Petersburg, VA Gives Monopoly Control to Vendor Crime Mapping Website
Earlier this month, the Petersburg Virginia Police put out an announcement that they were allowing the public to view crime data on a paid vendor's website. This is a huge step forward for the city because access to data like this has never been available before.
The plus is now Petersburg citizens and the press can look at the crime data. The minus is the city supported vendor restricts sharing and publication of the information. The classic “you can look at the information, but don’t share it, independently tabulate it, or report on the data” because that would violate the vendor’s business interests. As a result, crimes can’t be shared on social media and the press can’t use the information for reporting.
SpotCrime has been asking for an open data feed for this kind of data for at least five years. Each time, we’ve been told that the technology was not available to make the data public. Nearby agencies, however, have been doing this for years.
Meanwhile, the Petersburg, VA Police criticize the press for having ads and deride the notion of third party vendors getting the data (in the news report by the Progress-Index, Petersburg Police Capt. Brian T. Braswell specifically mentions that this system has no ads and does not share with third party vendors).
Both statements are problematic for modern community policing. We are not fully clear why ads are so bad, and we don’t understand the public threat of third party vendors.
Third party vendors are likely to be detrimental in terms of competition to the police vendor - but competition usually benefits the public rather generate harm. Competition gives the public a choice on how to view the data and gives the public ability to compare the quality of how the data is represented rather than being forced to one news source for the information.
So why are these two items mentioned?
Ads are Bad. Or are they?
As I read the article on the Progress-Index website, Petersburg’s local newspaper, and suffered through a pop-up ad and gazed at the ads around the page, it struck me as curious that the police department would reach out to a news organization that derives their revenue from ads. We imagine Petersburg Police don’t like ads because they don’t want anyone making money off of public crime data. Ads are an overt way that news companies like SpotCrime generate revenue. As we will discuss later, the Petersburg Police don’t seem to frown upon revenue generated behind the scenes by selling the information to industry. Also take note of the City of Petersburg Facebook page. See the ads on the right. Why are they not bad?
The Progress-Index was founded in 1865. 160 years ago. What reward does the local paper get for dutifully reporting on crime (with ads) for those years (and surviving the annual decimation of the digital age)? They get secondary access to vital public crime information while the city supported billion dollar vendor gets to report the data ahead of everyone else.
The city’s vendor is permitted to package this monopoly controlled public data into risk management products for their large corporate customers while restricting access to the press and the public.
What a great deal for the vendor and a double whammy for the public! The vendor sells software to the police department in exchange for public funds. An additional value of monopoly control over the public crime data is given to the vendor allowing the vendor to then use that control to extract monopoly rents to their corporate clients. The vendor is paid twice with money and monopoly control over the public data.
One more word on ads. The vendor's website is replete with branding. The entire website is branded with the vendor's logo and products. If the Petersburg police are so against ads, then why is this website not in a generic form as many other agencies provide rather than promoting one billion dollar company whose main business model is selling information to corporations.
Third Party Access to Public Data is Bad (Or is it?)
From the perspective of government transparency, many cities in the US have created open data portals and encouraged third parties and data hobbyists to do useful things with the data to benefit the public and save the city money. We are not sure what the Petersburg Police means by third party vendors or why they imply it is bad. We might posit that third parties could do something nefarious with the data. But if the data was open, our belief there is a greater chance it is used for good.
At SpotCrime we work with third parties like Trulia. Trulia was the first company, we know of, to publicly show real estate information with point specific crime data with the intent of enriching the user's experience. Now in Petersburg VA, Wal-Mart can buy access to the Petersburg crime data, and with this intelligence use it to make decisions on building or closing stores, or adding security to stores. But the public who paid for the data, does not get the same freedom.
Problems with Logic
Our goal in pointing out the problem with the Petersburg, VA Police’s logic is to show that statements like this are a good forecast of poor community policing. It is difficult to improve trust by limiting the press and eschewing accountability while promoting quasi transparency. In deference to the police department, crime is high in Petersburg and resources are low. The job is tough. However, giving up control to the vendor to the detriment of the public is not the answer. As we often say - the police should partner with the public first and the vendor second. Anytime any vendor or entity (including SpotCrime) gets preference, it is likely the vendor will abuse the relationship to the detriment of the public. The main reason, we see, to mention ads and third parties is to prop up the vendor relationship and malign the independent press.
What do you think produces more trust and accountability?
- Giving monopoly control to a contracted vendor that restricts access.
- Giving the data equally to everyone equally with no restrictions on access, tabulation and publication.
Open Data for the Win
Interestingly, when the data is open - most crime mapping vendors map the data anyway. Cities like DC, Chicago, and Louisville have multiple companies mapping crime. We think low income areas like Petersburg, VA could benefit from these choices because the way people access technology and the Internet in low income areas is different than high income areas. Specifically, access to the Internet is done more through mobile than on a large computer screen at home. Allowing third parties to have this data is a great way to increase reach because of the greater likelihood the data reaches the mobile screen.
We are not saying open data is without problems. Letting data out into the ‘wild’ could create unknown problems, but SpotCrime has been providing crime information to millions for years. There should be enough proof that this approach is more helpful than harmful. The public benefits from increased access and the department benefits with long term reduced costs through competition and less switching vendor costs.
Monopoly control only serves the monopolist in the long term even if they give a portion of the service away free at the beginning.
If this blog post hits a nerve with any police agency to the point of being upset with SpotCrime, please take action to put us out of business by making this data openly available to everyone equally.
Colin Drane - Founder - SpotCrime
Comments