Privacy vs. Safety: The CCTV Dilemma | David Bartlett

In this episode of Real Crime, Adam Shand speaks with former Victoria Police officer and intelligence specialist David Bartlett, the founder of the Safer Places Network—an ambitious new system aiming to transform how CCTV is used in Australia.

From the Jill Meagher investigation to missing persons, aggravated burglaries and retail crime, Adam and David break down how one camera can make or break a case—and why it still takes police up to 85 hours to obtain critical footage. David reveals the technological gap between law enforcement and the private sector, the privacy debates that stall progress and the surprising willingness of everyday Australians to voluntarily join a nationwide camera network.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Approach production.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to Real Crime with Adam Shanna.

Speaker 3 (00:15):
I'm your host, Adam shan Let's talk about surveillance CCTV
in particular. It's estimated the average Australian inurban areas passes
under the gaze of seventy five cameras every day. It's
become a given that surveillance technologies permeate every aspect of
our lives, whether we like it or not.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
China now has the largest surveillance network on Earth, with
more than half of the world CCTV cameras watching its citizens.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
It's a global phenomenon.

Speaker 3 (00:42):
Look at China, They've got more than fifty percent of
all the surveillance cameras in the world, about thirty four
cameras per one thousand people.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
But Australian cities are catching up.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
In twenty twenty one, Sydney had four point sixty seven
surveillance cameras per thousand residents, with Melbourne close behind with
two point one three.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
You do hear a lot of complaints about the impact
on privacy from this blanket coverage. That is, until someone
goes missing and then the cameras provide key evidence that
tells the story.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
Then you'll see police appeal.

Speaker 3 (01:13):
For CCTV to help them piece together the key moments.
We're asking the public to review their CCTV or doorbell
cameras for any footage that may help us locate the
missing woman. Precious time is spent gathering this footage. What
if all those cameras were linked in a network that
allowed police to follow the path of an offender or

(01:35):
a missing person. How many lives would be saved? How
many crimes would be self?

Speaker 2 (01:40):
Go to China.

Speaker 3 (01:41):
It's impossible to commit a crime there, You'll be on camera.
So how far do we want to go with this?
What are we prepared to accept in terms of perceived
loss of privacy, in terms of making our streets more safe?
This is the dream of one form of Victoria Police
officer David Barbert, who's building just such a network called

(02:02):
the Safer Places Network. To welcome David to the program, gooday,
how I very well, thanks thanks for having me. We
could have a crime free society right now if we
grasp the metal around linking our cameras and putting more
I guess where.

Speaker 2 (02:19):
Are we now? How much are we prepared to accept?
And what's your mission?

Speaker 4 (02:24):
That's a lot in that actual had an interesting meeting
yesterday with the previous Commonwealth Privacy Commissioner, Angeline Folk, and
she was saying a lot of this surveillance technology and
the way we accepted his context driven and facial recognition
is currently in the press, and think as a society
we have to accept that surveillance is part of our lives.
He just said that we pass seventy five cameras on

(02:45):
the way to work every day. We're installing them otselves.
I mean, we're putting cameras in our houses. We've got
cameras on our phones. People use face ID to open
their phones every day, so we're kind of already using
it organically. But I think from a crime fighting perspective,
the struggle is that law enforcement agencies can't keep up
with technology, and I think that's our main gap. I
think in the private sector. You know, we've got amazing

(03:06):
tech even here today for our interview, and I think
the police just don't know what's happening in the private
sector and they need to catch up.

Speaker 2 (03:12):
Yeah, really important point. Let's roll back.

Speaker 3 (03:16):
September twenty twelve, Jill mar goes missing Sydney Road, Brunswick,
that case was sold with The breakthrough came because of
one CCTV camera at the Bridal shop which pictured Adrian
Ernest Bailey, her abductor and murderer, speaking to her, which
then set off an investigative trails.

Speaker 4 (03:38):
But on that's my number one case study. It took
eighty five hours to get that footage into the hands
of police, and I think we were lucky in that
case because Jill Maher being a journalist and her network
of media contacts that accelerated the exposure in social media
and her Facebook page this twenty twelve gained I think
it was twelve thousand followers in about twenty four hours,
and that led to what I believe the Dutchess Britique

(04:00):
owner submitting that footage to police. So my mission is
to bring it from eighty five hours to eighty five minutes.
And I've said this even as recently as yesterday at
a breakfast I presented at when her husband first reported
her missing at two am on the twenty second of September.
If my network had have been in place at that time,
the watchhouse keeper taking the missing person report could have

(04:21):
requested the footage from the Duchess boutique owner immediately and
potentially even got a print out of a CCTV still
of Adrian walking past Durr walking past and even presented
that to her husband and said, do you see your
wife in any of this footage? And that could have
brought everything to a hold right then and there.

Speaker 2 (04:41):
Because the technology was pretty critical in that case.

Speaker 3 (04:43):
Critical we saw also the I think was the toll
gantry picking up Bailey's car linked to him known sex offender.

Speaker 2 (04:51):
He becomes a suspect.

Speaker 3 (04:53):
But it's just skeletal, just little patches of light here
and there in that case. And you wonder if that
case happened today, are things much different? I saw a
story recently where a email was reflecting on the fact
that in that ten or twelve years since Jill Mar's
abduction of murder, are we any safer?

Speaker 2 (05:11):
Do you think we are?

Speaker 3 (05:12):
Are we getting closer to the kind of coverage you
think will make us safer?

Speaker 4 (05:16):
Probably got a mixed response to that. I use that
case study because my argument is things haven't changed enough
in my opinion, you know, my first initial thoughts around
using that as a case study for our business wash
but it's fairly dated. But I thought, hang on a second,
if this happened again today, what would actually be different.
I think there'd be more cameras. I think there might
have been more footage available sooner. But I also think

(05:39):
that there's a chance, it's a strong chance that the
footage from that particular shop could still take eighty five
hours to get into the hands of police today.

Speaker 3 (05:47):
Right, because I'm not quite sure how this goes. I
understand they go along and try to find where the
cameras are. Are they walking the streets looking for the
little blue lights or what are they doing?

Speaker 4 (05:55):
Yeah, we estimate that police spend anywhere from two to
four hours per investigation just looking for where the cameras are.
There's many hours spent after that trying to actually access
the footage. So at the moment police door knock, they
walk the streets, They walk the streets of shops or residents,
depending on where the offense occurred. That's if they even
have the time to do that. We know that Victoria

(06:17):
Police in particular is extremely stretch, with resources, morales pretty low.
They've got a new chief commissioner, there's a restructure planned,
They're already under a huge amount of stress. And I
remember when I was a detective or even a young
connie in uniform that if you don't have avenues of inquiry,
you write a file off, so you have to look
for avenues inquiry. If you don't have any, you can
write the file off and the sergeant approves it and

(06:37):
the file just gets closed or unsolved. So if police
can argue that they don't have time to go on
door knock, they'll just write cases off. And we know
that over sixty percent of crimes in Australia go unsolved.
So what this network plans to do is actually increase
the closure rate of investigations. So it may not even
increase police time, but it might actually solve more crimes.

Speaker 3 (06:59):
Police budgets are stretch beyond breaking points. They can't even
fill jobs that they have the struggle in this technological
arms race. Yeah, what is the value proposition that you're
presenting to them?

Speaker 4 (07:12):
It's interesting I presented this to Victoria Police earlier this
year and I said, well, it's looking likely it could
save your members around a million hours a year of
personnel time. And I won't say who I was talking to,
but the response from them was, well, there's some costs anyway,
because they have to employ the staff. So is it
really inefficiency. I'm like, oh, yes, it is because they
can be redeployed. So I think there's this mentality that

(07:34):
unless it's an extraordinarily clear ROI, they find it hard
to wrap their head around because they have to employ
the stuff anyway. But my argument is they're constantly pushing
for new recruits and new recruitment campaigns and new police.
But if they make the current police more efficient, of
course that would avoid them having to hire another four
hundred recruits.

Speaker 2 (07:54):
Well, so they can't find anyway.

Speaker 4 (07:55):
Well, yeah, that's a whole other challenge. Yeah, whole other challenge.

Speaker 3 (07:57):
I mean that response to me tells me why they're
not economists working for the Reserve Bank and they're police
officers and in the hierarchy Victoria Police is slow.

Speaker 4 (08:06):
Yes it is. It is And I worked in the
IT area of vic Pol for a year in twenty
nineteen and it was a hard slog. They're not a
tech company, you know, They're a law enforcement agency. And
I think this is where New Zealand Police has done
really well because they and Mike Bush and your chief
commissioner here in Melbourne has come from New Zealand Police.
They've got a long history of working very closely with

(08:26):
the private sector, so they're willing to engage companies like
ours that are small startups or private business that are
doing things really well. They bring them into the tent.
So how can we work together. I think what we're
guilty of in Australia is we go after the big
four consultancy, we go after Microsoft and all these big
tech companies, and I just think they're as slow moving
as the organizations are, so I think from a technology perspective,

(08:48):
they just don't really get it.

Speaker 2 (08:50):
This is a big dream and it's twofold.

Speaker 3 (08:53):
You've got to persuade businesses, individuals, companies whatever to come
on board, and then for police to now accept this
network and become a part of it.

Speaker 4 (09:05):
Where are you at great question? I consider it that
we're trying to raise all boats at once. You know,
I'm getting feedback from members of our network saying what
are the success stories from police? And I'm getting feedback
from police saying why don't you have more cameras on
the network and more people on the network. And so
I'm trying to just incrementally grow both audiences at the moment.
It's going to take some time, but I'm very closely

(09:27):
partnered with Neighborhood Watch Victoria A. Neighborhood Watch is an
institution that we know has been around for decades, but
they are very underresourced. They're very passionate, but very underresourced.
They get a lot less money from the government than
crime stoppers do. They are predominantly staffed by volunteers sixty
five seventy year old plus, so they are not as

(09:48):
great technology and what's going on with social media, so
Neighborhood Watch is really struggling. But I still think they
are an important part of our crime prevention ecosystem. And
I hope that Mike Bush, the new chief, sees that
because I know he's been briefed by Neighborhood Watch But
they've been a great partner of ours in just getting
the word out at a grass its level amongst community.
Social media has also been good for us. But what

(10:09):
I'm really looking for is what I call enterprise contributors,
people like will Worth's Coals had to mean with monash
Unity the other day. Monash Uni has about five thousand
cameras across Melbourne across their seven campuses so I'm looking
for these multipliers that I can have one contact, but
thousands of cameras come on to the network, so that's
a bit easier than trying to get five thousand households

(10:30):
onto the network. Takes a bit longer. Yeah, sad reality.

Speaker 3 (10:34):
Money drives everything it does, so you've got to build
a business of sufficient scale to make this work.

Speaker 2 (10:42):
Big task.

Speaker 4 (10:43):
It is unfortunate that I've got fifteen years of networking
from law enforce in both state and federal. So I
worked with the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission for seven years,
so I've got links into the AFP, I've got links
into most states, and I'm starting to leverage some of
those connections. I think if you're starting from scratch outside
of the law enforce industry, you'd find it a lot
more difficult. But I'm able to open doors to commissioners

(11:04):
pretty much in everything state and that's what I'm doing
at the moment, so that's a bit of an accelerating
factor for me. I've got some early investment, which is great,
but that's probably giving me a six month runway before
I get revenue. So another major part of our model
is helping with retail crime. So retail crime, as we
know is that it's worst ever in Victoria at the moment.

(11:25):
We also know that Victoria has more retail crime than
all the other states and territories combined at the moment,
and that it's hurting small businesses and meetium businesses and.

Speaker 2 (11:35):
Large businesses shoplifting basically.

Speaker 4 (11:37):
Shoplifting, but also threats to staff and harassment that is
through the roof at the moment as well. And I
think that's driven by just a living crisis. Could be
interest rates, could be people losing their jobs. They just
take it out on the local checkout person. And that's
a sad reality for a lot of retail workers. And
as we know, a lot of those workers are gen z,

(11:59):
they're younger, they're new to the workforce. Getting spat on
or slapped or hit or worn out is not part
of the job description.

Speaker 3 (12:06):
And we saw this during COVID. I had a friend
working i can say office works, and what she was
bringing home stories of people trying to steal things and
when they were caught, they were bashing staff and there
were some really serious injuries. And the cameras provided an
audit trail, an evidentiary trail in those cases, so it's
really important. I did a book a number of years

(12:27):
ago on the Kangaroo Gang shoplifters who went to Britain
in the sixties and robbed and stealed the way across there,
and the study that I did on that revealed the
fact that the staff were the champion robbers.

Speaker 2 (12:39):
They're working with.

Speaker 3 (12:41):
So again for your big organizations to be able to
link and because the staff know where the camera's are,
they know how things operate.

Speaker 2 (12:48):
So that's another frontier.

Speaker 4 (12:51):
Yeah, I mean, the larger retailers are pretty good at
keeping an eye on that, but as you kind of
go down from enterprise down to medium and small businesses,
it's very hard to keep track of that. They don't
have the systems in place, they don't have CCTV, they
don't have lost prevention offices or security staff. There's kind
of this market that we're looking at anyway, where the
small and medium retailers that can't afford more sophisticated loss

(13:11):
prevention tools can work with us and we can support
them through some crime recording and incident recording tools that
we've got using WhatsApp and some other technology. And then
what the benefit of all we do is that For example,
if something happens, say a small IDA supermarket, and next
door to the IDA there might be a bakery and
optometrist and maybe a mechanic. If all of those businesses

(13:32):
are on our network, whether they have CCTV or not,
if something happens at the IDA, those other businesses get
alerted immediately. And that's a gap in our current crime
reporting ecosystem in Australia where if you report something to
the police, the police don't then go and tell the
neighbors that it's happened, Or if you report something to
crime stoppers, that doesn't immediately tell anyone in your suburb

(13:53):
that that's occurred. So if you see it suspicious of
out outside your house and tell crime stoppers, unless you've
got a WhatsApp group with your neighbors, they don't know
that you've made that report. So how do you keep
your local community safe? And that was the me of
Neighborhood Watch when it started, and I think we've lost that.
We've lost that localized support for each other at a
suburb level or a street level. And I've heard countless

(14:14):
stories of WhatsApp groups being set up, but there's nothing
more sophisticated than that, and our systems like neighborhood Watch
and crime stoppers and police reporting, none of that's caught up.
That's all still stuck decades ago.

Speaker 2 (14:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (14:26):
I've worked a lot in Africa and in particularly We've
got our place in Zimbabwe and we're quite remote and
the only security we have is that WhatsApp group and
two way radios. The police are miles away, So there
has to be a self reliance. We're getting a bit
too civilized here, aren't we. We live it to somebody else. Yeah,
nothing to see here. Let's go back to my job
and my family whatever else. Do you think there's got

(14:47):
to be I guess some re engagement on those sort
of neighborhood watch vatues, but with technology one.

Speaker 4 (14:52):
Hundred percent, it's exactly what it is. A neighborhood watch
tagline is looking out for each other. And I think
when you start doing that, And I heard Chris Costas
talk recently at Frankston at a neighborhood Watch event. He
started neighborhood Watch back in the seventies, I think, and
he was saying that exact thing. It's like, we've got
to get back to those basic levels of looking out
for each other. I think we have become a bit lazy.
I mean an example of being lazy is that I

(15:14):
think it's something like seventy percent of burglaries the houses
are unlocked, so people aren't locking their doors. It's such
a simple thing. And I heard a police officer tell
me recently at a community event, someone stood up after
the police had finished talking and said, oh, my house
got broken into last week, and you know, a bit
angry at the police. And the police said was the
house locked? And he goes, oh, no, it wasn't. So

(15:35):
I'm like, well you have to. There's an element of
self responsibility in this, but also an element of localized
community support because these big organizations like the police agencies
are it's too big and slow moving and they've got
a lot on their plate. They can't be there to
drive that community spirit, which is what neighbor would watch
started out.

Speaker 3 (15:53):
Yeah, I've just got bad flashbacks of being a rob
five times at our place here in Melbourne that have
fourth time the same police officer and he says, your
window was open again? Might lock your windows? I turn
them all life.

Speaker 4 (16:08):
Exactly, So look, we are guilty of just missing those
things as humans, because you know, life gets ahead of us.
But and again, education is a key part of that.
And with police, I kind of I know Mike Bush
and the new chief commissioner, he thinks crime prevention is key,
and I certainly agree with him. But I kind of think, well,
police is a law enforcement agency. They're kind of doing
the tail end of it. Who's doing the education and

(16:30):
actual crime prevention work? Because you've got crime stoppers that
are a reporting portal essentially, and then you've got a neighborhood
watch which is really strong in education. I kind of
don't know where police sit with that education piece. Like
I just feel like police are they to kind of
clean up the mess?

Speaker 3 (16:46):
Well, they're just reactive the Yeah, I think they're struggling
and we're seeing we live in the year of aggravated burglaries.
We're young men usually breaking it at homes and getting
the keys and taking the car for a jolly down
the freeway and drawing all those police.

Speaker 2 (16:59):
Resources in there. Sometimes they catch themselves, so they don't.

Speaker 3 (17:02):
But I guess under your scenario, you'd be able to
track that vehicle through the cameras, through the street. I mean,
I'm getting visions of the movies where the guys and
the black skivvas are there where the big screen, and
they're following and they're switching between cameras all the way
through the network.

Speaker 2 (17:15):
That's what's your sort of dreaming of.

Speaker 4 (17:16):
Isn't it looks that's very long term. I think one
of the issues we'll have there is connecting to residential cameras.
That's not something that we currently do, and it's not
connecting from a technical sense. I mean, so having a
world where we can just dip into someone's Ring camera
or Google camera, I think that's a long way down
the track. The US are testing it a little bit
in some areas with Ring because Rings are owned by Amazon.

(17:39):
They've got a big tech They linked into some police systems,
especially with the Human Rights Charter here in Victoria. There's
so many privacy and ethical considerations to go into a
system like that. Even if we had all of the
locations recorded of where cameras were, and an efficient way
of speaking to the owners of all of those cameras,
that would drastically increase closure rates of investigations. And that's

(18:02):
what we're doing right now. So I think of it
as a job. Rolodex of names and locations and where
cameras are. And my system has like a Google map,
It's like Google for CCTV, show me where the cameras
are in Brighton and it comes up. You click notify
and it notifies all those camera owners by SMS and email.
So they all get a little texts saying Victoria Police
have asked you to check your footage over the last

(18:23):
hour looking for a red van. So that happens within
an instant. It could even happen from trip low as
soon as the call comes in. So even that in itself,
without a technical connection to the cameras, that in itself
you could see the footage coming in getting uploaded within
the next ten minutes from residents. Even that would be
a huge, huge win. And that avoids the ethical privacy

(18:44):
considerations of police remote accessing into someone's camera, because that's
a lot more tricky because people think that we're going
to spy on them and that kind of thing. But
if people are notified, they're given the option to cooperate.
And that's what our system is so important that they
are given the option to upload footage and cooperate if
they feel comfortable doing so.

Speaker 3 (19:02):
Yeah, democracy and privacy very inconvenient these situations.

Speaker 2 (19:05):
But of course everyone.

Speaker 3 (19:06):
Wants it to be rolled out one hundred percent when
they need it, yes, But mostly they're not prepared to
buy into it. And I think this is it becomes
a political issue as much as a policing one as well.
Or do you see a willingness to use the China
example before? You don't want to be a crooked in
China anymore because they will get on to you really
quickly and you will be found. I mean the level
of facial recognition software in the cameras and the ability

(19:29):
to create a perimeter away from the crime scene and
work their way back in and you will be caught.

Speaker 2 (19:34):
I mean, law and.

Speaker 3 (19:35):
Order is always a big thing in our state elections.
We hear it every time that the crooks run the
streets and so forth. We've got to put the fearback
in the crooks. But are we really prepared to do
what our technology allows us to do already?

Speaker 4 (19:47):
I guess that's what I'm testing right now, and I
think it's going to be an interesting social experiment. I
mean I showed it to an assistant commissioner yesterday Victorian Police,
and she was quite shocked that so many people had
voluntarily registered, and I was like, well, it's indicating a
willingness to get involved in something like that. And you know,
we've gone to great lengths to be clear that when
we don't have remote access to cameras, it's all voluntary.

(20:10):
You've opted into this system, and you still have the
option to cooperate or not cooperate with the police. And then, strangely,
only a few weeks ago, one of our users directed
police to us, and police came to us and said, oh,
this person said that she's on the network and can
you just get the footage for us. So even this
member of our network thought we had remote access to
her cameras, and she'd signed up under that premise, which

(20:32):
is wrong because we don't have remote access to our cameras.
She thought we did, and she still signed up. So
I've actually got people signing up that think we already
do have remote access. So I think it is a
bit of a social experiment. And that's why talking to
the Privacy Commissioner yesterday was interesting because as a privacy commissioner,
how do you make these giant decisions about what society
thinks about surveillance? And what society thinks about facial recognition,

(20:52):
and she said it's context driven and it has to
be proportionate. And proportionate is a big word that happens
in police with self defense and what people are talking
about castle law and their houses and protecting their homes.
Sovereigns yes, kind of sovereign citizen. But people are saying
I want the right to protect my family and my
home and fight back if someone breaks in. Well, the

(21:13):
law already protects them. So I yell at the TV
pretty regularly about this because and social media, because I
see these comments come in and people saying I want
to be able to bash the crook when they kick
my door in. I'm like, you can bash the crook
when you're already protected under law, as long as it's proportionate.
If you kick the crap out of them and they're
on the ground and you keep going, that's when you
break the law. But if someone comes in with a machete,

(21:35):
you are allowed to use leader force to protect you
and your family because you're under fear of being killed.
That's proportionate and they are protected. And I think I
don't think police really advertise that fact very well because
people are saying they want this castle law and you
should be able to somehow do something else to protect
your family. But if someone's coming at me and my family,
I'll do whatever I need to do to stop them.

Speaker 3 (21:55):
I'm all a view that most people are unprepared for
these situations. Can't use their firearms or their or their
knives and things, and the best thing they could do
is jump over the back fence.

Speaker 4 (22:04):
And get out and make distance. And when aught that
as a young police officer, distance is the number one
savior and I completely agree. But getting back to surveillance,
it has to be proportionate. And Kmart recently got a
whack for using facial recognition cameras without making people aware
they were using them. Bunning's had the same issue, and
one of the things they ran into was they couldn't

(22:24):
prove that the facial recognition software was going to stop
enough crime. Basically it was a little bit too much
of a luxury for them. In the Privacy Commissioner's opinion.
The current Privacy commissioner, so what our system is doing, Yes,
it's kind of connecting the surveillance network, but like you've
said throughout this the amount of crime we could solve.

(22:45):
Any amount of harm we could reduce is significant. So
that's where the proportionality comes into it. The surveillance is large,
where the impact is large, and that's where I think
the community could come on the journey because they know
or the impact has been demonstrated or proven that if
they do get involved, yes, he will be sixty percent
safer than you are now walking at night.

Speaker 2 (23:04):
What's right.

Speaker 3 (23:04):
I think the often CCTV is a great post crime tool.

Speaker 4 (23:11):
Yes, see what happened.

Speaker 3 (23:13):
But I think in the case of our aging population,
with the elderly people leaving hospitals, leaving nursing homes, often
with dementia and so forth, and the clock is ticking,
people perish in these situations. We're already seeing police forces
trying to get into this space by doing geolocation of
messages and so forth and things. And I can see
your system being something that could be used in real

(23:35):
time to say, check your camera right now, as an
elderly person could have walked past.

Speaker 4 (23:40):
One hundred percent. And I actually use that case study
sometimes as well, and I do have I think I
have two missing person detectives signed up using the system
at the moment with Victoria Police, which is great. So yeah,
that's the use case that people are surprised to hear
because they forget that police are often used for that
exact scenario. And when I worked at PRAWN, I do
remember a story of an elderly woman going missing from
her Windsor flats and I found her sitting at a

(24:01):
bus stop in her ninety and it's when sat next
to her and said hello you Mavis whatever her name was,
and had a lovely chat with her, and then I
took a home. And this happens all the time in
the community. Don't realize how often that happens. But yeah,
our network could potentially just see the whole path of
someone leaving their residents, walking down the street and ending
up in a park, so you could find someone within

(24:22):
two hours just sitting ashore.

Speaker 3 (24:23):
And we've seen situation with the autistic children as well, yep,
who have allegedly disappeared from a property. I need to
be found later on in the property, often in danger
when if you could establish a perimeter, but all the
cameras in the area.

Speaker 2 (24:37):
There's no ingress or regress. That's also a real time use.

Speaker 4 (24:41):
That's exactly right, and I think I think I know
that police already love this tool because, like I've said earlier,
they don't have time to dawn off. They would love
to if that all the time in the world, they
would send twenty cops out, dawn off every property, get
every piece of footage and find the missing person or
the missing child immediately. You don't join the police force
not to solve crime or not to find missing people.

(25:03):
You wanted to do the best thing, best job you can.
But especially in Victoria, you know they're under a huge
amount of strain. So having a tool weakness, open up
a map and get it all. I mean, it's a
no brainer in my opinion, and even me as a
community member, I want police using this like regardless of
the fact that I'm running the business and it's a
commercial entity, I want police using it. It's just been

(25:25):
heartwarming to see the support from community, from organizations. I
think I'm yet to hear anyone really have a problem
with what I'm doing, and I think that comes down
to the fact that it's a voluntary network. If you
don't want to be involved, there'll always be a portion
of the community that doesn't want to cooperate with police,
and you know that was some of the early feedback
I got from Victoria Police again was that you're not

(25:46):
ever going to have everyone on the network, And I said,
well that's fine, but you also don't have everyone's fingerprints,
and you also don't have everyone's DNA, So how's that
working out for you? Like, it's all part of it's
all avenues of inquiry, and at least with our system
you can say, well, along this street we've got ten houses,
five are registered. I can say we five aren't. So
with the limited resources you do have, howbout we go

(26:08):
after the houses that aren't registered instead of door knocking
your ten. So I'm like, there's all these all these examples.

Speaker 2 (26:15):
Yeah, back to the Jill mar example. Yes, one camera,
a couple of cameras made all the difference.

Speaker 3 (26:20):
And you think about what's an acceptable level of voluntary
inclusion in this system would.

Speaker 2 (26:26):
Make a huge difference.

Speaker 4 (26:27):
Doesn't have to be blanket, as you say, It could
be one camera that makes a difference. I'm speaking to
the Bedfordshire Police in London in two weeks and I
got an email from my contact over there and there
was a synagogue attack that just happened in Manchester. I
think and I got sent the latest media and it
was a ring camera that captured the offender's car going
past a house and a hubcap was missing on the car.

(26:50):
And apparently that was a critical piece of evidence to
confirm the identity of that offender. And that just came
from a tiny ring camera on someone's front door and
it saw a cargo past four minutes before the attack happened,
and for whatever reason, I don't know the full story,
but that was a critical piece of eviden It's the
same as Jill Mar and that's innocuous two hundred dollars
doorbell camera on someone's front door, and the Dull Mar
example is it's casing point for me, It really is.

(27:12):
And what's interesting is that that was an internal camera.
That was a camera actually inside and I use the
screenshot all the time and we all it's probably all
ingrained in our memory. It was an internal store camera
looking at their front door. You can even see annequins
and stock. It's a camera that traditionally you wouldn't think
would be of any value and walking past, even as
doing a canvas as a police officer, you could look

(27:33):
into that store and not see it. Because some of
these stores have quite discrete cameras for obvious reason, for
Robby's reasons, but sometimes they're quite overt. But as an
investigator might well pass looking the store, I can't see
any cameras, so you actually write that address off and
go no cameras. So on your log you say there's
no cameras found at the Dutchess Boutique. Wrongly there was
a camera. So that kind of thing is dangerous. And

(27:55):
again even whether can impact to this if there's been
an incident in someone's street and it's pouring with rain
and you're not going to get a team of police
going out there and door knocking au So notify all
the houses by SMS and by email perfect and they
could be able to see. So they could be in
the Greek Islands having a cocktail, get a notification from us.
Can you see Checkie Cameron's for a red cargoing past.

(28:16):
They could approve all of that from anywhere in the world.

Speaker 3 (28:19):
One of my great heroes in policing was the former
Chief commission Victoria mic Miller. He's to talk about the
fact that in a totalitarian society, the police for the
instrument of totalitarianism and equally when it's working right, police
work with the.

Speaker 2 (28:34):
Assent of the community appeals principles. If you go back
to you let those the acntemts.

Speaker 4 (28:39):
Yeah, that set me right back. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (28:41):
Yeah, Well, you know, you are just the community in
a uniform doing what the community wants. And we've had
a bit of a drift away from some of those principles,
and people want to live compartmentalized lives, but away from
their social responsibilities. And I think what you're talking about
is fundamental to reviving some of those vibes.

Speaker 2 (28:59):
I suspect you're going to spend a lot of time
talking to politicians.

Speaker 4 (29:02):
Yeah. I was only talking to someone about that yesterday.
I've tried to avoid it a full experience.

Speaker 2 (29:07):
I teach them fans for about two seconds like mine.

Speaker 4 (29:10):
I think, yes, it's inevitable. And I was told very
early on that this would end up being a political
hot potato at some point in your way, and it
hasn't quite hit that yet. I've had opportunities to speak
with some ministers which I haven't activated yet because I'm
just trying to refine my message for that because it's
the thing I have to do very carefully.

Speaker 2 (29:28):
How did this come out of your police and career.

Speaker 3 (29:29):
Why did you join the police in the first place,
and did you see yourself ending up in this place?

Speaker 2 (29:33):
Sure you didn't.

Speaker 4 (29:35):
You mentioned a missing child earlier. I made a very
early decision to join the police force when I was
about six. You might remember this. A little boy went
missing at Tidle River in Wilson's prom in the late eighties.
He was a young autistic boy. I think he was nine.
He went missing on a walk with his family. Police
came down his es did a search. We were staying
there at the time as a family. I was about six,

(29:55):
and there's a famous photo of me sitting in the
air wing tropper at Tidle River and big beaming smile
on my face. And I think that might have been
when I decided to join the police.

Speaker 5 (30:04):
The hild Brand fam yes, nine year old Patrick Hildebrand
went missing in nineteen eighty seven while in a family
bushwalk at Wilson's Promontory in Victoria. Patrick, who was mildly autistic,
when ahead of the family and was never seen again
despite a massive search.

Speaker 4 (30:20):
I think that was my earliest memory, and my family
got me a little cut down uniform and I had
a hat after all that, and then.

Speaker 2 (30:28):
You got to send me a picture of that You've
got somewhere.

Speaker 4 (30:30):
Yeah, I've one. I was actually sitting it in front
of my TV at home, cut down the old ceremonial
cap when I was just when I got back from
Wilson's prom when I realized I wanted to be a cop.
So yeah, I went into technology. I got sucked into
tech in the late nineties. Started a business when I
was sixteen, building websites in nineteen ninety eight. So I've
always been kind of that minded that I want to

(30:51):
use tech for good. And when I left Union did
a tech degree. I left Union, worked in I create
another business for two and a half years, again building websites,
but I left that to join the police force because
I wanted more, and ironically that's the recruitment campaign at
the moment, built for more. But I didn't see any
social impact in what I was doing. And I often

(31:12):
joke about websites. I was just changing different shades of orange.
I'm like, why am I doing this? What purpose? There's
got to be more to life than this. I saw
a friend who was in the job and I'm like,
hang on a second, if he can do it, I
can do it. And then I set back all these
memories from when I was a kid, and then yeah,
I had a few sleepless nights and joined the police
force two thousand and five on the van. On the van,
How was that interesting? I was lucky. I went to

(31:33):
transit for the first year, so when I joined, we
didn't actually have PSOs. It was a few years before
PSOs came in, so I had an interesting first year.
I was on trains, riding up and down train lines,
and we had cars at different stations, so i'd play
close playing clothes. About three months in, but initially in uniform,
and then I got into a specialist department where I
was chasing people who were wanted on warrants, and that's

(31:53):
where I got my taste of catching crooks. Yeah, less
than six months out, I was stoked.

Speaker 2 (31:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (31:58):
I went and found a woman who did not want
to be found out and a weird caravan park out
in Yarrow Junction somewhere really did not want to be
found found her. I found another guy who we'd been
wanted for over two years, I think, and I found
out he needed methadone, and I think we still have
the methodone program where you've got a register to get
methadone from a pharmacy. And I'm like, well, that makes sense.

(32:20):
So I spoke to the methadone registry. Basically, I said
is this person registered? And they said yes. I said,
where does he pick up his methodone? Where's the authorized pharmacy?
And I was in Corfield. So I went to the
pharmacy and they keep a log of everyone that comes
in to collect their methadone. I said, when does this
person generally come in to collect and they said, you know,
every Tuesday between ten and twelve. So we just hung

(32:40):
outside the pharmacy. The next Tuesday from nine point thirty,
sure enough walks past with a hatt and Sunny's on
and we just jumped on him. And I thought, that's awesome.
And that was six months after graduating, And yeah, I
just got a real taste for that.

Speaker 2 (32:52):
Excuse the part drug uses us certainly creatures of habit.

Speaker 4 (32:55):
Yeah, thank god in that in that scenario, I didn't
change his routine, but yeah, I love that. And then
on the van a year later in two thousand and
six at Paran, that was an experience. Loved it. Chappel Street,
the hospitality scene and had everything in brand. But he
loved that and then did some attempts at Bona, the
Arm Crime Task Force at box Hill, wrote at Borundara

(33:16):
for a little while and then went to the Regional
Response Unit in two thousand and nine for two years
that was in the city, so we're basically drug unit.
Everything we did was structs. But that introduced me to
the world of telephan intercepts surveillance. Absolutely loved that. I
had a sergeant who's exim robbery squad back in the day,
John Kerno. He was a great sergeant, very gung ho,

(33:37):
got us into everything, big jobs Johnny as we used
to call him. He was my great sergeant at the time.
But yeah, I got introduced to televihon interceptions s falance
and that's where I loved that because that was a
really good hybrid of my tech background and my love
of law enforcement. So listening to people's phones and understanding
how phones are tracked around the mobile network was fascinating.
And back to Jill mar that was a key part

(34:00):
of that investigation as well, was tracking his phone as
it headed up to Gisbon. Loved the exposure of that
and That was fantastic. I got my first detectives stop
at the Stadi Intele Division under Stuart Bateson, and he
was legend of.

Speaker 2 (34:11):
The Paranotas sports. There were gangline war. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (34:13):
Yeah, I've stayed in touch and I didn't always.

Speaker 2 (34:15):
Get on Please give him my bed, tell him, you know,
let bygones be by gone.

Speaker 3 (34:20):
He was wonderful because they want listen to my calls
with Carl Williams and it was completely infuriating because there
I was, jolly and Carl Williams along, you know, it
was a thought in this side and I just cecerely apologize.

Speaker 4 (34:32):
I'll tell him. Yeah, it was great learning from him
as a young detective. Neil Patterson was the AC at
the time. I'm still good friends with Neil as well.
He's now obviously left the police force, but did two
years there. It stayed in tele division and that was fascinating.
That's probably a whole other story. But I had portfolios,
so I wasn't investigating crime. I was investigating themes. So

(34:52):
one of my themes was environmental terrorism, so it was
my job to actually go out and befriend protesters. So
I spent a lot of time in Gippsland with forestry
protesters literally sitting around a campfire just trying to understand undercover.
No they knew I was police. Yeah, yeah, so strange,

(35:12):
But I got.

Speaker 3 (35:14):
That kind of persona to be honest that where people
would say, why am I telling.

Speaker 2 (35:17):
You all this?

Speaker 4 (35:18):
It's very funny you say that because that My wife
gives me a lot of stick about that. But people
tell me to say that exact thing all my life.

Speaker 2 (35:25):
They always have.

Speaker 4 (35:25):
I don't know why I'm telling you this, but I am.
And the next part of the story is that when
I went to the FED, so I became a full
time human source handler, so we call them case managers.
But I spent three years managing some of the most
high risk international human sources on the planet in conjunction
with the DEA and FBI, Homeland Security, NCAA, And obviously

(35:46):
I can't talk about a lot of it, but that
was some of the most fascinating years of my life.
My wife and friends might say otherwise, because I couldn't
go anywhere without taking phone calls. I had a gun
with me all the time, had a car laptop, I
had five phones. At one point, I had three different wallets,
had all kinds of stuff and that was fascinating, fascinating
part of my career.

Speaker 2 (36:08):
The one at an end.

Speaker 4 (36:09):
It's another good question. I spent about eighteen months in
Canberra on promotion into different areas. I worked on a
national biometric system back to facial recognition. I was called
up to give operational support to a system that NEC
was building for facial recognition nationally, and all of my
promotional opportunities longer term were in Canberra. Then I had
young kids and I just was not in a position

(36:30):
to move to Canberra, so I went back to vic Pole,
just temporarily as a senior IT manager there in the
surveillance area. And then my wife got a little bit
ill and I had to resign from Big Pole to
help run her company. And that's what I've been doing
all through COVID, and that's why I'm probably back into
this now, because she's better and the company's fine, and
I can get back into law enforcement again from the
other side of the fence, other side.

Speaker 3 (36:49):
Because like, you're the kind of officer who Vic Pole
would would cry tears of blood to lose fifteen years
of investment in you, all the high tech, all the
experience all that great stuff and you walk out the door.

Speaker 4 (37:03):
Yeah. I actually spoke to someone very similar to me
who has just gone off sit long term sickly from
vic Pole and that's exactly how I would describe him.
A huge loss for Victoria Police. And yeah, he's a
perfect example of someone they really should have not let
slip through their fingers. And it's happening really regularly. I
was having a conversation with the New Zealand police officer
a couple of days ago, and she's only a year
into the job in New Zealand, but she's struggling with

(37:24):
the culture there and things. And I said, well, she
said the same thing. You know, people tell me things
that they don't know why they're telling me. I said, perfect,
stick with the job, look for an intel job, look
for a human sauce job. Like you love being in
the police, but maybe you're not suited for uniform Not
everyone's suited for general duties policing. That's not everyone's vibe.
So when I told her about my career, she was
just like, oh my god, I hadn't thought about that.

(37:46):
And I said, give the dedicated source unit a call
and see if there's tempts you can do, see if
there's courses you can do that. Softer side of policing
isn't a weakness. And you know, whenever I spoke to crooks,
i'd remove the table. It's the old probably Stewart bateson
a homicide investigation style. I picked that up very early.
Get the table out of the way, move the chairs
next to each other, like all of that really subtle stuff.

(38:07):
And I loved that. And I got my first human
source when I was a prans it would have been
two thousand and six, as a young kid. He was
drug dealing at the Love Machine. We picked him up.
He was just trying to move counterfeit currency through the
nightclub and we picked him up and charged him. But
same thing. He started telling me things he'd never told anyone,
and he became my human source. And that was eight
ten months out of the academy and I'd already recruited

(38:28):
a source. I was lucky that I had a senior
Connie that allowed that, and he didn't take that person on.
He could have tried to do it himself, but he
was a very supportive senior Connie. So I think I
was lucky. But yeah, that human element I've always loved.

Speaker 2 (38:41):
Please tell me you were involved in the lawyer ex
Nicola Gobbo human source.

Speaker 4 (38:45):
And Debarcle no comment.

Speaker 3 (38:48):
Wow, it's such a difficult So we're getting off track
a little bit here, But I think this it's important
because the human element is so important and managing these
people is so critical, and giving police officers the latitude
to be able to create these relationships without the fear
not just of making a mistake, but their colleagues going
there's some fishy gun and then suddenly got the internal
investigations on them and all kind of stuff, and I

(39:09):
think that has put everything back a long way.

Speaker 2 (39:13):
The stuff up around that.

Speaker 4 (39:14):
Well, it's actually quite relevant to CCTV and surveillance because
back to my point about avenues of inquiry for an investigation,
they're dwindling. I mean, police can't listen to phones like
they used to. And now with the Lawyer X issue,
I know for a fact that Victoria Police is struggling
to recruit human sources. And for a long time they've
been critical to major investigations, as you would know from

(39:34):
your Parana days. So if you've got encryption stopping electronic
surveillance or hindering it to a large degree less human sources.
What are your other traditional avenues of inquiry. You've got fingerprints,
DNA witnesses, CCTV, So CCTV is basically a digital witness
that's recording twenty four to seven and police aren't making
the best use of it. So they kind of already

(39:56):
got one anti behind the back and without maximizing the
avenue's inquiry they do have. They've just seen cases slip
through their fingers.

Speaker 2 (40:03):
Because having all that material.

Speaker 3 (40:05):
I imagine when you go into the interview room with
your suspect and you already know the answers to the
questions you're asking him.

Speaker 2 (40:13):
So if you can let him know that, you're much
more likely to be able to bend.

Speaker 4 (40:18):
Him into working with you. And imagine, Yeah, we call
it leverage. It depends on the type of person and
what you want them to do. You know, there's agencies
like the DEA that use leverage extremely partially because sentencing
in the US is extraordinary. Like, you get caught with marijuana,
you go to prison for ten years. So for someone
caught with a little bit of cannabis facing ten years prison,
they're always going to work with you. Whereas in Australia

(40:39):
we don't have that kind of sentencing, which I think
is a good thing, but that leverage can be hard
to identify what will work for what person. Some people
will be motivated by money, some people will motivate it
by revenge. You kind of got to figure out the
psychological aspect more than just a legal aspect.

Speaker 3 (40:55):
There is that moment you can go look, listen, I
know what you're saying, but here's the picture of you
walking on the street right near that, and here's the
next picture of you there, and you know, all we
need is to confirm this and let's let me do it.

Speaker 4 (41:08):
Go, Yeah, exactly. So I mean I say this a
little bit about our bail laws as well in Victoria,
and another use for our CCTV system is exactly what
you described where I remember doing ramand briefs or remand
hearings in front of a bail justice at pran where
you haven't got a lot of evidence. At that point.
You kind of know that they've been charged, they've been
caught on the hop, but you don't know the full

(41:29):
extent of how violent the crime was or how they
really behaved. Something that would be on CCTV for example.
So you're giving a very small amount of evidence to
a magistrate or a bail justice to try and remard
that person. My system would give those informants more evidence
at that early stage to make that remand hearing stronger,
which in turn would make them less likely to get bail.

(41:52):
Because it never really gets talked about in the media
that this magistrate gave this person bail or this bail
justice gave this person bail. It's like, well, it's up
to the informant to put a strong enough case to
that person to and if you're putting slop in front
of a bail justice or in front of a magistrate,
of course they're going to get bail because you've only
had a few hours to start setting up that investigation.

(42:14):
If you've caught them, you know, just around in the
corner from a burg or whatever, so you haven't got
a lot of evidence to put to them yet, it
might generate enough cause for them to be reminded. So
if you can put camera footage from MY network to
them where it shows them holding a massive machete, it
shows the victim screaming and how close they were to
murdering them. In actual vivid detail. As a magistrate, I'd

(42:36):
be like, oh, that's that's very serious. I mean you
can put it in writing, but seeing it in video footage,
I might be actually, I'm not going to I'm not
going to give you bail. So I think whatever we
can do to support our informants to make a stronger case,
that essentially will also make people make it harder for
people to get bail.

Speaker 3 (42:54):
Sadly, I feel like you're going to need another Jill
mar case or a Clio in Western Australia, one of
these ones that captures I'll never forget that the days
when that fill my investigation was going on, and the
whole city was grouped by this we want an answer,
we want an answer, and if you could just distill
that unified feeling you had no problems.

Speaker 4 (43:17):
Well that's interesting. After Jill mar there was millions of
dollars pumped into CCTV, so the federal government chipped in,
stakement chipped in. I don't have the figures, but it
was somewhere around five million dollars, which is in a
lot in these maybe it's more now, but a lot
of cameras got installed after Jill Mar, so I think
we just get complacent and we just we settle back
down to our old ways and we don't invest in

(43:39):
these things. It's like any after era terrorist after September eleven,
how much security changed in airports. It's just a it's
a reflex thing. And like you've said all along that
you kind of don't want to make these changes unless
you're forced to.

Speaker 2 (43:51):
Well, it's right.

Speaker 3 (43:51):
I mean, you see, on the DNA side, we've already
got the technology around forensic investory of genealogical searching, which
means that all those offended DNA that's unknown, unknown human remains,
there's answers to all those cases right now. If we
could get the commercial databases like ancestry to my Heritage
and so forth to actually hand it over.

Speaker 4 (44:12):
And isn't that fascinating? People are willing to hand the
DNA over to those organizations, and people aren't willing to
say to my network, they've got cameras. It's just like
this is what I mean about people pick and choose
where they want to get into this technology, but they're
absorbing it anyway. They're giving the DNA to a private
organization just to see who their great grandparents were been
speaking of DNA. You know, we're talking today in Easy Street.

(44:33):
Fitzroy and Easy Street murders were a few hundred meters
away back in nineteen seventy seven and that was solved
through DNA.

Speaker 3 (44:39):
What's right on the knife alleged go to the core
process and the case is based around DNA which they've
had for a very long time. And the forensic unit
at McLeod has a whole cold case full of I
mean identified in the Mister Cruel series of abductions that
they had DNA in at least two cases. And yet
we're still talking about one offender when we could be

(45:00):
now looking at three or four different scenarios and locking
people upstairs.

Speaker 2 (45:05):
Yep, you know.

Speaker 3 (45:06):
I think it's the technology is there, The public debate
has to be had and you're part of that.

Speaker 2 (45:11):
Do you feel like a pioneer?

Speaker 4 (45:12):
I do a little bit. I feel sick some days
because I realize I'm getting into something. I say to
my wife sometimes like what am I doing? Like I
have these days where I just have this mini panic
attacks for a microsecond and then I'll get myself together.
But I do feel like that I have always been
a visionary, but I'm waiting into a very complex environment privacy, ethics, stakeholders,

(45:37):
like our platform is basically built. I've spent the last
two months just making phone calls, emails, flying to camera,
find a Sydney, educating people. That's where I think most
of the time will be spent.

Speaker 3 (45:48):
Yeah, because you think of it, there's waking moments. He's
making micro panics and whatnot. You know, if I was
still in the forest, i'd probably be a superintendent.

Speaker 2 (45:56):
Now, I'll be on the way to.

Speaker 3 (45:57):
Being an assistant commission I'll be involved away and i'd
be involved in maintaining the status quiet.

Speaker 4 (46:03):
You weren't happy with that, No, I don't think I could.
I've toyed with going back, you know, potentially rose colored glasses.
I talk to a lot of people still on the
job clearly, and what I love being in the private
sector is our atility to do what we need to
do when we need to do it. And I would
categorically not get that privilege of I went back to
Victoria Belie. You know, I think they're a big, slow

(46:25):
moving organization. I think i'd find that inherently frustrating, and
I did in twenty nineteen when I was there I'm
very frustrated.

Speaker 2 (46:31):
I think after this interview that door was closed. Anyways,
I love it, I love vic poll part.

Speaker 4 (46:36):
Yeah, but I times it it.

Speaker 3 (46:37):
Takes courage because I think what we're going to see
in police forces around the world, most public institutions is
outsourcing of all kinds of things. Yeah, it's going to
have to happen, and so I think you're part of
that whole trend that's happening.

Speaker 2 (46:48):
What are your goals have you have you got a
timeline for this?

Speaker 4 (46:50):
I don't have a timeline, but I am very impatient
and I do have a sense of urgency to this
because I know how important it could be or it
is to community. I'd like to see it operational within
eighteen months across Australia. That's what I'm like to see.
But I've just got to be patient with these organizations
that take time. So as much as I'm I have

(47:12):
a sense of urgency, I need to work within the
constraints of government and politics and just keep working with them,
not against them. And that's really important. Like I can't
do this without Laura for Saint, he's getting on board,
and like you've said earlier, I want this to be
community led, but I want it to be government trusted.
So it's a journey.

Speaker 3 (47:31):
It is, use the cliche journey without mass, but the
sort of situations you don't need maps, you just need
good shoes.

Speaker 4 (47:38):
Yeah, exactly, and I think I'll be replacing my shoes regularly.

Speaker 2 (47:41):
Fantastic.

Speaker 3 (47:41):
Well, thanks you, Tom that It's been fantastic, really interesting
and debted, and I wish you all the very best
of success in this.

Speaker 2 (47:46):
It's going to be a tough, but I think it's
an important thing.

Speaker 3 (47:48):
I think it typifies what we need to do with
the community and police to work together towards positive outcomes.

Speaker 4 (47:56):
Exactly.

Speaker 2 (47:57):
The problem is people don't want to get onto this
until they need it.

Speaker 3 (48:04):
That's David Bartleer, this Safer Places network, and you know
the technology is all their people.

Speaker 2 (48:09):
We've just got to allow it to be used.

Speaker 3 (48:11):
And balance off these privacy issues with the greater good,
which is solving crimes, getting our elderly folks back home,
getting autistic children back with their families. You know, have
you had experiences of this? Do you have CCTV? Are
you prepared to share that footage even in real time?
I think this is the future. People, Please get in touch.
If you have information that can solve a crime, please

(48:32):
call crime Stoppers when it's under a triple three, triple zero.
If you've got a story that you don't trust the
police with, please email me Adam Shander writer at gmail
dot com. This has been real time with Adam Shanned.
Thanks for listening and make sure you subscribe and share
that podcast for more independent journalism.

Speaker 2 (48:47):
Thank you.