Government Surveillance vs Private Surveillance, what can we learn?

This week we ask the question, what is the difference between the structure of a government surveillance team and a private surveillance team? And, what does this mean in terms of correctly resourcing private surveillance deployments where budgets and client knowledge of surveillance can be contributing factors…

?

Government Surveillance

The resources of a government surveillance team (police, military, OGDs) are vast. This is due to the following primary factors…

1.?????? The complexities of the operations

2.?????? The resources and capabilities of the entities they are operating against

3.?????? The consequences for the organisation (and individuals employed by those organisations) in cases of under-performance or compromise

A typical make-up of a government surveillance team could comprise the following

???????? Minimum of 5 vehicles (cars, vans, motorbikes)

???????? Other assets will also be available (taxis, OP vans, trackers, SIGINT, HUMINT, CCTV, aircraft)

???????? Vehicles one or two up depending on area profile, intelligence and objectives

???????? All operators highly trained in surveillance, AS, and CS

???????? Specialisations require further comprehensive pass/fail training courses

???????? Extended hours are resourced with relief teams where possible

???????? Official briefings with sharing of available intelligence between stakeholders

???????? Stakeholders are comprised of intelligence officers, operational planners, Operations Room staff, Surveillance Manager and or Team Leader, surveillance team

???????? Adhere to relevant legislation (e.g. RIPA) except where exemptions apply, but may have some exemptions in law to enable trained operators to carry out their duties (dependent on the organisation)

???????? Full and transparent debriefs built-in to operating hours to ensure high-performance and constant improvement of tradecraft and tactics

?

Private Surveillance

The resources of a private surveillance team are typically much more limited. This is usually due to the following factors…

1.?????? The budget available for the investigation

2.?????? The surveillance expertise of the stakeholders involved in deciding the resourcing of the surveillance operation

3.?????? The resources and capabilities of the entities the surveillance is being performed on

The typical make-up of a private surveillance team could comprise the following

???????? 2 - 4 vehicles is most common

???????? Supporting assets will depend on budget and expertise of the surveillance provider and team members

???????? Vehicles generally one up to prioritise vehicle follows

???????? Variable levels of foundation surveillance training for operators with vastly shorter courses than their government equivalents and not always pass/fail

???????? Development of surveillance operators is not mandatory and at the discretion and expense of providers or individual operators

???????? Specialisations based on surveillance experience and courses are vastly shorter and typically attendance courses

???????? Isolated briefings with compartmentalisation of intel and variable understanding of surveillance

???????? Stakeholders may be fewer but may include an investigations company, client or legal representative instructing the surveillance, surveillance provider, surveillance operators

???????? Should adhere to relevant legislation such as DPA and have a best practice policy and impact assessments. No exemptions in law to aid operators in carrying out their surveillance activities

???????? Operational debriefs and development are rarely built in to the operational (paid) hours so are very much at the discretion of the surveillance provider and individual operators

When looking at these vastly different models of carrying out surveillance, the challenge we have is to correctly resource private surveillance operations, considering the best interests of all parties.

Considering the resourcing of government surveillance operations can be useful as a barometer of how an operation should be resourced to reduce risk and maximise outputs, but it can also lead to a lack of flexibility that can reduce efficiency and may ultimately disincentivise the client from proceeding with surveillance, or with the surveillance provider, due to the cost/benefit ratio.

The consequences of under-performance or compromise are financial and reputational, financial for the client (or a third party engaging the surveillance provider) and reputational for the surveillance provider, as outsourcing the surveillance enables most of the reputational damage in the event of compromise to be laid at the feet of the surveillance provider. This typically leads to an inevitable push from the client side to minimise resources and costs, with the surveillance provider trying to fight for enough budget to be able to be deliver operational security alongside the surveillance objectives.

The key to ensuring that we, as reputable surveillance providers, have the resources to carry out deployments safely, securely and effectively requires us to brief the client accurately, openly and honestly regarding the resourcing requirements of the surveillance deployment, in terms of numbers of operators, vehicles and technical aids that might add an initial additional cost but usually end up reducing costs overall by increasing the efficiency of the deployments.

As with all surveillance the deployments should be objectives-led so the resources used are appropriate to be able complete those objectives as securely and quickly as possible. Although clients instructing surveillance will be concerned with minimising costs from the outset, they must be made aware that sometimes this can be done most effectively by resourcing the deployment more generously to achieve the objectives in a shorter time-frame.

Client education is clearly a key component to getting the balance right, with surveillance providers taking opportunities to provide client-education forums where possible being a great way to educate clients, improve relationships and foster more open, trusting partnerships.

Last but not least, surveillance providers must consider the abilities and welfare of the operators they are using to complete their deployments, whether permanent staff or operators employed on an ad-hoc basis. Having unreasonable expectations of operators in terms of working hours or coverage objectives will mostly lead to negative outcomes for all parties, so it is incumbent upon providers to be aware of the capabilities of their staff and ensure that they are not pushed beyond their limits. Conscientious operators will always want to achieve good outcomes for their employers and clients, so surveillance providers must be aware of the pressures that their staff are under and use their judgement and experience of surveillance management to keep the best interests of their operators in the forefront of their minds.

Setting aside time for training and development is key to supporting operators and ensuring their passion for delivering exceptional surveillance outcomes is kept topped up! Bearing in mind that government surveillance operators are trained to the highest levels to be able to operate against some of the most well-trained and resourced subject's of interest involved in criminality, terrorism, or espionage, the challenge for private surveillance providers is to ensure that their operators are trained to a level that can cope with the level of awareness that the subjects they are surveilling have. Naturally, this requires intelligence as to the training and awareness of the subjects and a diligent approach from the operators whilst they are conducting reconnaissance and establishing pattern of life behaviours.

In conclusion, there is much to consider when getting the balance of resourcing right for privately funded surveillance operations. Indeed, having knowledge of how surveillance is conducted at the highest levels can be very useful for providing context, and often having highly trained operators can ensure that surveillance objectives are met with the combination of less operators and appropriate technical support. In addition to this, good communication and transparency with all stakeholders is the key (with surveillance providers often being the lynchpin for this) to ensuring that expectations are managed and there are successful outcomes for all parties.