#The student correctly presents annotated bibliographies We are going to be looking at the structure, evolution and characteristics of one particular Italian gang. This gang has been observed on its tight knit structure, actors involved, and how effective it would be in dealing with the interference of law enforcement authorities to its operations. We also looked at how the gang will proceed forward if there were certain disruptions to the hierarchal structure of the organization.

#The student accurately constructs a model of a leaderless terrorist network The model below shows the structure of the Italian gangs and how it evolved to be what it is today. What we can see is that part of the gang is connected to a central node, however there are some loosely affiliated individuals that interact with this particular Italian gang as well. As we can see nodes, N2, N7, N14, N20 are loosely affiliated with this gang. From there we can see that Nodes N133, N21, N1, and X1 are a bit more closely affiliated to the gang however by just one clique. We can also see that these outer nodes function as a bridge between the community. We can hypothesize that the perhaps before the gang was pretty stable over time however maybe due to gang operations it was more beneficial to become less centralized.

#The student comprehensively describes the characteristics of the terrorist network (TN) (visuals) As we can see from the graphs that the gangs some structure characteristics have a bit of decentralization aspects to it and we can assume that it was much more centralized before. We can assume this due to the fact that a higher degree of centralization is associated with a higher risk of arrest, and a lower degree of centralization is associated with a lower risk of arrest.
The characteristics of the critical actors in the criminal element we can see from about 1 to 5 nodes. Nodes, N18, N22, N19, N11, N4 are the central figures withing this element, with N18 being the leader or head of this particular Italian gang. We could see where deleting N18 could be detrimental to this network had authorities tried to disrupted it before it evolved, however presently it has a lower centrality on all measures so fragmenting the network may not may not have quite as dramatic an effect.

# Add rank as vertex attribute
V(italian_gang_g)$size <- italian_gang_actor_attr$country
## Warning in vattrs[[name]][index] <- value: number of items to replace is not a
## multiple of replacement length
plot(italian_gang_g
     ,vertex.color='red'
     ,vertex.label.cex=0.6
     ,vertex.label.color='white'
     ,edge.color='black'
     ,layout=layout.kamada.kawai)

E(italian_gang_g_weighted)$weight *10
##  [1] NA 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
## [26] 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
plot(simplify(italian_gang_g_weighted)
     ,vertex.color='red'
     ,vertex.label.cex=0.6
     ,vertex.label.color='white'
     ,edge.color='black'
     ,layout=layout.fruchterman.reingold)

#italian_gang_deg_c <- igraph::degree(italian_gang_g)
#knitr::kable(italian_gang_deg_c)

#italian_gang_attr_m <- as.matrix(italian_gang_actor_attr)
#italian_k <- kmeans(na.omit(italian_gang_actor_attr[,1:2], center = 1))
#fviz_cluster(italian_k, data=italian_gang_actor_attr)

#The student clearly defines an adversarial relationship between two networks The adversarial relationship between the gang and authorities would be most apparent in how this particular gang anticipates and responds to local law enforcement and authorities. By focusing on which particular node to target may depend on if law enforcement wants to collect as much information as possible. This would be more in the realm of intelligence gathering. As opposed to disrupting the network which would require more of a law enforcement approach. Due to the fact that the network is starting to evolve from its central position if law enforcement wanted to disrupt the network they would need to focus on more than one individual. Whereas before they would have target just N18, they would now need to target all five nodes N18, N22, N19, N11, N4, at the same approximate time in order to fully disrupt the network. Otherwise if that is not possible the intelligence approach would be a more suitable method to go moving forward.

#The student clearly explains how adversarial relationship between two networks can be modeled An adversarial relationship between these two networks can be modeled by looking at the counter to this crime network. If we look at a social network regarding law enforcement, we can see that it is also highly centralized. As we can see from the graph below the centralization is much more organized and including the decentralization. The decentralization in the graph below we can see which would be more of the informant or paid actors. These actors do not directly branch off of the main node, however they do ensconce the main network.

PoliceData <- c(0, 1,    1,    1,    1,    0,    1,    1,
             0,    0,    1,    0,    1,    1,    1,    1,
             1,    0,    0,    1,    1,    0,    0,    0,
             1,    1,    0,    0,    0,    1,    1,    1,
             1,    0,    0,    0,    0,    1,    1,    1,
             1,    1,    1,    1,    0,    0,    1,    1,
             1,    1,    1,    1,    1,    1,    0,    1,
             1,    1,    1,    1,    1,    1,    1,    0,
             1,    1,    0,    0,    0,    1,    1,    1,
             1,    0,    0,    0,    0,    1,    1,    1,
             1,    1,    1,    1,    0,    0,    1,    1,
             1,    1,    1,    1,    1,    1,    0,    1,
             1,    1,    1,    1,    1,    1,    1,    0)


PoliceData <- as.matrix(PoliceData)

#graph_from_adjacency_matrix(PoliceData, size = 12, label = TRUE, label.size = 5, label.color = "white", color =  "green", color.palette = "Reds")

data.network <- as.network(x = PoliceData,
                     directed = TRUE,
                     loops = FALSE)
data.network
##  Network attributes:
##   vertices = 105 
##   directed = FALSE 
##   hyper = FALSE 
##   loops = FALSE 
##   multiple = FALSE 
##   bipartite = 104 
##   total edges= 72 
##     missing edges= 0 
##     non-missing edges= 72 
## 
##  Vertex attribute names: 
##     vertex.names 
## 
## No edge attributes
plot(data.network)

#The student clearly describes the adversarial relationship between the two networks in the model presented When we look at the adversarial relationship between the two networks, we see that one is aimed at criminal enterprise and one is aimed at the destabilization of that criminal enterprise. For the destabilization we can see that there are likely two strategies. One would be isolating or decapitating certain actors or leaders, the other would be to destroy the network infrastructure. We can tell if these actions are successful because it should not only dismantle the command-and-control infrastructure but also fully disconnect the organization from crucial operational information or resource flow. Successful attacks would also range from the isolation of actors, disabling of communication, to the discrediting of actors, even to the assassination of certain actors.

#The student proposes and justifies a strategy for the CTN to defeat the TN. Visuals. SNA terms notation is present One strategy to defeat this criminal network would be to learn about the criminal network and all of their connections. Analyze and gather intelligence on the different groups associated with this particular gang criminal network. Also another strategy would be to examine the density and the strong social cohesion developed withing this particular criminal network. Although there is not clear silver bullet for dealing with criminal organizations the sole purpose is to destabilize the organization with the knowledge, materials, resources, and technology that you have.