This ministry must be run by the government because there cannot
be any competition and bias in a nation’s security. This ministry would have two different
divisions: information gathering and
defense.
Contrary to the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Security’s
responsibility is to protect a whole nation against possible threats, both
domestic and foreign. These entities
must be entirely defensive in nature. No exception.
Just like any other ministry, the ministry follows regulations and laws
established by the Lawmaking Ministry and will predominantly coordinate with
the Ministry of Justice for domestic investigations and threats.
Information
gathering division
When we think about information gathering, we usually think about
secret services. The American CIA, the
Canadian CSIS, the Israeli Mossad are all examples of organizations whose
responsibility is to gather information and protect the nation from illegal
acquisition of information by undesirable parties (counter-intelligence).
In the ideal world we’re building, we still need such
organizations as information is key to pre-emptively identify potential threats
to the population, their freedom and the provisioning of their basic needs. Thus, it only makes sense that most of the
ministry’s decision-making and operations would be freely available on the public
online system. I think, it is even more
important to have the information division’s data publicly available. It is just too easy to declare information
secret and thus division leaders can too easily participate in unconstitutional
subterfuge in the name of “national security”.
On the other hand, it is necessary for an information gathering
agency to keep the information they gather secret. The ministry cannot do its job if data
gathered is immediately published. There must be a clear line between what is
released to the public. Gathered
information can remain secret only until a project is completed. Afterwards, the operation and all information
gathered should be made public. No
exceptions.
We need to trust our government, what they do and why. We also need to know what is happening
elsewhere in the world, including threats.
Secrecy causes too much misinformation, distrust and emergence of
conspiracy theories. It is not socially
healthy. We should ensure our population
has sufficient education and trust in the elected government to absorb
published information. We are the
client, the boss. And the boss needs to
know what’s going on.
It is not too different to the Judiciary about temporary secrecy:
some information must be kept confidential due to privacy issues and other
information must be kept private to while an investigation or court case is
ongoing.
Intelligence agencies today are already using many modern tools to
analyse data and gather as much information as possible from public sources and
networks. This remains a good idea in my
view. They could also pull information
and use AI software to analyse data taken from all sensors used by a modern,
drone-intensive police force. Social
media is a treasure trove of clues, connectivity and photos that are gathered
by individuals already. With the
advancement of AI technologies, our societies can be much better armed. Traditionally, intelligence agencies have
close ties with law enforcement files and data.
The more information the intelligence agencies, within the limits of what
is gathered publicly and voluntarily provided by citizens, the better. This
gives time for either the country’s defense force or law enforcement agencies
to mobilize to diffuse situations before people get hurt.
The size of such institutions is only determined by the perceived
need and the amount of automation that can be put in place to gather
information automatically. The
population can also be engaged in helping with information gathering, as they
are already doing so, simply by collecting and posting information online. Imagine what information gathering agencies
can achieve if the population trusted them and would consciously post
information that could be of interest to increase a nation’s security!
Collaboration with other countries means access to other nation’s
information. The more data, the better. If all countries connected their nation’s
data to each other, intelligence agencies would not be needed as much and would
center more of their efforts on threats that are more difficult to detect.
Defense
division
In a word, we’re talking about the military. I specifically call it a Defense division
because that’s what it should be doing.
Too many military forces in the world today have a dual purpose. One for defense and the other for offense
under the pretext of pre-emptively defending citizens.
Defense means no pre-emptive strikes anywhere in the world. Domestically, enforcement officers can
question citizens that are on the road towards committing crimes. That is perfectly fine because the targeted
individuals may be rehabilitated by the nation’s correctional institutions before
they do anything bad in society.
However, pre-emptive military strikes between nations only cause
animosity between nation’s peoples. A
nation’s intelligence agency can isolate a potential threat outside of a
nation, but in those cases, the nation does not have any legislative power over
the threat. The Foreign Affairs Ministry
can therefore be used to start a conversation with the potentially aggressive
nation or citizens that have aggressive plans and collaborate to find a
solution.
If that effort fails, the defense force, fully informed of the potential
threat can serve as a barrier to protect citizens from harm. The presence of a well-informed, strong and
ready force is sufficient to deter any assault on a nation.
There is also a much smaller chance that an entirely defensive
force will cause further aggression from potential extranational dangers. This is something that has been discussed by
most countries in recent years. In a
great article by TIME magazine, entitled “Why We Should Close America’s
Overseas Military Bases”,[1]
the author lists 7:
1.
They don’t protect the homeland from direct
attack
2.
Their deterrence effect is overrated
3.
They don’t always effectively prevent nuclear
proliferation
4.
They can encourage resentment
5.
They can cause the U.S. to support brutal
dictatorships
6.
They risk entangling us in unnecessary wars
7.
Technology has largely made them obsolete
Please read the whole article by John Glaser to see all the
arguments. In effect, the country that
has the most bases around the world under the pretext to defend America,
suffers much more downside than upside by keeping over 800 of their foreign
military bases open. In fact, according
to Chicago University’s Robert Pape, “the principal cause of suicide terrorism
is resistance to foreign occupation.”[2]
Therefore, I strongly encourage our ideal nation to cooperate with
other nations in collaborative defense of citizens, instead of deciding to
position military bases on foreign soil.
A well-trained defense force can also be used in other ways like
disaster relief. In America, in Canada
and in Europe, military organizations have been used extensively to support
people in need domestically and around the world. Soldiers are trained to work in hazardous
environments, in great physical shape, are well equipped and usually have a
strong desire to protect people from harm.
They don’t need to protect people from enemy bombs or bullets to find
validation in their work.
Finally, a well-trained defensive force can also be deployed as an
international police force to deal with larger threats, such as deflecting extraterrestrial
objects (asteroids and the like), or a rogue and that are attacking a neighbor.
Having all nations participate in such a force with equal funding
and giving away control of this entity to an independent authority would be an
extraordinary gesture of collaboration to ensure no citizen in the world is
without proper protection against an aggressor.
No defense force should attack anyone. They are there to defend the
defenseless.
This is very important. No
nation should blame another for tampering on their sovereignty. If nations take care of their own citizens
and take it seriously, they should not be attacking other nation.
Foreign defense forces can be invited in by the recognized
government of a nation to help resolve issues when their citizens are
threatened. It is always a noble gesture
to ask for help. Armed with the
information from the information gathering agencies and guided by the best people
possible to direct their action, defense forces can be very efficient life
savers.
Along with the other structures referred to in this book, most
military forces would be reduced in size significantly since nation’s citizens
will have much less stress, therefore less desire to become aggressive. Military forces would only need the
minimum. Using more AI in their communications and
operations can save soldier’s lives too.
Today, I recommend we ban the use of autonomous AI-driven weapons
systems because militaries around the world would teach them offensive rules. A learning AI with weapons attached is a
serious potential threat to civilian lives if the world’s aggression remains
like what we have today. However, if the
world changes its military stances to be completely defensive, then deep
learning AI weapons platforms could be a very good investment to save soldier’s
lives and to increase the safety of civilians.
What is key with advanced learning AI is that they will learn
motivations and behavior from human beings.
If our societies are still aggressive, deploying these AI weapons
platforms can mean disaster for humanity.
Our ideal society has rock bottom stress levels, so it should be fine.
[1]
John Glaser (October 2016). Why we
should close America’s overseas military bases.
TIME. - http://time.com/4511744/american-military-bases-overseas/
[2]
Robert A. Pape (August 2003). The
strategic logic of suicide terrorism.
American Political Science Review.
Vol. 97, No. 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment