Check against delivery
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
September 19, 2006
Good afternoon...and thank you for allowing me to be part of this important and esteemed panel.
I thought the Secretary General might be a little tired of hearing me speak by now, but he seems to keep asking me - and I am grateful for that.
Because I think there is very little that is more honorable than being given this opportunity to speak to my peers and colleagues, from around the world.
Although our realities are, of course, so very different, I am always struck, when I come to Interpol meetings, by the similarities in our purposes, in our passion for justice, policing, safety and security and above all in the shared commitment among our leaders to work together to achieve both individual and shared goals.
You know I have spoken on three prior occasions to the Interpol community:
In Cameroon, in 2002, on the topic of leadership,
In 2003 on corruption, and
In 2005 I addressed the issue of terrorism at a special conference on bio-terrorism and law enforcement.
When I first saw the invitation to speak on this panel I thought to myself 'Hmmm this is a little different not so philosophical a topic as the others I guess I'll have to give a more technical, operational, address.'
But then, as I pondered what I wanted to say today, I realized that speaking at any length, in any detail, on the practicalities of technology, wouldn't make much sense.
Even in my own organization let alone around the world there are many people far more capable than I am of talking about the incredible capacities and applications that technology offers the law enforcement community.
Likewise I'm not so sure how helpful it would be for me to tell you what we are doing in Canada, and in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with technology, and in the context of a technologically transformed context for our work.
After all there are only two reactions to such a presentation aren't there?
Either you sit there thinking 'oh yeah we do that too' - or worse 'uh huh well we did something like that a long time ago' OR you sit there thinking 'oh sure...easy for him to say...we can barely cover our operating costs.'
In either case, an overview by me of the numerous programs, projects, tools, policies and developments underway in Canada in terms of technology, is just likely to bore you or annoy you.
So I guess I'm best to stay at the level I prefer to be anyway the philosophical.
And as I sat quietly a week or so ago and began to think in this way I realized there are some fascinating, troubling, and ultimately very challenging things that we need to consider.
I want to put three of them before you today.
The first thing (and this is always the case) is the most obvious.
Which is that we're not gathered here today to talk about IF we want to adopt new technology are we?
Or WHETHER technology is going to change the face of law enforcement, security and crime.
Nor are we going to spend any time thinking about how fast technology might be advancing, or even whether it's a good thing.
Nope.
All of that falls squarely into the category of 'asked and answered.'
The technological revolution has come, is here to stay, and it moves at a pace beyond anything we've ever experienced before.
In fact there are those who posit that we are now moving into an even more advanced era of evolution.
One which is characterized more by innovation and adeptness with how information, science and technology are used and applied, rather than primarily on discovery and development.
The second overarching point I'd like to make is that the two most important developments in law enforcement that I have spent most of the last six years pounding away at (and many of you have heard me do so), - that is integration AND intelligence-led policing - are fundamentally defined by, dependent on, and powered by technology.
Obviously technology enables the quick, safe and managed sharing of information that is the cornerstone of integrated policing.
Technology is also the bedrock of intelligence-led work in two ways:
First, via the computer based tools that allow us to organize, collate, assess and analyze raw data, and
Second, through the incredible innovations in science and other new forms of knowledge, which have given us many powerful new investigative and analytic tools in forensics.
My third line of thinking... (and it must be said that I clearly don't have time this afternoon to go into any depth in these remarks and so in each case I'm really just presenting the tips of three big icebergs).
It is that we can not avoid a careful consideration of the impact of technology on crime and the heightened capacity that it gives criminals.
I include in this not only traditional crime but of course the new reality of terrorism as well.
Just take a look at some of the topics we're covering here in Rio terrorism, cyber crime (including child pornography and exploitation), financial crime (including counterfeiting and money laundering), drug trafficking...
All of this enabled and stimulated by the use of technology.
And in turn our ability to prevent, pursue and prosecute in these areas is directly related to our own technological capacities.
So...
Technology as a given;
Technology as vital to modern day law enforcement and our ability to be integrated, and to operate on the basis of intelligence-led approaches;
And, technology as probably the most powerful weapon our enemy crime and criminals wields.
In the context of knowing these three icebergs are out there, I think the question now is how we will navigate in such waters.
And there are a whole range of challenges of course.
The most daunting of which has to be the matter of resources.
Our capacity to benefit from, and use, science and technology is directly tied to our ability to attain the necessary resources to do so.
And I don't just mean financial resources though that is without doubt the biggest issue.
But also to get the right people, environment, infrastructure and facilities.
Indeed when we look closely at what it takes to develop and keep up to speed technologically speaking, we see a whole gamut of elements including research and development, manufacture, personnel training, utilization costs, etc.
Add to this the fact that very few of us operate in a policy or decision making vacuum and so the inclinations, understanding, and choices of our political masters and our government bureaucratic colleagues not to mention the media and the public - also play a significant role in how much, and how well, we can upgrade our technological toolkits.
I want to say something very specific about this question of resourcing. And I recognize that it's a comment that applies beyond a discussion of technology.
It is that we have no choice, in this global community of leaders in law enforcement, but to recognize that some of us in this room are 'haves' and some are 'have nots.'
Yet even those of us in the so called 'First world' are scrambling to keep up with demands placed upon us by the need to adapt our technological operations.
For poorer countries, or war torn regimes, or in countries decimated by political unrest, famine, AIDS or other crises that compromise the availability of an educated workforce and stable society, the challenges in this regard are almost impossible.
However, as we know only too well and thanks largely to technology crime is not only more complicated than ever it - like everything else - has gone global.
In fact globalization and technologicalization are so intertwined that they are almost the same thing.
There isn't a person in this room who hasn't dealt with at least one situation in your country this year that didn't originate in another one.
Not one of us who doesn't right now have a file on our desk that requires communicating with a different jurisdiction, sharing of information (and possibly even personnel), that doesn't require not only you to be technologically capable, but the other guy too.
We need each other to be able to do our jobs.
And that means we need all of us to have at least some basic inter-operability.
You know it's interesting...like many of the issues we face internationally we dealt with the same issue domestically in Canada first.
You'd think maybe that when technology started to be so prevalent that we'd have seen the creation and use of all the same tools and resources wouldn't you?
That would have made sense.
Ha!
(Just like you'd think we'd have all the same laws from one part of the country to another...or the same budget allocations for policing in every province or territory...or...oh...just don't get me started)
Anyway we found ourselves, in Canada, with lots of different information gathering and management tools, different protocols for data analysis you name it.
It was a dog's breakfast.
Unfortunately the realities of turfism, politics, financing and a host of other barriers meant that we couldn't just replace all this competing and un-integrated technology with one seamless system.
Instead we had to slowly and carefully assess where the important breaks in continuity lay and at cost, and with the use of precious time build new tools that enable all these different systems to talk to each other.
The result is an amazing tool called NIII and any one from my organization would be happy to get you information about it.
But the reason I provide this example is because I think now we have to start thinking about the same challenge internationally.
We need to enable our systems to work with each other just as much as we need to keep making sure our people do.
We need to work with our policy people and politicians to help create the legal environment that allows technologies to be used across jurisdictions.
We need to think about sharing actual technology with each other, creating better linkages among and between our technical experts, perhaps even lending each other these people so that we can seed expertise and knowledge across our countries and organizations.
It goes without saying that Interpol has a vitally important role to play as the broker, the enabler, and the lynchpin in such a process of change.
But here's my final comment and I think it's an important one (if I do say so myself).
Because the one thing that's fascinating about technology is that it is, of course, a neutral resource.
Like power, or money, its impact is defined by how it is used, rather than by its inherent nature.
It can be used, obviously, for good or for bad.
It can help or it can hinder.
And it has very few limitations.
Put enough money and enough technical and scientific minds into a project and it's close to limitless what CAN be done.
What ultimately defines outcomes is not technological capacity, it's leadership capacity.
We will only reap the benefits of technology if and when we apply strategic, innovative, accountable, open, and trust based leadership.
If those of us who don't always understand the technical aspects are prepared to accept, and invest in, the potential that technology offers to increase our effectiveness and sophistication, exponentially.
If those of us who have more knowledge or resources or experience or power are willing to share with those who don't. In order to foster the "whole" law enforcement community that is greater than the sum of its parts.
If we don't fall into the trap of using technology, scientific knowledge and all that we have netted from their use, as a way to advance only our individual agendas. Setting aside the demands of integration and shared intelligence approaches in order to meet our discrete goals.
Because although in doing so we might well achieve our own progress, at our own pace, in the short term - there is no doubt we will endanger the longer term goal of collective, global safety and security.
In the end it always comes down to this, doesn't it?
Whether we gather to speak about grappling with corruption, or the spectre of bio-terrorism or fighting organized crime or new policies for transnational business.
Whatever the topic, in the end the substance ends up only being the backdrop for the real question.
Which is: how do we those of us who have been given the privilege, the responsibility and the burden of leadership - plan to work together?
To advance NOT only our individual, domestic or even collegial objectives across established 'partners,' but attach ourselves to the larger goal of giving to the citizens of all our countries the gift of being safe and protected, of justice and of peace.
The answer is simple but not easy:
With intelligence of course.
With passion.
With a commitment to keep talking to each other.
To keep thinking about things at both the practical and the philosophical level.
And by always remembering how we got here in the first place because we chose to be officers of the law, servants of the public, and leaders of others.
I am honoured to have once again had this time to speak to you, my peers and my friends, and as always I look forward with anticipation to all that we will achieve together.
Thank you.
