New Zealand's mindset needs to change, not the GCSB

COMMENT

Prime Minister John Key indicated this week that a law change could allow the Government Communications Security Bureau to begin officially spying on New Zealanders.

While some critics have derided his remarks as a political ploy, a number of recurring reactions to his remarks stand out. Most seem generally, or entirely, negative.

The GCSB – tasked with snooping on foreigners only – is an agency dedicated to collecting signals intelligence (SIGINT), or any form of communication using the electromagnetic spectrum.

A major theme worrying people is the potential for an increased loss of privacy and civil liberties. However, these concerns reflect less about what the government is doing and more about how under-developed the state of our collective societal discussions on privacy in a digital world really is.

The first problem is in conflating increased surveillance with fewer civil liberties. It is difficult to make that call and it must be understood that the trade-off between privacy and security is always oscillating.

Intelligence agencies have a dual role as protector and monitor, and in the 21^st century these words take on whole new meanings.

Constraints for intelligence agencies

Because of the way democratic societies function, there is an operational ceiling through which intelligence agencies, especially the GCSB as a SIGINT entity, cannot pass. They rely on us as a society to tell them where to start their monitoring and protection, and where to stop. They are inherently malleable to public opinion and administrative legislation.

They might operate in the shadows, but that does not mean intelligence agencies are beyond the law. Because of their potential power, there should be tight and constricting laws governing intelligence agencies. And they rely on the society they serve to either limit or extend those powers as geopolitical or societal dynamics evolve.

We like to think that spying in the digital realm is acceptable when directed against overseas targets or to intercept threats. And because of this we want our intelligence agencies to have strong tools and sufficient resources to spy on other countries for the good of New Zealand.

After all, the love of one’s own citizens drives the very basis of geopolitics.

The digital world is viewed in the frame of a battleground when nation states or non-state actors attempt to take down our websites, spy on us or steal our commercial secrets. We would applaud the GCSB’s protection if it keeps us from such attacks, and use of the powerful tools they wield when doing so.

But after all this bluster and banner waving, most people on returning home switch on their computers or mobile devices and check emails. Suddenly the digital battlefield morphs into a bastion of private communication.

In this mind set, the natural reaction is in limiting government interference as much as possible because it infringes on our privacy.

Our wish for state protection seems to conflict with outdated feelings of violated privacy. So there’s a balance here. And as a society there is a pressing need to decide where to place the role of agencies like the GCSB in our daily and commercial lives.

The agency has the tools to increase surveillance and protection of New Zealand digital traffic. It just needs to know from the public how far they can go.

As a country, we need to inform the government about how much protection we want and how much privacy we need. In peacetime this is a difficult decision. But it is a trade-off, and it really is up to us.

This is why Mr Key’s plan to increase GCSB surveillance powers is so controversial. As a society, we haven’t figured out where that balance is yet, and the PM is trying to start that conversation – or at least start a process to bring our digital surveillance laws into the 21^st century.

And in this particular conversation, few developed countries have figured out what this balance is. The more the digital world integrates with human cultures, the more old views on privacy seem go out the window.

New language needed

Essentially, people have to assume their internet session is compromised the moment they log on to the internet. This fact is uncomfortable but true, and our digital privacy would be better served if this was remembered more often.

Already, a phenomenal amount of personal information is shared on networking sites which can be accessed by anyone armed with a keyboard, completely leaving aside the powerful capabilities of the GCSB.

Most people buy mobile phone applications and download them without a second thought. But many of them have invisible computer programs to steal your information. None of us want our personal data being swiped by overseas agencies, but it seems we want to constrain our GCSB’s ability to properly protect us.

Any increased surveillance of New Zealanders should be for the protection of fellow citizens and businesses.

Debate should avoid focusing on the loss of civil liberties which have not been updated to deal with threats of the early 21^stcentury. Instead, it should be on finding a balance between greater protection for our vulnerable economic situation and our right to an acceptable level of privacy.

Any discussion needs to determine exactly privacy means for us in a digital world. The past and its ideas about privacy have vanished. It is time to upgrade our vocabulary about privacy and security so we can sensibly debate any expansion of GCSB powers. 

Nathan Smith has a Bachelor of Communications in Journalism from Massey University and has studied international relations and conflict.