Technology is a double-edged sword when it comes to national security – it acts both for and against the government in its quest to protect its citizens. Emily Spaven explores the impact tech has had on national security in the past and continues to have today.
“I remember my first day at Mi6. I thought it was probably going to be nothing like the James Bond books and films. ‘It’ll just be a desk job’, I told myself. I was wrong.”
Matthew Dunn now lives in Gloucestershire and writes spy novels for a living – an interesting enough way to earn a crust, but his previous career is much more fascinating.
He served as a British intelligence officer and Mi6 field officer, taking part in around 70 missions that saw him travel the world, moving undercover from one hostile environment to another.
“I was tasked with targeting senior echelons, people who had access to secrets in rogue states that offered significant threats in terms of things like regional conflicts, nuclear conflicts and hostile threats against the West in the guise of intelligence attacks or military attacks,” Dunn explained.
He used his training in all aspects of intelligence collection and direct action, including explosives, military unarmed combat, surveillance, advanced driving, infiltration techniques and covert communications, with one particular mission earning him a rare personal commendation from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Gadgetry
As for the role technology played in Dunn’s Mi6 career, he explained James Bond-esque gadgetry did exist to some capacity, but not quite to the extent it plays in the Hollywood films.
“Mi6 does have a whole department totally devoted to creating weird and wacky gadgets and other technical equipment. It is actually called the Q department, but I still don’t know whether Q in James Bond or Q in Mi6 came first.”
Dunn said he was provided with technology such as recording briefcases, surveillance equipment and special weaponry, but explained it was something of a running joke due to its temperamental nature: “The gadgets all worked absolutely perfectly when tested in the head office, but it was often a different story when you tried to use them overseas.”
“I’m sure things have come a long way since then, though,” he conceded.
The internet has dramatically changed the way the Secret Intelligence Service operates and
the threats faced by the service have certainly developed and mutated, meaning nerds at laptops now often do work previously carried out by men with guns and sharp suits.
In the words of Q in the James Bond epic SkyFall: “I’ll hazard I can do more damage on my laptop sitting in my pyjamas before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do in a year in the field.”
Internet
Technology is becoming ever more vital in the protection of national security, particularly within the sphere of counter terrorism. Tech enabled the government to prevent at least seven potentially deadly attacks in the UK last year, however, much more needs to be done to limit the freedom terrorists have in using these same tools to further their plights, promote propaganda and recruit new members.
This January, Baroness Shields, the Minister for Internet Safety, delivered a speech on challenging online extremism. She said the internet is becoming an “echo chamber of hate, fear mongering and intolerance”, with terrorist groups like Isis/Daesh being quick to realise and exploit the power of the web. They are running modern and effective global brand marketing campaigns thanks to the borderless and boundary-free nature of social platforms.
“Unlike in the physical world where national governments can take clear and firm actions to keep people safe; there are no such obvious solutions available in the virtual world,” she said.
In 2015, the UK’s Counter Terrorism Internet Referral unit worked with industry players to remove over 55,000 pieces of terrorist and extremist content. Also last year, YouTube removed 14 million videos in just one instance and, since the middle of 2015, Twitter suspended over 125,000 accounts for threatening or promoting terrorist acts, primarily related to Daesh.
While this is all very positive, it’s worth bearing in mind an average of 200,000 Daesh-supporting messages are posted every day on Twitter alone.
Communication
Social media aside, the way in which terrorists communicate has changed significantly, particularly over the past three years. In June 2014, NSA director US Navy Admiral Michael S Rogers said whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelation of government surveillance techniques had lead to some terrorist groups altering their methods of communication.
Among Snowden’s revelations was information that the NSA was secretly tapping into Yahoo and Google data centers to collect data from hundreds of millions of account holders across the globe. He also revealed the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had spied on users of Second Life, Xbox Live and World of Warcraft, and planned to infect millions of computers with malware using a program called Turbine.
While some lauded Snowden a hero, others labelled him a traitor and said revealing government collections partners tipped off terrorists and enabled them to drop those carriers and email addresses. Many have since switched to alternative platforms with encryption.
Last September, head of MI5 Andrew Parker explained that developments in encryption are making Mi5’s job harder. Parker told the BBC that encrypted communication services are outpacing the laws required to govern access to data: “Shifts in technology, particularly internet technology, and the use of encryption and so on are creating a situation where law enforcement agencies and security agencies can no longer obtain, under proper legal warrant, the content of communications between people they have reason to believe are terrorists.”
Privacy vs protection
Tech giants now, more than ever, have governments knocking on their doors, demanding access to records of users’ communications. Thus these companies face, on a daily basis, the struggle of creating a suitable balance between privacy and protection.
In the first six months of 2010, Google received almost 15,000 government requests for user data. By 2014, that number had risen to just under 35,000. The tech giant provided information in over 65% of these cases, but is adamant it will not give in to all government demands.
“The solution, we believe, lies in a principled yet practical approach: one that restricts indiscriminate surveillance and supports valid law enforcement efforts while also protecting people’s privacy and security,” said Rachel Whetstone, former senior vice president of communications and public policy at Google.
In the UK specifically, parliament is scrutinising the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill – the largest overhaul for 15 years of laws surrounding surveillance. It wants to provide new powers to security services, enabling them to collect tens of thousands of personal records online without ministerial authorisation or oversight.
The Intelligence and Security Committee recently published a report labelling parts of the Bill “inconsistent and largely incomprehensible” and said it lacks clarity on fundamental issues, such as encryption and equipment interference.
Counter-extremism
Whatever the eventual reach of the Bill, is severe surveillance really the answer? Perhaps what is required to boost national security is a bigger drive to turn potential terrorist converts away from the darkened path they’re being led down.
Jonathan Russell is head of policy at counter-extremism think tank Quilliam and his organisation focuses on spreading a counter narrative to that proffered by terrorists.
“Counter-extremism has existed for about a decade offline, but in the last three or four years, we have had to shift our focus online,” he explained.
Russell said Quilliam’s research into how extremists exploit people online has found they “create echo chambers for themselves”. They use platforms like Facebook and Twitter, firstly because of the sheer volume of people using those services, but also because the algorithms in use mean they can focus their message without being interrupted by counter-arguments.
“YouTube is the clearest example of that,” he said. Watch a Miley Cyrus video, then you’ll be presented with related content – another Miley Cyrus video or something similar.
“Exactly the same is true for extremists, except that’s worrying because you can just get pushed further and further down a rabbit hole and turn around after an hour or two and have only heard one point of view,” explained Russell.
The extremists don’t necessarily say anything on social media platforms that promotes violence, because they know that would be taken down, instead they stoke the victimhood narrative, driving opposition to the establishment and painting an overarching picture that the West is at war with Islam.
Most of the messages they produce are about utopia, not brutality, as brutality turns many people off, said Russell.
“They’re essentially selling a dream,” he added, “and it’s up to us to come up with alternative messages and sell a different dream.”
Russell stressed that, while Daesh may look like a “medieval death cult”, they’re using 21st century tools in their plight, so the response needs to be in line with this – they need to be dealt with as if they’re a modern brand – a corporation.
“The tools we have available to us with which to respond are not national security tools, they’re not related to surveillance, most of them are from the strategic communications and marketing worlds.”
Russell said the social media giants have been very good at working with Quilliam and other groups to set up networks and give people in communities the skills to spread counter-extremism messages themselves.
What he’d really like to see, though, is the government doing more to support this kind of approach and for private companies to see this work as part of their corporate and social responsibilities.
“This is the answer, not surveillance. We need to win the war of words and work together to fight the great evil of our time,” he concluded.
Vital role
Whatever the specifics, tech has undoubtedly played a vital role in national security over, at least, the past 70 years, and as technology develops, the more integral it becomes.
On a daily basis, it helps the government intercept threats and protect its citizens, but conversely, it enables terrorists to communicate, enemies to intercept confidential information and extremists to recruit.
The war on terror is nowhere near over and both threats and counterterrorism practices will continue to evolve. We now have to rely on the masses, the smartest and the most talented to join the right side of the battle.
This article first appeared in issue 9 – The Cybersecurity issue – of Tech City News magazine. View the digital versio nonline and subscribe to keep up to date with Tech City News.