Working Group on "Intelligence Governance & Oversight Innovation"
Problem Analysis
Effective intelligence oversight remains an ambitious, unattained and vague benchmark - on both sides of the Atlantic. While there is no shortage of guiding principles, international reports and legislative reforms promoting effective intelligence oversight, oversight dynamics on the ground continue to be marred by various problems. Among those are ineffective control mechanisms, regulatory capture, a lack of technological knowledge and an insufficient motivation to engage persistently in proactive and unglamorous investigative oversight work. In addition, one can point to no-go-zones and accountability gaps in conjunction with international intelligence cooperation or intelligence activities by agencies and contractors that are not subject to the same oversight regime. A lack of objective performance indicators and government secrecy make it also difficult to assess, let alone compare, oversight performances. Individual political systems differ substantially and concepts like transparency, accountability and democracy remain contested across time and space.
Despite important recent measures to further professionalize and democratize national oversight frameworks in Europe and North America, it is still a long road to establish independent, competent, informed, agile and resourceful oversight bodies. We consider this as work in progress. Despite numerous challenges, much work can be done today to significantly improve oversight effectiveness. This work should not be left to government and legislators alone. As the pace of technological innovation continues to challenge core concepts of intelligence law and oversight practice, a broader set of perspectives are needed to identify and refine options for positive change. It is with this aim in mind that we initiated this working group.
Those ideas have been laid out in a first discussion paper.
Addressing Challenges
Using collaborative work methods, the group aims to identify and refine ideas for better intelligence oversight. A first workshop held in Washington D.C. on 19-20 September brought together European and US experts from civil society, academia and private sector and former oversight representatives. Based on this discussion paper, the group exchanged views on future challenges and potential leads for more effective oversight over electronic surveillance. The second day of the workshop was then used to develop a work agenda for the group.
It was decided that two themes, in particular, will be explored further: criteria and tools for advanced transparency as well as automated oversight / audits. As regards the former, the group will study and compare ways in which transparency to the public exists as regards the practice of communication surveillance by national intelligence services. With regard to the latter, the group will study the different kinds of accesses that oversight bodies have in different national settings. They will collectively identify and discuss both policy and technological aspects that ought to be considered to improve the design and implementation of automated oversight mechanisms for bulk collection powers (aka the generic access to and interference with communication data).
The next workshop will take place on the 14th and 15th of June, 2018 and will allow the group to review the group’s progress on the two themes.
Working Group
The working group consists of 35 members from civil society, private sector and academia from the United States, Germany and other European Union states. The views and opinions expressed by TCF as a whole (and on this website) are those of the project team and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the individuals in the working group and that of their employer. Any statement linked on the website only represents the views of the respective signatories. The following members agreed to be named on this website:
- Simon Assion, Bird & Bird
- Tomaso Falchetta, Privacy International
- Joan Feigenbaum, Yale University
- Sharon Bradford Franklin, New America’s Open Technology Institute
- Sven Herpig, Stiftung Neue Verantwortung
- Cameron Kerry, Brookings Institution
- Eric King, independent
- Ronja Kniep, Berlin Social Science Center
- Klaus Landefeld, eco Verband der Internetwirtschaft e.V.
- Kate Martin, Center for American Progress
- Greg Nojeim, Center for Democracy and Technology
- Jörg Pohle, Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft
- Michelle Richardson, Center for Democracy and Technology
- Heide Sandkuhl, Deutscher Anwaltverein
- Julia Schuetze, Stiftung Neue Verantwortung
- Graham Smith, Bird & Bird
- Eric Töpfer, Institut für Menschenrechte
- Njord Wegge, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
- Thorsten Wetzling, Stiftung Neue Verantwortung
The Working Group on "Intelligence Governance & Oversight Innovation" is part of the Transatlantic Cyber Forum