Skip to content


A1: Intelligence requires a governmental mandate and controlling, unless solely and explicitly related to private and business endeavors.

A2: The IC has a broader legal authority, yet not necessarily more capabilities and/or resources than the public.

A3: The IC acts solely within its legal restraints.

(Visited 42 times, 1 visits today)


  1. Jan Störger wrote:

    A1 prevents a basic misunderstanding of the term intelligence as it requires the state as the principal and framework. As soon as this requirement is not given, the term would have to be put explicitly in an alternative context (e.g. private, competitive or business intelligence). However, it does not exclude the possibility of a non-state intelligence service provider.

    Wednesday, August 25, 2010 at 20:18 | Permalink
  2. Jan Störger wrote:

    Assuming that the state may have extended permissions but not necessarily more funds or qualifications than the public, A2 implies that those permissions are the actual distinctive feature between the state and the public.

    As modern economic theory postulates that efficient state action presumes market failure, it would be necessary to analyze whether the state is actually able to provide better intelligence than private institutions – be it due to its extended authority or to extended capabilities. However, in case the state is inferior to the market in the latter and it does not require any special authority to provide a specific intelligence requirement, a private provision can be efficient. Yet, this would require a certain state control.

    Wednesday, August 25, 2010 at 20:37 | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.