How the one-way mirror of secrecy generates fear

How the one-way mirror of secrecy generates fear by Branko Marcetic

Being the head of a nation’s spy agency is hard work. Not only does it involve running a government bureau of hundreds – even tens of thousands – of personnel and keeping a vigilant eye on any potential security threats faced by a country, but there’s also the increasingly important matter of public relations. With spy agencies the world over coming under greater scrutiny than ever, their tactics, actions and values exposed for the world to see, security officials have had increasingly step out from the shadows and engage the public, justifying these agencies’ actions and even their very existence.

Here in New Zealand, that’s meant the opening the GCSB’s doors last November for a stage-managed glimpse into the agency’s inner workings, as well as various high-ranking officials periodically coming forward and reminding us why what spy agencies do is important. So it was last week, when revelations that the GCSB had spied on behalf of Bangladesh’s abusive security services were quickly followed the next day by SIS Director Rebecca Kitteridge’s comments insisting that New Zealand’s terror risk has increased since she’d started her. Never fear citizenry: lest you fear the government is not looking after your security, let us assure you that you are most definitely under threat.

According to Kitteridge, the number of people on the government’s terror watchlist had increased since she’d taken up her post, including everything from individuals thinking about travelling overseas to fight for ISIS to those actively considering planning an attack here. She noted that ISIS’ modus operandi of using the internet to coax others into committing attacks overseas made it a particularly problematic threat.
While Kitteridge was at pains to note she didn’t want to exaggerate the threat faced by New Zealand, which was still very small, it’s not hard to see how – when her comments are broadcast, or the Prime Minister uses this information to justify law changes – the peril faced by kiwis can appear far scarier than it deserves to.

Part of the reason for this is because of the secretive nature of surveillance. This secrecy is both unavoidable and necessary – after all, if you’re engaged in clandestine activities to root out and prevent security threats, you can’t broadcast crucial details to anyone and everyone who will listen, any more than police can tell the public about the finer points of an ongoing investigation. This can certainly be frustrating for those on the spying side, who may truly believe they have facts that, if the public only knew about them, would make people see just how necessary their actions really are.

Unfortunately, more often than not, vague talk of security threats, terror plots and foreign recruitment tends to only inflate the true danger of security risks. The way ISIS and terrorists in general are talked about, both in New Zealand and overseas, you would be forgiven for imagining a sinister global web of shadowy terrorist cells, made up of highly trained and ruthless killers operating under our noses and plotting our imminent downfall

The devil, as always, is in the details – or not, as the case may be. For instance, take the frequently stated claim that there are individuals in New Zealand “engaging in extremist behaviour” or planning attacks. Who exactly are these individuals? Are they trained? Do they have a criminal history? Or are they simply delusional, angry young men shouting into the wind? For that matter, what constitutes a ‘plot’ and how do we know these individuals intend to carry it out? Is it a feasible, step-by-step plan they’ve outlined to attack a particular individual or location, complete with how to obtain the necessary weapons and bomb-making materials? Is it an ambiguous, off-hand remark made to a friend or colleague? Or is it angry comments made through social media? Even if they are seriously thinking about committing harm, do they have the wherewithal and resources to carry their plans out? Anyone can be a criminal genius until they actually have to commit a crime.

Much the same can be asked about kiwis who have gone to fight in Syria. New Zealanders leaving to a war-torn Middle-Eastern country to fight a war, possibly on the side of a terrorist organisation, sounds scary, until you consider that many of them might be confused, underprivileged young people who have gotten way in over their head. Think the so-called teen ‘jihadi brides’ from Britain, or the Melbourne teen who had joined ISIS and carried out a suicide bombing after the death of his mother. Let’s not forget he, too, had a detailed terror ‘plot’ to wreak havoc in Melbourne, involving attacks on consulates and a string of bombings – self-aggrandising claims that he never would have had a chance of turning into reality.

The problem is, secrecy is a one-way mirror. As much as security officials may complain that they can’t show the public what they do, in reality, secrecy and murkiness are advantageous to them. It allows governments to control the narrative, and selectively release information when it suits them most. Need to make a controversial law change or jump into a war? Simply play up the scale and nature of the threats faced by the country. Want to shore up support of the government and emphasise its competency? Talk about plots vanquished and terror threat levels lowered.

All of this is undermined if the public can see behind the screen. Consider what we already know about surveillance. In the New Zealand context, the GCSB appears to have spent as much time spying on leaders of friendly countries, surveying innocent citizens and helping Tim Groser apply for a new job as it has keeping tabs on potential terrorists. Meanwhile, many of the terrorist plots supposedly thwarted in the US have been glorified cases of entrapment, with impoverished, mentally unbalanced individuals being goaded by FBI informants into planning attacks they would otherwise never have committed, nor had the ability to commit without the Bureau’s money and resources. In fact, in 13 years, there is only ‘plot’ in the US that was prevented thanks to the NSA’s bulk collection of a phone records, and even this was solely a case of a Somali man sending money to a Somali militia that is associated with Al Qaeda – hardly the kinds of thing Jack Bauer was racing against the clock to stop.

Meanwhile, while the government and alarmist voices warn darkly that kiwis are leaving to fight alongside ISIS, and may end up returning to sow discord over here, the reality is far less frightening. According to John Key, as of November last year, there were only five New Zealanders fighting in Syria. One of these is the hapless ISIS recruit Mohammad Daniel, formerly known as Mark John Taylor. Daniel burned his passport and posted a picture of its charred remains on Facebook, declaring he was on a “one-way trip” only to change his mind in September and apply to the government for a new one to come home. Earlier this year, he made headlines around the world as the “bumbling jihadi” after accidentally revealing his and other militants’ location in Syria through a series of tweets. What are the chances that his kiwi colleagues are just as mixed-up and inept?

Despite the secrecy involved in spying, if spy agencies had a case or cases they could point to that illustrates their desired narrative, they in all likelihood would reveal it to the public regardless of concerns about secrecy. After all, the Key government had no compunction releasing information about the GCSB’s cyber security program during last year’s election when it suited its political purposes (though it was irrelevant to the debate happening at the time). Yet the facts we have learnt about surveillance and terror threats are very much at odds with official talking points, and paint a far less scary picture of our world – a natural result of shedding light on the dark and unknown.

The problem is that this official narrative does have a tangible impact on our way of life. Two days after Kitteridge’s comments, the Herald published an editorial from New Zealand-born academic Bridgette Sullivan-Taylor, warning of New Zealand’s vulnerability to terrorist attack. The solution, she argued, was to start implementing measures like bag screening machines at malls and cinemas, more ID checks in public areas, increased camera surveillance and facial recognition software, and media alerts informing the public about which locations have raised security threats.

These intrusive measures are more extreme than any adopted in the US and the UK, both of which outrank us by close to 100 places on the Global Terrorism Index. Not only that, they are being proposed when New Zealand has experienced not a single instance of terrorism. And even if it had, let’s not forget the list of things Westerners are more likely to die from than a terrorist attack, which include car crashes, heart disease, medical errors – even drowning in a bathtub. It’s hard to believe such suggestions could be taken seriously in anything other than the climate of fear currently drummed up by politicians. Ironically, these measures would do more to create an ever-present sense of fear and besiegement than any of the ‘threats’ that have been pointed to in New Zealand thus far.

As always, it’s the not the terrorists themselves, but those meant to be our protectors, who are most adept at creating a sense of terror. Rather than getting sucked in, we should view government and spy agency claims with the air of scepticism they deserve. We may not be able to see behind the glass, but we still know there’s someone standing on the other side.

© Scoop Media