GCHQ head says privacy is not an absolute right

by
in legal on (#2TWS)
story imageUS technology companies have become "the command and control networks of choice" for extremists, the new head of GCHQ has claimed. Writing in the Financial Times, Robert Hannigan says some US tech companies are "in denial" about how their services are being misused. He also said UK security agencies needed support from "the largest US tech companies which dominate the web".

Mr Hannigan argues that the big internet firms must work more closely with the intelligence services, warning that "privacy has never been an absolute right." What say the |.ers?

Mr Hannigan is an extremist (Score: 4, Insightful)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-11-04 18:31 (#2TWT)

Mr Hannigan is an extremist and proof that better surveillance does not help against extremists.
Everyone who tries to erode civil rights is an extremist. But people are dumb. How many people
die in car accidents every year? According to Wikipedia: 32,999 in 2010 in the USA alone. How
many terroristic acts? How many died in terroristic acts in 2010 in the USA? 15 people.
According to:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should
it is four times more likely to be killed by a lightning bolt than by a terror attack.
I doubt that in other countries the ratio is much different.

Would internet surveillance help to prevent terror attacks? Hardly. And I suppose the whole population
has to be monitored to solve, who did the last/next school shooting.

Again: There is only one 'crime' for which an all-over internet surveillance is necessary: Copyright violations.
Ok, to a lesser extend libel. But certainly not terrorism, drugs, or child porn.
Post Comment
Subject
Comment
Captcha
The number of body parts in the list leg, school and dress is?