Intelligence Agencies' Life Out of the Shadows

Jamie Collier is a Cyber Security DPhil Candidate and a Research Affiliate with the Cyber Studies Programme, University of Oxford. You can follow him @jscollier93. 

Why are organisations that pride themselves on secrecy, and which have previously appeared allergic to press relations, now proactively getting their message out there? The answer is that they are increasingly communicating out of necessity.

In addition to the battle of public perception, SIGINT agencies have naturally become more communicative due to their expanded remit. Given their history and expertise, they have become the natural choice for governments delegating cybersecurity responsibilities. Yet while collecting signals intelligence is an inherently covert activity, confronting the cybersecurity challenge instead requires a more open and communicative response, such as providing businesses and households with targeted and specific security advice. The need for a departure from the traditional SIGINT mentality has been recognised in the United Kingdom. In 2016, the government established the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). The NCSC remains part of GCHQ, but is a distinct identity, and crucially one that is more far more publically facing. Although early days, the NCSC looks set to provide a more relevant and decisive leadership on the issue of cyber security.

SIGINT agencies have also turned to social media as a recruitment tool in an increasingly competitive jobs market. The limited supply of those with skills in computer science and cyber security means that university graduates can earn significantly sums in the private sector that government agencies have struggled to match. For those that do choose to work for the government, there is the added pressure for SIGINT agencies in competing for talent against multiple government organisations. According to Alan Paller, research director of the SANS Institute, “there’s a head-to-head battle between CIA and NSA for every new cyber employee”. Given the competition for talent, SIGINT agencies realize that reaching out to potential employees with a positive case is vital. CSE, GCHQ and the NSA routinely tweet on their qualities as an employer. The NSA also has a separate NSA Careers twitter handle while GCHQ has also used reverse graffiti to advertise careers in Shoreditch—a trendy borough of London frequented by tech-savvy graduates. 

Despite the progress made on cyber security and recruitment, SIGINT agencies still face huge challenges in developing a coherent public relations strategy. The Russian interference in the U.S. election has pushed the U.S. intelligence community into unwelcome territory. While U.S. intelligence agencies are supposedly non-partisan, maintaining a neutrality has proved to be increasingly difficult. According to a New York Times report, FBI Director James Comey’s decision to abandon protocol and release information about the Clinton investigation, while withholding information about a Trump investigation, was based on his calculation of the electoral outcome. Ultimately, intelligence agencies are faced with a difficult balancing act, having to provide factual analysis without appearing to conspire against a political party or movement. Although there are no easy answers, intelligence agencies should at least establish clearer protocols for communicating with the public during periods of disinformation and instability. For example, these protocols could include guidance on intelligence agencies should answer accusations of partisan interference in an election.

While some SIGINT agencies have begun to adopt a more proactive public relations strategy, others remain clearly in the shadows. In the current climate of election interference, cyberattacks, and a shortage of technical skills, SIGINT agencies will increasingly find themselves on the back foot if they continue to ignore the importance of engaging with the public. Yet, intelligence agencies should proceed cautiously: the politicized role of intelligence agencies in the U.S. election has shown that public engagement, while necessary, contains its own set of challenges.

This article originally appeared at The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).