Rethinking National Security - It’s Now Or Never.

The Toronto Star has published an article that shows yet another facet of wiretapping - the impact the use of the tool has on the Ontario judicial system. It’s very encouraging that topics in security are finally receiving analysis from a variety of angles as opposed to the most prevalent ”security versus privacy” arguments which leave little room for solid assessment of measures. Of course, we still have a long way to go in, what should only be viewed as a necessary, rethinking of national security. 

For far too long national security has been a very hush-hush topic. Security was regarded as an area the law abiding public need not concern itself with, or so they were encouraged, and thus they left it to a handful of specialists chiefly from the law enforcement, intelligence and military communities. Questioning approaches to security was strongly discouraged among the ranks of those who were responsible for security and at times was utterly ignored when such concern arose from the public. This does not make for the best environment to encourage innovation that can take the concept of security into a new era.

We are, however, now at a potential national security crossroads. We could choose to stop the rush on a number of national security measures that only seek to enhance traditional approaches, thoroughly assess the usefulness of those approaches and take from them what we can in the development of new measures. Or, we could choose to continue down this path of stringing up cameras, issuing expensive hi-tech identity documents and opening up the gates to ever more wiretapping. The long-term implications of the latter are very grave.

Although few seem to realize it yet our current approaches to national security, far from having the intended effect of increasing stability, will actually lead to growing insecurity long-term. Taking a step back to consider the situation from a broader perspective this conclusion becomes apparent.

The closed in nature of the security community has not only stifled innovation, but it has also led to an “us versus them” perspective. This is a mindset that has caused a segment of the industry to feel that they are the law and are somehow separate and apart from the masses. Fortunately, the majority in the field do still have the best interest of the public at heart and work tirelessly to keep us safe. However, this brotherhood which develops as a result of the burden to protect also fosters a “we know what’s best” mentality that causes a sort of blindness in the leadership of the security industry. Thus, there is a tendency to push ahead almost bullishly measures that the security community believes appropriate, indeed, the only answer.

The public, on the other hand, readily accepts that those people who opt to put their lives on the line for the sake of the greater whole deserve respect. And rightly so. As a result, the public is happy to let the security industry decide for itself, quietly in back rooms, the future of security measures. Thus, with no questions asked enhancements to existing measures such as wiretapping or passports are accepted by the public. If the specialists tell us we need it, then we must. 

Unfortunately, we forget that those in the security profession are still humans. Despite the professional role assumed, humans (whether they be police officers, intelligence agents, soldiers or bureaucrats) are still susceptible to the same vices and sins as the average person. So, in the absence of demand from outside of the security sector, little to no proper analysis has been done on measures such as wiretapping or hi-tech identity documents that can prove that enhancements to existing approaches will, in fact, increase security. This, of course, will not stop the measure from being implemented.

Once something goes wrong, however, the public will suddenly be enraged. Demanding that the agency responsible be held accountable. Given the closed-mentality so characteristic of the security industry,  the response will be typical - cold and offended - how can you even ask, we slave to protect you! (If you think this exaggerated, consider the recent responses by some Canadian law enforcement agencies to taser incidents.) Rates of such response-reaction between the public and the security profession will only increase as the ineffectiveness of enhanced traditional approaches is revealed. Over time, the public will turn away from the security establishment with mistrust.

The impact on the state of security will be catastrophic. Despite the closed-in mentality of the security profession, success in the field is dependent on the symbiosis between law enforcement and a co-operative public.  It’s a relationship built on trust and respect - lose it and suddenly the security establishment will find itself wondering just who is it trying to protect? After all, humans are still animals with survival instincts. Should they feel that the system is not protecting them from real threats they will take matters into their own hands - and have done so very recently.

This isn’t our only option. As I mentioned earlier, we now sit at a crossroads where there is another direction open to us. We could open national security up to a wider debate, bringing in thinkers and experts from a variety of backgrounds to conduct assessments of individual existing measures as well as systemic analysis around security on which we can build strategic plans and measures. What better way to secure a society, than to have the society secure itself?

The choice is ours. 

This entry was posted on March 18 2008 at 16:53 and is filed under Identity Management, Wiretapping & Surveillance, Biometrics, Security Measures, North America. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.