tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/intelligence-and-the-right-to-know-8237/articlesIntelligence and the right to know – The Conversation2013-12-13T01:18:46Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/211602013-12-13T01:18:46Z2013-12-13T01:18:46ZThe morality of metadata: not just innocuous adornment<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37564/original/d37xpwzk-1386821775.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C52%2C1024%2C556&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Now widely collected by intelligence agencies and private companies, and often seen as trivial, metadata should be an important part of privacy.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">TK Link</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/edward-snowden">Snowden leaks</a> may have highlighted the extent of state surveillance on its citizens, but debate continues about the significance of the kind of data collected. </p>
<p>In many cases, that’s metadata, and while it could simply be labelled “data about other data”, and seen as innocuous, it isn’t. And we need to treat it in a way similar to how other private information ought to be treated.</p>
<p>But what is metadata? Professor Luciano Floridi, a philosopher of information, <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/information-semantic/">says</a> metadata is descriptions of the nature of the primary data, “such as location, format … availability … and so forth.”</p>
<p>For instance, consider a phone conversation between two people. The primary data here is the content of the phone call, while the metadata is data about the phone call, things like the time, location, duration and people in the call. </p>
<p>The important question is whether the collection of such data is justified. Sitting underneath this question is the issue of whether metadata is morally important.</p>
<h2>The moral importance of data on data</h2>
<p>What are the reasons that metadata would be morally important?</p>
<p>Firstly, does metadata have an intrinsic value – is it a form of information that is something important in-and-of itself? For instance, is it comparably <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/privacy">intimate</a> to information we consider typically private? </p>
<p>While a small section of metadata is not problematic, combine different forms of metadata and a highly revealing set of information can emerge. </p>
<p>If John calls Jane once, this might mean very little. Imagine that John calls Jane and then Jane calls Jim and Jim commits a crime. And if this was to happen every time Jim commits a crime, we might consider that John could be involved in Jim’s crimes.</p>
<p>Secondly, we need to ask if metadata is instrumentally valued – can it be used in ways that impacts on something morally important? For instance, could its misuse produce a decline in people’s freedom? The use of meta-data to <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html">track down political dissidents</a> is one example where metadata, combined with other information, has been used for morally bad purposes by governments.</p>
<p>Given that metadata is used in surveillance and by <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2013/08/03/4-things-you-should-know-about-metadata-hackers-and-privacy-that-edward-snowden-would-never-tell-you/">private companies</a>, there is an assumption that it is not morally important. </p>
<p>Two possible explanations for this position are that what’s important is what is private, and metadata is not private, therefore not important. </p>
<p>The metadata arises through shared relations between people and a possible third party, so it is not secret. If it is not secret, it is no longer private. This claim is wrong, however. It rests on a certain conception of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Hide-Tradeoff-between-Security/dp/0300172338/ref=la_B001IGLWC0_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386810378&sr=1-3e">privacy as secrecy</a>, which is just one way to think of privacy.</p>
<p>A second possible reason is that because the content of meta-data is innocuous, it cannot be intimate, so should not be considered private. But this claim is also wrong. </p>
<p>What is of interest is not just a simply that John called Jane, but that John called Jane at a given time, that Jane called Jim, and this happened multiple times prior to Jim committing a crime. We need to recognise that the metadata is collected, aggregated and analysed, and following this processing, the metadata produces useful information. </p>
<p>The very collection and use of metadata indicates that its users consider it valuable for some end. What’s relevant here is that this “new” information, the result of analysis and processing, is intended to be revealing and its uses can be harmful.</p>
<h2>Why is metadata considered innocuous?</h2>
<p>For many it seems that metadata is morally important, and ought to be treated as private. So how is it that its use has been relatively uncontroversial until recently? </p>
<p>One historical explanation is that in the past it was hard to collect, hard to aggregate and analyse and hard to put to use. In East Germany, for instance, the secret police did collect metadata, but it was by hand and required a massive police state. </p>
<p>Given the rise of information technologies, there is not only much more metadata around, but it is now much easier to collect and use. Perhaps, given the practical limits on its use in the past there is a <a href="http://www.studymode.com/essays/James-Moor-Policy-Vacuum-242265.html">policy vacuum</a>, where the legal and social norms around meta-data are not keeping pace with the technology and social practices.</p>
<p>The important point is that metadata is morally important, it carries some moral weight. If there are situations where its production and use are considered there have to be important reasons given to justify that use. Further, if it is used, such use needs due care and respect.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21160/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Initial research on this work was aided by funding from the Brocher Foundation.</span></em></p>The Snowden leaks may have highlighted the extent of state surveillance on its citizens, but debate continues about the significance of the kind of data collected. In many cases, that’s metadata, and while…Adam Henschke, Researcher, Applied Ethics, Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/207752013-12-11T19:42:04Z2013-12-11T19:42:04ZThe internet after Snowden: what now?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36122/original/twszj2zf-1385438002.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What are the implications for democracy if our greatest communication tool - the internet - is turned on the citizenry and used for surveillance?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Jim Lo Scalzo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since June, thanks to the information disclosed by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files">Edward Snowden</a>, a troubling truth has come to light. The internet, and with it the entire gamut of new communication technologies, have become the centrepiece of a gigantic, secret and complex system of mass surveillance used by governments to spy on citizens, on allies and enemies.</p>
<p>The Snowden files are quite revealing of the shifting role of communication technologies in democratic societies: from a much-talked-about technology of freedom to one of surveillance.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/11/23/nsa-infected-50000-computer-networks-with-malicious-software/">Evidence shows</a> that American intelligence agents are using hackers’ tools to infect users’ machines and acquire the information they need. Reportedly, the NSA has used specifically designed malware to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25087627">infect more than 50,000 computer networks</a> worldwide to steal sensitive information.</p>
<p>One of Snowden’s <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/23/us/politics/23nsa-sigint-strategy-document.html?_r=0">leaks</a> is a NSA memo named “SIGINT [Signals Intelligence] Strategy 2012-2016”. It shows that the agency’s priority for the future is to “aggressively pursue legal authorities and a policy framework mapped more fully to the information age” in order to be able to track the online activities of “anyone, anywhere, anytime”.</p>
<p>More worryingly, according to other documents leaked by Snowden, the NSA is able to collect data each day from “between 30 million and 50 million unique internet provider addresses”. This is real-time data that provides the agency with crucial information to name, localise and map the movements of the owner of the device connected to any of those IP addresses. </p>
<p>Showing a certain penchant for irony, the NSA calls the program the <a href="http://nation.time.com/2013/11/23/new-document-shows-nsa-wanted-more-more-more-power/">“Treasure Map”</a>.</p>
<h2>Have we gone too far?</h2>
<p>Ideally, democratic power should always be accountable and open to scrutiny. But the secretiveness and pervasiveness of the many surveillance systems that surround us (both at state and corporate level, within and across borders) shatter the idyllic image of democracy we have cultivated for decades. </p>
<p>These highly complex systems literally disintegrate the spatial and geographical unity of people into streams of rights-less digital bits of data. No democratic system can survive and thrive in this context.</p>
<p>It is worth pondering whether or not we have gone too far in our quest to become a fully functional technological society. This is a quest that carries with it a great danger of displacement: technology evolves, but society – that is, both the institutions that constitute it and the people that live within it – seem to lag dangerously behind.</p>
<p>Our lives are continuously and necessarily immersed in a cacophony of data streams that are essential to our way of life, even though most of this data is beyond our ability to make sense of or even being aware of it.</p>
<h2>The road ahead</h2>
<p>The solution to this problem is very complex and cannot be handled by one body. It must be both a national and an international effort: an open process involving all stakeholders.</p>
<p>Laws must be rewritten to define adequate safeguards for users and restrain the excessive legal powers with which many governments can request to access to their citizens’ data. </p>
<p>In the latest edition of the <a href="http://thewebindex.org/data/index/">Web Index</a>, a report published annually by the <a href="http://www.w3.org/">World Wide Web Consortium</a>, only five countries out of 81 surveyed were found to follow:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…best practice standards for privacy of electronic communications, meaning both an order from an independent court and substantive justification must be provided before law enforcement or intelligence agencies can intercept electronic communications. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Australia, the UK and the US were not among those five.</p>
<p>Whistleblowers’ role in our increasingly complex and secretive society has become of great importance. And yet, we still attach to them a certain stigma. We often call them <a href="http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/28/dick-cheney-calls-snowden-a-traitor-defends-nsa/">traitors</a>. In these troubled times this is the wrong approach. As Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/22/tim-berners-lee-online-surveillance-internet-wikipedia-encrypting-spying">put it</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…at the end of the day when systems for checks and balances break down we have to rely on the whistleblowers – [hence] we must protect them and respect them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Parliamentary oversight has proven itself inadequate to protect citizens’ privacy in a growingly complex information society. Many politicians have no idea how the internet <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/nov/21/snowden-leaks-and-public/">works</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36126/original/3yd8zsjy-1385439278.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36126/original/3yd8zsjy-1385439278.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36126/original/3yd8zsjy-1385439278.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36126/original/3yd8zsjy-1385439278.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36126/original/3yd8zsjy-1385439278.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36126/original/3yd8zsjy-1385439278.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36126/original/3yd8zsjy-1385439278.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tim Berners-Lee, director of the World Wide Web Consortium. The consortium is shedding light on countries’ spying practices.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Paul Miller</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The shape of things to come</h2>
<p>We need to devise new mechanisms to control the controllers. We need to properly employ and empower the online community as a watchdog over the integrity of the system.</p>
<p>IT companies should create external non-partisan ethical committees to oversee some of their policies and assess the real efficacy of their encryption protocols. For instance, bodies like the Worldwide Internet Consortium or the Internet Engineering Task Force <a href="https://www.ietf.org/">(IETF)</a> should be an integral part of this process. </p>
<p>Parliaments should also make extensive use of crowdsourcing to craft important pieces of legislation concerning the internet. Brazil has proven to be a step ahead of many with its <a href="http://direitorio.fgv.br/civilrightsframeworkforinternet">Bill of Rights for the Internet</a> (<em>Marco Civil da Internet</em>). Admittedly, the process has not been without hiccups and the text of the proposed law is still <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/brazilian-internet-bill-threatens-freedom-expression">far from perfect</a>.</p>
<p>Changing the trajectory of our future is crucial. If not adequately dealt with, the NSA’s pervasive system of mass surveillance may well represent the shape of things to come. It will be a 21st century society of control, where the sophisticated exercise of power will be invisible to most of us, and all we will be left with is a quasi-phantom version of the democratic life we thought we knew.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20775/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Giovanni Navarria does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Since June, thanks to the information disclosed by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden, a troubling truth has come to light. The internet, and with it the entire gamut of new communication…Giovanni Navarria, Post-Doctoral Fellow - Institute for Democracy and Human Rights, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/212532013-12-11T00:52:10Z2013-12-11T00:52:10ZRight to know: the ‘nation’, the ‘people’ and the Fourth Estate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37344/original/8cnfkg7z-1386674351.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The news media and politicians often squabble over whether an issue is the public or national interest, renewing a centuries-old debate.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/David Crosling</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We might forgive politicians for putting the “national” interest before the “public” interest. But when the news media makes the same mistake, it is time to be worried.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/guardian-australia-defends-reporting-spy-agencies">The Guardian</a> and the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-03/abc27s-mark-scott-hits-back-at-australian-over-bromance-spy-st/5131014">ABC</a> rightly pursued the story of Australia’s spying activities on both <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-18/australia-spied-on-indonesian-president-leaked-documents-reveal/5098860">Indonesia</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global/2013/dec/06/timor-leste-spying-intelligence-chief-denies-concerns-were-raised">Timor Leste</a>. Not only have the revelations been embarrassing, they should also cause concern for anyone who values fairness and humanism in international relations.</p>
<p>It is therefore puzzling that News Corp broadsheet <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/spy-story-shows-abc-at-its-left-wing-worst/story-e6frg76f-1226771740588#">The Australian</a> has so vehemently denounced the reporting of Australia’s spying activities. Why would one news outlet – one that so fiercely claims to be a <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/a-cringe-worthy-bid-to-muzzle-free-speech/story-e6frg9uf-1226770792830">champion of freedom</a> in other realms – be so sharp in its criticism of fellow journalists who are really only doing their job?</p>
<p>The answer – in part – lies in unpacking the conceptualisation of the news media as the <a href="http://pressthink.org/2013/08/when-youre-in-a-fourth-estate-situation/">“Fourth Estate”</a>, and also in differentiating the “national” and the “public” interest in these matters.</p>
<h2>The media as the Fourth Estate</h2>
<p>The “Fourth Estate” describes the journalists’ role in representing the interests of “the people” in relation to the business and political elites who claim to be doing things in our names.</p>
<p>The idea of the news media as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate">Fourth Estate</a> has a chequered history. It began life as a term of abuse for the scurillous and ill-principled scribes of the press gallery at the Palace of Westminister. Conservative Anglo-Irish MP Edmund Burke coined the phrase as a way of mocking the gentlemen of the press.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37343/original/gmkr8j2s-1386673259.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37343/original/gmkr8j2s-1386673259.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37343/original/gmkr8j2s-1386673259.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=723&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37343/original/gmkr8j2s-1386673259.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=723&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37343/original/gmkr8j2s-1386673259.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=723&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37343/original/gmkr8j2s-1386673259.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=908&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37343/original/gmkr8j2s-1386673259.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=908&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37343/original/gmkr8j2s-1386673259.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=908&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Edmund Burke first dubbed the press as the ‘Fourth Estate’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Portrait Gallery</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, in the intervening centuries, the Fourth Estate has come to mean taking a principled position to – as Australian Democrats senator Don Chipp would have put it – <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/democrat-who-worked-to-keep-the-bastards-honest/2006/08/29/1156816899990.html">“keep the bastards honest”</a>.</p>
<p>It is with this frame in mind that the news media should approach the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files">Snowden materials</a> and any story that arises from a careful appraisal of the revelations, allegations or speculations they contain.</p>
<h2>National interest versus public interest</h2>
<p>If we accept the premise of the Fourth Estate, we also have to ask ourselves if the “national” and the “public” interest are the same thing. It might be easy to think that they are, but it would be a mistake.</p>
<p>Both are abstractions and both are problematic. They exist as ideas, but in reality the nation and the public are not homogeneous. In a capitalist world both are divided along class lines. In this context, the national interest is about state secrecy and keeping things from us. On the other hand, the public interest is about disclosure and our right to know. As citizens <em>we</em> are “the people”.</p>
<p>The intellectuals of the 18th and 19th centuries who gave us the conception of the Fourth Estate as a civil watchdog to keep an eye on those in power also provided the philosophical argument for defining the public citizenry and the nation-state as two separate entities with differing interests.</p>
<p>This is clear from the writing of <a href="http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/popup_paine.html">Thomas Paine</a> and others, who pointed out and also acted upon the idea that we may have just cause to overthrow the state if it is seen to be no longer acting in our interests.</p>
<p>Today, governments that claim to act in the “public interest” must face daily scrutiny of their actions. They must be called to account when overstepping the bounds of what citizens will support, or when taking actions that are clearly not in our interests. We rely on journalists and the news media to do this job on our behalf.</p>
<p>This separation between the people and the state becomes more important when the economic interests of the powerful so frequently dominate society. In our modern world, the interest of “the nation” is no more than the collective interest of those who wield political and economic power. Today, the state is the executive branch of the ruling class.</p>
<p>The news media – as the tribune of “the people” – must be constantly on guard and alert to actions of the state, particularly when those actions may harm the interests of citizens.</p>
<h2>The Snowden leaks</h2>
<p>In the context of the Snowden revelations and, in particular, in relation to the allegations that Australian spy agencies were tapping the phones of the Indonesian president and his wife, we have to ask ourselves: Was that spying really in the interests of ordinary Australians?</p>
<p>We now also know that <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/au/mass-metadata-retention-australia-as-an-early-adopter-7000016649/">Telstra is collecting our phone metadata</a> and that it can be accessed by government agencies without a warrant. Can we really see a benefit for ourselves in this action?</p>
<p>The answer to both these questions is a resounding “no”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37338/original/5qsjwyfh-1386667768.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37338/original/5qsjwyfh-1386667768.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37338/original/5qsjwyfh-1386667768.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37338/original/5qsjwyfh-1386667768.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37338/original/5qsjwyfh-1386667768.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37338/original/5qsjwyfh-1386667768.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37338/original/5qsjwyfh-1386667768.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">News Corp publications have been vocal in their criticism of the airing of spying allegations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Snowden materials should be published in all their embarrassing detail. Snowden is not a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/world/europe/snowden-appeals-to-us-for-clemency.html">traitor</a> or a <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/edward-snowden-stole-up-to-20000-aussie-files/story-fn59nm2j-1226775491490">“rogue”</a>. He is a principled whistleblower whose actions have uncovered a global system of espionage and surveillance by powerful state security agencies against not only other states and agencies, but against anyone and everyone.</p>
<p>It is our right to be outraged at the actions of state agencies that eavesdrop on our conversations, emails and text messages without our consent. We should be more outraged that the spies and their masters then claim to be taking these actions in our name and in defence of our interests.</p>
<p>The actions of The Australian in denouncing the ABC and The Guardian and defending the government are therefore a complete betrayal of the Fourth Estate principles.</p>
<p>When a newspaper claims to speak to and for the nation – that is, to and for the people – but instead appears to speak for the government, it abandons any claim it may have had to independence of thought and action.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21253/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Hirst is a member of the MEAA.</span></em></p>We might forgive politicians for putting the “national” interest before the “public” interest. But when the news media makes the same mistake, it is time to be worried. The Guardian and the ABC rightly…Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism & Media, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/211122013-12-10T19:52:44Z2013-12-10T19:52:44ZIntelligence oversight and accountability: who watches the watchers?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37164/original/dgv94bjn-1386466964.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Recent revelations of Australia's intelligence practices have brought oversight issues into sharp focus. What mechanisms are there to hold these agencies to account?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Peled</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The recent revelations of alleged <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-18/australia-spied-on-indonesian-president-leaked-documents-reveal/5098860">telephone interception of Indonesian politicians</a>, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/east-timor-seeks-to-sink-sea-treaty-over-spy-claims-20130503-2iyrt.html">espionage in East Timor</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asio-raids-office-of-lawyer-bernard-collaery-over-east-timor-spy-claim-20131203-2yoxq.html">raids in Canberra</a> have raised more questions than they have answered about Australia’s intelligence activities.</p>
<p>Even though these examples are legal under Australian legislation, many people are left wondering how such actions relate to national security, how they can be in the national interest, and how Australia could end up in this situation. </p>
<p>One of the issues is that successive governments have failed to educate the public about the roles of the <a href="http://www.igis.gov.au/aic/">Australian Intelligence Community</a> (AIC), let alone the legislation, oversight and accountability mechanisms that guide their activities. So, how did Australia end up with its current system, and how does it work today?</p>
<h2>History</h2>
<p>The AIC emerged from the organisations created to fight World War Two. These organisations, employing human, signals, imagery and other technical intelligence collection methods, are widely accepted as having helped shorten the war considerably. Successive Australian governments have been so convinced by their utility and value that they have signed up to their maintenance and expansion over nearly 70 years.</p>
<p>During that period, a range of controversies triggered reform initiatives. The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/archives/80days/stories/2012/01/19/3411302.htm">defection</a> of KGB spies Vladimir and Evdokia Petrov to Australia in 1954 triggered the <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs130.aspx">Royal Commission on Espionage</a>, which brought the <a href="http://www.asio.gov.au/">Australian Security Intelligence Organisation</a> (ASIO) into public consciousness. The <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/asioa19561131956506/">ASIO Act 1956</a> emerged as a result and provided the first legal framework for ASIO’s activities. </p>
<p>Concerned about ASIO’s practices against Vietnam War protesters and “subversives”, the Whitlam government established the <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/explore/security/royal-commisson/">Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security</a> (RCIS) in 1974 to investigate ASIO and the intelligence community more broadly. In 1977, the RCIS also recommended additional legislation to cover the actions of ASIO regarding telecommunications interception. </p>
<p>The RCIS also saw ASIO’s sister agency, the <a href="http://www.asis.gov.au/">Australian Secret Intelligence Service</a> (ASIS), come out from the shadows. Following ASIS’s <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/explore/cabinet/by-year/1984-85/hope-royal-commission.aspx">bungled training exercise</a> at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne in 1983, the Hawke government called for a follow-on Royal Commission on Australia’s Security and Intelligence Agencies (RCASIA), which then prompted further reforms.</p>
<p>Prior to the RCIS and the RCASIA, there was little accountability beyond the discretion exercised by government ministers. Intelligence agencies had great latitude in conducting their work. The royal commissions generated significant oversight mechanisms for the AIC. </p>
<p>The reviews by <a href="http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/intelligence_inquiry/">Philip Flood</a> following the Iraq War and <a href="http://www.dpmc.gov.au/PUBLICATIONS/iric/index.cfm">Robert Cornall and Rufus Black</a> in 2011 validated many of the reforms and accountability mechanisms in place since the 1970s and 1980s and prompted refinements. Throughout this period, the AIC worked on a strict “need to know” principle, with secrets kept to a small circle in order to minimise leaks or inadvertent disclosure.</p>
<h2>The September 11 turning point</h2>
<p>But this all changed following the September 11 terrorist attacks. Investigations in the US indicated that information was known in different pockets of the US intelligence community but had not been put together. Had they been shared, perhaps something could have been done to pre-empt the attacks. </p>
<p>This realisation led to a dramatic shift from the “need to know” to the “need to share” – a principle that was also implemented in Australia. What we are witnessing now, however, with both the revelations from <a href="http://wikileaks.org/">WikiLeaks</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files">Edward Snowden</a>, is the end of the “need to share” era. Shared information is having negative repercussions when shared too widely. Governments will seek to avoid further such incidents.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37163/original/fr7bz6zh-1386466690.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37163/original/fr7bz6zh-1386466690.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37163/original/fr7bz6zh-1386466690.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37163/original/fr7bz6zh-1386466690.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37163/original/fr7bz6zh-1386466690.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37163/original/fr7bz6zh-1386466690.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37163/original/fr7bz6zh-1386466690.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Disclosures by Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden may mark the end of the ‘need to share’ era of intelligence.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Facundo Arrizabalaga</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The hopes of civil libertarians that these revelations would lead to greater openness are probably misplaced. The opposite is more likely to be the case. Fear of disclosure, severe embarrassment and exposure to ridicule and persecution is eroding the trust and confidence many had in their “watertight” and “secure” systems.</p>
<p>The challenge for intelligence agencies in a democracy like Australia is in balancing their work while maintaining public and bipartisan political support. This is difficult, especially if the agencies are not at liberty to engage with the public. That means accountability mechanisms have had to be devised that provide politicians and the public with sufficient confidence that the AIC is not acting in a vacuum or in a foolhardy manner.</p>
<h2>Who watches the watchers?</h2>
<p>Today, we have four key institutional mechanisms to hold the AIC to account. One is the <a href="http://www.ona.gov.au/">Office of National Assessments</a> (ONA) – responsible for managing intelligence priorities and assessments. </p>
<p>With guidance from ONA and the broader AIC, the <a href="http://www.directory.gov.au/directory?ea0_lf99_120.&organizationalUnit&e3c454c6-f964-4da6-ab46-2f4ece27fc25">National Security Committee</a> of Cabinet sets intelligence collection priorities. </p>
<p>A third oversight body is the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/index.htm">Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security</a> (PJCIS), which has oversight of the AIC’s administration and budgets.</p>
<p>Finally, the <a href="http://www.igis.gov.au/">Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security</a> (IGIS), Dr Vivienne Thom, is in the pivotal position to manage the accountability mechanisms along with her staff. With the enduring power of a royal commissioner, the IGIS has full access to the AIC’s records. </p>
<p>The IGIS is tasked with providing reassurance that the AIC is performing within the bounds of the law. The public, the AIC and the government require that reassurance now more than ever. Without it, there will likely be a further loss of trust in those agencies, even though they perform an important national function.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.dpmc.gov.au/national_security/">National Security Advisor</a> (Dr Margot McCarthy) also has a co-ordinating role to play with the AIC and is a key conduit for national security advice to the prime minister.</p>
<p>Combined, these arrangements place the AIC as one of the most accountable in the Western world in terms of oversight and responsiveness to audit and inquiry.</p>
<p>Many would like to know more, and the revelations from Snowden, WikiLeaks and beyond would suggest that those concerns are valid. Yet MPs and successive royal commissioners and reviewers have all come to the conclusion that the activities permitted under legislation are in the national interest and warrant remaining protected and kept secret.</p>
<h2>Legislative cover for the AIC</h2>
<p>The AIC, especially the collection agencies – ASIO, ASIS, the <a href="http://www.asd.gov.au/">Australian Signals Directorate</a> (ASD) and the <a href="http://www.defence.gov.au/digo/">Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation</a> (AGO) – is given a broad remit to collect information that will assist Australian interests. </p>
<p>Some of this is about protecting national security, but equally it is about national advantage and national interests. Inevitably, the public receive only a portion of the picture. Therefore, assessing whether one particular item is in the national interest or to the national advantage is impossible to gauge without knowledge of the full range of factors considered within the AIC and by their ministers.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/isa2001216/">Intelligence Services Act 2001</a> provides the legislative basis for ASIS and ASD. ASIS’ website <a href="http://www.asis.gov.au/about-us/Overview.html">states clearly</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>ASIS’s primary goal is to obtain and distribute secret intelligence about the capabilities, intentions and activities of individuals or organisations outside Australia, which may impact on Australia’s interests and the well-being of its citizens. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It goes further and clarifies that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Our work can involve collecting intelligence relating to national defence, international relations and economic issues.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As per the same act, the ASD’s website <a href="http://www.asd.gov.au/governance/legislation.htm">outlines the functions</a> of the agency to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…obtain signals intelligence about the capabilities, intentions or activities of people or organisations outside of Australia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In addition to national security (terrorism, counter proliferation, and transnational security), the AIC collection agencies look for material that the Australian government can use – if it so chooses – to the nation’s advantage. </p>
<p>Elected ministers are tasked with making the decisions. And in doing so, they are required to weigh up the risks and benefits – and the risk can be as serious as harming Australia’s relations, or the safety of its people and intelligence personnel. These decisions are not made lightly.</p>
<p>The legislation, governance and accountability mechanisms are clearly outlined on each of the agencies’ websites. We have ASIO to protect Australian interests, whether that be national security or otherwise, and to stop, deter, or monitor other countries (or groups) from collecting covert information about Australia for their own national interests (including economic interests), hacking Australian government computers – or even, reportedly, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/espionage-fears-at-csiro-20131203-2youq.html">industrial espionage</a> at the CSIRO.</p>
<p>Likewise, we have agencies such as ASIS to do what they can – within the broad parameters of the legislation – to obtain information from other nations that Australia can use to its advantage. They exist for valid reasons. We should be conscious of the fact that if the reports of Australia’s spying and espionage activities are accurate, some additional accountability mechanisms may be called for. </p>
<p>But we should be very careful not to deny Australia the information long considered essential to the maintenance of the security and prosperity of the nation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21112/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Blaxland is co-author with Professor David Horner of the multi-volume official history of ASIO being undertaken at the Australian National University. Horner's volume is due to be published in 2014.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rhys Crawley is the researcher for the multi-volume Official History of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation being undertaken at the Australian National University. </span></em></p>The recent revelations of alleged telephone interception of Indonesian politicians, espionage in East Timor and raids in Canberra have raised more questions than they have answered about Australia’s intelligence…John Blaxland, Senior Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National UniversityRhys Crawley, Postdoctoral Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/211752013-12-09T19:45:01Z2013-12-09T19:45:01ZThe spying game: what a 15th-century Irish warlord can teach today’s politicians<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37107/original/kttj3dnw-1386299978.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tony Abbott argues his first duty is to advance the national interest, without telling us why acting in our own interests is always right or even permissible.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Daniel Munoz</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Irish philosopher <a href="https://www2.bc.edu/%7Ekearneyr/">Richard Kearney</a> visited Melbourne last year and, being the fine raconteur he is, told a great tale from his nation’s past. In 1492, Black James, nephew of the Earl of Ormond, and a group of heavily armed retainers sought sanctuary in the chapter house of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin. </p>
<p>Outside stood Gerard Mór FitzGerald, the powerful Earl of Kildare, and his men. A bloody feud between two dynastic families, the Butlers and the FitzGeralds, had culminated in this desperate moment.</p>
<p>From the other side of the door, FitzGerald pleaded with Black James to come out and negotiate a truce. Fearing that he and his men would be slaughtered the moment they stepped outside, James refused.</p>
<p>Then FitzGerald did something quite remarkable. He had his men cut <a href="http://www.stpatrickscathedral.ie/Chancing-Your-Arm.aspx">a hole in the door</a> – and thrust his arm through it. James could easily have hacked off FitzGerald’s arm. Instead, he shook it. The feud was over.</p>
<p>That’s the story that’s come down to us; maybe the reality was far less inspiring. FitzGerald, after all, was a man so charismatic he somehow used his own treason trial to convince Henry VII to send him back to Ireland as Lord Deputy:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All Ireland cannot govern this Earl; then let this Earl govern all Ireland. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>And the claim that this event gave us the expression “to chance one’s arm”, though charming, seems improbable.</p>
<p>But FitzGerald’s gesture tells us something important about trust, vulnerability and the ways in which political self-interest can ensnare us in webs that can only be cut through by an ethical regard for the other.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty">Westphalian world order</a> of sovereign nations is often understood as a sort of anarchy. While nation-states apply the rule of law internally, the geopolitical realm is a lawless frontier of powerful national actors competing in the name of self-interest. </p>
<p>Diplomatic language may smooth this over with talk of “friends” and “special relationships” but scratch the surface and it’s basically just Game of Thrones with <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/08/travel/apec-fashion/">APEC shirts</a>. And nowhere is that more evident than in how nations spy on each other.</p>
<p>Two spying scandals are currently swirling around Australian politics. Both involve Australian agencies listening to the conversations of our near neighbours in an attempt to further our “national interest”. Both involve electronic eavesdropping of a sort that would cause outrage if done to Australian politicians and their spouses. And in the discussion of both cases, the moral issues this activity raises have been mostly swept to one side.</p>
<p>Whenever a foreign intelligence story breaks in the media, the commentary tends to be built around catchy little chunks of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik"><em>realpolitik</em></a>: everybody spies on everyone, and everyone knows it; nations have <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston">neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies, only permanent interests</a>; and so on. Commentators have smugly invoked the <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/internet-just-the-latest-target-in-ancient-art-of-espionage-20130619-2oj1a.html">“prissy moralising”</a> of US president Herbet Hoover’s Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson, who in 1929 closed the State Department’s cryptographic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Chamber">“Black Chamber”</a> because: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Gentlemen don’t read each other’s mail.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Stimson, we’re told, just wasn’t in touch with the “reality” of global affairs. After all, on one popular estimate, the cracking of the <a href="http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/content/machines.rhtm">German Enigma code</a> shortened World War Two by up to two years and saved untold lives – and that success wouldn’t have been possible if not for secret work done by the Polish military well before the outbreak of war.</p>
<p>The subtext of all this seems to be “of course we spy on our neighbours – we have to, as it is in our national interest to do so”. Everything, it seems, must be subordinated to the national interest. The Prime Minister <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/cbaa06fe-b02e-4ba8-9fde-fd279b7b8579/0019/hansard_frag.pdf">tells parliament</a> his first duty is to advance the national interest, without telling us why acting in our own interests is always right or even permissible. Even the ABC has been <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/spy-story-shows-abc-at-its-left-wing-worst/story-e6frg76f-1226771740588#">accused of betraying</a> “the national interest” by breaking the Indonesian spying story with The Guardian.</p>
<p>The responses in Indonesia and Timor Leste are likewise being interpreted through the prism of those countries’ domestic political and economic issues. There’s plenty of self-interest to go around.</p>
<p>But that shouldn’t alter our evaluation of whether it was right to eavesdrop on the wife of the Indonesian president or the East Timorese cabinet. Such an evaluation must get past the bizarre notion that ethical regard stops the moment we’re dealing with foreign nationals.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37208/original/fk8y63rx-1386557873.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37208/original/fk8y63rx-1386557873.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37208/original/fk8y63rx-1386557873.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37208/original/fk8y63rx-1386557873.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37208/original/fk8y63rx-1386557873.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37208/original/fk8y63rx-1386557873.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37208/original/fk8y63rx-1386557873.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Diplomacy: just Game of Thrones in traditional dress?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Made Nagi</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Morality doesn’t stop at the border. The fact that the Australian Signals Directorate operates under extra restrictions when dealing with <a href="http://www.asd.gov.au/publications/dsdbroadcast/20121002-privacy-rules.htm">“Australian persons”</a>, for instance, doesn’t change what it is to spy on someone.</p>
<p>None of this amounts to an argument that covert foreign intelligence collection is never necessary or permissible. But we can accept that such activity might be crucial for saving lives and preventing crime without accepting that national interest is always a good enough reason to spy on someone. A standing desire to advance the nation’s geopolitical or economic interests does not, on the face of it, rise to the necessary level of moral urgency.</p>
<p>So, what does the Irish tale we started with have to teach us here? And how might it help the Abbott and Yudhoyono governments in finding a way forward?</p>
<p>There are two ways (at least) of looking at what FitzGerald did that day in 1492. One is that he took a calculated risk, based on his assessments of the probabilities of how Black James would react. He weighed up the risks and benefits and decided it was in his self-interest to take the gamble.</p>
<p>The other is that he took a leap of trust: that by placing himself in a position of vulnerability, he could open the situation up and allow new possibilities to emerge. Self-interest had led to hopeless deadlock, but surrendering to trust, giving up a degree of control, might just spring it open again.</p>
<p>Perhaps the second interpretation is just a piece of naïve romanticising, or simply overlaying a particular modern ethical view (one that bears a heavy imprint of 20th-century thinkers like <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/">Levinas</a> and <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buber/">Buber</a>) into a very alien, archaic context. </p>
<p>But perhaps it also suggests a way forward. Breaking through the calculus of competing national interests might involve setting self-interest aside, at least in a limited way. It might involve accepting vulnerability – and thereby taking a leap of trust, however small.</p>
<p>That may mean giving up the edge in international negotiations, or accepting that certain kinds of information just won’t be available under certain circumstances, for moral rather than practical or technical reasons. That may be frustrating and, yes, potentially dangerous. </p>
<p>A line between legitimate security interests and simply trying to feather our nest will constantly have to be walked. But some such distinction - and the willingness to live with the costs of doing the right thing - is essential.</p>
<p>The quarantining of geopolitics from ethics is looking more and more unsustainable. What might replace it, however, is unclear. If we want a truly ethical international order, not simply an anarchic competition of national interests in which might rather than right carries the day, the first step might be putting trust ahead of self-interest. </p>
<p>We might have to be the ones to chance our arm.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21175/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Stokes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Irish philosopher Richard Kearney visited Melbourne last year and, being the fine raconteur he is, told a great tale from his nation’s past. In 1492, Black James, nephew of the Earl of Ormond, and a group…Patrick Stokes, Lecturer in Philosophy, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.