My first Cyberhood Watch Ambassador meeting

Today, I attended my first Cyberhood Watch Ambassador meeting under the Neighbourhood Watch initiative in the UK. This meeting, held virtually via Microsoft Teams, featured a special guest from the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) at the City of London Police, who unveiled an innovative cybercrime reporting platform. This new system is built on Palantir’s technology, which sparked interest and curiosity among attendees.

As someone new to the Cyberhood Watch programme, it was inspiring to see the investment and focus on improving cybercrime prevention. However, my first experience was a mixed bag — a blend of excitement, curiosity, and unexpected observations.

Observations: A Room Full of Experienced Voices

One of the first things I noticed was the demographic in the virtual room. Most of the attendees appeared to be older and more experienced, likely bringing a wealth of knowledge from their years of community involvement. While this generational difference wasn’t unexpected, what did catch me off guard was the overall vibe of the meeting. It felt strangely negative and, at times, egoistic.

Many ambassadors asked questions that didn’t seem relevant to our roles as Cyberhood Watch ambassadors. Questions about the platform’s open-source nature, development costs, and relevance to AI were posed. While these were valid technical questions, they seemed misplaced in this forum. The representative from NFIB was there to introduce and explain the platform’s benefits and how it would help us in our roles — not to defend the project’s budget or technological choices.

It was as if some ambassadors were grilling her, almost as though it was a shareholders’ meeting. Others used the opportunity to showcase their backgrounds, subtly asserting authority through their questions. It felt less about learning and more about proving one’s expertise. This egoistic undercurrent was frustrating, as it took away from the main purpose of the meeting.

To make matters worse, a few attendees even shared links criticising Palantir’s involvement due to its controversial past. While it’s understandable that there are differing opinions on technology providers, it felt like this meeting wasn’t the right forum to debate those issues.

Not All Negative: Genuine Curiosity Shone Through

To be fair, it wasn’t all negative. There were ambassadors who asked genuinely curious and helpful questions, ones that aligned with our responsibilities as Cyberhood Watch ambassadors. It was refreshing to see moments of insightful dialogue, but these were often overshadowed by the more combative exchanges.

It seemed like the group had a diverse range of experiences, from those passionate about community safety to others possibly joining to stay informed after personal experiences. This diversity, while valuable, contributed to varying perspectives during the discussion.

Constructive Criticism: Making Future Meetings More Productive

Reflecting on the experience, I believe future meetings could benefit from a more focused and productive dialogue. One way to achieve this would be by limiting off-topic questions and maintaining a clear agenda that prioritises relevant discussions. Ensuring that questions directly relate to the topic at hand would help the presenters provide more impactful insights.

Additionally, fostering an atmosphere of respectful and open communication would encourage more ambassadors to engage positively, contributing to a collaborative learning environment. It’s important to acknowledge each ambassador’s background and expertise, but without letting egos overshadow the shared mission.

A Balanced Perspective on Palantir’s Technology

The platform’s use of Palantir’s technology did spark some debate among attendees, with a few posting links criticising its involvement due to its controversial past. While it’s important to consider transparency and security, it was also clear that the NFIB representative was focused on explaining the platform’s functionality and benefits to the community.

Acknowledging these concerns is necessary, but it’s equally important to recognise the platform’s potential in enhancing cybercrime reporting and prevention. Balancing these perspectives allows for a constructive discussion without polarising views.

Surprising Realisation: Who Are the Cyberhood Ambassadors?

As the meeting went on, I couldn’t help but notice an unexpected trend. I had assumed that most ambassadors would come from cyber security backgrounds or would be Cyberhood experts. However, it seemed like many were either previous scam victims who joined the initiative to stay informed or were long-standing Neighbourhood Watch members who had simply added this responsibility to their roles.

It seemed like the group had a diverse range of experiences, from those passionate about community safety to others possibly joining to stay informed after personal experiences. This diversity, while valuable, contributed to varying perspectives during the discussion.

Of course, these are just observations, and the variety of backgrounds can bring unique insights and a well-rounded approach to community safety. However, it did highlight the importance of tailoring future discussions to accommodate this range of experiences and expertise.

Hope for a More Insightful Meeting Tomorrow

Reflecting on today, I can’t say I left feeling particularly enlightened. The focus seemed misplaced, and the negative energy was palpable. However, I’m cautiously optimistic about tomorrow’s meeting with the President of Bexley Neighbourhood Watch at the Bexley Police Station.

I’m looking forward to a more positive, insightful discussion, one that stays true to the mission of Cyberhood Watch. I also see this as an opportunity to better understand the role and learn how to contribute more effectively.

Today was a learning experience, but tomorrow is another opportunity. I’m committed to making a positive impact as a Cyberhood Watch Ambassador and am eager to bring a fresh, constructive perspective to future meetings.

Until tomorrow!

-Andy