28 October, 2019

The intelligence conundrum

To protect an asset, or to protect the people?

   I watched the latest [1]S.W.A.T.) episode a couple of days ago, and it
   highlighted some interesting issues that intelligence organizations
   face when working with law enforcement. Side note: it's a pretty good
   show if you like police procedurals.

The problem

   Consider the following scenario:
     * There's a local drug lord who's been recruited to provide intel, by
       a certain 3-letter organization.
     * Local PD busts his operation and proceed to arrest him.
     * 3-letter org steps in, wants him released.

   So here's the thing, his presence is a threat to public but at the same
   time, he can be a valuable long term asset -- giving info on drug
   inflow, exchanges and perhaps even actionable intel on bigger fish who
   exist on top of the ladder. But he also seeks security. The 3-letter
   org must provide him with protection, in case he's blown. And like in
   our case, they'd have to step in if he gets arrested.

   Herein lies the problem. How far should an intelligence organization go
   to protect an asset? Who matters more, the people they've sworn to
   protect, or the asset? Because afterall, in the bigger picture, local
   PD and intel orgs are on the same side.

   Thus, the question arises -- how can we measure the "usefulness" of an
   asset to better quantify the tradeoff that is to be made? Is the intel
   gained worth the loss of public safety? This question remains largely
   unanswered, and is quite the predicament should you find yourself in
   it.

   This was a fairly short post, but an interesting problem to ponder
   nonetheless.

References

   1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.W.A.T._(2017_TV_series