The use of covert human information sources within an investigation - Essay Example

?The Use of Covert Human Information Sources within an Investigation The use of covert human information sources in the investigation of various criminal cases is a practice in vogue among law enforcement agencies of all countries across the globe. The practice has apparently derived from the fact that when a police officer directly approaches people for the collection of information, they may be hesitant to impart with any information. On the other hand, it is relatively easy for private citizens to collect such information. Similarly, criminals, terrorists etc. do not discuss or divulge any information when they notice the presence of police officials, which pre-empts the latter from overhearing any information being shared among the antisocial elements. In contrast, private citizens have the opportunity to receive such information as they appear harmless to criminals. Therefore, the use of paid or unpaid human informants, as well as undercover police officers, “has long been an essential feature of criminal investigations” (Freedom from Suspicion: Surveillance Reform for a Digital Age, 2011, p.115). On the other hand, protection of privacy remains a concern and therefore, in order to eliminate any misuse, certain regulations have been placed on this process by the government. However, in the context of public interest and for the expediency of police investigations, the use of covert human resources by law enforcement agencies is justifiable. In the UK, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) has been introduced in the year 2000, which defines covert human intelligence source (CHIS) as a person who “establishes or maintains a personal or other relationship” of a secret nature for facilitating information or to “provide access to information” or “covertly disclose information” to another person (Covert Human Intelligence Sources, 2010, p.7). Such informants are used to collect intelligence or any relevant information by police officers, which can be used in criminal investigations. However, the relevant regulations stipulate that public authorities, while authorizing the use of CHIS need to ensure that an “individual’s right under Section 8” is not compromised (p.9). However, public officers who voluntarily imparts information, or sources that provide information “within their personal knowledge” do not fall in the category of CHIS (p.9-10). CHISs use different methods of surveillance to obtain intelligence or information from the targets such as interception of their communication, communications data, or “directed and intrusive surveillance” (Freedom from Suspicion: Surveillance Reform for a Digital Age, 2011, p.18). While directed surveillance does not involve any intrusion on one’s private property, the latter involves the same and security forces may use methods such as tapping of telephone, or fitting of electronic devices etc for surveillance of the premises. Law enforcement agencies also use technology for collecting intelligence from their sources or targets. However, when a suspect is not actually involved in any complicity, the security forces come under criticism for violation of privacy. Human beings must have the right to privacy and it is in the “collective interest” of all citizens to maintain a “society in which personal privacy is protected” (p.20). Therefore, the governments of nations have a responsibility to ensure that only in cases where the national security has a chance of being breached, they should endorse the use of CHIS. In the modern world, criminal activities, especially terrorism, have risen to such a high magnitude that countries are forced to implement stringent preventive policies for maintaining law and order. Under the scenario, the deployment of CHIS to obtain relevant intelligence has assumed considerable priority. This is especially relevant in the case of countries like the US, UK, India etc, which are prime targets for terrorist groups as can be evidenced from the WTC, London Bombings and Mumbai terror strikes. On the other hand, as stated earlier, countries also have a responsibility to ensure that the right to privacy of their citizens remains protected and no unwarranted intrusions occur on their private property or persons. Therefore, national governments in these countries need to exercise utmost discretion while deploying CHIS for obtaining intelligence. On the other hand, the United Arab Emirates, a country in the Middle East, constitutionally protects prohibits any “arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence” of their citizens (United Arab Emirates, n.d., p.7). However, as opposed to UK, UAE’s primary concern derives not from being a target of terrorist attacks but from the possibility of some of their citizens sponsoring terrorism. As such they focus on instituting laws that criminalize terrorist financing, such as the Criminalization of Financing of Terrorism (CFT) law, 2004. Article 12 of the said law states that any person who “gains, provides, collects, carries, or transfers property, directly or indirectly, with the intention to be used” for aiding or abetting terrorism will be liable for punishment with “life or provisional imprisonment” (Mutual Evaluation Report: Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism, 2008, p.27). However, the country does not seem to have any specific guidelines regarding the use of CHIS as in the case of UK though they seem to using strategies such as surveillance for collection of intelligence for monitoring the law and order situation in the country especially in the case of immigrants. Thus, overall it transpires that countries across the world use human sources to collect intelligence for the use of criminal investigations. Countries like UK have the major problem to deal with, in terms of increased criminal activities and especially to counter terrorism. However, the national government also has to take into consideration the aspects of human rights and the privacy of their citizens and, thus, they have to exercise a high level of discretion to ensure that the use of CHIS do not compromise the privacy of their citizens. On the other hand, citizens will have to understand that whatever efforts the UK government is making are directed towards the sole purpose of national security and support the state in its fight against terrorism. In contrast, the primary concern of countries like UAE is the possibility of some of its citizens sponsoring terrorism and the country’s law enforcement focuses on instituting laws and regulations for the prevention of such funding. In the modern world, where criminal activities and terrorism have become so rampant, the use of CHIS by government and security agencies for the purpose of collecting intelligence is justified and the citizens should not be overly concerned with the aspect of privacy in the compromise of their basic safety. On the other hand, national governments need to use discretion when using CHIS for obtaining intelligence. References Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Code of Practice. (2010). TSO Information and Publishing Solutions. Available at Freedom from Suspicion: Surveillance Reform for a Digital Age. (2011). Justice. Available at Mutual Evaluation Report: Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism. (2008). Middle East and North African Financial Action Task Force. Available at United Arab Emirates. (n.d.). Available at Read More