Language of terrorism is Schrödinger's Cat of security

THE announcement by the Nigerian terror group Boko Haram that is has aligned itself with the self proclaimed Islamic State has led to dire warnings by experts but how seriously should we take it?

The announcement, as with most issues surrounding terrorism, is a speech act with little impact other than that which we bestow upon it. Until Boko Haram made the announcement it may or may not have been allied to IS, it took a public statement for it to happen. A speech act is the Schrödinger's cat of securitisation, it may be both or neither until it is spoken at which point it becomes a reality.

This works both ways. For Boko Haram they can now claim allegiance to a vast terror network. The reality of the situation is that it will make very little difference though. In the 70's and 80's groups such as the Irish Republican Army were suspected of training in Libya and allegedly supplied weapons by the then Soviet Union. The IRA didn't need to pledge allegiance to Gaddafi to gain support they just had to have mutually beneficial aims. The same is true for Boko Haram and IS. Neither side needed to pledge allegiance to the other. They both are drawn from the same pool and are already likely to have been providing support where applicable.

The news has however given those on the right of the political spectrum a field day in spreading their own element of fear for their own ends.

 “By Boko Haram pledging to the Islamic State, Shekau has secured a safe haven for Boko Haram's leadership. Even if the current Nigerian offensives are to succeed, a temporary escape could be made to another IS stronghold from where Boko Haram's life cycle can be maintained irrespective of distance,” claimed Veryan Khan, editorial director of Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC), speaking to the American right wing Fox network.

Here lies an example of how a speech act can be used to promote what is known as securitisation, the concept that something is a security issue. The pledge doesn't in itself give IS or Boko Haram a foothold in the other's territory. By changing the perspective of the situation however this is what Khan has managed to allow without IS even having to accept it. Terrorism is about ideology, twisted as it may be, ideology is spread by words, the violence is just there to back them up. These words have very little power in and of themselves until they are given credence. 

By using particular language those who claim to be fighting the idea of terrorism are able to achieve their own ends and launch further military actions, as was seen by the disastrous intervention in Iraq, which rather than stabilising the Middle East directly led to a rise in Islamic fundamentalism. 

Likewise Boko Haram is no more likely today then it was last month to work with IS. Now they have said that they will, rather than doing so anyway, they have created a security issue which was already alive it was just still in its box.

Security is preferable to liberty for the majority

DESPITE being widely publicised and beset by criticism people just don't seem that concerned about the level of government surveillance on their lives.

While civic rights groups have condemned proposals for an increase in official monitoring of phone calls and social media figures showing people's opposition to the concept reflect a lack of interest by the majority of those polled.

Last week former Defence Secretary Liam Fox called for an increase in the level of surveillance to protect against British nationals fighting in Syria returning and causing problems in the UK.

 There are those who say if we don't get involved, if we hunker down then we will be fine. There will be no backlash. That is utterly, utterly wrong because the jihadists don't hate us because of what we do. They hate us because of who we are. We can't change that. It is our values and our history that they detest more than anything else," said Mr Fox.

"The whole area of intercept needs to be looked at. We have got a real debate, and it is a genuine debate in a democracy, between the libertarians who say the state must not get too powerful and pretty much the rest of us who say the state must protect itself.

"If required it is the first duty of the state to protect its citizens … it is a real worry and it is a problem that is going to be with us for a very long time. At heart it is an ideological battle and we have to realise that we have to win the ideological battle as well."

Civil liberties groups immediately hit back at the idea, calling for more transparency and an independent review of current legislation.

Emma Carr, acting director of Big Brother Watch, said: “It would be reckless to attempt to to legislate on further surveillance powers before a comprehensive, independent review of the existing legal framework has taken place.

“A broad political consensus has emerged in support of a review, with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Shadow Home Secretary and the Home Affairs Committee all recognising that the public should know more about how our surveillance laws are being used and whether the current oversight mechanisms are adequate.

“We know from examples in the US that there is far more information that could be published without jeopardising security. Greater transparency would build trust and improve accountability yet the data being recorded by the police and agencies is seriously inadequate. This does not require legislation and should be addressed by the Home Secretary without delay.”

Instead of backing the calls as wished by Ms Carr Home Secretary Theresa May has made it clear that she wants to see changes to the law making it easier for the government to carry out surveillance on individuals.

"I know some people like the thought that the internet should become a libertarian paradise, but that will entail complete freedom not just for law-abiding people but for terrorists and criminals," she told the attendees at the Lord Mayor's Defence and Security Lecture at Mansion House, in the City of London.

“I do not believe that is what the public wants. Loss of capability, not mass surveillance nor illegal and unaccountable behaviour, is the great danger we face.

“The real problem is not that we have built an over-mighty state, but that the state is finding it harder to fulfil its most basic duty, which is to protect the public,” she said.

With a YouGov poll carried out late last year showing a majority stating that the current level of surveillance was either just right or not enough it seems as though Mrs May could have her supporters.

The poll, released long after the revelations from former NSA analyst Edward Snowden as to the level of government intrusion into people's lives, had 42 per cent agreeing with the current balance and 22 per cent wanting more surveillance. Only 19 per cent of those polled actually said that they supported a reduction in monitoring.

With scare stories hitting the press on an increasingly regular basis those fighting for civil liberty at find out the they are in a losing battle as people opt for security.  

Liberty and security, a tightrope balancing act

CONTROVERSY over social media surveillance has hit new levels following confirmation of monitoring by British security services.

In a statement released by Charles Farr, the Director General of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, GCHQ is legally entitled to intercept UK residents’ Facebook and Google communications 

because they are defined as ‘external communications’.

The news comes as concerns rise over the systematic use by terrorist organisations, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), of social media to spread propaganda and recruit fighters.

"ISIS is making effective use of startling images depicting their operations, notably including mass executions of Iraqi soldiers in Tikrit last week. Their fearsome reputation, bolstered by such images, has translated into success on the battlefield, with Iraqi security forces fleeing strategic towns and cities rather than engage the militants directly," Jordan Perry, an analyst at risk advisory company Maplecroft, has been reported as saying. "It is very likely that intelligence agencies in Europe, the US and elsewhere are monitoring the online chatter of Islamist groups – including Isis – very closely indeed."

The balancing between privacy rights and the need to forestall potential terror campaigns is not a new issue. Following leaks by former United States intelligence analyst Edward Snowden concerning the level of government surveillance observers have questioned how much liberty can be sacrificed in the name of security.

In his statement Mr Farr says: "Any regime that … only permitted interception in relation to specific persons or premises, would not have allowed adequate levels of intelligence information to be obtained and would not have met the undoubted requirements of intelligence for the protection of national security."

Meanwhile privacy rights campaigners and politicians have hit back, calling for an overhaul of the 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIPA) to block, what they claim, is an attempt by security agencies to circumvent the law.

Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, was reported by the Guardian newspaper as saying: "Mr Farr's statement is the best argument I have seen for a thorough overhaul of surveillance law to bring it into the modern age. When Ripa was enacted, social media didn't exist.

"It is fatuous to pretend that elderly laws can cope with modern communications, as Mr Farr convincingly demonstrates. No doubt our intelligence agencies take their legal duties seriously, but the problem is that those legal duties fail to address the 21st century. We need new laws to counter new threats, carrying public confidence with them."

The debate over how much access to people's private information often overlooks certain considerations, however. The open nature of access to social media and the unfeasible prospect of monitoring millions of different accounts are often quoted as reasons for people not to fear scrutiny of their individual accounts.

So long as groups, such as ISIS, continue to expand their use of social networking sites to recruit impressionable young members it seems unlikely that any restriction of abilities to stop widespread terror attacks will gain the needed momentum to bring about a significant change in the law.

"I think it was obvious very early on that they (ISIS) launched their offensive with a social media campaign well planned in advance. This wasn't an afterthought. This wasn't something that they made up as they went along," said American analyst John Little, who monitors national security, conflicts and technology at Blogs of War.