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 practises, 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 sensationalised fiction.
|