Chapter Preview
TopBackground
According to Hermann (1963), there are three distinguishable features that separate a “crisis” from other ill-fated occurrences: surprise, threat, and a short response time. These elements relate to a sudden change from the norm, where the everyday workings of a community are disrupted and subsequently require a response. Within this article, when discussing the term “crisis” we will also utilize (interchangeably) the term “disaster,” as seen, for instance, in the 2010 “EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five steps towards a more secure Europe” (European Commission, 2010). A disaster is a “social phenomena”; a storm for instance, is not a disaster, it is the social effects of the storm on the social system that causes it to be classified and understood as a disaster. An event might be classified as a disaster according to the number of systems damaged, citizens injured or displaced.
As stated by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU, 2005), communication is a critical component of preparing for, responding to, and recovering from crises. The tools available to those involved in responding to, as well as those caught up in a crisis, are no longer limited to the use of conventional telecommunications technologies, such as the telephone or radio, but have expanded to a host of new media applications. New media applications are able to perform a range of functionalities, including: enabling one-way communication, facilitating two-way communication, enabling people to request/offer assistance, relay information, assist with campaigning activities, and, crucially, to enable individuals/groups to organize (Watson et al., 2013).
At the same time, the increased use of ICT and social media creates new challenges pertaining to both 1) misutilization of ICT technologies; and 2) misinformation/disinformation. Both of these categories may intentionally or unintentionally impede emergency response and/or put individuals and communities in danger. Accordingly, the following section will focus on these two types of misuse of ICTs and their potential impact on crisis response. Subsequently, by drawing on four case studies, we will examine the ways in which misuse of ICTs can be managed by authorities and the public. Case studies include:
Key Terms in this Chapter
Countersurveillance: The practice of making surveillance activities of institutions difficult, or implementing technologies to avoid surveillance altogether.
Data Mining: A technologically-driven process of using algorithms to analyze data and extract meaningful patterns that can be used to predict behavior.
Dataveillance: The application of information technologies to monitor individuals’ activities by investigating the data trail they leave through their activities.
Sousveillance: Also known as inverse surveillance, derives from the French meaning of the act of watching (veiller) from below (sous).
Hacking: The use of computers to gain unauthorized access to a system/network/computer, taking control of it or rendering it useless.
Encryption: The encoding of digital content, such as text messages or documents, in order to make them impossible to be read by those who do not have the means of decoding the content.
Crowdsourcing: The method of using skills or information provided by the public in order to resolve tasks in a collective manner through electronic means.