A new report released alongside the Centre for Emerging Technology and Security (CETaS) 2025 event sheds light on growing public unease around automated data processing in national security. Titled UK Public Attitudes to National Security Data Processing: Assessing Human and Machine Intrusion, the research reveals limited public awareness and rising concern over how surveillance technologies—especially AI—are shaping intelligence operations.
The study, conducted by CETaS in partnership with Savanta and Hopkins Van Mil, surveyed 3,554 adults and included insights from a 33-member citizens’ panel. While findings suggest that more people support than oppose data use by national security agencies, especially when it comes to sensitive datasets like medical records, significant concerns persist.
During a panel discussion, investigatory powers commissioner Brian Leveson, who chaired the session, addressed the implications of fast-paced technological change. “We are facing new and growing challenges,” he said. “Rapid technological developments, especially in AI [artificial intelligence], are transforming our public authorities.”
Leveson warned that AI is shifting how intelligence gathering and analysis is performed. “AI could soon underpin the investigatory cycle,” he noted. But the benefits also come with risks. “AI could enable investigations to cover far more individuals than was ever previously possible, which raises concerns about privacy, proportionality and collateral intrusion.”
The report shows a divide in public opinion based on how and by whom data is used. While people largely support the police and national agencies accessing personal data for security operations, that support drops when it comes to regional law enforcement. The public is particularly uncomfortable with personal data being shared with political parties or private companies.
Marion Oswald, co-author and senior visiting fellow at CETaS, emphasized the intrusive nature of data collection—automated or not. “Data collection without consent will always be intrusive, even if the subsequent analysis is automated and no one sees the data,” she said.
She pointed out that predictive data tools, in particular, face strong opposition. “Panel members, in particular, had concerns around accuracy and fairness, and wanted to see safeguards,” Oswald said, highlighting the demand for stronger oversight and regulation of technology in this space.
Despite efforts by national security bodies to enhance public engagement, the study found that a majority of respondents (61%) still feel they understand “slightly” or “not at all” what these agencies actually do. Only 7% claimed a strong understanding.
Rosamund Powell, research associate at CETaS and co-author of the report, said: “Previous studies have suggested that the public’s conceptions of national security are really influenced by some James Bond-style fictions.”
She added that transparency significantly affects public trust. “There’s more support for agencies analysing data in the public sphere like posts on social media compared to private data like messages or medical data.”
