Criminal Acts in Security

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN SECURITY 1

Role of Federal Government in Regulating Security

The government of any nation is entrusted with the responsibility of managing the security sector while upholding best practices and delivering security services as a good for public consumption (Dycus et al., 2019). The government is also responsible for all the activities in the security sector. It is the government's role to put in place a legal framework that is consistent with the rule of law for governing the security sector. The legislative aspect of the government articulates the duties and responsibilities of security institutions and defines the hierarchy and procedures for activities in the security institutions. For this essay, I will deliberate on the role of government in regulating security, other areas that the government should be involved in, and what aspects of private security the government should not regulate.

The federal government formulates the policies and procedures that regulate the security of the nation. The purpose of the policies is to ensure that security practices are protecting the public. The Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for implementing these policies and the federal government has a keen eye on this ministry to avoid corruption and poor allocation of resources. The DOD also sets the rules and regulations that each military base should follow.

Another role of the federal government is to ensure that all the military bases and security institutions adhere to the right code of conduct and professionalism as a way of enhancing the quality of security in the nation. The code of conduct covers issues related to integrity, anti-corruption, and professionalism in law enforcement. The codes of conduct do not replace rules. Instead, they increase accountability among professionals in the security sector. Both professionals and the general public should have an understanding of these codes of conduct for a positive co-existence.

The federal government also plays an indirect role in managing security institutions and programs (Sivan-Sevilla, 2019). The DOD is responsible for human resources in security institutions, providing a robust way of enhancing professionalism in the security sector. Like any other government, the security sector should also be accountable to the public in terms of financial management. They should allocate resources appropriately and all tools required to protect the nation and its people. The government sets the legal framework that guides the practices of security institutions and individual security professionals.

Additional Areas the Government Should Take-Up

In his book, Adam White recognizes that the private security industry is driven by economic imperatives and is not motivated by the pursuit of legitimacy (White, 2012). He argues that although private security has impacted the security sector, they will be more effective if they are controlled by the state monopoly. Mark Button, on his part, argues that the introduction of private policing has raised regulatory changes (Button, 2011). The two arguments imply that private security cannot deliver the best security levels and there is a need for more government intervention.

I believe the intervention of the government in private security will enhance the level of security. An additional role that will be effective would be the accreditation of private security professionals based on their ability to protect the public and enhance security. In the 21st century, there are rising concerns about the professionalism and diligence of security officers. The members of the public are concerned as to whether the security professionals are ethical or not. People are also worried that security officers are unskilled and incompetent to be trusted with the duties they are entrusted to do. By government intervention in accreditation, private security will be handled by competent personnel.

Another area that should be added to the roles of the federal government is a serious intervention in cybersecurity. The complex nature of cybersecurity makes it difficult for individuals and the private company is to address the matter on their own. The government should offer more than providing privacy rules and regulations. Instead, the law should be made clear, defining the areas of jurisdiction process, and have a legal framework for the prosecution process too. According to research, many chief information officers believe that the government can address cybersecurity issues. The government can also enhance cybersecurity by funding research through university education.

Aspects of Private Security That the Government Should Not Intervene

Despite having state control over security institutions, the federal government should leave some tenets under full control of the security institutions. The privacy of individuals and groups should be protected and the governments should refrain from accessing individual information from databases that are considered an invasion of privacy. The government should avoid accessing private security companies' databases and interfering with their clients' personal information. The government should establish the correct structures within the security institutions and give them the mandate to address privacy-related issues at the institutional level.

References

Button, M. (2011). The Private Security Industry Act 2001 and the security management gap in the United Kingdom. Security Journal, 24(2), 118-132.

Dycus, S., Banks, W. C., Hansen, P. R., & Vladeck, S. I. (2020). National security law. Aspen Publishers.

Sivan‐Sevilla, I. (2019). Complementaries and Contradictions: National Security and Privacy Risks in US Federal Policy, 1968–2018. Policy & Internet, 11(2), 172-214.

White, A. (2012). The new political economy of private security. Theoretical Criminology, 16(1), 85-101.