Terrorism And State Surveillance Of Communications

This book brings together leading counterterrorism experts, from academia and practice, to form an interdisciplinary assessment of the terrorist threat facing the United Kingdom and the European Union, focusing on how terrorists and terrorist organisations communicate in the digital age. Perspectives drawn from criminological, legalistic, and political sciences, allow the book to highlight the problems faced by the state and law enforcement agencies in monitoring, accessing, and gathering intelligence from the terrorist use of electronic communications, and how such powers are used proportionately and balanced with human rights law. The book will be a valuable resource for scholars and students of terrorism and security, policing and human rights. With contributions from the fields of both academia and practice, it will also be of interest to professionals and practitioners working in the areas of criminal law, human rights and terrorism.

This book examines the UK’s response to terrorist communication. Its principle question asks, has individual privacy and collective security been successfully managed and balanced? The author begins by assessing several technologically-based problems facing British law enforcement agencies, including use of the Internet; the existence of ‘darknet’; untraceable Internet telephone calls and messages; smart encrypted device direct messaging applications; and commercially available encryption software. These problems are then related to the traceability and typecasting of potential terrorists, showing that law enforcement agencies are searching for needles in the ever-expanding haystacks. To this end, the book examines the bulk powers of digital surveillance introduced by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The book then moves on to assess whether these new powers and the new legislative safeguards introduced are compatible with international human rights standards. The author creates a ‘digital rights criterion’ from which to challenge the bulk surveillance powers against human rights norms. Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE QC in recommending this book notes this particular legal advancement, commenting that rightly so the author concludes the UK has fairly balanced individual privacy with collective security. The book further analyses the potential impact on intelligence exchange between the EU and the UK, following Brexit. Using the US as a case study, the book shows that UK laws must remain within the ambit of EU law and the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU's) jurisprudence, to maintain the effectiveness of the exchange. It addresses the topics with regard to terrorism and counterterrorism methods and will be of interest to researchers, academics, professionals, and students researching counterterrorism and digital electronic communications, international human rights, data protection, and international intelligence exchange.

This insightful book focuses on the application of mass surveillance, its impact upon existing international human rights and the challenges posed by mass surveillance. Through the judicious use of case studies State Sponsored Cyber Surveillance argues for the need to balance security requirements with the protection of fundamental rights.

As nations have aggressively implemented a wide range of mechanisms to proactively curb potential threats terrorism, Counter-Terrorism Laws and Freedom of Expression: Global Perspectives offers critical insight into how counter-terrorism laws have adversely affected journalism practice, digital citizenship, privacy, online activism, and other forms of expression. While governments assert the need for such laws to protect national security, critics argue counter-terrorism laws are prone to be misappropriated by state actors who use such laws to quash political dissent, target journalists, and restrict other forms of citizen expression. The book is divided into three parts. Part I deals with the politics and discourse of counter-terrorism laws. Part II focuses on the ways counter-terrorism laws have impacted journalistic practice in different countries, with effects ranging from imprisonment of reporters to self-censorship. Part III addresses how counter-terrorism laws have been used to target everyday citizens, social media activists, whistleblowers, and human rights advocates around the world. Together, the chapters address how counter-terrorism laws have undermined democratic values in both authoritarian and liberal political contexts. Scholars of political science, communication, and legal studies will find this book particularly interesting.

The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York on 11 September 2001 saw the start of the so-called war on terror. The aim of ‘In the Name of Security – Secrecy, Surveillance and Journalism’ is to assess the impact of surveillance and other security measures on in-depth public interest journalism. How has the global fear-driven security paradigm sparked by 11 September affected journalism? At the core of the book sits what the authors have labeled the ‘trust us dilemma’. Governments justify passing, at times, oppressive and far-reaching anti-terror laws to keep citizens safe from terror. By doing so governments are asking the public to trust their good intentions and the integrity of the security agencies. But how can the public decide to trust the government and its agencies if it does not have access to information on which to base its decision? ‘In the Name of Security – Secrecy, Surveillance and Journalism’ takes an internationally comparative approach using case studies from the powerful intelligence-sharing group known as the Five Eyes consisting of the US, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Chapters assessing a selection of EU countries and some of the BRICS countries provide additional and important points of comparison to the English-speaking countries that make up the Five Eyes.

Terrorist organizations use many technologies as they plan and stage attacks. This book explores the purpose and manner of the use of communication and computer technologies, their net effect, and security forces' possible responses. The authors conclude that, instead of developing direct counters to these technologies, exploiting their use and the information they manage to enable more direct security force operations is a more promising option.

The Patriot Act, which was passed shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, has allowed the government to monitor communication by phone, email, or social media, to access credit and bank reports, or to track activity on the internet. This book examines the new methods used by the government to spy on citizens, the reasons it became necessary, and the tradeoffs between increased safety and a loss of privacy, and the moral arguments for and against these tradeoffs.

Does government surveillance make us safer? The thirteenth Munk Debate, held in Toronto on Friday, May 2, 2014, pitted Michael Hayden and Alan Dershowitz against Glenn Greenwald and Alexis Ohanian to debate whether state surveillance is a legitimate defence of our freedom — the democratic issue of the moment. In a risk-filled world, democracies are increasingly turning to large-scale state surveillance, at home and abroad, to fight complex and unconventional threats — but is it justified? For some, the threats more than justify the current surveillance system, and the laws and institutions of democracies are more than capable of balancing the needs of individual privacy with collective security. But for others, we are in peril of sacrificing to a vast and unaccountable state surveillance apparatus the civil liberties that guarantee citizens’ basic freedoms and our democratic way of life. In this edition of the Munk Debates, former head of the CIA and NSA Michael Hayden and civil liberties lawyer Alan Dershowitz square off against journalist Glenn Greenwald and reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian to debate the legitimacy of state surveillance. With issues of Internet privacy increasingly gaining prominence, the Munk Debate on the Surveillance State asks: Should government be able to monitor our activities in order to keep us safe?