single infrastructure only guarantees a reduction in investment and stagnation in the development of relevant technology. Failure to own IPR for key technologies also hinders true integration and the future development of next generation secure networks. Large scale integrators are therefore beholden by government to ensure investment in new technology must be a key service offering, future proofing a network that ultimately is paid for by the tax payer. As a result, large scale integrators can continue to develop the necessary credibility for their systems in the eyes of the public.
Open Partnerships
The government has clarified the need for new infrastructure programmes, accepting that UK emergency service communications systems need upgrading to meet the new challenges and responsibilities. The existing infrastructures fail to deliver the necessary support required by a modern public safety service, whether police, fire or ambulance services. For suppliers to be able to demonstrate that they are committed to improving the infrastructure for public safety they need to be deeply invested in developing next generation communications technology that deliver security, interoperability and reach.
Integrators also need to demonstrate a partnership with the public when deploying new technology. There is an onus on suppliers to be transparent with regards to new technologies, demonstrating the desire to reduce use of greenfield sites and react in an open manner to health concerns of both users and the public. These have been the overriding concerns when dealing with first iteration digital communication networks in this country. As emergency management systems integrate with security services to supply improved public safety, additional consideration now also needs to be made for preserving a balance between citizen liberty and safety.
Conclusion
There is a greater need than ever for government, integrators and the public to partner in enabling technology that can improve public safety. The terrorist actions this July in London only increase the desire to implement Global Homeland Security Management and in turn improve the effectiveness and efficiency of response to such events. Though citizens may be concerned by the perceived encroachment on civil liberties, few in the current climate would argue over the need to better deploy budget to allow for a broad remit of public safety services. There will always be a balance between public protection and public liberty and it is a tragedy that the debate has already become a reality for the British public.
Just as the public is stoical in the face of terrorism, so we believe there will be a greater understanding and acceptance of the demands that security management technology will make of our citizens and their liberties if we are to have a level of protection that we all deserve whilst still expediting the lifestyle that we have become accustomed too.
If there is an adherence to universally accepted standards, and a clear dialogue channel with the public when implementing such new technology then public safety should not be accompanied by outcry.
