The fast acceleration in technological development has seen humankind divided between its proponents and opponents. While it is also true that technology has brought unprecedented security challenges, it is unequivocal that some security organisations have harnessed its usefulness and immensely benefited.
The thematic question of this article is: how do leaders in security influence the adoption of the Internet of Things [IoT]? IoT is commonly referred to as a network of connected devices that interact and exchange data.
While some transnational security institutions and police organisations have embraced the use of IoT, some are still slumbering and lingering behind the technology.
For those that have embraced technology, for instance in police and security institutions, we have seen improved public safety, lessened crime rates and enhanced communication between agencies and other stakeholders.
It is conceivable that leaders in the security environment play a crucial role in promoting the use of IoT devices. Therefore, associating its acknowledgement with the security fraternity is right to pinpoint leaders’ curiosity to spearhead its realisation within the security setting is paramount.
Since IoT devices include wearable technologies, such as watches, belts, cameras, voice assistance and even shoes, capturing the event’s location and responding to incidences by law enforcement has become easier.
In a country like Namibia, troubled by domestic violence, IoT devices could be used to identify domestic abuse, coercive control and cyberstalking by tracking and listening to private conversations.
On the other hand, smart cameras that recognises faces, capture license plates and identify suspicious behaviour installed in public places could make police duty much easier since they allow law enforcement agencies to monitor public spaces in real time.
In other security institutions, officers are equipped with wearable technology such as body cameras and GPS trackers. These devices can help monitor officers’ behaviour, ensure their safety, and provide admissible evidence in the event of an incident. Additionally, GPS trackers can help law enforcement agencies uncover missing persons or stolen vehicles.
With IoT devices, security agencies can quickly monitor and respond to emergencies like glimpsing gunshots in real time. This subsequently improves the response time of security agencies and saves lives.
I may stress here that, for as long as security activities are performed in the 21st Century, moving towards adopting IoT for effective policing is the way to go. This, perhaps, explains the need for leaders in the security environment to be clued in on matters related to IoT.
This understanding and the willingness to adopt the technology can be realised with leaders who value organisational interest over personal attraction. Digital devices such as actuators, sensors, smartphones, and smart appliances have been used by criminals to continue perpetrating crimes.
It may be acceptable to argue further that these have been the reason why terrorist activities and transborder crimes have been challenging to address.
From a layman’s proficiency, this compels leaders to be well educated on IoT to understand its application in improving public safety while managing and navigating turbulent safety and security waves necessitated by technology.
It is only when successfully employed within the policing sphere by both the leaders and operatives IoT technology will find its relevancy in the public domain. The illustration is that when security officers proactively communicate the benefits of IoT technology to stakeholders and the public, through meetings, public fora and community policing, they promote awareness, which are the core components of smart policing.
Nonetheless, for the preceding to grip the pad, it can be agreed that police officers should be equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge on IoT and the resources to maintain the technology.
While it is acknowledged in this piece that IoT is essential for modern policing and security effectiveness, the myriad of challenges stacked again it should be recognised.
Sadly, the failure to point out issues that IoT also brings along presents a biased analysis. For instance, installing and maintaining IoT devices require considerable resources, which may be a challenge to most poorly funded security institutions in Africa.
In addition, IoT devices use, if not properly regulated, encroach ethical and privacy entitlements. For instance, using smart cameras can be seen as an invasion of privacy. Similarly, wearable technology can be seen as violating officers’ privacy rights.
In as such, as the challenges to the implementation of IoT are plausible, leaders within the security clusters need to be knowledgeable about IoT technology. Furthermore, areas in which IoT technology can be used should be effectively identified to maximise the benefits associated with the technology fully.
Finally, cultivating interest in IoT will requires transformed security leaders whose broad bath capture allays of global upheaval in technological space.
Therefore, training relevant leaders to equip them with knowledge and influence their attitude toward IoT applications in security will accelerate the implementation and hence reap enormous benefits to the security sector.
*Kennedy Mabuku holds a Doctoral in Policing Practice. He writes in his personal capacity and not as a police officer.