Democratic Oversight of Government Hacking by Intelligence Agencies

Regulating intelligence services is a challenge for modern societies worldwide. Their very modus operandi relies on tight secrecy protocols for the information gathered, internationally and domestically. Evolving surveillance techniques include exploiting the vulnerabilities of digital services, dealing on unregulated surveillance markets, and developing tailored tools. Theoretically, these actions aim at the public interest by, for instance, anticipating terrorist attacks or dismantling pedophilia networks. Nevertheless, they are increasingly used to surveil civil society without proper and demonstrated necessity or proportionality. Given the demand for increased transparency and accountability for intelligence agencies, especially when using hacking technologies, what institutional design and civic participation avenues for oversight may be proposed? How can (existing and yet-to-exist) institutions improve democratic external oversight activities in this realm? Through a comparison of Germany’s and Brazil’s legal frameworks and institutional ecosystems, the paper critically explores the meaning of “democratic oversight” of intelligence agencies, specifically observing oversight models for hacking operations. Looking at previous contributions by intelligence studies scholars in these countries and globally, the paper offers a critical-comparative analysis of institutional and political architectures to assess the levels of democratic participation. On this basis, it makes recommendations for both countries, which can be appropriated by external intelligence oversight bodies.

Publication Details

Published
2025-06-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.34669/wi.wjds/5.2.3
Primary Topic
Intelligence, Security, War Strategy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Democratic Oversight of Government Hacking by Intelligence Agencies

Intelligence, Security, War Strategy
article

Democratic Oversight of Government Hacking by Intelligence Agencies

article en

Abstract

Regulating intelligence services is a challenge for modern societies worldwide. Their very modus operandi relies on tight secrecy protocols for the information gathered, internationally and domestically. Evolving surveillance techniques include exploiting the vulnerabilities of digital services, dealing on unregulated surveillance markets, and developing tailored tools. Theoretically, these actions aim at the public interest by, for instance, anticipating terrorist attacks or dismantling pedophilia networks. Nevertheless, they are increasingly used to surveil civil society without proper and demonstrated necessity or proportionality. Given the demand for increased transparency and accountability for intelligence agencies, especially when using hacking technologies, what institutional design and civic participation avenues for oversight may be proposed? How can (existing and yet-to-exist) institutions improve democratic external oversight activities in this realm? Through a comparison of Germany’s and Brazil’s legal frameworks and institutional ecosystems, the paper critically explores the meaning of “democratic oversight” of intelligence agencies, specifically observing oversight models for hacking operations. Looking at previous contributions by intelligence studies scholars in these countries and globally, the paper offers a critical-comparative analysis of institutional and political architectures to assess the levels of democratic participation. On this basis, it makes recommendations for both countries, which can be appropriated by external intelligence oversight bodies.

Openalex Percentile: Top 52%
Intelligence, Security, War Strategy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.