Intelligence Surveillance, Security Sector Reforms, Accountability Principles and National Security Challenges within European Union

By Musa Khan Jalalzai

In a rapidly changing environment, Intelligence Surveillance developed through different types of technologies, software, strategies and drones operations in Europe and the United Kingdom. There are various forms of surveillance mechanisms, including Human Agents, Computer Programs, and Global Positioning Satellite Devices.
These surveillance devices are now even encroaching into the personal domain of the individuals without the knowledge of the individual being watched. In a surveillance state, people live in consternation, fear, and struggling to protect their privacy, family life, business secrets, and data. In a short period of time, it has amassed a rather sordid history of citizen surveillance– and it continues to be unlawful.
These are some of the issues discussed in the book which have varied articles from the experts on the subject.

• Language: English
• Publisher: VIJ Books (India) Pty Ltd
• Release date: Feb 7, 2020
• ISBN: 9788194285168

Musa Khan Jalalzai

Musa Khan Jalalzai is a journalist and research scholar. He has written extensively on Afghanistan, terrorism, nuclear and biological terrorism, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and intelligence research and analysis. He was an Executive Editor of the Daily Outlook Afghanistan from 2005-2011, and a permanent contributor in Pakistan's daily The Post, Daily Times, and The Nation, Weekly the Nation, (London). However, in 2004, US Library of Congress in its report for South Asia mentioned him as the biggest and prolific writer. He received Masters in English literature, Diploma in Geospatial Intelligence, University of Maryland, Washington DC, certificate in Surveillance Law from the University of Stanford, USA, and a diploma in Counterterrorism from Pennsylvania State University, California, the United States.

Book preview

Intelligence Surveillance,

Security Sector Reforms,

Accountability Principles and

National Security Challenges

within European Union

Intelligence Surveillance, Security

Sector Reforms, Accountability

Principles and National Security

Challenges within European Union

MUSA KHAN JALALZAI

Vij Books India Pvt Ltd

New Delhi (India)

Published by

Vij Books India Pvt Ltd

(Publishers, Distributors & Importers)

2/19, Ansari Road

Delhi – 110 002

Phones: 91-11-43596460, 91-11-47340674

Mobile: [phone]

e-mail: [e-mail]

www.vijbooks.com

Copyright © 2020, Author

ISBN: 978-81-94285-14-4 (Hardback)

ISBN: 978-81-94285-16-8 (ebook)

All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

transmitted or utilised in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior

permission of the copyright owner. Application for such permission

should be addressed to the publisher.

Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1 Tight-Corner of Intelligence and Surveillance Mechanism within the European Union

* Intelligence and Accountability Principles: Dilemma for Legitimacy in Spain and Brazil

Yauri Miranda and Jaseff Raziel.

Chapter 2 Britain’s Changing Security Perceptions: The Country’s National Security Challenges are Amplifying by the Day

Chapter 3 Law Enforcement, Security Sector Reforms and the Fight against Radicalization, Drug Trafficking and Terrorism in UK

Chapter 4 Bulk Surveillance in the Digital Age: Rethinking the Human Rights Law Approach to the Bulk Monitoring of Communication DATA

Daragh Murray and Pete Fussey

Chapter 5 Germany’s Intelligence Reform: More Surveillance, Modest Restraints and Inefficient Controls

Thorsten Wetzling

Chapter 6 Theorizing Surveillance in the UK Crime Control Field

Michael McCahill

Chapter 7 Artificial Intelligence Governance and Ethics: Global Perspectives

Angela Daly, Thilo Hagendorff, Li Hui, Monique Mann, Vidushi Marda, Ben Wagner, Wei Wang and Saskia Witteborn

Notes and References

Index

Introduction

Globalization, digitalization, and artificial intelligence technologies are fundamentally interconnected, while contemporary experts of intelligence surveillance are increasingly dependent on modern satellite and signal technology. Aggrandizement in modern technology and the interconnectedness of our world means that the information environment has manifested phenomenal growth. Over the last two decades, Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, Romania, Netherlands and the United Kingdom proposed different laws, measures and strategies that legalized the powers of interception communications mechanism. In a rapidly changing environment, Intelligence Surveillance developed through different types of technologies, software, strategies and drones operations in Europe and the United Kingdom. There are various forms of surveillance mechanism, including Human Agents, Computer Programs, and Global Positioning Satellite Devices in Vehicles, Cookies, Face-book, YouTube and Apps that diminished our privacy and family life. In yesteryears, way of interception communications dramatically changed and the aggrandizement of new technologies transformed the way individuals communicate with each other.¹

Barrister Angela Patrick, (Director of Human Rights Policy at JUSTICE) in her paper warned that surveillance fundamentally occurring without the knowledge of individuals being watched: Surveillance generally occurs without the knowledge of the individual being watched. Only in the limited circumstances when the information is used in a trial or when an authority acknowledges the surveillance will an individual be able to challenge its propriety. In these circumstances, the European Convention on Human Rights places a significant obligation on the State to ensure that surveillance powers are closely drawn, safeguards appropriate and provision made for effective oversight: [it is] unacceptable that the assurance of the enjoyment of a right … could be… removed by the simple fact that the person concerned is kept unaware of its violation.²

However, Dr Richard Clayton of Cambridge University explained importance of Internet and computer in his analytical paper. He also noted that government’s interference in privacy is of great concern: Computers connected to the Internet are given a unique IP address and data packets are routed towards this IP address, so where there is direct two way communications it cannot be forged. The IP addresses are allocated to ISPs in contiguous blocks, so if it is necessary to determine who did that? then public records can be interrogated to determine which ISP was providing Internet service, and they can then consult their records to determine which customer was allocated the particular IP address at the relevant time. That information does not of course indicate whose fingers were on the keyboard, but it will clearly indicate where to look next or whose door to break down.³

In a surveillance state, people live in consternation, fear, and struggling to protect their privacy, family life, business secrets and data. The TruePublica report (23 May 2019) has deeply highlighted social and financial affects of the UK surveillance mechanism. The report also noted concern of the European court of Human Rights that the UK government unlawfully obtains data from communications companies and didn’t put in place safeguards around how it did it: Britain is a surveillance state, the worst in the democratic West. In a short period of time, it has amassed a rather sordid history of citizen surveillance– and it continues to be unlawful. Last September’s damning judgment of British security operations against its own people saw the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rule that the government had unlawfully obtained data from communications companies and didn’t put in place safeguards around how it did it. But what does the state really know about us and what about the future? Under Theresa May in the Home Office, the surveillance state became ever more paranoid. It became the most extreme surveillance architecture ever devised in the West–and still is. And it’s getting worse. They wanted it all – compromising (naked usually) images of you, your family and friends, what subscriptions you have, sexual orientation and preferences and with whom, earnings, expenditure and on what – places you visit, dates you went there, what you did when you were there.⁴

Report of the TruePublica also noted weaknesses of the UK government to control its own security services for its illegal demonstration by different means: The state is so out of control its own security services were diverted away from external threats towards us – law-abiding citizens. It was not long ago that MI5 and GCHQ were accused of infecting domestic civilian equipment with viruses so they could turn on TV’s and mobile devices at will in people’s homes, they recorded conversations and took photos, hacked into iOS, Apple systems and Android equipment, encryption was circumvented even when it was specifically outlawed. Britain’s spy agencies worked with the American CIA and created more than 1,000 viruses and other types of malware to gain access to everyday items and either monitor or steal data. It is not known exactly how much information the state has gathered about its people.⁵

However, the Guardian report (13 August 2019) highlighted role of CCTV and the use of Facial Recognition by the UK police to fight prevailing criminal culture effectively. The report also noted the use of Facial Recognition technology by private firms and landlords across the country: Arguments about surveillance and privacy are usually framed around Big Brother – the overweening state. But the widespread use of facial recognition in private hands suggests a more urgent danger: that not just Big Brother but anyone in the family can watch, and profit from, our faces. The private landlords of the King’s Cross development in London are using facial recognition now in their CCTV surveillance. It is not clear whether this is entirely legal, partly because the owners have been reluctant to disclose what it is they’re actually doing. This is a development that looks like the worst of all possible worlds. Visual recognition boosted by AI is cheap, widely available and easily programmed – one hobbyist has used it to train his cat flap to open only when his cat was not trying to carry prey into the house–but it is also worryingly inaccurate. Recent trials by police forces in London and south Wales, among other places, have shown a high rate of false positives, and the rate of inaccuracy is much higher with black faces than with white. A technology that cannot in real life discriminate between individuals will only tend to increase the amount of discrimination in society as a whole. It will spread false confidence and real fear.⁶

Big Brother Watch is consecutively running behind government and private agencies-using multifaceted surveillance against civilians. The organization prepared numerous important reports on privacy and human rights of the UK citizens, and still fighting the long war in all forums. In its recent report, (10 July 2019) Big Brother Watch has noted the hearing of the European Court of Human Rights on the UK mass surveillance: Today, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights heard Big Brother Watch & others’ case against mass surveillance practices by the UK government. The hearing saw Government lawyers defending bulk surveillance practices and admitting that even the court’s confidential emails could be scooped up by UK intelligence agencies. The Government admitted that the purpose of bulk surveillance is not to search for the communications of identified targets but to gather mass data and decide who should be a target. Government lawyers revealed the UK intelligence agencies’ purpose for bulk surveillance powers is to search for unknown unknowns–a widely-ridiculed phrase used by former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to defend the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2002. The campaign groups argued that this is unlawful, as it cannot be considered necessary or proportionate in a democratic society and treats everyone as under suspicion. The UK Government also admitted to deploying automated rules and computerized searches to sift through billions of intercepted calls, texts, emails and internet records.⁷

Notwithstanding these reports and concerns of civil society in the UK and Europe, public remains in dark about their states offensive surveillance powers and capabilities. European research paper, (Surveillance by intelligence services: fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EU Volume II: field perspectives and legal update) has documented all the above-cited developments and complications of surveillance technologies within the European Union member states, and noted that legal developments and data protection mechanisms in the project are welcome developments:

Targeted surveillance–which applies to concrete targets based on some form of individualized suspicion–is regulated in some detail by almost all EU Member States. By contrast, only five Member States currently have detailed legislation on general surveillance of communications. Safeguards do limit the potential for abuse, and these have been strengthened in some Member States – though less so in case of foreign-focused surveillance. Similarly, safeguards are generally weaker–and less transparent–in the context of international intelligence cooperation, suggesting a need for more regulation of such cooperation. Various entities oversee the work of intelligence services across the EU-28, including the judiciary, expert bodies, parliamentary committees and data protection authorities. In a field dominated by secrecy, such oversight is crucial: it helps ensure that intelligence services are held accountable for their actions, and encourages the development of effective internal safeguards within the services. The judiciary and expert bodies are most commonly involved in overseeing surveillance measures. Specialized parliamentary committees generally focus on assessing governmental strategic policies. Member States have set up such committees for this purpose. Data protection authorities have significant powers over intelligence services in seven Member States, but their powers are limited or non-existent in the rest of the EU – mainly due to an exception for national security matters enshrined in data protection law.⁸

In 2008, the UK national security strategy was published to establish principles of internal and external security mechanism, but, unfortunately, it received sharp criticism from research forums and print media across the country. Strategic Defense and Security Reviews (SDSRs), National Security Capabilities Review (NSCR), and National Security council-all interpreted national security mechanism in different ways, but these interpretations couldn’t demonstrated as a long-term panacea to the state vulnerability. To fix the broken window, the three competent intelligence agencies (MI6, MI5 and GCHQ) have been struggling to tackle the exponentially growing insecurity, terrorism, extremism, target killings, and foreign espionage across the country, but their involvement in campaign against international terrorism in Middle East, Persian Gulf and Afghanistan further encouraged these elements to dance in cities and towns with impunity.⁹

In February 2019, Government restored stop-and-search powers law to fight criminals and terror suspects in cities and towns, but unfortunately, police have been less visible in streets and relying on technology to provide them with visibility in towns and cities. Since 2005, the policing intelligence collection has been mostly dependent on CCTV, mobile phones, and surveillance technology to deal with threats like foreign espionage and international terrorism, while in EU member states, human intelligence accompanied by a technical approach to national security challenges was of great importance. The May’s government proposed changes to improve professionalism and competency of policing intelligence agencies, (National Intelligence Model, Ballistic Intelligence, Special Branch, CID, cyber forces) and counter-espionage programs, but political and bureaucratic stakeholders demonstrated in opposite direction.¹⁰

Having failed to tackle target killings, drug trafficking, addiction, terrorism and radicalization, law enforcement agencies now shamelessly use Facial Recognition Technology to further smash curtains of privacy, and family life. Facial Recognition Surveillance has been misused in Europe and the UK since years. The use of this Surveillance system by police created controversies but in legal cases police failed to analyze an image respectively. In 2017, police spotlighted more than 4,000 people as suspected terrorists, but half of them were innocent. However, in July 2019, print media reported violation of human rights in Europe’s offensive surveillance operations.¹¹

Facial recognition cameras scan everyone within range to make biometric maps of their faces – more like fingerprints than photographs. Millions of people in Britain are scanned everyday without their consent. This is a shocking invasion on our privacy. Research shows that when people know they are under surveillance, they behave like schizophrenic people to avoid unjustified suspicion, where they go and who they go with. This hydra also stumbled upon this author for years. I have depressing experience of the UK police Facial Recognition and intelligence-directed surveillance on my house in Hounslow West London. The Facial Recognition has also been proven to discriminate against people of color, meaning they are more likely to be misidentified and stopped, questioned and searched by the police. And police have often chosen to use it in locations with predominantly black, Asian and minority. However, privacy campaigners also warned that the use of Facial Recognition in shopping centers, museums, conference centers, libraries, streets and other private spaces around the UK can alienate citizens from the state. Studies have shown that Facial Recognition Technology is more likely to misidentify people of color, men and women, being stopped incorrectly. Black and Muslims, minority ethnic people could be falsely identified because police have already failed to test how well their systems deal with non-white faces. The ability of Facial Recognition Software to cope with black and ethnic minority faces has proved a key concern for those worried about the technology, who claimed the software was often trained on predominantly white faces. Research data from a police working group revealed that the UK police former head of Facial Recognition knew that skin color was an issue. The UK Home Office also came under pressure not to pursue the use of Facial Recognition Database in the policing of Britain.¹²

Facial Recognition Technology’s indiscriminate and large-scale recording, storing and analyzing of our images undermines basic rights. In 2019, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) declared that regulations covering access by Britain’s GCHQ to emails and phone records intercepted by the US National Security Agency (NSA) breached human rights law. On 08 July 2019, EU Court of Human Rights announced that the UK Bulk Surveillance Powers can be examined soon. In its recent challenge to the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act (IPA), civil rights organization-Liberty argued that government surveillance practices breach human rights law. Facial Recognition isn’t the only surveillance technique on the sticky-wicket; there are numerous means the police use to consternate citizens. In 2013, Edward Snowden pointed to the fact that GCHQ were secretly intercepting, processing and sharing the private communications of millions of ordinary people on a daily basis to Foreign Intelligence Services without a clear legal foundation or proper safeguards. In September 2018, European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s communication interception regime was unlawful.¹³

In Europe, several intelligence agencies are spying on their own citizens. This way of controlling population in cities and towns generated negative perceptions in print and electronic media against the state designed strategies to control mind and thought of citizens. Relations between Russia and a number of its immediate western neighbors improved, while Poland and the Baltic states see Russia as a historical friend. The case of Kosovo demonstrates that the international community’s effectiveness in capacity building of security sector has been less coherent. The exponentially growing power of Russia and its new friendship with some European states, fighting in Middle East, India’s economic development, and the ISIS threat in Central Asia, war in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, military developments in China, and the turbulence of North Africa—all these factors point to the fact that the demand for a well-established professional intelligence agency within the EU parameter clearly exists. In my recent research on the capabilities of EU intelligence agencies and their approach to national security and law enforcement, I often pointed to the fact that numerous flaws of operational mechanism within the EU are matter of great concern.¹⁴

Research