Controversy surrounding the new law that would give DNI “superpowers”: they warn against tapping citizens’ devices
On September 4, a legislative bill was presented to the Senate of the Republic, which set off alarms in various sectors of the country. This project, promoted by congressmen from the governing party, introduces important changes in the management of intelligence and counterintelligence in Colombia.
The proposal, supported by figures of Petrism such as Ariel Ávila, María José Pizarro, Carlos Alberto Benavides, Gloria Flórez, Robert Daza and Jahel Quiroga, has raised concerns about the potential risks of information monopolization by the state, as well as its impact on citizens’ fundamental rights.
You can follow us now Facebook and in ours WhatsApp channel
This is because the bill gives greater powers to the Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI). This body, which has historically played a key role in protecting national security, could become an even more powerful entity.
One of the most significant changes is the creation of a new framework for the interception of communications and the disruption of electronic devices. The bill would allow the use of software to access the personal devices of those under investigation, including breaking protections and encryption methods.
One of the most controversial points of the articles is the new article 17A of the draft, which regulates the interference of electronic devices. This stipulates that authorities can access data and metadata from the devices of individuals under investigation, with the possibility of even breaching the privacy of their contacts.
The article also states creating audible and immutable records of all actions performed with these toolsin order to guarantee transparency and prevent abuse. However, this measure is not enough for many.
Major (r) Jorge Castillo, an intelligence expert and veteran of the National Army, was one of the first to raise his voice about the risks this law could pose to the privacy of Colombians.
On your account xCastillo expressed his dismay at this centralization, noting that The project could change DNI to “Colombian DGCIM”referring to Venezuela’s General Directorate of Military Counterintelligence, known for its hegemonic control over that country’s intelligence services.
The proposed bill also reforms Statutory Law 1621 of 2013, which currently regulates intelligence and counterintelligence activities in the country. Among the most notable changes are the redefinition of the terms intelligence and counterintelligence, as well as the inclusion of new threats to state security.
Article 2 stipulates that intelligence aims to “obtain, process, analyze and disseminate useful information that allows opportunities and threats to be identified”, while counterintelligence will focus on preventing “behaviour that impedes the fulfillment of the state’s obligations”. .
Another important aspect is creating an inspector general of the intelligence systemwhose function will be to oversee all intelligence and counterintelligence activities in the country and could request audits and open inspections at various levels of the state when signs of violations of human rights or international humanitarian law are found.
This inspector must also design control and oversight tools to ensure that intelligence activities respect human rights and international law in accordance with international standards.
For Major (r) Castillo, one of the biggest concerns raised by the bill is the risk of the DNI monopolizing intelligence services.
“The creation of an Information Fusion Center (CEFI) would allow the DNI to centralize all data related to the country’s intelligence and counterintelligence activities.“. This, combined with the possible subordination of military intelligence to the DNI, raised concerns about the concentration of power in a single body.
He further points out that the bill introduces a concept of human security that seeks to protect “sentient beings,” which Castillo interpreted as abandoning national security and defense in favor of a more humanitarian approach.
