If the case of the ODNI can be taken as our prototype (being the most concrete example we have of performed evaluations of surveillance programs), then cost is the ultimate driver of formal evaluations of surveillance systems. The terms officials use when addressing the so-called balance – “security and liberty” or “security and privacy” – give reason for pause. This section covers the parts within the broad literature on security and surveillance literature that are most relevant to this paper. Drones are outfitted with cameras, both still and video, making them a form of surveillance equipment. A State that is suffering insecurity will be badly placed to deliver the protection of other rights, including privacy” (Omand, Feb. 2014, p.1). Surveillance technology is pervasive in our society today, leading to fierce debate between proponents and opponents. Certain recent studies, however, have identified conditions in which CCTV operates most effectively (Gill and Spriggs 2005, Caplan et al., 2011). Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. With Open Access, researchers can read and build on the findings of others without restriction. Surveillance & Society is published by Surveillance Studies Network, © Copyright 2020 The Globe and Mail Inc. All rights reserved. Journal Impact Prediction System displays the exact community-driven Metric without secret algorithms, hidden factors, or systematic delay. The Publication History of Surveillance & Society covers 2012-ongoing. (The FBI is the agency that investigates people within the U.S. suspected of criminal activity.) Cost, although not discussed at length in the material analyzed, was confirmed in interviews to be a factor that affects the choice of surveillance technology. Government surveillance, in particular, has been brought increasingly under public scrutiny, with proponents arguing that it increases security, and opponents decrying its invasion of privacy. Q2. In the other points professionals make about effectiveness, some could be considered to overlap. This tendency of evaluating intelligence bodies as a whole means that surveillance technology itself is not formally assessed for its effectiveness. The question of effectiveness is not determined in a vacuum. Since 2006 there have been two directors of the NSA (Alexander and Rogers), four of the CIA (Hayden, Panetta, Patraeus, and Brennan), and three of GCHQ (Pepper, Lobban, and Hannigan). According to Omand, “It is less a question of how many terrorist attacks, criminal plots and cyber attacks have been stopped because of specific interception of terrorist intent in their communications and much more the unique contribution digital intelligence sources make to the intelligence jigsaw and the painstaking process of ‘discovery’ of terrorist cells and involved individuals” (Omand, Mar. The surveillance society New information technology offers huge benefits—higher productivity, better crime prevention, improved medical care, … While it’s good for business, for the drivers to have to explain any deviation from the path or time misspent is humiliating. Electronic monitoring has become a high-tech way for managers to watch over their performance. On the one hand, it is not rocket science that cost, an important factor, is considered in determining and evaluating surveillance programs. In, Presidential Policy Directive – Signals Intelligence Activities. Because of this distinct difference between these two categories of people, what foreign intelligence collects related to these groups differs greatly. As William G. Staples writes in Everyday Surveillance, “Public buses in San Francisco; Athens, Georgia; Baltimore; Eugene, Oregon; Traverse City, Michigan; Hartford, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio, have been equipped with sophisticated audio surveillance systems to listen in on the conversations of passengers.” And in Las Vegas, Detroit and Chicago, the Intellistreets system has been installed. The 2006–2016 timespan was chosen to have a good amount of time (7 years) prior to the Snowden leaks to enable a substantive comparison between the directors’ pre and post Snowden statements. Officials’ statements related to effectiveness, cost, proportionality, and “balance.”. policy maker) feels informed (Interview 2, 2015). Flagged as a “suspect” for the purposes of the trial, Mr. Sudworth was no match for the AI-powered eyes. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies. Mentions of “agency” refer to intelligence bodies, such as the NSA, CIA, and GCHQ. This determination was made by looking at the titles and scanning the material. Proportionality was heavily discussed by officials in the materials analyzed. As some interviewees noted, surveillance technology may collect golden information, but if it is not properly analyzed it means nothing (Interview 2, 2015; Interview 5, 2016). The darker the dotted line, the more clearly the measure falls into the “counting” category. Read our. The argument seems to be that since human eyes are not looking at it, the data in question is not under surveillance. We hope to have this fixed soon. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter . This also brings into question whether or not this program needs to be effective. But we are not only tracked outdoors. It seems intelligence practitioners tailor effectiveness evaluations to different kinds of intelligence gathering. Much scientific and medical research is paid for with public funds. For example, lives saved carries us back to thwarting attacks and the issue of counting. Lastly, there is literature on CCTV cameras and their effect on crime. 2006. Here individuals are put under surveillance because they are, for example, suspected of plotting a terrorist attack or of being spies passing classified information to foreign countries. There are two RAND Corporation reports on measuring effectiveness in specific contexts. The findings show an interesting tension between counting and not counting. Practitioners judge the support rendered to other agencies via intelligence collected by a particular surveillance system to be a measure of effectiveness. Further, there is the distinction between bulk data collected by computers, and limited selected data seen by human eyes. Opponents say that even emotions must be limited for high productivity. The key points of intelligence officials' statements on the effectiveness of surveillance technology are that, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of surveillance programs. We use cookies to improve your website experience. The number of lives saved from detecting terrorist communications and subsequently thwarting terrorist plots is another measure of effectiveness. Surveillance & Society is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Addressing the empirical question of how intelligence officials articulate effectiveness is a necessary starting point for any subsequent dialogue regarding the use of surveillance technology. However, policy makers can cherry-pick intelligence – select the intelligence that suits their political agenda and ignore the rest (Interview 5, 2016). Research Hotspot and Their status as former directors is particularly interesting as it gives them a bit more liberty to speak about the work of their respective agencies. This study analyzed statements made from 2006 to 2016 by directors and former directors of the U.S.’s National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.K.’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), in the form of speeches, congressional and parliamentary testimonies, articles, and books.