Are our intelligence agencies too secretive? A Sydney-based academic says it’s problematic

University of Sydney emerging technologies expert Miah Hammond-Errey interviewed top personnel from Australia’s intelligence agencies to find out how the landscape has changed.

Dr Miah Hammond-Errey from the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.

Big data, digital connectivity and ubiquitous technology are creating headaches for Australia‘s national intelligence community, new research has found.

New technologies are disrupting the nation’s spy agencies just as much as they’re disrupting businesses and the broader economy.

The proliferation of data means very little is likely to remain secret forever and the role of secrecy is now going through a profound change, according to Dr Miah Hammond-Errey, the director of the Emerging Technology Program at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.

Dr Hammon-Errey’s work is thought to be the first time anyone has interviewed top personnel from each of Australia’s intelligence agencies. Her research, released this week, comprised of interviews with 47 leaders from each of the 10 agencies within Australia’s national intelligence community.

The research found that while secrecy was vital for protecting intelligence sources and methods, much more was knowable or inferable about the world and community expectations around transparency were changing.

“Data abundance, digital connectivity and ubiquitous technology have created a landscape that has really shifted fundamental intelligence principles and practices,” Dr Hammon-Errey said.

“I don’t think the system is totally broken or that this is a ‘grinding halt’ problem. But I do think that because of the current regional threat picture, the intelligence community is not really established to look at the diffuse vulnerabilities across things like cyber security and engaging stakeholders across industry, academia and media.

“We’ve got a system that might work now but in five years that might not be the case, so we need to embrace a cultural shift.”

Digital data sharing is increasing within and between intelligence agencies but requires improvement, Dr Hammon-Errey said.

Data-sharing issues remain with existing decision-makers, such as ministers, operational decision-makers and other government agencies. It could be improved using new technologies, while intelligence needs to be shared with new stakeholders, such as academia, industry and other government agencies to optimise the opportunities — and counter the challenges — presented by data-driven technologies.

Dr Hammon-Errey, a former senior analyst at the Australia Strategic Policy Institute, said deepening intelligence exchange with the US and Five Eyes partners was critical, as was exploring new regional alliance partners.

“Essentially, in a democracy, intelligence agencies are here to protect Australians and Australian interests. But I think the Australian national intelligence community, what it is and what it doesn’t is not well known,” she said.

“When you look around the world, you see, CIA, you see GCHQ, MI6, MI5, people have heard of these agencies and I think an improved understanding of the role the Australian agencies play will help Australians to understand what it is that they do.

“In a democracy, as opposed to an authoritarian state, intelligence agencies are here to improve Australia and protect our security.

“And we as a population have a right to define well, what is that security? What is it that we want protecting?

“I’d like discussion, essentially, around what are they here for, and how much secrecy how much transparency is important.”