The Difference Between Information, Evidence, and Intelligence - Essay Example

The Difference between Information, Evidence and Intelligence Institution Name Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Difference between information and intelligence 4 Intelligence Vs Information 4 Intelligence Vs Evidence 9 Information vs evidence 10 Evolution of intelligence in law enforcement 11 Intelligence as information 11 Intelligence as Evidence 12 Intelligence as intelligence 13 Conclusion 13 References 15 Introduction In spite of the long history of discussions and researches that have characterized the field of law enforcement, a standard distinct definition for intelligence and information is yet to be arrived at. An underlying implication of this is the belief that intelligence, information and evidence mean the same thing, and that they may be roughly described rather than adequately defined. Such a degree of doubt is too strong. Although there is no single definition for each of the three terms, a survey of many definitions within the context of law enforcement shows obvious dissimilarity among the terms (Legg & Hutter, 2007). At first glance, the terms often seem interchangeable. Yet, within the context of investigation reports, they all have different meanings. While evidence is also considered to be information, not all information can be considered to be evidence. Several studies in the field of security management, including Berkowitz (2014); Carter (2010); Coyne et al. (2014), have established that the some of the changes happening in modern policing are based on the belief that improving intelligence function leads to enhanced performance in managing crime. However, as signalled by Innes and Sheptycki (2004), increased use of intelligence appears to drift or disrupt the objective of law enforcement interventions. Such drifts towards disruption of effective crime management centre on the capacity to distinguish between information, evidence and intelligence by the law enforcement. The technical and cryptic concerns with the meanings of information, intelligence and evidence are necessary since, without it, the function of criminal intelligence appears to drift or disrupt the objective of law enforcement intervention. This essay shows that while information makes up intelligence, intelligence is information and while evidence may be considered as information, not all information can be considered to be evidence. Hence, it is the contested organisational meanings linked to the meanings of the terms that lead to circumventing or disrupting the legitimate objectives of the law enforcement interventions. Accordingly, this paper explains the difference between information, evidence and intelligence within the law enforcement domain, based on literature review. Also, ways in which evolution of intelligence in law enforcement over the last 100 years have influenced the meanings are examined. Difference between information and intelligence Intelligence Vs Information The International Chiefs of Police (IACP, 2006) define intelligence as an outcome of logical intellectual processes, usually described as intelligence cycle that generates actionable knowledge, intended for corroborating the legitimacy of information, understanding the significance of the information with other data, developing a hypothetic action plan and using the plan to attain a desired goal. Building on this perspective, Berkowitz (2014), in a commentary on the Washington Post, stated that intelligence in many cases does not offer crystal-clear answers, adding that usually, intelligence is tainted with uncertainties. Indeed, it could further be commented that while such interpretations are relatively narrow, they point to the fact that intelligence does rarely prove anything as its main objective is to inform the law enforcement, military commanders and officials. They also show that the term information and intelligence are almost synonymous. Berkowitz (2014) and IACP’s (2006) views are however contestable if the definitions proposed by Petersen (2007) have to be taken into perspective. While exploring the term intelligence, within the context of the law enforcement, Petersen (2007) defined it as information that has been collected, reviewed, collated and analysed with hypothesis drawn from it and the latent courses of action identified. This shows that while information make up intelligence, intelligence is information. The idea differs from US-based Intelligence Community’s (IC’s) approach to intelligence, which has underscored the word to mean secret information (Petersen, 2007). Based on Petersen’s (2007) definition, it can indeed be perceived that within the concept of the law enforcement, intelligence is derived from information that has been sourced or subpoenaed from the owner through a judicially approved means or from a surveillance authorised by the court, open records or any other trusted media. The information obtained is afterwards analysed and applied to form a hypothetic course of action or action plan. According to United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC, 2010), information is basically knowledge in its raw form. The organisation further describes intelligence as information with an added value, or which has been evaluated within context to its reliability and source, hence capable of being understood. Hence, a methodology arises from this process that essentially involves direct contact between the information gathers or the senders and the decision-makers or recipients, as shown in the figure below. Unlike intelligence, which has an air of uncertainty, information is a set of facts, which when sufficiently assimilated generate knowledge. Basing on the differences in the definitions, it could be assumed that while intelligence generates a hypothetic action plan, information generates knowledge. According to Zins (2007), the term information refers to a range of phenomena classifiable into three groups, namely anything that potentially signifies something, the process of informing and lastly, what is learned from some evidence. Based on Petersen’s (2007) view, it can be argued that unlike information, intelligence has to be gleaned from various sources before analysis and application in formulating a hypothetic action plan. This view is supported by Hengst and Mors (2010) who surveyed intelligence-led policing in the Dutch Police. Hengst and Mors (2010) pointed out that intelligence should be identified as information that has been derived from a range of sources. Unlike Petersen (2007), Hengst and Mors (2010) added perpetrator to the element of gathering the information, by stating that the information gather originates from various sources on the activities of suspected or known criminals. Therefore, after information is collected or acquired, it has to go through the process of analysis in order to be encoded as intelligence. The distinction between the two terms is therefore the element of analysis or encoding. This point is also substantiated by Gul and Kule (2010), who pointed out that intelligence, consists of a combination of two key variables, namely credible information and analysis. Therefore, it is argued that intelligence entails information that has undergone evaluation and from which conclusion has been drawn. On the other hand, criminal intelligence consists of data that can be applied for tactical and strategic purposes. While such a conclusion draws the issue of evidence into perspective, it should also be noted that evidence and intelligence are two different terms. Example of information includes an individual's criminal history. In such a circumstance, evidence would include a report by an analyst that draws conclusions on the individual's criminal liability, based on his integrated analysis of his criminal history and driving records (See Table 1). Table 1: Comparative illustration or intelligence and information (Adapted from Carter, (2010)) Unlike information, intelligence is more focused towards security management. Information also forms the essential components of intelligence. A survey of literature within the practice of security management shows that criminal intelligence function is usually reducible to the essential elements of covert collection of information or criminal intelligence, that essentially makes up a smaller constituent of criminal intelligence work (Aldrich, 2005; Clark (2006) and Radcliffe (2005). Essentially, the term the police have traditionally used to denote collection of intelligence and analysis of intelligence is criminal intelligence. This implies that intelligence is fundamentally distinct from criminal intelligence. It occurs within a specific national jurisdiction, it is aimed at offenders or likely offenders and its products have the capacity to prevent crime or provide evidence (Fatić et al., 2010 cited in Pajević, 2011). UNODC (2010) described intelligence as the process of interpreting information to identify the meanings. Additionally, unlike the process of gathering information, acquisition of intelligence is dependent on the needs of the beneficiary, such as the investigator or the police. Essentially therefore, all future uses of the produce of processed intelligence influence the definition and tracing of the tactical and strategic directions of the activity (Bošković and Matijević, 2007 cited in Pajević, 2011). Similarly, unlike the processes that guide collection of information, gathering intelligence may include use of controversial methods, which include disrupting the privacy of citizens and establishing responsibilities using methods that are less transparent. In contrast to information, intelligence is target-centric. As indicated in the figure below, intelligence process is objective-oriented, or centred on the central target. The reason for this is to create a joint picture where everyone takes part in filling up the components of the picture based on sources of information. Therefore, unlike information, the process is not a linear process or one that contains circular feedback information. Rather, it is a social or network process where all objective or targets are focused on participation of stakeholders. Clark (2006) who argued that in intelligence gathering, the process entails a network-centric corroboration process corroborates this argument. Figure 1: Intelligence process focusing on central target (Pajevic, 2011) Unlike information or evidence, the core of intelligence process is about prevention. According to Ratcliff (2009), at the centre of intelligence-led police work is prevention. He further suggested that it depends on four elements that are mutually connected, namely patterns, prevention, predictability and pro-activity. The elements are interlinked, implying that the four are mutually dependent. In regards to information, the four do not have to be necessarily interlinked or mutually dependent. Intelligence Vs Evidence It should be argued that the state’s national legislation may dictate the ways in which intelligence is applied for purposes of enforcement. The process of gathering intelligence in any particular investigation is often a prelude to the process of gathering evidence. According to McGarrell et al. (2007), collection of evidence, usually a part of investigation, is in response to the reported events. Further, it explains actions or activities that took place, as well as who was involved. Hence, intelligence analysis helps in the investigation, through identification of the information gaps to make the investigation more focused. Unlike intelligence or information, participants in gathering of evidence have to test the evidence acquired (Hausmann & Lage, 2008). On the other hand, intelligence and information may be hypothetic. Indeed, based on comparative law analysis of three states, namely the Netherlands, UK and USA, Vervaele (2005) concluded that use of intelligence in criminal justice administration links to the fundamentals of fair trial and hence, is not reducible to details or criminal prosecution. The nature of criminal justice proceedings demand that participants may be present during legal proceedings and to test the evidence in order to ensure fair trial. Such rules do not apply in the case of intelligence or information acquisition activities. Information vs evidence At first glance, the terms information and evidence may seem interchangeable. Yet, within the context of investigation reports, they all have different meanings. While evidence may be considered to be information, not all information can be considered to be evidence. The difference between the evidence and information is within their intrinsic qualities Information is a critical component that makes up evidence. In which case, evidence is derived from information. According to Pajević (2011), an investigator needs information and evidence to understand what happened and who should take responsibility for what happened. Additionally, they may consist of various forms including hard copy documents, witness accounts and electronic records. Unlike information, legislations dictate collection, analysis and presentation of evidence. For instance, legislations dictate whether intelligence material collected in the course of an investigation should be safeguarded from disclosure, during criminal proceedings. Additionally, evidence describes relevant information needed to prove disputed facts in an issue during legal proceedings (Rose & Nestorovska, 2005). Consequently, while evidence has to comply with the laws of evidence, the same does not apply in the case of information. This implies that information is not bound by rules of evidence. For instance, evidence rules may demand the use of the most original and valid source of evidence. Hence, original documents, firsthand witness accounts, hand-written diary and dated photographs are possible evidences that conform to the rules of evidence. On the other hand, hearsays which cannot be corroborated are still considered as information. While some information may be neglected when they prove irrelevant for an investigation, the law enforcement considers all the available evidence to give weight to a course of criminal proceedings (Banović & Manojlović, (2008) cited in Pajević, 2011). The law enforcement will place greater emphasis on the high quality information and apply the legal rules of evidence in guiding collection of evidence. Information is not bound by these rules and is mostly considered to have lesser weight and to be of lesser quality. Evolution of intelligence in law enforcement Intelligence as information The intelligence discipline has evolved substantially over the years. Historically, the law enforcement intelligence units, which go back to the 1920s after the World War I, used a ‘dossier system,’ which was on old method derived from military (Kahn, 2006). The intelligence files were mainly dossiers with a set of raw information on people believed to be criminals or a threat to safety and order in the society (Carter 2010). It could therefore be reason that intelligence consisted of unanalyzed information. Hence, current standards could have viewed them as information During the economic depression in the 1930s, criminal intelligence work was given little priority, with the main threats being the economy. Situations change towards 1940s as Communism began to prevail. Intelligence primarily became essential for predicting events. According to Carter (2010), Communist and gang such as Ku Klux Klan fuelled the need for tactical approach in criminal intelligence in 1937. Piotrowicz (2011) noted that the World War II also provided grounds for evolution of intelligence, Carter (2010) supported this view when he noted that Communist became of secondary interest in 1940s during the World War. In 1950s, politics further fuelled the need for intelligence work. In the United States and Britain, the police kept intelligence dossiers on individuals suspected to be affiliated to Communism (Aldrich, 2005; Sims, 2008). The dossier system was the standard tool for criminal intelligence work and they consisted of raw data. Intelligence as Evidence Rise in criminal activities in 1960s when the World War baby boomers were in their young adulthood, including drugs, sex and rock n’ roll, racism created security concerns, prompting the law enforcement to keep dossiers of likely perpetrators (Dover & Goodman, 2013). Intelligence gathering therefore was centred on crime prevention. In the 1960s, there was a rise in the number of lawsuits on law enforcement intelligence units after discoveries that they kept intelligence files with no evidence on criminality (Sims, 2008). From this, it could be argued that intelligence was essentially evidence that had no tactical purpose. Intelligence as intelligence According to Carter (2010), the heavy lawsuits that characterised the United States in 1976 prompted the need for changes in criminal intelligence worldwide, where it was suggested that all information in the dossiers had to be synthesized or analysed. The rise in international crime between the 1970s and 2000s led to separation of intelligence activities, namely international intelligence and domestic intelligence, leading to national security intelligence and law enforcement intelligence. Intelligence integrated the four aspects patterns, prevention, predictability and pro-activity, specifically after Law enforcement change made after the September 11, 2001 bombing of the United States. Indeed, it is after the incident that law enforcement increased units to include tribal, local, and national law enforcement intelligence (Zegart, 2005). The complex international environment triggered by rising globalisation increased information availability, as well as simplified the tools used in data management. Ultimately, this has given rise to intelligence clients who perform own analysis of information (Coyne et al. 2014). Conclusion It is concluded that while information makes up intelligence, intelligence is information and while evidence may be considered as information, not all information can be considered to be evidence. The technical and cryptic concerns with the meanings of information, intelligence and evidence are necessary, since without it, the function of criminal intelligence appears to drift or disrupt the objective of law enforcement intervention. Indeed, it is the contested organisational meanings linked to the meanings of the terms that lead to circumventing or disrupting the legitimate objectives of the law enforcement interventions. Technically, information is basically knowledge in its raw form while intelligence is information with an added value, or which has been evaluated within context to its reliability and source, hence capable of being understood. Intelligence is therefore information that has been processed. When narrowed down within the context of law enforcement, it could be described as acquired, exploited and protected information through the activities of the law enforcement institutions to make decision on and support criminal investigations. However, unlike intelligence, which has an air of uncertainty, information is a set of facts, which when sufficiently assimilated generate knowledge. Therefore, while intelligence generates a hypothetic action plan, information generates knowledge. Intelligence, or vital information on potentially harmful phenomenon, is widely used by the law enforcement community to promote public safety and support operations. It is the distinction between information, intelligence and evidence that determine whether legitimate objectives of the law enforcement interventions can be disrupted. The difference between the evidence and information is within their inherent qualities. Information is a critical component that makes up evidence. Hence, evidence is derived from information. Consequently, while evidence has to comply with the laws of evidence, the same does not apply in the case of information and intelligence. This implies that information and intelligence is not bound by rules of evidence. The meaning of intelligence has evolved from information to intelligence and ultimately to synthesise information over the years, since the 1920s. Initially, it was depicted as information since it mostly concerned collection of information. It later evolved to evidence and eventually to intelligence once it was agreed that the information has to be synthesized for tactical use. References Aldrich, R. (2005). British Intelligence, Strategy and the Cold War, 1945-51. New York: Routledge Banović, B, Manojlović, D. (2008). Metodički kriminalističko-obaveštajni elaborat oruđe za prevenciju i suzbijanje kriminala. Zbornik Internacionalne asocijacije kriminalista, str. 78 - 85. Berkowitz, B. (2014). The Big Difference Between Intelligence and Evidence. Rand Corporation. Retrieved: Carter, D. (2010). Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies. U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Preuzeto: 10. 7. 2009. http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/lei.pdf Clark M. R. (2006). Intelligence Analysis: A Target-Centric Approach. Washington, D.C: CQ Press. Coyne, J., Neal, J. & Bell, P. (2014). Reframing Intelligence: Challenging The Cold War Intelligence Doctrine in the Information Age. International Journal of Business and Commerce 3(5). 53-68 Dover, R. & Goodman, M. (2013). Routledge Companion to Intelligence Studies. New York: Routledge Fatić, A., Korać, S i Bulatović, A. (2011). Etički standardi za kriminalističko obavještajni rad. Beograd: Centar za bezbednosne studije Gul, Z. & Kule, A. (2010). Intelligence - Led Policing: How The Use Of Crime Intelligence Analysis Translates In To The Decision-Making. International Journal of Security and Terrorism 4 (1), 1-15 Hausmann, D. Lage, D. (2008). Sequential evidence accumulation in decision making: The individual desired level of confidence can explain the extent of information acquisition. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(3), 229–243 Hengst, M. & Mors, J. (2010). Community of Intelligence: The Secret Behind Intelligence-Led Policing. Retrieved: IACP. (2006). IACP Draft. International Chiefs of Police. Retrieved: Innes, M. & Sheptycki, J. (2004). From Detection to Disruption: Intelligence qnd The Changing Logic of Police Crime Controlin the United Kingdom. International Criminal Justice Review 14(1), 1-24 Kahn, D. (2006). “The Rise of Intelligence.” Foreign Affairs 85(5), 125. Legg, S. & Hutter, M. (2007). A Collection of Definitions of Intelligence. Technical Report IDSIA-07-07 McGarrell, E. F., Freilich D. J., Chermak S. (2007). Intelligence-led Policing as a Framework for Responding to Terrorism. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 23(2)142-158. UNODC. (2010). Criminal Intelligence: Manual for Front-line Law Enforcement. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Pajević, M. (2011). Application Of The Theory Of Criminal Intelligence In Police Work. Human, 1(1), 9-18, Review paper Petersen, M. (2007). Cant we all Just Gel Along? Improving the Law Enforcement - Intelligence Community Relationship. Washington, DC: National Defense Intelligence College Piotrowicz, E. (2011). The Battle For Intelligence: How a New Understanding of Intelligence Illuminates Victory and Defeat in World War II. Retrieved: Ratcliffe, J. H. (2009). "The structure of strategic thinking", in J. H. Ratcliffe, (ed.), Strategic Thinking in Criminal Intelligence Sydney: Federation Press. Rose, G. & Nestorovska, D. (2005). Terrorism and national security intelligence laws: assessing Australian reforms. Journal of the Law Association for Asia and the Pacific, 127-155 Sims, J. (2008). Defending Adaptive realism: Intelligence theory comes of age. (eds Gill, P., Marrin, S. & Phythian, M.). Intelligence Theory: Key Questions and Debates. New York: Routledge Vervaele, J. (2005). Terrorism and information sharing between the intelligence and law enforcement communities in the US and the Netherlands: emergency criminal law? Utrecht Law Review 1(1), 1-27 Zegart, A. (2005). September 11 and the Adaptation Failure of U.S. Intelligence Agencies September 11 and the Adaptation Failure of U.S. Intelligence Agencies. International Security, 29(4), 78–111 Zins, C. (2007). Conceptual Approaches for Defining Data, Information, and Knowledge. Journal of The American Society For Information Science And Technology, 58(4):479–493 Read More

According to United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC, 2010), information is basically knowledge in its raw form. The organisation further describes intelligence as information with an added value, or which has been evaluated within context to its reliability and source, hence capable of being understood. Hence, a methodology arises from this process that essentially involves direct contact between the information gathers or the senders and the decision-makers or recipients, as shown in the figure below.

Unlike intelligence, which has an air of uncertainty, information is a set of facts, which when sufficiently assimilated generate knowledge. Basing on the differences in the definitions, it could be assumed that while intelligence generates a hypothetic action plan, information generates knowledge. According to Zins (2007), the term information refers to a range of phenomena classifiable into three groups, namely anything that potentially signifies something, the process of informing and lastly, what is learned from some evidence.

Based on Petersen’s (2007) view, it can be argued that unlike information, intelligence has to be gleaned from various sources before analysis and application in formulating a hypothetic action plan. This view is supported by Hengst and Mors (2010) who surveyed intelligence-led policing in the Dutch Police. Hengst and Mors (2010) pointed out that intelligence should be identified as information that has been derived from a range of sources. Unlike Petersen (2007), Hengst and Mors (2010) added perpetrator to the element of gathering the information, by stating that the information gather originates from various sources on the activities of suspected or known criminals.

Therefore, after information is collected or acquired, it has to go through the process of analysis in order to be encoded as intelligence. The distinction between the two terms is therefore the element of analysis or encoding. This point is also substantiated by Gul and Kule (2010), who pointed out that intelligence, consists of a combination of two key variables, namely credible information and analysis. Therefore, it is argued that intelligence entails information that has undergone evaluation and from which conclusion has been drawn.

On the other hand, criminal intelligence consists of data that can be applied for tactical and strategic purposes. While such a conclusion draws the issue of evidence into perspective, it should also be noted that evidence and intelligence are two different terms. Example of information includes an individual's criminal history. In such a circumstance, evidence would include a report by an analyst that draws conclusions on the individual's criminal liability, based on his integrated analysis of his criminal history and driving records (See Table 1).

Table 1: Comparative illustration or intelligence and information (Adapted from Carter, (2010)) Unlike information, intelligence is more focused towards security management. Information also forms the essential components of intelligence. A survey of literature within the practice of security management shows that criminal intelligence function is usually reducible to the essential elements of covert collection of information or criminal intelligence, that essentially makes up a smaller constituent of criminal intelligence work (Aldrich, 2005; Clark (2006) and Radcliffe (2005).

Essentially, the term the police have traditionally used to denote collection of intelligence and analysis of intelligence is criminal intelligence. This implies that intelligence is fundamentally distinct from criminal intelligence. It occurs within a specific national jurisdiction, it is aimed at offenders or likely offenders and its products have the capacity to prevent crime or provide evidence (Fatić et al., 2010 cited in Pajević, 2011). UNODC (2010) described intelligence as the process of interpreting information to identify the meanings.

Additionally, unlike the process of gathering information, acquisition of intelligence is dependent on the needs of the beneficiary, such as the investigator or the police.

Read More