Privacy has never been “an absolute right”

coderman coderman@gmail.com
Mon Nov 3 22:23:19 PST 2014


“To those of us who have to tackle the depressing end of intelligence
community behaviour on the internet, it can seem that all governments,
telcos, and computing companies are in denial about its misuse."

 [ paraphrased for relevance ]

- http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/03/privacy-gchq-spying-robert-hannigan

---

GCHQ chief accuses US tech giants of becoming terrorists' 'networks of choice'

New director of UK eavesdropping agency accuses US tech firms of
becoming ‘networks of choice’ for terrorists



Privacy has never been “an absolute right”, according to the new
director of GCHQ, who has used his first public intervention since
taking over at the helm of Britain’s surveillance agency to accuse US
technology companies of becoming “the command and control networks of
choice” for terrorists.

Robert Hannigan said a new generation of freely available technology
has helped groups like Islamic State (Isis) to hide from the security
services and accuses major tech firms of being “in denial”, going
further than his predecessor in seeking to claim that the leaks of
Edward Snowden have aided terror networks.

GCHQ and sister agencies including MI5 cannot tackle those challenges
without greater support from the private sector, “including the
largest US technology companies which dominate the web”, Hannigan
argued in an opinion piece written for the Financial Times just days
into his new job.

Arguing that GCHQ needed to enter into the debate about privacy,
Hannigan said: “I think we have a good story to tell. We need to show
how we are accountable for the data we use to protect people, just as
the private sector is increasingly under pressure to show how it
filters and sells its customers’ data.

“GCHQ is happy to be part of a mature debate on privacy in the digital
age. But privacy has never been an absolute right and the debate about
this should not become a reason for postponing urgent and difficult
decisions.”

Hannigan, who was born in Gloucestershire, not far from GCHQ’s base,
has advised the prime minister on counter-terrorism, intelligence and
security policy, goes on to take aim at the role of major technology
companies. A senior Foreign Office official, Hannigan succeeded Sir
Iain Lobban at the Cheltenham-based surveillance agency.

While not naming any company in particular, the GCHQ director writes:
“To those of us who have to tackle the depressing end of human
behaviour on the internet, it can seem that some technology companies
are in denial about its misuse.

“I suspect most ordinary users of the internet are ahead of them: they
have strong views on the ethics of companies, whether on taxation,
child protection or privacy; they do not want the media platforms they
use with their friends and families to facilitate murder or child
abuse.”

Hannigan asserts that the members of the public “know” the internet
grew out of the values of western democracy and insists that customers
of the technology firms he criticises would be “comfortable with a
better, more sustainable relationship between the agencies and the
technology companies.”

Heading towards the 25th anniversary of the creation of the world wide
web, he calls for a “new deal” between democratic governments and the
technology companies in the area of protecting citizens.

“It should be a deal rooted in the democratic values we share. That
means addressing some uncomfortable truths. Better to do it now than
in the aftermath of greater violence.”

In the same piece, Hannigan says Isis differs from its predecessors in
the security of its communications, presenting an even greater
challenge to the security services.

He writes: “Terrorists have always found ways of hiding their
operations. But today mobile technology and smartphones have increased
the options available exponentially.

“Techniques for encrypting messages or making them anonymous which
were once the preserve of the most sophisticated criminals or nation
states now come as standard. These are supplemented by freely
available programs and apps adding extra layers of security, many of
them proudly advertising that they are ‘Snowden approved’. There is no
doubt that young foreign fighters have learnt and benefited from the
leaks of the past two years.”

Among the advocates of privacy protection who reacted to Hannigan’s
comments, the deputy director of Privacy International, Eric King,
said: “It’s disappointing to see GCHQ’s new director refer to the
internet – the greatest tool for innovation, access to education and
communication humankind has ever known – as a command-and-control
network for terrorists.”

King added: “Before he condemns the efforts of companies to protect
the privacy of their users, perhaps he should reflect on why there has
been so much criticism of GCHQ in the aftermath of the Snowden
revelations. GCHQ’s dirty games – forcing companies to handover their
customers’ data under secret orders, then secretly tapping the private
fibre optic cables between the same companies’ data centres anyway –
have lost GCHQ the trust of the public, and of the companies who
services we use. Robert Hannigan is right, GCHQ does need to enter the
public debate about privacy - but attacking the internet isn’t the
right way to do it.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) meanwhile rejected the notion
that an agreement between companies and governments was needed.

Jillian York, director of international free expression at EFF said:
“A special “deal” between governments and companies isn’t necessary -
law enforcement can conduct open source intelligence on
publicly-posted content on social networks, and can already place
legal requests with respect to users. Allowing governments special
access to private content is not only a violation of privacy, it may
also serve to drive terrorists underground, making the job of law
enforcement even more difficult.”

Welcoming Hannigan’s participation in the public debate, the Labour
Party MP Tom Watson said it helped to map out where we should draw the
line on privacy and helps the same agencies “to rebuild their
legitimacy post-Snowden”.

But he added: “I hope they do not confuse the use of public propaganda
through social media by extremists with the use of the covert
communications. It is illogical to say that because Isis use Twitter,
all our metadata should be collected without warrant.”

Hannigan’s comments come after the director of the FBI, James Comey,
called for “a regulatory or legislative fix” for technology companies’
expanding use of encryption to protect user privacy.

Reacting last month to the introduction of strong default encryption
by Apple and Google on their latest mobile operating systems, Comey
said “the post-Snowden pendulum has swung too far in one direction -
in a direction of fear and mistrust.”

“Justice may be denied because of a locked phone or an encrypted hard
drive,” said Comey. Without a compromise, “homicide cases could be
stalled, suspects could walk free, and child exploitation victims
might not be identified or recovered.”




More information about the cypherpunks mailing list