Final Report Summary - FREESIC (Free Secure Interoperable Communications)
The principal motivation for the FREESIC project arises from issues identified during the work on the SECRICOM Project where the majority of FREESIC partners were involved. The SECRICOM Project identified legal, organizational and operational barriers that negatively impacted on effective multi-agency interoperability during crisis events. Even when an efficient technical solution such as SECRICOM was being used, these barriers were never overcome totally.
To break through these barriers the FREESIC project proposes a solution with several innovative aspects such as a network of networks concept as well as a generic WEB 2.0 (do it yourself) approach. The solution is based on a universal gateway with customizable adapters that enable third party infrastructures to be connected to the FREESIC Unified Communication Network. From the user perspective network management tasks will be facilitated through the Collaboration Site based on WEB 2.0 components that allow end-users to configure their own interoperability attributes. Another aspect of the FREESIC project is the focus on potential end-user expectations, habits and constraints. These features make the FREESIC solution unique and suggest it has high exploitation potential.
Emergency responder organizations are facing challenges with increasing levels of complexity; this greater complexity in turn leads to responding agencies and their actors adopting greater specializations, and the greater the specialization, the more the structure of responders is segmented. This then, inevitably leads to the need for more effective intra and inter agency interoperability. However, at the same time these agencies are facing budgetary limitations inhibiting the implementation of one-purpose solutions. The FREESIC has recognized this and proposed a cost-effective solution using existing communication infrastructures already deployed by organizations. These infrastructures can be integrated to FREESIC Unified Communication Network with minor implementation effort using the sample implementations provided.
Because of the generic WEB 2.0 (do it yourself) approach the FREESIC provides a system built-in democracy of the interoperability organization. This, together with the user focuses and cost effectiveness, provides a solid base for the concept to become one of the major interoperability tools in Europe and beyond.
Project Context and Objectives:
FREESIC context:
The basic idea of the FREESIC is a kind of unification of a telephone exchange system with socio-professional networking. Interested professional organisations are then able to interconnect their professional communication systems while the links among the different organisations are created in a way similar to well-known social networking systems.
<< Figure 1: FREESIC idea is based on the unification of telephone exchange systems with the socio-professional networking systems>>
The organisations connected to the FREESIC are still using their own existing communication systems. It should also be stated that FREESIC has no intentions of modifying an agency’s internal processes and procedures nor of replacing existing communication infrastructures deployed in an organisation. FREESIC demonstrates it worth when agencies need to interoperate. When this need to work together arise the FREESIC system provides an interoperability platform with transparent interoperability rules enabling interconnection of organizations’ communication systems and thus facilitating the required information exchange
The overall visions of the FREESIC project can be summarized in the following ideas:
• The building of a collaboration network of emergency responder agencies across borders prior to major event activation
• Systematic mapping of constraints (cultural, legal, technical) that currently hinder the close cooperation of different responder agencies and tracking of improvements as they are implemented.
• Interconnection of responder agency communication systems without major investment and close to zero operational costs
• Agencies being able to join FREESIC and to stay connected without major investments
FREESIC objectives:
The chapter repeats the objectives from FREESIC DoW document
Objective 1: Solve the legal, security, reliability and operational issues
The interoperability is not only about a technical solution, the legal, security and operational issues might stop the initiative even if the best technical solution exists. We plan to address these issues soon in the project life. The communication systems of emergency responders are critical for their work and that is why such systems are being adequately protected either by security mechanisms, organizational procedures or by law, e.g. in Slovak Republic the systems are part of national critical infrastructure, certified for transmission of classified information and the technical details are classified. The interoperability between such systems is not just a question of technical feasibility of such integration but more about demonstrating that the other systems will not threaten the operational readiness, security or reliability of the emergency communication system.
The success criteria are:
• The concerns, legal limitations, reliability attributes and risks are documented in a single document, containing the inputs from multiple EU member states
• The solution for each of those issues is documented in a report and its annexes (the solution does not have to be technical, could be organizational etc.)
Objective 2: Bring the interoperability communication platform to life
The communication services should be based on data types not technology (service oriented architecture). For example if one system publishes its capabilities (e.g.: text, call, PTT) it should not matter what is the source technology. It must be possible to send the text to the system (e.g. to a Tetra handset) even if the source is from e-mail, SMS or web form. The transcoding and technical restrictions (e.g. the maximum text length of 160charactes) should be handled by the gateway.
The success criteria are:
• The servers are running and accessible from the internet
• The SECRICOM devices and software modules are able to connect to the platform and use its services to communicate between each oher
• The web pages for configuration of access rights exist and allow each agency to configure which FREESIC users are allowed to communicate with the agency
• At least one sensor or non-human communication system is connected to demonstrate interoperability of equipment too
• The performance issues have been solved and the system is acceptable for end user’s needs
Objective 3: Publish the open source gateway and documentation
Most agencies have already made significant investments to their communication infrastructure and their systems usually provide a good service for the users of the same organization. The generic open source gateway should provide easy means for them or their system integrators to integrate their current or future communication systems with other local agencies or foreign agencies. They are the ones who know their communication system the best and the gateway should provide them all the necessary information, technology and source code to make the integration doable without additional knowledge. Every agency should only need to integrate once, to the FREESIC, they do not have to invest significant resources to develop ISIs between every other system they might need today or in the future.
The success criteria are:
• A free libraries and open source code exist for Linux platform at least (other operating systems are optional)
• The gateway provides methods for establishing the full-duplex phone call, push-to-talk group communication and text message exchange at least (the CCTV or video conferencing is optional)
• The security modules that ensure information confidentiality, integrity and authenticity are open source so that the organization can review it to gain their trust
• The overall security mechanisms and modules have been evaluated by reputable institution (in case of our project it is the task of NSA)
Objective 4: Integrate the first users
The end users are not only the well known emergency responders such as police, fire brigade or ambulance. There are tens of other agencies that participate during major incidents. E.g.: Environment protection experts, civil protection, chemical labs, electrical distribution / power plant operators, gas distribution companies, national guard who help to respond to emergencies and disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.
The success criteria are:
• At least 3 different agencies from 3 different countries integrated into the FREESIC communication network
• There should be at least two different types of communication systems integrated into the FREESIC platform (e.g.: telephony and radios - Tetrapol)
Objective 5: Establish Europe wide cooperation and awareness about FREESIC
To be truly successful we need to cooperate with other research activities, experts and spread Europe awareness about the free interoperability project. Our partners UL, BACPO and ITTI are institutional members of international forum Public Safety Communications Europe (PSCE) or local public bodies that provide recommendations to agencies (National Security Authority, British Association of Public Safety Officers). They are active in the Research Committee and will contribute to the bodies like Industrial Mission Group for Security.
The success criteria are:
• Participate on at least one other relevant research project event/meeting a year
• At least one presentation a year on an international conference dedicated to communication or crises management such as PSC Europe forum
• Participate as an exhibitor on at least one international show a year (e.g.: BAPCO Show, MILIPOL Paris etc.)
• At least one workshop for a closed group of experts and end users
• Presence on the widely used social networks (Linked-In, Facebook)
Project Results:
Getting closer to PPDR organisations:
The FREESIC consortium had as part of its overall strategy an intention - which it achieved - to engage meaningfully with Users on an ongoing basis throughout the duration of the Project. The Project was seeking genuine two-way discussions to obtain valued user contributions at all stages of its progress. The breadth, depth and variety of this User engagement - across several EU states, with a wide variety of agencies in different environments - contributed greatly to the overall Project deliverables and outcomes.
As regards breadth of User engagement the following 9 countries were involved in consultation and discussions at various stages throughout the Project’s duration:-
• Czech Republic
• Germany
• Luxembourg
• Poland
• Slovakia
• Spain
• Sweden
• UK
• USA
Such is the nature of the public safety environment that occasions arose due to operational commitments when planned User engagement was not achieved e.g. a selected Dutch User representative being unable to attend the T3.1 International Validation Exercise in Manchester UK in April 2013 (M14) because of a Dutch royal wedding. In a similar vein the Project adopted a flexible and understanding approach when engaging with Users in Poland (during the Euro 2012 Football Championships) Slovakia, (General Election 2012) and the UK (London 2012 Olympics); this sympathetic Project approach reaped its benefits with good quality ongoing User inputs when they did become available as the Users appreciated our insight into their challenges and problems and our intention to work around them for the benefit of all parties concerned.
The project sought engagement with several types of agencies with a view to obtaining contributions and insights from a range of different emergency/first responder/security agencies at strategic management level through to field commander roles together with agency ICT specialists. This ensured we had a depth of engagement that represented different PPDR disciplines from across Europe, and indeed the USA that offered different operational command level perspectives yet resulted in re-assuringly similar themes that the project was able to draw together in the requirements identification phases.
The following types of organisations were involved as FREESIC end-users or influencers:
• Ambulance/Health,
• Armed Forces,
• Civil Protection,
• Fire.
• Police
• National Agency Security Specialists,
• Academics,
• National Agency/Government level engagement - Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Poland, Sweden, Slovakia, UK,
• Regional Agency/Government level engagement- Poland, Spain & UK,
In terms of the range and types of User focused events project partners conducted the following different activities:-
• 4 Field Test Demonstrations – Nitra-Slovakia M14 (FREESIC Nitra 2013 exercise), London M22 (B-APCO conference), Paris M22 (MiliPol exhibition) and Final field testing in Luxembourg in M29,
• 17 Formal Meetings,
• 14 Workshops,
• 13 1-2-1 meetings,
• 3 Trade Exhibitions,
The above shows how flexible the project was in engaging with PPDR professionals both in terms of ‘best fit’ with individuals’ and agencies’ availability and the needs of the project at any particular point in its life-cycle.
Use of results:
The relationships that the members of the FREESIC consortium established with these agencies represent an important foreground for further exploitation for the aims of further R&D or scientific activities as well as are opening the doors for commercial exploitation by the SMEs, partners in the FREESIC consortia.
Non-technical foregrounds of the FREESIC research:
The principal goal of the FREESIC project was the definition and implementation of a technical infrastructure that seamlessly resolved different non-technical barriers inhibiting effective interoperability between PPDR agencies - such barriers can be cultural, procedural, legal, security related, commercially based as well as technical. Consequently the consortium conducted a detailed mapping of these barriers. This research included:
• Activities organised with end-users, as listed above, ,
• 20 crisis events from across the EU were reviewed,
• 20 relevant projects were researched.
By undertaking this approach of user engagement and overlaying it with some academic research and intellectual findings the project was able to obtain sufficient relevant material to inform the project’s User requirements needs and issues; this despite very real concerns from several agency individuals about releasing information to the project that might negatively impact on public safety and security, public confidence in PPDR organisations and on occasion commercial confidentialities as regards current agency communication systems suppliers.
.
Based on the aforementioned material a set of operational procedures, guidelines and recommendations were elaborated for the FREESIC system consisting of the following parts:
<