Summary of interview with NN2

First in this subsection an overview of the interviewee’s background will be given. Thereafter the summary of the transcript will be divided into three parts; the planning- and decision making process (which include answers to question 1 and 2), information systems (which include answers to question, 3 – 6), and problems and successes in new systems (which include answers to question 7).

Background of the interviewee

Interviewee NN2 has a civilian education as a graduate engineer (sivilingeniør). NN2’s career has been in the public sector; System developer in Statskonsult; head of (byråsjef) the Police Department, Ministry of Justice and the Police (Justis- og politidepartementet); head of National Police Computing Service (Politiets datatjeneste, PD); since 2004 NN2 has been head of Department for Information and Communication Technology (IKT-avdelingen) at Kripos.

The planning- and decision making process

The National Police Computing and Material Service (PDMT, Politiets data- og

materielltjeneste) is responsible for the development and maintenance of computer systems. There is no uniform way in which information systems is planned, but there are two main sources for a planning- and decision making process. Some information systems have been the result of needs from those using the system, and some information systems have been the result of a political process.

Systems being the result of a political process have often had its origin in an event, and the task of developing the system has been entrusted to PDMT who have been forced to give the task priority and not been able to take time to consider how the system should be connected to other systems. The result is that an autonomous system is performing the particular task. When PDMT receives a request for developing a new system they initiate a project with a project team and a steering committee with participants from the involved parties.

Introduction of the system depends on the complexity of the system. In complex systems the Norwegian Police University College (Politihøgskolen) can be involved in training the users, or PDMT can, in less complex system, be responsible for the training. An example of a system that was developed as a result of a political process is the software for processing finger prints. In the 1980’s the technology existed, but it was very expensive and there was

little appreciation for investing in a system as specialised as this. The event leading to the political decision for investing in such a system was a bomb exploding in a train station. A person sitting in a photo booth was killed when the bomb went off. It took quite some time to capture the perpetrator, and the head of the department dealing with finger prints was on the front page of VG (a Norwegian newspaper). He stated that with an automated finger print system the case would have been solved fast. This statement resulted in, almost over night, a political decision stating that an automated finger print system should be procured.

Often PDMT is occupied with tasks they have received from the political authorities, and when e.g. Kripos or a police district needs a new system, PDMT does not have the time to develop these minor systems. The development is therefore done locally and the result is again autonomous systems. A consequence of autonomous systems is that data has to be printed out from one system and entered into another in order to produce new reports. However, as time has passed some of the larger systems have been integrated. Integrated systems give the opportunity to focus on processes in stead of systems.

“The benefit of information systems within the police today depends mostly on the knowledge each person has of the systems, and that they know what it contains in order to be able to search for data in the first, second, third, fourth or fifth system. Instead of, in a case of searching for a missing person, one can act in accordance with the function. But today you must use one system for wanted notices to Interpol, a second system for wanted notices to Schengen, a third system if you are going to send finger prints to Eurodac, and a fourth system for wanted notices in Norway.”

“Nytten man i dag har av datasystemer i politiet er i stor grad avhengig av at den enkelte kjenner systemene og vet hva som ligger i de slik at du kan slå opp i det ene, andre, tredje, fjerde eller femte systemet. I stedet for at, hvis du satt med

etterlysninger, så forholdt man seg til en etterlysningsfunksjon som tilbød alt du trengte i forbindelse med etterlysningen. Men i dag må du inn i ett system hvis du skal etterlyse i Interpol, du må i et annet hvis du skal etterlyse i Schengen, du må inn i et tredje hvis du skal sende fingravtrykk til Eurodac, du må inn i et fjerde hvis du skal etterlyse lokalt i Norge.”

The police have many good individual systems, but the systems require much of the users in order to find relevant information. If these systems had not existed good police work had not been possible.

Information systems

Potential interesting information for criminal intelligence analysis can be found in several systems both at the police force and at Kripos. The system used for the central part of the

intelligence analysis is a system called Analyst Notebook, and this system has interfaces to several other systems. But the analyst also has to find information in other systems without interface with Analyst Notebook. Intelligence has their own system called Krimsys and this is managed by Kripos. Two systems are used to record a person’s criminal history; each police district is using a system as an initial record system (called BL) and the information is transferred to a central system (Strasak). Logs from telephone companies are also used in the analysis process in order to create relevant connections between people.

The investigator and analyst depend on access to several systems. Some of the systems are fairly easy to use and the access is regulated according to a persons function. Other systems are based on technology so old that reports have to be individually programmed. In some cases persons can receive a higher clearance to obtain information they usually do not have access to (e.g. intelligence information). Some of the systems also require specialist knowledge to be able to operate them. Both the analysis system and the fingerprint system are examples of these kinds of systems. The fingerprint system will provide a list of possible hits for a fingerprint, but it is a forensic scientist that ultimately makes the decision of a match. Employees at Kripos often have the expertise necessary to operate these kinds of systems which requires a certain amount of cases. E.g. in murder cases most police districts in Norway have too few murders to be able to maintain expertise in this area. Kripos therefore assists these districts when a murder is committed. However, the technology is changing so fast that what is considered expertise today may be viewed as general knowledge tomorrow.

Exchange of information between Kripos and the judicial system has been limited to sending reports of the investigation and analysis through the police district requesting the

investigation.

Problems and successes in new systems

One system that started out being problematic is the DNA-system. A decision was made allowing the police to record DNA-profiles belonging to persons sentenced for specific crimes. This allowed search for DNA-comparisons from crime scenes. However, the regulations about using the system were quite restrictive. A blood sample should be taken and analysed in order to produce the profile. However, occasionally health personnel guarded against taking blood samples in prison. This resulted in taking samples from the mouth and

this was a task that could be performed by others than health personnel. A suspect’s DNA- profile could be matched to the material gathered in a case, but trying to find a match in unsolved cases was not allowed unless the suspect gave a written consent. A suspect

normally does not agree to give a written consent, but in one case the suspect gave permission to match the profile, and a match was found in an unsolved rape case. The case was

published in the press and now this restriction does not apply any longer. After this event more samples has been analysed and recorded in the database, and the number of hits has increased.

Another success story is the Eurodac system in which fingerprints are recorded. This system is a result of the Dublin convention. The Dublin convention states that asylum seekers travelling to different countries seeking asylum shall be sent back to the first country where they applied for asylum. The Norwegian fingerprint database is electronically linked to the Eurodac system and this has resulted in that several asylum seekers travelling from country to country has been detected and sent back to the first country. False identities have also been discovered.

Two information systems which have not been a success are Krimsys and Narksys. Narksys contains drug crimes and all other crime is recorded in Krimsys. A division based on type of criminality was not purposeful, because criminal actions often involve more than one type of crime (e.g. organised crime). A result of the difficulties to find information was the

establishing of local databases, which only increased the problems. However, a decision has been made to develop a new integrated intelligence system.