Surveillance by intelligence services – Volume II: field perspectives and legal update
hiring communications consultants to improve communications (regarding information to the public, by
reviewing/editing the reports ‘to help turn our language
into something that is accessible to anybody and to try
and make it more obvious’). The recent disclosure of
the location of an office was mentioned as an example
of positive change.
Respondents representing different institutions and
organisations pointed to different recent examples
that they believed showed changes in the predominant
culture of secrecy. Such developments involve both the
intelligence services and oversight bodies. With regard
to the intelligence services, for example, civil society
members from the Netherlands noted that the head of
the intelligence service is publicly known, is willing to
participate in different forums, and ‘is approachable’.
Intelligence service representatives attend conferences
and other public events, including some organised by
academia. Examples of comments about changes in
the United Kingdom include: ‘you go to conferences
now and you find people engaged in a civilised
discussion with people from security side about the
issues’; a round table convened ‘a quite high profile
group of individuals both from the government side
and the agencies, and the existing oversight bodies,
but also from privacy campaign side and individuals
who are bringing cases’. Meanwhile, in Germany, after
the Snowden revelations, the parliamentary control
panel for the first time published its rules of procedure
on its website.366
Respondents indicated that intelligence actors’ participation in, and presentations at, national parliamentary hearings make important contributions to
transparency. Members of parliamentary committees
referred to these hearings, some of which are public, as an important information channel for the public who can watch, e.g., the heads of the intelligence
services being interviewed.
366 Germany, Federal Parliament (Deutscher
Bundestag) Parliamentarisches Kontrollgremium (2016),
Rules of Procedures (Geschäftsordnung).
92