Law Enforcement and Private Sector Intelligence Organizations - Research Paper Example

?Intelligence Processes Used by National Security, Military, Homeland Security, Law Enforcement and Private Sector Intelligence Organizations Collection of intelligence is a crucial element in the execution of the tasks of not only the law enforcement agencies but also organizations involved in national security, the military and homeland security as well as private sector intelligence organizations. This provides such outfits access to information about criminal activities or infiltration and other such vital aspects so as to enable them to respond to the given situations appropriately and adequately. All these entities are engaged in the vital task of internal as well as external security, which are of crucial significance to the country in ensuring the safety and well being of their citizens. Every organization has its specific role and mode of operation and, therefore, the nature and frequency of intelligence that they may require for the execution of their tasks also vary. Thus, the cycles and processes of intelligence collection among these organizations differ drastically though they may be sharing some similarities. The responsibility of organizations that have the onus of taking care of national security, such as National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), has increased manifold in the recent days due to the ever evolving nature of security threats from “terrorist groups as well as hostile nation states” (Best, 2001, p.1). Thus, these organizations have revamped their intelligence collection machinery to obtain necessary information for the maintenance of internal as well as external security. They mostly rely on highly sophisticated electronic surveillance equipment sometimes using aircrafts for collection of intelligence, such as TechELINT to “collect, analyze and sometimes and locate” electronic signals from the foreign targets (Bernard, 2009, p.11). On the other hand, law enforcement and homeland security mostly deploy conventional methods for collecting intelligence, mostly using human intelligence sources or less sophisticated electronic devices including human intelligence sources, security cameras and other surveillance equipment. In the present day, the US authorities are rather resorting to a system where all the intelligence disciplines are combined under one window to be utilized by different organizations involved in law enforcement. This is intended to fetch better flow of information among the organizations and will also reduce the consumption of resources apart from ensuring that most reliable information is made available to organizations. Intelligence cycle is the process by which information is disseminated for drawing conclusions about particular evidences in a crime. The main difference between law enforcement intelligence and homeland intelligence is that while the former focuses on criminal aspects, the latter also deals with “noncriminal domestic threats” including issues of public health and public safety (Carter, 2009, p.14). On the other hand, the concept of national security intelligence covers “policy intelligence” and “military intelligence” including identification and observation of hostile elements, weaponry, capabilities of warfare, battle order etc (p.15). Accordingly, the processes and cycles of national security intelligence, law enforcement intelligence and homeland security differ. However, the intelligence collected by all the agencies are similar in the context that such intelligence collection is done for ensuring the safety and welfare of citizens. The main focus of homeland security intelligence is Fire Service Intelligence Enterprise (FSIE) and Public Health/Medical Intelligence, which are two of the initiatives that are “moving forward with greater rapidity” after the 9/11 tragedy (p.19). The main difference in the process and cycle of information among various agencies stems from the roles and responsibilities these organizations have in terms of security. National Security dealt with terrorism and war and, therefore, their intelligence process and cycle vastly differ from that of law enforcement or the homeland security perspectives. Thus, national security intelligence has to cover a wider area of intelligence collection and they deploy appropriate technology including aerial surveillance using unmanned aircraft systems and other sophisticated devices, apart from human intelligence using covert operatives. On the other hand, law enforcement has to deal with prevention of crimes and they collect and analyze intelligence using a mix of surveillance technology, informants etc. In the case of homeland security, their main responsibility is handling noncriminal threats to the public and they use appropriate intelligence processes and cycles. Private organizations usually engage in intelligence collection obtain information for the purpose of individuals or other organizations. The process by which and the cycle of collection of their intelligence will depend on the purpose they are gathering the information. Their sources are limited and also they will have to exercise caution to ensure that any surveillance being done by their agents do not endanger the privacy of other individuals or organizations. In the context of the scope of local or national security, private security agencies do have a role by sharing any information to local law enforcement or federal agencies, which might be of interest to them in the wider specter of national security. Since private agencies are devoid of any statutory powers to enforce surveillance or other intelligence collection methods, the information they can collect or share will also be limited. Similarly, while national security intelligence encompasses the provision of statutory authority to national security agencies to collect intelligence to “conduct foreign relations and protection of national security” the homeland security, on the other hand, does not imply any “formal power” (Randol, 2009, p.16). In so far as it relates to intelligence collection by various law enforcements, the primary objective behind this exercise is to “save lives, protect property, and preempt crime” (Gerringer & Bart, 2012, p.1). Once information is collected, an analyst interprets the data and “disseminates it to authorized consumers” for taking action (p.1). Based on the data analyzed, the law enforcement officers can take further initiatives as the situation warrants. A similar pattern can be found in the case of national security intelligence also where the data is processed by analysts and experts, who interpret its implication and draw appropriate conclusions for enabling the policy makers to issue further instructions for action to be taken. In this context it becomes relevant that irrespective of the purposes, for which data is collected, the process involved in its assimilation, interpretation and drawing of conclusions is more or less the same. Research evidence suggests that private sector organizations own “85% of the US critical infrastructure” and this makes this sector a significant player in the intelligence field as they can significantly add to the extra “eyes and ears” and observe any threat (Carter, 2007, p.7). Thus, the authorities have envisaged the formation of a “fusion center” for establishing a system of information sharing with the private sector (p.7). However, a constraint is felt here that it may not be feasible or appropriate to share with each other some of the information that both government and private sector agencies possess. Despite this limitation, it still can benefit both parties in terms of the possibility to develop “case intelligence” relating to “specific threats, targets and suspects” (p.9). The main advantage of such a fusion can be seen from the fact that it will help different stakeholders to overcome their limitations deriving from their specific roles and powers within the legal framework of the country. For example, organizations in the private sector as well as homeland security will be able to obtain vital and relevant information from the fusion center, as facilitated by national security or federal agencies, which may otherwise be not accessible to them due to their limited powers for collecting intelligence. A problem with such a system is that the rights of private individuals may be compromised by sharing information among private parties and government agencies. Therefore, while imparting information the authorities will have to exercise discretion and care. From the evidences examined during the process of this study, it has come to the fore that the national security agencies, federal agencies and law enforcement agencies have different roles when compared to homeland securities and the entities in the private sector. Similarly, depending on their roles and responsibilities all these organizations have different methods of collecting, processing and cycling data for the purpose of identifying threats and dealing with them. While national security agencies deploy highly sophisticated technologies like unmanned aircrafts for aerial surveillance for the purpose of intelligence collection, other agencies use less sophisticated equipment for the collection of information and its analysis. Similarly, there also exist considerable differences in the statutory powers vested with these organizations, at par with their roles and responsibilities. Another significant difference between homeland security and national security as well as law enforcement is that the former concerns mainly with noncriminal threats such as public health and public safety. However, despite the differences, the process of analyzing, assimilating and interpreting data is more or less same in all organizations. In order to properly align the collection of information and assimilating useful intelligence from the data so collected, the authorities have devised a fusion center, which will be advantageous to all the stakeholders in facilitating relevant and reliable intelligence. Reference List Bernard, R. L. (2009). Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) at NASA. National Security Agency. Retrieved from Best, R. A. (2001). The National Security Agency: Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from Carter, D. L. (2007). The Intelligence Fusion Process for State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement. Intelligence Program, Michigan State University. Retrieved from Carter, D. L. (2009). Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies. US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved from Randol, M. A. (2009). Homeland Security Intelligence: Perceptions, Statutory Definitions, and Approaches. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from Read More