National Security Intelligence in the Modern Era
A
Many people today are disturbed by the intrusiveness of government security intelligence agencies on individual privacy. They argue that domestic government surveillance of civilians erodes civil liberties, gives the government too much unchecked power, and ultimately fails to prevent serious crime.
B
However, none of these claims stand up to the facts. First of all, nowhere in English law does it state that individuals have a right to privacy or that there is anything illegal with the state collection of personal data for security purposes. Not even the European Convention on Human Rights, which informs British law, requires the development of laws protecting citizens’ privacy rights. Secondly, the government’s intelligence services are hardly unchecked. They are governed by a legal framework that dictates how human intelligence may be obtained and used. In addition, the Prime Minister, other senior Ministers, Parliament, and the courts oversee the work of the Security Service. The people elect all of the officials involved, and each of their stances on government intelligence are made public during election campaigns. Third, anything that the Security Service does with the information it collects has to be approved by the higher courts through a lengthy and exhaustive judiciary process. Lastly, thousands of lives have been saved by the foiling of terrorist plots through the use of domestic surveillance intelligence. We don’t need to look far to find examples of this, as news of uncovered bomb threats surface in the news regularly these days. Our nation quite simply wouldn’t be safe without our most excellent intelligence services.
C
It’s a wonder, then, that so many people are convinced that government surveillance is an unnecessary infringement of their rights and a threat to their security. With the evidence clearly pointing to the contrary, where are these misconceptions coming from?
D
For one, the average citizen is not well educated about our national security system, and definitely not about security and privacy laws. A lot of misunderstanding stems from the fact that people don’t understand the laws, systems, and institutions currently in place. They certainly don’t learn about them in school, and it’s not a topic most people care enough about to research on their own.
E
Of course, what very little knowledge they do have often comes from unreliable sources such as uninformed media reporting. It really is unfortunate that so many journalists spread information that is not only misleading but oftentimes false. This is a major issue in a world where digital media allows anyone and everyone to become self-declared experts on just about any topic. Because the average reader has neither the time nor the capacity to discern what reports are reliable, inaccurate information has become the norm in journalism and other forms of media.
F
What’s more, it is often the case that people with political agendas intentionally falsify information. National security in particular is a target for anarchists and far-left activists who want to convince the general public that their government is the root of all evil. Lately they have taken to encouraging so-called whistleblowers who leak classified information, and in doing so put people’s lives at stake. By glorifying this criminal act, these extremists undermine national security and wrongly sway public opinion on government intelligence.
G
And finally, we cannot underestimate the role of private corporations in lobbying against laws and measures that would make their secret operations privy to government agencies. The last people who want oversight are corporate executives who derive massive profits from questionable if not illegal business practices, including tax evasion and fraud. Much of the funding for anti-surveillance advocacy comes from those who have a vested interest in staying under the radar.
H
But regardless of how public dissent arises, there is no question that great pressures exist on governments to scale back on their domestic surveillance programs. So what do we do about national security intelligence? Scrapping the programs altogether would result in grave security threats and cost millions of dollars to taxpayers. As a compromise, some have suggested that measures be put in place to prevent the government from implementing most domestic surveillance without a court’s permission. Right now, data is collected and stored in case of future need, but stricter laws would require intelligence agencies to have just cause prior to initiating the data collection.
I
But doing so would negate the entire purpose of pre-emptive surveillance. Better to use the energy and resources to create awareness campaigns for the public about the process and role of domestic surveillance in national security. Doing so will counter erroneous claims and debunk smear campaigns, giving the public the opportunity to base their opinions on facts rather than sensationalized fiction.