Rules in Information Sharing for Security
Rules in Information Sharing for Security
Chan, J, Logan, S & Bennett Moses, L 2020, ‘Rules in Information Sharing for Security’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, vol. Online.
Information sharing has become a central concern for security agencies since 9/11. Increasingly, task forces and public inquiries have called for agencies to facilitate greater data sharing in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the face of serious security threats Yet the reluctance of agents to share information has long been a problem documented in the policing and intelligence literature. A variety of “barriers” to data sharing have been offered: technology, funding, governance and policy, the business models of technology providers, legal constraints, interagency competition and mistrust, organisational structure. This article aims to clarify the dynamics of information sharing through a conceptual model drawn from the sociology of information that sees the sharing and withholding of information as contingent on rules as a system of trust. To conceptualise how decisions about information sharing can be dependent on rules, we draw on Richard Ericson’s (2007) framework that examines the myriad contexts of rule-following in policing: the following of formal rules, exercising discretion, drawing on cultural knowledge, complying with communication formats, and operating without rules. We adopt Ericson’s conception of rules which includes legislation and other recognised sources of law as well as formal bureaucratic or administrative rules promulgated within particular agencies but excludes rules of thumb derived from police culture. Synthesising this literature, we postulate that information sharing in an age of datafication is a practice that depends on the interaction of formal rules, culture and technology. We make use of an Australian case study that uses technology to facilitate data sharing to demonstrate how formal rules, culture and technology are intertwined in constraining or enabling access to information. The implications of this model for legal and policy interventions are discussed in the concluding section.