I know what I know…

Accusations of an ‘intelligence failure’ often follow terrorist attacks such as the tragedy in Paris last week, it’s important to remember that intelligence has a finite value.

As often seems to happen in the wake of a terrorist attack such as the tragedy in Paris last week, questions are soon asked about what the security services knew in the run up and if the attack could have been prevented.

It’s often the case that where there was prior information held about the participants or the plot, the first of these questions is ‘Could the attack have been prevented?’

Debriefing in the aftermath is always an important part of the response as identifying shortcomings may help prevent a future attack, when intelligence is considered though there needs to be an understanding of its value to help appreciate ‘intelligence failings’ in context.

It’d be a mistake to think that intelligence represents what is ‘known’ – intelligence existing suggesting a person has links to terrorism or giving details of a plot does not amount to knowledge, it really only serves as a suggestion.

We grade intelligence on source and reliability, both very subjective and hard to judge with any degree of accuracy. Intelligence helps paint a picture, how accurate that picture is and what may be missed is difficult to say.

Information can be provided maliciously, it can also be presented in great volumes meaning decisions have to be made about how to prioritise and respond to a variety of competing concerns that incoming intelligence may alert security forces to.

This ‘noise’ means security services may have had information about dozens of potential plots, have intelligence on hundreds of potential terrorists, but without a specific reason for doing so will struggle to justify further investigative action.

There’s been talk recently about new legislation to give us more powers to collect communications data, the value of these powers would likely be that it’d help us to better judge where to focus our resources by helping us build a clearer picture.

The powers are controversial though the demand tight scrutiny – whatever their final form they are likely to represent an extension of our powers to access private communications hence the critical term ‘Snooper’s Charter’ used to describe them.

What it is important to remember is that whilst good intelligence is needed in the fight against terrorism, its value is finite, not absolute.

Even were intelligence budgets to be expanded tenfold and new ‘Big Brother’ legislation introduced to all but erase personal privacy, there would still be terrorist plots that would succeed.

The question is, how much more effective can our intelligence capabilities realistically be made and might we pass a threshold where we end up restricting civil liberties in pursuit of an efficiency that cannot be achieved?

P.S. The report published by Parliament on the intelligence surrounding the death of Drummer Rigby is a particularly interesting insight into how intelligence is used and the problems that face the intelligence services, it’s definitely worth a read if you’d like to know more about the subject.

Don’t stop…

The NYPD have recently undertaken a form of industrial action – is this ever something that’s acceptable for police officers to do? (Image from NYPD Drills)

 

There are lots and lots of things that us police can do.

We can arrest folk, we get to go on stakeouts and drive our squad cars down alleys through piles of cardboard boxes.

On the flip side, there are also things that we cannot do either because there are rules or laws that advise us certain things are not permissible.

One of the things that us British police cannot do is strike owing to the Police Act 1996 telling us that it’s not something that’s okay for us to do.

The debate over whether we should be able to strike has been hovering in the background for several years with some in the Police Federation suggesting we should be balloted on getting the right to strike in response to changes to our working conditions.

Over the past couple of days, the idea of industrial action being taken by police forces has come up again when officers from the New York Police Department have undertaken what’s been labelled a “virtual work stoppage”.

Following a dispute between the force and the city’s mayor, arrests have dropped 66% and summons for traffic offences by over 90% in comparison to the same period the previous year.

Whilst their officers haven’t walked out on strike, the suggestion seems that they’ve done everything but – the drop in work certainly suggests a form of industrial action has been adopted.

The issue I take with police officers striking, or taking other sorts of industrial action, is that our own pay and conditions are placed before the welfare of the public, an inversion that feels very uncomfortable.

Ensuring the welfare and safety of the communities that we protect is the reason we do the job – nothing is so important as to justify coming ahead of achieving this key goal.

The implication of officers taking industrial action is that the contested issue is more important than the assault, rape or murder that they may neglect through the action. Our needs are ahead of that of the victim.

Industrial action at a factory may slow production, in the police the potential consequence of our commitment being anything less than total would far outweigh the value of any goal we wished to achieve.

It’d be a clear message sent out to the public and entirely the wrong one – if protecting the public is anything other than our primary concern then it’s something we’ll fail at.