GCHQ head says privacy is not an absolute right
US 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?
As I pointed out, terrorism is not a sufficient explanation. There are far too few terror acts and most of them are
unorganized and not of the kind where internet surveillance would help. So not much of a career move here.
Child porn? More or less the same. Drugs? Sure, the small time street dealer has to coordinate with his upstream provider
when and where to get his next delivery. I am sure this is done by email. Most other types of cyber criminality leaves a money trail. Those can be followed even now. Fear of a revolution? Democracy works quite well. Most relevant countries have at least two parties. If one becomes unpopular, the opposition gets a chance. Masses are mollified. Rinse repeat. So the upper 10000 have nothing to fear. Snowden prevention? Maybe, but those attempts to control the net are much older than the Snowden even.
Now, if you factor all this in, tell me, what remains as motive? What remains where internet surveillance actually makes
sense? Where it could work? Who is willing to invest millions of $ to lobby lawmakers? Who is willing to stifle upcoming new
business models, which could create a new boom, e.g. like the vcr did when it become popular? Who does not care about
public appearance?