Intelligence Centers and Cyber Espionage

Intelligence Centers and Cyber Espionage

The Difference Between Fusion Center And Joint Regional And Intelligence Centers

Criminal activities such as terrorism, drug trafficking, theft among others have homeland security agencies working around the clock to ensure the safety of the American people. The 9/11 terrorist attack changed the way security agencies operated with intelligence becoming an integral part of fighting crime. Homeland security agencies made intelligence collection a priority to intercept primary crime operations before happening. Multiple intelligence centers were created and assigned different duties at the various government levels. Fusion centers and JRICs are examples of homeland intelligence centers, but differences exist between these two.

Functionality, the flow of intelligence, the presence of guidelines, and the area covered by each of the intelligence centers are some of the differences existing between fusion centers and JRIC. Fusion centers are intelligence process focal points in major urban areas and states, while JRICs are created to give metropolitans areas focal points of collecting analyzing and disseminating intelligence. Fusion centers receive information from both local and federal agencies, analyze it to produce intelligence that flows upward to the federal agencies, laterally to other fusion centers and state agencies and downward to county, local, territorial, and tribal and private entities. JRIC allows the sharing of information between metropolitans security agencies like police and the FBI operating in a particular metropolitan region.

Intelligence developed in fusion centers is meant to support law enforcement, public health, fire service, critical infrastructure protection, emergency response, and private security personnel.

Fusion centers were developed with the knowledge of the Homeland Security Department and Justice Department. DHS and the Justice Department established the guidelines and best practices of the fusion centers. JRICs are developed with the knowledge of state police agencies in collaboration with the FBI.

Impediments to a Strategy to Counter Economic Espionage

Intellectual property theft remains an international challenge to trade that impacts the relationship between countries. The rise of the internet has led to cyber espionage, which includes the hacking and stealing of trade secrets of private corporations by other states. Obama administration took the issue of economic espionage seriously after an American cybersecurity firm called Mandiant linked the Chinese army engaging in an economic espionage campaign against 150 firms operating in more than 20 economic sectors (Fidler, 2013). However, Obama’s administration strategy failed to show how economic espionage violated international law and also failed to create a blueprint of international legal changes that could help addres the problem. Trump’s administration has also failed to make an impact on the strategy of addressing economic espionage because of the existing impediments.

According to Fidler (2013), failure to develop a strategy that can address economic espionage is impeded by the absence of international law addressing espionage. International law does not provide for espionage, saying that it is not a serious claim or use of force. A victim nation can assert espionage as spying and that it violates sovereignty; however, such claims are dismissed as not serious. Cyberwar or cyber-attacks are also not regarded as prohibited use of force. The tolerance and participation of any spying thus show that under international law, economic espionage does not include wrongful acts.

A strategy to address economic espionage is also impeded by uninterested enforcement of national law by foreign governments. Economic espionage is prohibited by national legislation in many countries (Fidler, 2013). However, the enforcement of such a law faces difficulties as it involves the participation of foreign governments. China is unlikely to cooperate with the U.S in dealing with people or parties engaged in economic espionage.

Developing a strategy that could address economic espionage has been impeded by the lack of interest from WTO members to formulate laws on economic espionage. WTO members say it is challenging to formulate claims showing how economic espionage infringe WTO agreements (Fidler, 2013). Thus, it has become impossible to use international trade institutions to develop a policy that helps address economic espionage.