Advertisement

Untangling Criminal Networks: A Case Study

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2665)

Abstract

Knowledge about criminal networks has important implications for crime investigation and the anti-terrorism campaign. However, lack of advanced, automated techniques has limited law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ ability to combat crime by discovering structural patterns in criminal networks. In this research we used the concept space approach, clustering technology, social network analysis measures and approaches, and multidimensional scaling methods for automatic extraction, analysis, and visualization of criminal networks and their structural patterns. We conducted a case study with crime investigators from the Tucson Police Department. They validated the structural patterns discovered from gang and narcotics criminal enterprises. The results showed that the approaches we proposed could detect subgroups, central members, and between-group interaction patterns correctly most of the time. Moreover, our system could extract the overall structure for a network that might be useful in the development of effective disruptive strategies for criminal networks.

Keywords

Organize Crime Social Network Analysis Structural Pattern Gang Member Criminal Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, T., Arbetter, L., Benawides, A., Longmore-Etheridge, A.: Security works. Security Management, Vol. 38, No. 17. (1994) 17–20.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arabie, P., Boorman, S. A., Levitt, P. R.: Constructing blockmodels: How and why. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 17. (1978) 21–63.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker, W. E., Faulkner R. R.: The social organization of conspiracy: illegal networks in the heavy electrical equipment industry. American Sociological Review, Vol. 58, No. 12. (1993) 837–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burt, R. S.: Positions in networks. Social Forces, Vol. 55, No. 1. (1976) 93–122.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, H., Lynch, K. J.: Automatic construction of networks of concepts characterizing document databases. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 22, No. 5. (1992) 885–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Defays, D.: An efficient algorithm for a complete link method. Computer Journal, Vo. 20, No. 4. (1977) 364–366.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dijkstra, E.: A note on two problems in connection with graphs, Numerische Mathematik, Vol. 1. (1959) 269–271.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dombroski, M. J., Carley, K. M.: NETEST: Estimating a terrorist network’s structure. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, Vol. 8. (2002) 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evan, W. M.: An organization-set model of interorganizational relations. In: M. Tuite, R. Chisholm, M. Radnor (eds.): Interorganizational Decision-making. Aldine, Chicago (1972) 181–200.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freeman, L.: Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, Vol. 1. (1979) 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldberg, H. G., Senator, T. E.: Restructuring databases for knowledge discovery by consolidation and link formation. In Proceedings of 1998 AAAI Fall Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Link Analysis, (1998).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harper, W. R., Harris, D. H.: The application of link analysis to police intelligence. Human Factors, Vol. 17, No. 2. (1975) 157–164.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hauck, R. V., Atabakhsh, H., Ongvasith, P., Gupta, H., Chen H.: Using Coplink to analyze criminal-justice data. IEEE Computer, Vol. 35, No. 3. (2002) 30–37.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klerks, P.: The network paradigm applied to criminal organizations: Theoretical nitpicking or a relevant doctrine for investigators? Recent developments in the Netherlands, Connections, Vo. 24, No. 3. (2001) 53–65.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krebs, V. E.: Mapping networks of terrorist cells. Connections, Vo. 24, No. 3. (2001) 43–52.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lorrain, F. P., White, H. C.: Structural equivalence of individuals in social networks, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Vol. 1. (1971) 49–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McAndrew, D.: The structural analysis of criminal networks. In: Canter, D., Alison, L. (eds.): The Social Psychology of Crime: Groups, Teams, and Networks, Offender Profiling Series, III, Aldershot, Dartmouth (1999) 53–94.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McIllwain, J. S.: Organized crime: A social network approach. Crime, Law & Social Change, Vol. 32. (1999). 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ronfeldt, D., Arquilla, J.: What next for networks and netwars? In: Arquilla, J., Ronfeldt, D. (eds.): Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy. Rand Press, (2001).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saether, M., Canter, D.V.: A structural analysis of fraud and armed robbery networks in Norway. In Proceedings of the 6th International Investigative Psychology Conference, Liverpool, (2001).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sparrow, M. K.: The application of network analysis to criminal intelligence: An assessment of the prospects. Social Networks, Vol. 13. (1991) 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Torgerson, W. S.: Multidimensional scaling: Theory and method. Psychometrika, Vol. 17. (1952) 401–419.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wasserman, S., Faust, K.: Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, (1994).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management Information SystemsUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations